Output in IFC type 2

Report all good and bad behavior here

Output in IFC type 2

Postby Diego » Thu Jul 12, 2018 1:03 pm

Dear colleagues;
I'm dealing with an IFC file type 2, where I'm trying to get a Power output into a file for further coupling.
When analyzing the files I was surprised by the size and I realized that the output was full of zeros in duplicated positions.
I simplified the problem and It looks like the code prints the power for zones that are not in the real geometry.
A an example, if I use a single pin case, including axial divisions as :
Code: Select all
% UO2                         
pin FR                         
UO2 0.4096                         
void 0.418                         
Zrly4 0.475                         
wat                         

cell 1 0 fill FR -10 1 -2 %
cell 2 0 fill FR -10 2 -3 %
cell 3 0 fill FR -10 3 -4 %
cell 4 0 fill FR -10 4 -5 %
cell 5 0 fill FR -10 5 -6 %
cell 6 0 fill FR -10 6 -7 %
cell 101 0 outside 10 1 -7                     
cell 102 0 outside -1                     
cell 103 0 outside 7                     
                         
% -- general planes and others                         
%  axial positions                         
surf 1 pz 0
surf 2 pz 10                     
surf 3 pz 20
surf 4 pz 30
surf 5 pz 40
surf 6 pz 50
surf 7 pz 100

surf 10 sqc 0 0 0.6
                         
% -- General proble data                         
set pop  20000 500 50                       
set bc 2 2 1 % all reflected                     
%                           
set power 1 % Power                       
% -------------                         
ifc "simpleIFC"   


I ran it (S.2.1.30) including an interface file that contains the output to file option as :
Code: Select all
2 wat 1   
Power.dat 20 0 100 1
1   
1 -0.6 0.6 1 -0.6 0.6 20 0 100


Then, when I see the output I get lots of zeroes for duplicated positions:

Code: Select all
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  1.01328E-02 0.00746
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  2.18697E-02 0.00475
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  2.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  2.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  2.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  2.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  3.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  3.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  3.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  3.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  4.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  4.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  4.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  4.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  6.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  6.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  6.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  6.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  7.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  7.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  7.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  7.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  8.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  8.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  8.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  8.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  9.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  9.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  9.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  9.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.00000E+02  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  0.00000E+00 0.00000
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  3.23271E-02 0.00425
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  2.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  4.19607E-02 0.00345
....


But if I eliminate the axial divisions as:
Code: Select all
cell 1 0 fill FR -10 1 -7 %


I get the expected result:

Code: Select all
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  1.03330E-02 0.01419
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  2.25644E-02 0.01054
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  3.30109E-02 0.00823
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  2.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  4.28973E-02 0.00667
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  2.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  2.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  5.13007E-02 0.00533
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  2.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  3.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  5.84340E-02 0.00604
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  3.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  3.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  6.45717E-02 0.00519
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  3.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  4.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  6.89646E-02 0.00458
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  4.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  4.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  7.21485E-02 0.00443
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  4.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  7.42177E-02 0.00472
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  7.40316E-02 0.00491
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  5.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  6.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  7.30126E-02 0.00426
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  6.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  6.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  6.88660E-02 0.00499
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  6.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  7.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  6.44648E-02 0.00571
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  7.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  7.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  5.96185E-02 0.00597
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  7.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  8.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  5.14915E-02 0.00633
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  8.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  8.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  4.33419E-02 0.00574
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  8.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  9.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  3.33190E-02 0.00819
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  9.00000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  9.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  2.29734E-02 0.00771
0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  9.50000E+01  0.00000E+00  0.00000E+00  1.00000E+02  0.00000E+00  4.75000E-01  1.04379E-02 0.01000



This is quite inconvenient for big problems. I suppose that is related to the loop in the l.500 of printinterfaceoutput.c or the lookup in findinterfaceregions.c. Is there a simple fix to this?

Thanks in advance,
Diego
Diego
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Output in IFC type 2

Postby Ville Valtavirta » Wed Jul 25, 2018 2:39 pm

Hi Diego,

I see the problem, but I think the best way to approach it would be to not divide the pins axially into several layers if you can generate the geometry without that.

What is the reason for the axial division? There might be an easier way to achieve the same result.

-Ville
Ville Valtavirta
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:43 pm

Re: Output in IFC type 2

Postby Diego » Fri Jul 27, 2018 12:46 pm

Hi Ville,
Actually I am dealing with a PWR FA case where the spacer grids are supposed to be modeled explicitly, thus I have a FR pin lattice with some axial dependence (basically the same pin is inside a Zr box in the grid spacer zone). The problem is that if I dilute the spacer I lose the dependency. Maybe I could try to just use different material names for the fuel on each axial zone (but I will have to duplicate the IFC definition).
Is there a better approach am I missing?
Thanks
Diego
Diego
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Output in IFC type 2

Postby Jaakko Leppänen » Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:40 am

Have you tried defining the fuel pin and spacer grid in separate universes? This way you could have a single cell for the fuel pin but separate axial levels to describe the spacer.
- Jaakko
User avatar
Jaakko Leppänen
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1989
Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:43 pm
Location: Espoo, Finland

Re: Output in IFC type 2

Postby Diego » Fri Aug 31, 2018 10:57 am

That could probably work I suppose (I'll check it). Nevertheless I changed the approach and I directly get the power with a detector (dr -8) with the same discretization as IFC.
Maybe it could be a good feature for users to have this option as option in IFC to maintain all the coupling capabilities (such as Power relaxation, etc), and just define it in the IFC (something like):

In the input:
Code: Select all
det detector1 dr -8 dx -0.6 0.6 1 dy -0.6 0.6 1 dz  0 100 20
ifc "simpleIFC"


And then in the corresponding IFC file:
Code: Select all
2 wat 1   
Power.dat detector1
1   
1 -0.6 0.6 1 -0.6 0.6 20 0 100


Thanks,
Diego
Diego
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Output in IFC type 2

Postby Ville Valtavirta » Fri Aug 31, 2018 2:41 pm

Diego,

I've thought about that myself and think that it would be an easy solution to many problems. It requires a bit of work to make sure that the detector tallies are relaxed correctly and the correct buffers are cleared between iterations etc. but I think I'll implement something like that in the future.

-Ville
Ville Valtavirta
 
Posts: 298
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:43 pm


Return to Bugs, problems, questions & feeback

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron