Introducing partial reaction identifiers for summation reactions #14
Conversation
| @@ -78,13 +79,61 @@ namespace endf { | |||
| 875, 876, 877, 878, 879, 880, 881, 882, 883, 884, | |||
| 885, 886, 887, 888, 889, 890, 891 | |||
| }; | |||
| inline static const std::map< int, std::vector< int > > partials_ = { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[future design question]
How would you handle a situation in which a user requests MT=1 and the file has both MT=4 and what MT=4 sums from?
Is there a way of defining priority, or do you intend to add a canonical summation rule? (e.g., sum from 1000 downward, replacing anything precalculated).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I still have to add these partials. The only reason I haven't is because I'm not handling incident neutron data properly yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I fixed the MT1 situation, see fix/review-part2. We just loop over all available MTs and select the ones that are primary.
| case 106 : return material.hasSection( 3, 750 ) ? true : false; | ||
| case 107 : return material.hasSection( 3, 800 ) ? true : false; | ||
| case 16 : return material.hasSection( 3, 875 ) ? true : false; | ||
| case 18 : return material.hasSection( 3, 19 ) ? true : false; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[future design question]
I just learned about MF=10 MT=18. It seems a lot of tools just go ahead and "lower" this into an equivalent MF=3 MT=18, without all the fission-specific blocks. Thoughts on how to approach?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Subactinide fission (MF10 MT18) was added a few years ago. The data was put in MF10 and not MF3 for the simple reason that ENDF rules require certains types of information to be present for fission that were not available for subactinide fission. You know, things like nubar, fission energy release components, etc.
I think that it should have been put in MF3 as a cross section and that the rules should have been updated instead of just dumping the data in MF10. These special exceptions make no sense to me. This can be handled like any other reaction. Other notorious offenders of the "we have to do something special for this instead of doing things proeprly" are the electron and photoatomic data.
This adds partial reaction identifiers for partial reactions. This also introduces an electro-atomic eleastic deficit reaction to account for the fact that electro-atomic data do not define all partials for elastic. Logic was added in the endf reaction identifiers to detect these cases.