Engineering PapersSearch

subject

validation

validation: explore 2 source-linked works published from 2025 to 2026, with original documents and citations.

This collection is a preview while coverage and quality are evaluated.

Search within this collection

Coverage and selection

Includes records with this source-supplied label or an explicit phrase match in their metadata. Matches indicate a mention, not proof that a paper uses a method or tests a material. Source versions are consolidated by DOI.

Sources: osti. Collection updated 2026-09-14. Counts describe this index, not the complete source archives.

Integral Nuclear Data and Benchmarking Needs for Fusion Energy Systems

Fusion energy systems are currently being designed and optimized using radiation transport codes. To deal with the unique environment inside a fusion-based system, many of these designs incorporate novel materials able to withstand the high radiation fields, ensure adequate cooling and thermal protection, and produce tritium. Validation plays a vital role in building trust in the predictive power of these models and computational methods. Validation of a code consists of modeling documented real-world experiments and comparing the code-predicted response to the measured response. Adequate validation requires measured responses from real-world experiments, also known as integral data, that mimic the system being designed, including materials, impinging radiation, and temperature, among other variables. The most trusted integral data are experimental responses that have been through a rigorous benchmarking process that develops a recommended computational model and evaluates all experimental uncertainties. Finally, there are a few research groups around the world that have been producing integral data for fusion applications, but a substantial investment is needed to address the unique validation needs of the fusion community.

Fusion

Establishing model credibility for process-microstructure-property relationships in additive manufacturing using exascale computing

Additive Manufacturing (AM) of alloys holds significant promise as a disruptive technology in various industries, yet its adoption is often hindered by challenges in achieving consistent part quality. These issues are primarily due to the complex process-microstructure-property (PSP) relationships inherent to AM. Computational models can greatly aid in understanding these relationships, but their widespread impact and adoption has been limited by a lack of validated, open-source, and computationally efficient PSP modeling frameworks and hardware limitations. Here, this study leverages the ExaAM software suite and data from the AMBench-2018 series of laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) benchmark experiments to perform a comprehensive model assessment, including verification, validation, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty quantification. The RADICAL-EnTK workflow manager was used to perform an ensemble of heat transport, solidification, and mechanical response simulations on the exascale computer Frontier, considering uncertainties in critical model inputs such as laser spot size and nucleation parameters, and consisting of 125 explicit grain structure simulations and 7875 crystal plasticity simulations. For a selected location within the Inconel 625 AMBench-2018 test artifact, sensitivity analysis and uncertainty quantification were performed using the predicted distributions of grain structure and mechanical properties. Qualitative agreement was found between the predicted grain size and texture and the observed AMBench-2018 microstructure, the mean predicted yield stress was within 5% of the experimental measurement mean, and the mean predicted engineering stress at 5% strain was within 10% of the experimental measurement mean. The insights gained from development and validation of the ExaAM PSP modeling framework will help guide future directions for enhancing the credibility and reliability of PSP models in AM, thereby accelerating the adoption of AM technologies in various industries.

Additive manufacturing
Compare source metadata on this page

These are bibliographic comparisons, not experimental rankings. Follow the original document for methods and conditions.