# Verification of openmc fuel pincell with Dragon code

**URL:** <https://openmc.discourse.group/t/verification-of-openmc-fuel-pincell-with-dragon-code/584>\
**Category:** User Support\
**Created:** [March 27, 2020, 7:13am UTC](https://openmc.discourse.group/t/verification-of-openmc-fuel-pincell-with-dragon-code/584 "2020-03-27T07:13:05Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fsabab](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/openmc.discourse.group/fsabab/32/1374_2.png) [@fsabab](https://openmc.discourse.group/u/fsabab)\
**Post date:** [March 27, 2020, 7:13am UTC](https://openmc.discourse.group/t/verification-of-openmc-fuel-pincell-with-dragon-code/584/1 "2020-03-27T07:13:05Z")

</div>

Hello,

I tried to do fuel pin analysis of using openmc and ran 1000 batches. For the same input i.e., geometry, material, and mode with no leakage consideration, the value of multiplication factor from openmc was 1.09272 +/- 0.00130 and from Dragon I found it to be KEFF= 1.027522E+00 B2= 0.00000E+00 PRECISION= 1.18E-08 .  
The difference in the result is around 5.96%.

Can anyone help me to solve this problem?  
I used the same cross-section file for both dragon and openmc and it is the LANL VIII.0 file.  
If anyone has any verification of pincell of both dragon and openmc with lesser error, please send me your script of both openmc and dragon. I would be very much grateful!  
Thank you!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Shurahbil](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/openmc.discourse.group/shurahbil/32/511_2.png) [@Shurahbil](https://openmc.discourse.group/u/Shurahbil)\
**Post date:** [March 27, 2020, 9:35am UTC](https://openmc.discourse.group/t/verification-of-openmc-fuel-pincell-with-dragon-code/584/2 "2020-03-27T09:35:46Z")

</div>

what do you mean by " No leakage "???

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![paulromano](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/openmc.discourse.group/paulromano/32/486_2.png) [@paulromano](https://openmc.discourse.group/u/paulromano)\
**Post date:** [March 27, 2020, 1:08pm UTC](https://openmc.discourse.group/t/verification-of-openmc-fuel-pincell-with-dragon-code/584/3 "2020-03-27T13:08:50Z")

</div>

Hi Farshid,

Dragon is a deterministic code and uses multigroup cross sections, so it is quite different from OpenMC and you shouldn’t expect exact agreement. That being said, you should be able to get a lot closer than you currently are. Some things to consider:

- What multigroup cross sections are you using and how were they generated?
- What solution method is being used in Dragon?
- Is the problem properly discretized in Dragon?

Best,  
Paul

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fsabab](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/free1/user_avatar/openmc.discourse.group/fsabab/32/1374_2.png) [@fsabab](https://openmc.discourse.group/u/fsabab)\
**Post date:** [March 28, 2020, 5:19am UTC](https://openmc.discourse.group/t/verification-of-openmc-fuel-pincell-with-dragon-code/584/4 "2020-03-28T05:19:12Z")

</div>

Hello Paul,

1. I am using XMAS-172 ENDFB-VIII ref. 0 multigroup cross - section data (little -endian library)
2. I am using SHI: module to perform self-shielding calculation using generalized Stamm’ler method, FLU: module to solve linear system of multigroup collision probability in fission source eigenvalue problem.
3. Yes, the problem is property discretized in Dragon. I used EXCELT: module for that.