Skip to content

Enable fission heating tallies in the random ray solver #3714

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
nuclearkevin wants to merge 9 commits into
base: develop
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Enable fission heating tallies in the random ray solver #3714

nuclearkevin wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

@nuclearkevin
Copy link
Contributor

@nuclearkevin nuclearkevin commented Jan 8, 2026

Description

This PR adds tally support for fission heating (kappa-fission) in the random ray solver. This includes additions to the automagic multi-group cross section setup to generate heating cross sections. A new test has been added to hit the changes (random_ray_auto_convert_kappa_fission).

Checklist

  • I have performed a self-review of my own code
  • I have run clang-format (version 15) on any C++ source files (if applicable)
  • I have followed the style guidelines for Python source files (if applicable)
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation (if applicable)
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if applicable)

@nuclearkevin nuclearkevin requested a review from jtramm as a code owner January 8, 2026 22:07
@nuclearkevin
Copy link
Contributor Author

nuclearkevin commented Jan 9, 2026

It seems as if the test failures are caused by gcovr failing to generate C++ coverage. I don't think this has anything to do with the changes here (#3702 seems to be running into the same issue). If anyone could provide advice on getting gcovr to cooperate it would be greatly appreciated!

@paulromano
Copy link
Contributor

paulromano commented Jan 9, 2026

@nuclearkevin I have two PRs (#3715 and #3716), one or both of which should resolve the gcovr issue. Please wait on one of those to be merged; at that point, retriggering the CI here should pass since it always uses a merge commit with develop (i.e., you don't need to update your branch).

@nuclearkevin nuclearkevin mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2026
Open
3 tasks
@GuySten
Copy link
Contributor

GuySten commented Jan 13, 2026 •
edited
Loading

I saw that in 52fea6f you decided generating kappa-fission fission should be optional.
Untill (if ever) we have coupled neutron and photon multigroup libraries, kappa-fission score is the best method for power normalization so it makes more sense to me to include this score by default and get rid of the gen_kappa_fission argument.

EDIT:
In any case, If you decide that nonetheless it should not be default I suggest using additional_scores keyword argument
instead of gen_kappa_fission.

jtramm
jtramm requested changes Jan 13, 2026
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@jtramm jtramm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks good to me -- thanks for submitting this!

Only minor comment is on making the kappa_fission on always rather than adding another option for it. I know the default is on but I'm comfortable with just forcing this tally rather than adding more arguments/options to the interface. Let me know if there's another angle to this though that you can see @nuclearkevin!

@nuclearkevin nuclearkevin requested a review from jtramm January 13, 2026 17:23
@nuclearkevin
Copy link
Contributor Author

nuclearkevin commented Jan 13, 2026

Once cell density support is merged, I'll update the kappa-fission tally here to include it.

@nuclearkevin
Copy link
Contributor Author

nuclearkevin commented Jan 14, 2026

Added the multiplication by the cell density to this PR. Should be good for another round of review once the tests pass.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@jtramm jtramm Awaiting requested review from jtramm jtramm is a code owner

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@nuclearkevin @paulromano @GuySten @jtramm