Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Convert to OpenMC boundary_type #28

Open
zxkjack123 opened this issue Aug 5, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

Convert to OpenMC boundary_type #28

zxkjack123 opened this issue Aug 5, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@zxkjack123
Copy link

zxkjack123 commented Aug 5, 2019

I converted a model using csg2csg from MCNP to OpenMC. And met the following error:

ERROR: No boundary conditions were applied to any surfaces!
application called MPI_Abort(MPI_COMM_WORLD, -1) - process 0
[unset]: write_line error; fd=-1 buf=:cmd=abort exitcode=-1
:
system msg for write_line failure : Bad file descriptor
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "input.py", line 157, in <module>
    main(args.geom, args.nps, args.run, args.plot, args.vol)
  File "input.py", line 129, in main
    openmc.run()
  File "/home/zxk/opt/openmc/openmc/executor.py", line 212, in run
    _run(args, output, cwd)
  File "/home/zxk/opt/openmc/openmc/executor.py", line 30, in _run
    ''.join(lines))
subprocess.CalledProcessError: Command 'openmc' died with <Signals.SIGSEGV: 11>.

I think this error is related to the boundary type. We need to define the graveyard using boundary_type='vacuum'. However, for the MCNP input file I used, I didn't find the 'imp:norimp:p`.

@makeclean
Copy link
Owner

makeclean commented Aug 5, 2019 via email

@zxkjack123
Copy link
Author

@makeclean Sorry for that, I just checked in the file, there isn't imp:n. It is the FNG model, I will send the file to you via slack.

@makeclean
Copy link
Owner

@zxkjack123 ah ok, no problem. I haven't implemented block reading for importances or weights yet, feel free to have a go though! I've not got huge amounts of time, and the 'perceived complexity' of the number of different options one has for defining importances has put this down my list, e.g. explicitly 1 2 3 4 5, repeated 1 4R, mulitiplicative 1 3.5M 3.5M, interpolative (sp?) 1 2I 4, im sure there are more :)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants