Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Rules”

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 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Ruling Out the Onset of Color Transparency up to Q2 = 14.2 GeV2 in Quasielastic 12C(e,e'p) Scattering

Color Transparency (CT) is a prediction of QCD that at high momentum transfer Q2, a system of quarks which would normally interact strongly with nuclear matter could form a small color-neutral object whose compact transverse size would be maintained for some distance, passing through the nucleus undisturbed. A clear signature of CT would be a dramatic rise in nuclear transparency T with increasing Q2. CT emerges as a deviation from Glauber multiple scattering theory, which predicts constant T. While a rise in nuclear transparency would provide an unequivocal validation of QCD factorization theorems, the complex nature of nuclear interactions renders its observation difficult to predict. The E12-06-107 experiment at JLab measured T in quasielastic electron-proton scattering with carbon-12 and liquid hydrogen targets, for Q2 between 8.0 and 14.2 GeV2 , a range over which models of CT predicted that T might differ appreciably from Glauber calculations. Supported in part by US DOE grant DE-FG02-03ER41240.

Matter, John↗
DOE OSTI2022

Initial ASME code rule analysis on Simple and Full assessment

ASME & ASTM codes present simple and full assessment methodologies to qualify nuclear grade graphite components. This report explains the theory behind the statistical portion of the codes and describes the issues discussed in a 2020 workshop in the simple assessment, as well as the full assessment. The methodology for the full assessment was developed by Hindley []. He used a validation methodology to match the experimental average failure load of test specimens from several geometries to the calculated 50% POF load to tune the grouping criteria parameters based on an RMSE penalty function. The grouping criteria consists of a minimum volume to satisfy the weakest link theory of the Weibull distribution and a minimum stress range parameter. Hindley’s work found a minimum link volume of 10 times the grain size and a stress range parameter of 7% [satisfy the validation requirements. Several studies found that the link volume of 10 times the grain size was not satisfactory for the volume grouping criteria for graphite grades with fine grains. ASME 2021 code adopted a new volume grouping criteria based on fracture toughness for calculation of the process zone volume. However, errors were found in the ASME 2021 code process zone volume equation and the question is now open as to what volume grouping criteria is satisfactory. This report presents results from sensitivity studies that were done to evaluate the volume grouping criteria effect on the full assessment POF. This report also presents results from sensitivity studies on other aspects of the code that affect the POF, the mesh size and the choice of the Weibull threshold parameter. All three sensitivity studies: the volume grouping criteria, the mesh size, and the threshold parameter choice are found to affect the component qualification decision for components of structural reliability class 1 (SRC-1). The sensitivity analysis results are presented in the body of the report for NBG-18, which is the same grade of graphite as Hindley used in his thesis. Results from NBG-17, IG-110, 2114, and PCEA are presented in the Appendix. For NBG-18, it was found that increasing the threshold increases the POF, finer meshes result in higher POFs, and that smaller link volume requirements lead to higher POFs (which is inconsistent with Hindley’s findings). This report proposes a new validation study similar to Hindley’s []. The purpose of the new validation study is to tune the threshold, mesh size and grouping criteria based on results from multiple grades of graphite, including finer grain graphites T220 (1-3 microns) and NG-CT-50 (5 microns). The test specimens will be broken at 3 labs, such that we can measure between lab measurement variability, with at least 5 test specimens per lab such that the within lab uncertainty can also be measured. Hindley’s validation method tried matching the average experimental load with the median. The future study will attempt to match failures at lower percentiles, which would be closer to the SRC POF limit. We are currently looking into what geometries make sense and the best method to measure multi-axial stress states. These design decisions are still being set.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2024

ASME Design Code Rule Changes for Nuclear Graphite

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler Pressure and Vessel Code (ASME BPVC) Section III, Division 5, Article HHA-3000 outlines graphite core component and graphite core assembly design guidelines. Graphite core components are defined as ?components manufactured from graphite that are installed to form a graphite core assembly within the reactor pressure vessel of a high temperature, graphite moderated fission reactor.? (p. 413) Graphites? inherent defect distributions do not allow for deterministic material reliability. Rather, graphite has variable strength distributions which change by grade. Article HHA-3000 outlines two semi-probabilistic methods, the full and simplified assessments, which set design load limit targets for each of three component structural reliability classes. The Design Task Group was officially recognized as a specialized task group within ASME November of 2023, though we?ve been collaborating since 2022. The purpose of the Design Task Group is to correct, clarify, and make HHA-3000 function as intended. The Design Task Group will sunset once we?ve achieved our objectives. The Design Task Group was specifically told to not write new Code. While there may be more precise and more accurate methods to determine reliability targets, the current methods are conservative, relatively simple to implement, and have thus far been considered satisfactory for setting design reliability targets. Much of the ground-work to write proposal files and background documents for records to make the changes needed to achieve our objective have been completed. The Design Task Group has documented much of their work through papers, presentations, and memorandums. Three memorandums in which INL team members had substantial contributions are found in the Appendices: FEA Modeling for the Baseline Program, Evaluating the Effects on Margin of Updating the Threshold and Shape Parameters in the Full Assessment, and Interpretations of the Full and Simplified Assessments in ASME BPVC. Most of the on-going work to achieve the Design Task Group?s objective will be addressing comments on existing records and moving records through the balloting process. The Design Task Group met bi-weekly mostly through the end of FY2023. Since February 2024, the Design Task Group has mostly been completed with solving and documenting the technical issues associated with the assessments. Unless new tasks are identified, the remaining work of the Design Task Group will be political and editorial.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Influence of Hybridization on the Capacity Value of PV and Battery Resources

Utility-scale systems that combine solar photovoltaic and battery (PV+battery) technologies are growing in popularity on the U.S. bulk power system. The business case for PV+battery systems depends on both their ability to reduce costs and their ability to generate value synergies associated with the provision of energy, capacity, and ancillary services. Capacity value can constitute a significant portion of the value PV+battery hybrids provide to the grid (e.g., through avoided or deferred capacity) and receive through revenues. Throughout this report, we define capacity value as the monetary value of a plant's contribution towards the planning reserve margin, which ultimately depends on market rules and structures. PV+battery hybrids do not always fit into current market structures because of the interactions between the PV and battery components. Unique considerations for the capacity value of PV+battery hybrids include the disparate nature of participation models for PV and battery technologies in existing market rules and the potential influence of a shared interconnection capacity; limitations imposed by a shared inverter; limited ability to charge the battery in advance of capacity events if charging must be sourced from the coupled PV; and challenges or uncertainties associated with co-optimizing the operations of the PV and battery components. Grid operators are currently considering how market structures can be modified to optimally determine the capacity value provided by PV+battery systems, and the rules of how they are integrated into markets are still being written. As with any resource, poorly designed rules could increase the cost of energy and reduce system reliability, while well-designed rules could allow markets to receive the full benefits hybrid systems can offer without overcompensating them for the services they provide. Well-designed rules for PV+battery systems must consider the unique aspects listed above, while leveraging the commonalities with existing resource types. In this report, we summarize the technical capability and market rules that influence the capacity value of PV+battery systems. We further discuss the potential tradeoffs between computational complexity and accuracy for the various ways in which grid operators can credit PV+battery systems for capacity. Finally, we describe markets for capacity, survey current wholesale market rules applying to PV+battery systems, and provide a snapshot of the current regulatory landscape for PV+battery systems.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Sample problems for Section III, Division 5 design by inelastic analysis of Grade 91 components

This report works through two sample design analyses of representative Grade 91 components using the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Division 5, Appendix HBB-T rules for the strain and deformation and creep-fatigue design criteria using a design by inelastic analysis approach. The component geometries and loadings were selected to span a wide variety of potential applications. The sample components are an endplate geometry, which is fairly representative of typical pressure vessel construction, and a core block, representing a critical component in a heat pipe microreactor, which has a complicated geometry and complex thermal stress history. These sample problems serve several functions. First, they are complete worked examples of how to apply the current design by inelastic analysis rules. Second, they serve as test cases to evaluate the current rules and provide feedback on how they could be optimized to deal with complicated component geometries or to be better automated in modern finite element analysis software. Finally, the analysis here uses an inelastic constitutive model for Grade 91 developed by Argonne National Laboratory and proposed for inclusion in the ASME Boiler & Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Division 5 rules as a reference constitutive model. Using this constitutive model in the sample problem analyses tests the model in the context of the ASME Code rules. The final conclusions of this report are that the material model and the current Code rules are satisfactory, but that the Code rules could be optimized to simplify automation and reduce over conservatism. Future work should address the specific optimization topics discussed in this report.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗