Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Criteria”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluation of ASCE 4-16 and AISC 43-18 (Draft) for use in the Risk-Informed Performance-Based Seismic Design of Nuclear Power Plant Structures, Systems, and Components

This report describes the assessment of ASCE Standards 4-16 and 43-18 (Draft) for use in the Risk-Informed Performance-Based (RIPB) seismic design of structures, systems, and components (SSCs) at nuclear power plants. This work was performed for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Office of Regulatory Research (RES), to support potential endorsement of these industry standards for the design of nuclear power plants based on the RIPB approach. Currently, the NRC endorses a deterministic design approach for demonstrating the design adequacy of SSCs based on the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800) and NRC Regulatory Guides. In the RIPB approach, the design criteria are developed to achieve a target performance goal, which is defined by the annual frequency of occurrence of the design basis earthquake (i.e., Seismic Design Category) and the acceptable level of structural performance (i.e., Limit State) for the SSCs. ASCE 4-16 provides methods for performing a seismic analysis of structures to obtain the seismic response of these structures (e.g., building displacements, accelerations, in-structure response spectra) which are used in the design of the SSCs. It also provides methods for performing seismic analysis of SSCs to determine the seismic demands (e.g. member forces and displacements) needed to design individual SSCs. ASCE 43-18 (Draft) provides the criteria for the seismic design of SSCs using the seismic demands developed in ASCE 4-16. The use of ASCE Standard 43-18 (Draft), along with ASCE 4-16, provides the criteria for the seismic design of the SSCs. ASCE 43-18 (DRAFT) relies on other consensus codes and standards such as ACI 349 for reinforced concrete, AISC/N690 for steel structures, ASME Section III for pressure-retaining mechanical components and Containments, and IEEE-344 for Class 1E equipment. The goal of this technical review was to assess the adequacy of the provisions in these standards for use by the NRC in developing regulatory guidance for design of SSCs in nuclear power plants, based on the RIPB approach. The research reported herein describes the basis for acceptance of the new standards and identifies areas where additional staff guidance is needed for the seismic design of SSCs at nuclear power plants. This technical review has determined that ASCE 4-16 and ASCE 43-18 (Draft) provide an appropriate framework for the seismic design of SSCs at nuclear power plants using a Risk-Informed Performance-Based approach. However, some of the criteria therein warrant exceptions, qualifications, and/or clarifications.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The WTP LAB stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the DV of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the maximum conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be = 20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be = 20% COV. Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stacks must agree within 5% COV. In general, these criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Some specific items for each scale model and full-scale stack comparison should be noted in assessing the validity of the verification tests. The LB-C2 scale model stacks were performed with single fan operations at then-minimum flow conditions. These conditions resulted in DV values that were too low to meet the DV range criterion, and therefore are unable to be used in qualifying single fan operations on the full-scale stack. However, the single fan operations demonstrated COV values for velocity uniformity as well as flow angles that were comparable to the dual-fan operations at high flows. Overall, the test conditions and test results were within the range of acceptable values based on current design flow rates. Single fan operations are expected to only occur infrequently for maintenance needs and is therefore not a planned operating condition at this time. The LB-S1 scale model stacks were performed at three fan combinations, and in each combination, at least one test was performed at the then-minimum flow conditions as well as at then-maximum flow conditions. While the then-minimum flow conditions result in a DV range that is lower than the verification test DV value, and therefore does not meet the criterion, these tests are un-necessary for the verification test acceptance. The normal and maximum flow conditions from the scale model stack tests meet the DV range criterion, and the velocity uniformity test results compare favorably with the full-scale stack results. The LB-S2 scale model stacks were performed at nominally the same maximum flow condition; however, the 6 DV value for Fan A operation was slightly lower than the full-scale stack test DV. The COV values from the scale model stacks were comparable between the Fan A and Fan B results, and the overall test conditions are within the range of acceptable values. The stack verification is therefore considered acceptable for both Fan A and Fan B operations. The verification tests were performed at flows that were appreciably higher than the design conditions, and further elevated flow rates would be beyond the range of acceptable DV. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stacks meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this and the scale model test reports (Glissmeyer, Flaherty, and Piepel (2001), Glissmeyer and Geeting (2013)) may require additional tests and additional analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAB stacks are 625 to 47,237 scfm for LB-C2, 1,704 to 103,131 scfm for LB-S1, and 467 to 18,088 scfm for LB-S2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10 degrees, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 17.6 degrees; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 3.5% COV, which were all within the range of the target %COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring - Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant low activity waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAW stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAW stacks are 815–55,758 scfm for LV-S1, 980–112,078 scfm for LV-S2, 264–22,901 scfm for LV-S3, and 981–79,832 scfm for LV-C2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAW facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for one LV-S2 Fan A result, which was 13.2°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 1.5 COV and 9.2% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the four LAW filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan operating conditions for LV-S1 and LV-S2, dual-fan operations for LV-S3 at both the continuous air monitor and record sampler locations, and both the single-fan as well as the dual-fan operations for LV-C2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Report Series: Evaluation, Finding Of Effect, And Mitigation Documentation For Building 23-109, Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-109, the Mercury Fire Station/Maintenance/Housing Office (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15235) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-109 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-109 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-109 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains some aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Evaluation of Building 23-620, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory J-3 Office, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-620, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) J-3 Office Building (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15283) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-620 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-620 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-620 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAB facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 13.7°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 4.1% COV, which were all within the range of the target percent coefficient of variation values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Financial Analysis of the High Flow Experiment conducted at the Glen Canyon Dam during Water Year 2023

The Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) is a Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) power resource that is a component of the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP). The 2016 record of decision (ROD) for the GCD long-term experimental and management plan (LTEMP) final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) specified criteria for GCD monthly water releases, daily and hourly operating limits, and experimental releases. This report examines the financial implications of the high flow experiment (HFE) conducted at GCD during the spring of Water Year (WY) 2023 as required by the LTEMP HFE Protocol. This report is part of a series of reports that describe the financial costs of LTEMP experimental releases since the 2016 ROD was adopted in January 2017. Previous reports analyzed the impact of several past HFEs and Bug Flow Experiments. This report focuses on the HFE conducted in April 2023. For this experimental release, financial costs of approximately $1.33 million were incurred because the HFE required sustained water releases exceeding the power plant’s maximum turbine flow rate. In addition, during the experiment, operators were not allowed to shape GCD power production, either to follow Firm Electric Service (FES) customer day-ahead energy deliveries or to respond to market prices. This study identifies the main factors contributing to the HFE costs and examines the interdependencies among these factors. It applies an integrated set of tools to estimate Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) financial impacts by simulating GCD under two types of cases; namely, (1) a “With Experiment” case that mimics the operations that actually occurred and (2) a “Without Experiment” case that simulates operations under the assumption that the HFE did not occur. The “With Experiment” case mimics operations during the HFE and the entire month the HFE occurred. It complies with LTEMP hourly and daily operating criteria. The “Without Experiment” case assumes that the HFE did not occur. The monthly water release volume is assumed to be identical under both cases. The Colorado River Storage Project Python-based model (CRiSPPy) model was the main modeling tool used to simulate the dispatch of the GCD hydropower plant and associated water releases from Lake Powell. In the modeling process, the research team used extensive data sets and historical information on SLCA/IP power plant characteristics, hydrologic conditions, and WAPA’s power purchases and sales prices. In addition to estimating the financial impact of the HFE, the team used the CRiSPPy model to gain insights into the interplay among ROD operating criteria, exceptions made to criteria to accommodate the HFE, and WAPA operating practices.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling to Facilitate Qualification of Stack Sampling Probe Location

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling was used to help evaluate modifications to a radiological effluent stack and assist with establishing a stack sampling location that met the mixing criteria for qualification. Requirements for stack sampling location are listed in the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-2021 standard. Modeling was performed to help develop a suitable design for increasing building ventilation for the radiological effluent stack. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-2021 criteria for the air monitoring probe location are that the coefficient of variation of velocity uniformity, gaseous tracer uniformity, and particulate tracer uniformity must be less than or equal to 20%. Furthermore, no point in the sampling location may have a gaseous tracer concentration that varies from the mean concentration by more than 30%. Additionally, the flow angle at the sampling location must not be more than 20 degrees. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-2021 standard allows for models (physical or computational) to be employed to perform the full suite of qualification tests, followed by a more limited set of verification tests on the actual stack to qualify the stack sampling location. Here, a series of computational model simulations were employed to evaluate the stack qualification criteria. Significant time and re-source savings are achieved using CFD modeling. CFD modeling demonstrated that the stack meets the criteria at the sample probe location. Verification tests were performed on the modified stack to measure the velocity uniformity and flow angle at the stack sampling location, and results demonstrated that the CFD model results may be used to support the qualification of the stack sampling location.

Air Monitoring↗
DOE OSTI2021

Key Constructs for Reasonable Confidence in System Validation Programs

This paper presents four key constructs developed in preparing IEEE Std P2411TM, Human Factors Engineering Guide for the Validation of System Designs and Integrated Systems Operations at Nuclear Facilities for submission. These constructs reflect judgments that responsible parties make in order to bring validation to closure. Such judgments weigh competing concerns and cost-benefits for stakeholders. Improved processes and methods may support such judgments but cannot alone eliminate uncertainty. Stating and clarifying these constructs aims to reduce uncertainty in the validation process, to better prepare the implementers and reviewers of future validation programs, both in the nuclear industry and beyond. Reasonable Confidence – A proof standard, as used to reach conclusions in a legal case. Legal proof standards are bounded between “preponderance of evidence” and “beyond reasonable doubt”. Reasonable confidence is comparable to an intermediate legal proof standard of “clear and convincing evidence.” Representative Test Set – A collection of scenarios of sufficient variety to represent the anticipated range of operational conditions, events, evolutions, and activities for validating the system(s) under test. Dispositive vs. Diagnostic Criteria – Relevant performance criteria are placed in one of two categories. Dispositive criteria are assessed, without exception, to determine whether a validation test passes or fails overall. Diagnostic criteria are assessed, subject to justified exception, to evaluate the quality or degree of some particular aspect of performance. Repeatability – Consistency in achieving passing results is to be demonstrated for each scenario in the representative test set; thus, the minimum number of formal repetitions for each scenario is two.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Adaptive time scaling for accelerating explicit finite element analysis

A method for accelerating an explicit finite element analysis (FEA) simulation of a modeled system or process includes performing an initial iteration of the FEA simulation according to a baseline time interval via an FEA computing network, and calculating a criteria ratio of a predetermined set of scaling criteria for the modeled system or process. The method includes determining a time-scaling factor using the criteria ratio via the FEA computing network as a function of the criteria ratio, and then applying the time-scaling factor to the baseline time interval to generate a scaled time interval. The scaled time interval accelerates simulation time of the FEA simulation. The method includes performing a subsequent iteration of the explicit FEA simulation at the scaled time interval using the FEA computing network. The process continues for subsequent iterations, with the time-scaling factor adapting with each iteration.

Chen, Jian↗
DOE OSTI2024

Molten Salt Reactor Safety Assessment - Three Approaches to A Common Objective

Safety adequacy assessment is central to nuclear power plant (NPP) licensing. Either NPP accident mitigation or prevention can result in adequate safety. Accident prevention, along with the the prevention of accident escalation, can be evaluated using either deterministic or probabilistic methods. Acceptable means to develop principal design criteria (PDCs) via probabilistic methods are provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.233 while advanced reactor design criteria are provided in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.232 (RG 1.232). Accident mitigation-based regulatory guidance for non-power reactors is provided in NUREG 1537. While RG 1.232 included class specific guidance for both sodium-cooled fast reactors and modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, it did not provide molten salt reactor (MSR) class specific guidance. Class specific design criteria more closely align with reactors in their class so will require less effort to employ to develop design specific PDCs. The American Nuclear Society has recently released a liquid-fueled MSR design safety standard (ANSI/ANS-20.2-2023) that provides class specific design criteria.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Accidental symmetries, Hilbert series, and friends

Accidental symmetries in effective field theories can be established by computing and comparing Hilbert series. This invites us to study them with the tools of invariant theory. Applying this technology, we spotlight three classes of accidental symmetries that hold to all orders for non-derivative interactions. They are broken by derivative interactions and become ordinary finite-order accidental symmetries. To systematically understand the origin and the patterns of accidental symmetries, we introduce a novel mathematical construct — a (non-transitive) binary relation between subgroups that we call friendship. Equipped with this, we derive new criteria for all-order accidental symmetries in terms of friends, and criteria for finite-order accidental symmetries in terms of friends ma non troppo. They allow us to verify and identify accidental symmetries more efficiently without computing the Hilbert series. We demonstrate the success of our new criteria by applying them to a variety of sample accidental symmetries, including the custodial symmetry in the Higgs sector of the Standard Model effective field theory.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Performance of a machine learning-based decision model to help clinicians decide the extent of lymphadenectomy (D1 vs. D2) in gastric cancer before surgical resection

Background: Controversy still exists on the optimal surgical resection for potentially curable gastric cancer (GC). Use of radiologic evaluation and machine learning algorithms might predict extent of lymphadenectomy to limit unnecessary surgical treatment. We purposed to design a machine learning-based clinical decision-support model for predicting extent of lymphadenectomy (D1 vs. D2) in local advanced GC. Methods: Clinicoradiologic features available from routine clinical assignments in 557 patients with GCs were retrospectively interpreted by an expert panel blinded to all histopathologic information. All patients underwent surgery using standard D2 resection. Decision models were developed with a logistic regression (LR), support vector machine (SVM) and auto-encoder (AE) algorithm in 371 training and tested in 186 test data, respectively. The primary end point was to measure diagnostic performance of decision model and a Japanese gastric cancer treatment guideline version 4th (JPN 4th) criteria for discriminate D1 (pT1 + pN0) versus D2 (≥ pT1 + ≥ pN1) lymphadenectomy. Results: The decision model with AE analysis produced highest area under ROC curve (train: 0.965, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.948–0.978; test: 0.946, 95% CI 0.925–0.978), followed by SVM (train: 0.925, 95% CI 0.902–0.944; test: 0.942, 95% CI 0.922–0.973) and LR (train: 0.886, 95% CI 0.858–0.910; test: 0.891, 95% CI 0.891–0.952). By this improvement, overtreatment was reduced from 21.7% (121/557) by treat-all pattern, to 15.1% (84/557) by JPN 4th criteria, and to 0.7–0.9% (4–5/557) by the new approach. Conclusions: The decision model with machine learning analysis demonstrates high accuracy for identifying patients who are candidates for D1 versus D2 resection. Its approximate 14–20% improvements in overtreatment compared to treat-all pattern and JPN 4th criteria potentially increase the number of patients with local advanced GCs who can safely avoid unnecessary lymphadenectomy.

62 RADIOLOGY AND NUCLEAR MEDICINE↗
DOE OSTI2019

The Effect of Heat Treatment and the Volume Fraction of the Alpha Phase on the Workability of Ti-5Al-5Mo-5V-3Cr Alloy

Ti-5Al-5Mo-5V-3Cr (Ti-5553) is a metastable beta titanium alloy with high hardenability, good ductility, and high strength. Different microstructures with different volume fractions and distribution of α phase can be produced in this alloy by suitable heat treatment. In this study, the workability of this alloy has been determined as a function of the volume fraction of α phase in the microstructure. Workability is an important parameter indicating the ability of the material to be deformed without the occurrence of fracture. Specimens with three different volume fractions of alpha phase were produced using suitable heat treatments. Two different volume fractions of α (approx 3 and 23%) were obtained by air and furnace cooling, respectively, after solutionizing at 877 °C, i.e., 25 °C above the beta transus temperature. The third specimen with approximately 18% volume fraction of α was obtained by solutionizing at 800 °C for 4 h, followed by water quenching. Workability was investigated by conducting upsetting tests on cylindrical specimens with varying height-to-diameter ratios. Workability limit diagrams have been obtained as a function of axial and hoop strains at fracture. The workability for the furnace cooled specimens was found to be very poor compared to the other two specimens. The results were evaluated using four popular ductile fracture criteria, and the values of critical damage constants at fracture initiation have been calculated using the experimental upsetting test data. The theoretical fracture strains were estimated using the critical constants obtained for all the four ductile fracture criteria and were compared with experimental test data. The Cockroft and Latham, Brozzo et al., and Oh et al. showed close agreement with the experimental values and therefore can be used as ductile fracture criteria for this alloy.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2021

The use of teledentistry in facilitating oral health for older adults: A scoping review

Teledentistry is used in many countries to provide oral health care services. However, using teledentistry to provide oral health care services for older adults is not well documented. This knowledge gap needs to be addressed, especially when accessing a dental clinic is not possible and teledentistry might be the only way for many older adults to receive oral health care services. Nine databases were searched and 3,396 studies were screened using established eligibility criteria. Included studies were original research or review articles in which the intervention of interest was delivered to an older adult population (≥ 60 years) via teledentistry. The authors followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Review criteria. Nineteen studies were identified that met the criteria for inclusion. Only 1 study was from the United States. Seven studies had results focusing on older adult participants only, with most of those conducted in elder care facilities. The remainder consisted of studies with mixed-age populations reporting distinct results or information for older adults. The included studies used teledentistry, in both synchronous and asynchronous modes, to provide services such as diagnosis, oral hygiene promotion, assessment and referral of oral emergencies, and postintervention follow-up. Teledentistry comprises a variety of promising apps. Lastly, the authors identified and described uses, promising possibilities, and limitations of teledentistry to improve the oral health of older adults.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

Relativistic strange stars in Tolman–Kuchowicz spacetime

Highlights: • We study relativistic strange star using Tolman–Kuchowicz metric. • Bag constant (55–75) MeV/fm{sup 3} remains within the predicted range for stable strange star. • Using observed values for mass and radius, we calculate different physical parameters. • This model satisfies energy conditions, TOV equations and all other stability criteria. • Solutions are completely free from any singularity and give stable stellar system. - Abstract: In this article we propose a relativistic model of a static spherically symmetric anisotropic strange star with the help of Tolman–Kuchowicz (TK) metric potentials (Tolman, 1939 and Kuchowicz, 1968). The form of the potentials are λ(r)=ln(1+ar{sup 2}+br{sup 4}) and ν(r)=Br{sup 2}+2lnC where a, b, B and C are constants which we have to evaluate using boundary conditions. We also consider the simplest form of the phenomenological MIT bag equation of state (EOS) to represent the strange quark matter (SQM) distribution inside the stellar system. Here, the radial pressure p{sub r} relates with the density profile ρ as follows, p{sub r}(r)=(1/3)[ρ(r)−4B{sub g}], where B{sub g} is the Bag constant. To check the physical acceptability and stability of the stellar system based on the obtained solutions, we have performed various physical tests. It is shown that the model satisfies all the stability criteria, including nonsingular nature of the density and pressure, implies stable nature. Here, the Bag constant for different strange star candidates are found to be (68–70) MeV/fm{sup 3} which satisfies all the acceptability criteria and remains in the experimental range.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Assessment of oil and gas fields in California as potential CO 2 storage sites

California's total annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (425.3 MtCO 2 e) in 2018 were about 6.4% of the US total (6,677 MtCO 2 e) and around 1% of global emissions. About 39% of 2018 GHG emissions in California were from the industrial and electrical sectors. Many of these emissions were from large stationary point sources and were suitable for carbon capture retrofit with subsequent storage of the captured carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) in geological formations. Previous studies of California found suitable geology and CO 2 storage resource. This study refines and furthers prior work using a three-stage screening process of oil fields, gas fields, and underground natural gas storage (UGS) sites by combining criteria from previous studies while excluding sites that pose technical risk or are located in regions with surface restrictions including sensitive habitats and dense populations. In the first stage, 129 CO 2 storage sites in California were identified using qualification criteria based upon formation properties including geological conditions and pore pressure. The second stage identified sensitive sites by applying conservative screens including seismic activity, faulting, population density, restricted lands, and sensitive habitats. During the third stage, 61 CO 2 potential storage sites were identified by subtraction of stage 2 areas from stage 1. The potential storage volume in the third stage ranged from 1.0 to 2.0 GtCO 2 . Finally, we applied a scoring system with seven parameters to rank the 61 potential sites based on subsurface technical criteria. The scored sites are classified as high priority, medium priority, and sites for future study. Prospective CO 2 storage sites with high and moderate priority were selected and linked to CO 2 sources. There are 14 prospective sites (above 20 MtCO 2 storage resource per site) with a total storage resource of 1024 MtCO 2 distributed in Northern and Southern California. Of these sites, there are 9 potential CO 2 -EOR sites and 1 depleted oil field with a total estimated CO 2 storage volume of ~800 MtCO 2 in the Southern San Joaquin and Ventura Basin. These 10 prospective sites with a storage resource greater than 20 MtCO 2 could potentially deliver more than 20 years of storage with an average injection rate of 40 MtCO 2 /year. The remaining 4 highly prospective sites are in Northern California. Additionally, study results suggest that saline formations should be re-evaluated in concert with storage in oil, gas, and natural gas storage reservoirs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗