Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Review”

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 271 records · Page 15

2015 DOE Vehicle Technologies Office Annual Merit Review

The 2015 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) and Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting (AMR) was held June 8-12, 2015, in Arlington, Virginia. The review encompassed all of the work done by the FCTO and the VTO: 258 individual activities were reviewed for VTO, by 170 reviewers. A total of 1,095 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE on the Office with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

Advanced Instrumentation, Information, and Control Systems Technologies Pathway: FY 2016 External Review

This report describes an External Review conducted by the LWRS Program Advanced Instrumentation, Information, and Control (II&C) Systems Technologies Pathway to solicit feedback on the topics and results of the ongoing II&C research program. This review was held in conjunction with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) Digital I&C Working Group meeting that was held at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) on August 9-10, 2016. Given the opportunity to visit INL and see the pathway research projects, NEI agreed that the Working Group would serve as the External Review panel for the purpose of obtaining expert input on the value and timing of the research projects. This consisted of demonstrations in the Human Systems Simulation Laboratory followed by presentations on the II&C research program in general as well as the five technology development areas. Following the meeting, the presentations were sent to each of the attendees so they could review them in more detail and refer to them in completing the feedback form. Follow-up activities were conducted with the attendees following the meeting to obtain the completed feedback forms. A total of 13 forms were returned. The feedback forms were reviewed by the pathway to compile the data and comments received, which are documented in the report. In all, the feedback provided by the External Review participants is taken to be a strong endorsement of the types of projects being conducted by the pathway, the value they hold for the nuclear plants, and the general timing of need. The feedback aligns well with the priorities, levels of efforts allocated for the research projects, and project schedules. The feedback also represents realistic observations on the practicality of some aspects of implementing these technologies. In some cases, the participants provided thoughtful challenges to certain assumptions in the formulation of the technologies or in deployment plans. These deserve further review and revision of plans if warranted. The pathway will take all of the feedback and address the open issues that have been identified by the participants. This includes 11 actionable items for follow up by the II&C Pathway.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

2017 DOE Vehicle Technologies Office Annual Merit Review

The 2017 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program and Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting (AMR) was held June 5-9, 2017, in Washington, DC. The review encompassed work done by the Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program and VTO: 263 individual activities were reviewed for VTO by 191 reviewers. Exactly 1,241 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

2016 DOE Vehicle Technologies Office Annual Merit Review

The 2016 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program and Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting (AMR) was held June 6-9, 2016, in Washington, DC. The review encompassed work done by the Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program and VTO: 226 individual activities were reviewed for VTO, by 171 reviewers. A total of 1,044 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

Standard review plan for evaluating nuclear power reactor license termination plans

This standard review plan (SRP) guides the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in conducting safety reviews of license termination plans (LTPs). The principal purpose of this SRP is to ensure the quality and uniformity of NRC staff reviews and to present a well-defined base from which to evaluate the requirements for terminating the license of a nuclear power plant. It is also the purpose of this SRP to make information about regulatory matters widely available, so that interested members of the public and the nuclear industry can gain a better understanding of the NRC staff's review process. Specific guidance for licensees is included in Regulatory Guide 1.179, "Standard Format and Content of License Termination Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors." Licensees may also use this SRP to assist in developing an LTP. The SRP presents the acceptance criteria for all areas of review for license termination, and identifies the matters to be reviewed, the basis for the review, and the conclusions that are sought. For example, NUREG-1757, "Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance" offers additional guidance on how to demonstrate compliance with the unrestricted release, restricted release, and alternative criteria for license termination, in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 20, "Standards for Protection against Radiation," Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination." To avoid duplication of information, this SRP references applicable sections of NUREG-1757 for additional guidance. In addition, the NRC has issued supplemental guidance that will subsequently be consolidated into NUREG-1757 to address partial site release before LTP approval, and compliance with 10 CFR Part 20, Subpart E. It should be noted that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Environmental Protection Agency and NRC may contain consultation triggers for some radionuclides that may be lower than the NUREG-1757 Vol. 2 Revision 1, Appendix H screening values.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Vehicle Technologies Office 2018 Annual Merit Review

The 2018 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 18-21, 2018, in Arlington, Virginia. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 235 individual activities were reviewed by 247 reviewers. Exactly 1,202 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review VTO accomplishments over the previous 12 months and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

2019 Vehicle Technologies Office Annual Merit Review Report

The 2019 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 10-13, 2019, in Arlington, Virginia. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 287 individual activities were reviewed by 272 reviewers. Exactly 1,162 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE on the Office with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

2020 Annual Merit Review, Vehicle Technologies Office

The 2020 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 1-4, 2020, virtually, due to extenuating circumstances resulting from the global Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 292 individual activities were reviewed by 334 reviewers. Exactly 1,133 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a virtual forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

2023 Annual Merit Review Vehicle Technologies Office Results Report

The 2023 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 12-15, 2023, as a hybrid event with in-person and virtual attendance. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 257 individual activities were reviewed by 266 reviewers. Exactly 991 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a virtual forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

2014 Annual Merit Review, Vehicle Technologies Office (Results Report)

This report contains the results of the 2014 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) and Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting (AMR) held June 16-20, 2014, in Washington, DC. The review encompassed all of the work done by the FCTO and the VTO: a total of 295 individual activities were reviewed for VTO, by a total of 179 reviewers. A total of 1,354 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE on the Office with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

2014 Annual Merit Review, Vehicle Technologies Office (Results Report)

This report contains the results of the 2014 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Fuel Cell Technologies Office (FCTO) and Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review and Peer Evaluation Meeting (AMR) held June 16-20, 2014, in Washington, DC. The review encompassed all of the work done by the FCTO and the VTO: a total of 295 individual activities were reviewed for VTO, by a total of 179 reviewers. A total of 1,354 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE on the Office with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a forum for interaction and technology information transfer.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

Design and Implementation of Smart Buildings: A Review of Current Research Trend

The building sector is one of the largest contributors to the world’s total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Advancements in building energy technologies have played a critical role in enhancing the energy sustainability of the built environment. Extensive research and new techniques in energy and environmental systems for buildings have recently emerged to address the global challenges. This study reviews existing articles in the literature, mostly since 2000, to explore technological advancement in building energy and environmental systems that can be applied to smart homes and buildings. This review study focuses on an overview of the design and implementation of energy-related smart building technologies, including energy management systems, renewable energy applications, and current advanced smart technologies for optimal function and energy-efficient performance. To review the advancement in building energy-related technologies, a systematic review process is adopted based on available published reviews and research types of articles. Review-type articles are first assessed to explore the current literature on the relevant keywords and to capture major research scopes. Research-type papers are then examined to investigate associated keywords and work scopes, including objectives, focuses, limitations, and future needs. Throughout the comprehensive literature review, this study identifies various techniques of smart home/building applications that have provided detailed solutions or guidelines in different applications to enhance the quality of people’s daily activities and the sustainability of the built environmental system. This paper shows trends in human activities and technology advancements in digital solutions with energy management systems and practical designs. Understanding the overall energy flow between a building and its environmentally connected systems is also important for future buildings and community levels. This paper assists in understanding the pathway toward future smart homes/buildings and their technologies for researchers in related research fields.

renewable system integration↗

The NPG 7120.5A Electronic Review Process

The use of electronics to review a document is well within the technical realm of today's state-of-the-art workplace. File servers and web site interaction are common tools for many NASA employees. The electronic comment processing described here was developed for the NPG 7120.5A review to augment the existing NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS). The NODIS system is NASA's official system for formal review, approval and storage of NASA Directives. The electronic review process worked so well that NASA and other agencies may want to consider it as one of our "best practices." It was participatory decision making at its very best, a process that attracted dozens of very good ideas to improve the document as well as the way we can be managing projects far more effectively. The revision of NPG 7120.5A has significant implications for the way all elements of the Agency accomplish program and project management. Therefore, the review of NPG 7120.5A was an Agencywide effort with high visibility, heavy participation and a short schedule. The level of involvement created interest in supplementing the formal NODIS system with a system to collect comments efficiently and to allow the Centers and Codes to review and consolidate their comments into the official system in a short period of time. In addition, the Program Management Council Working Group (PMCWG), responsible for the revision of the document and the disposition of official comments, needed an electronic system to manage the disposition of comments, obtain PMCWG consensus on each disposition, and coordinate the disposition with the appropriate Headquarters Code that had submitted the official comment. The combined NASA and contractor talents and resources provided a system that supplemented the NODIS system and its operating personnel to produce a thorough review and approval of NPG 7120.5A on April 3, 1998, 7.5 months from the start of the process. The original six-month schedule is indicated. All milestones occurred on time, except for completion of comment disposition, which required an additional 30 days. Approval of the document occurred sixteen days after completion of the "Purple Package."

McBrayer, Robert↗

Stress, Cognition, and Human Performance: A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework

The following literature review addresses the effects of various stressors on cognition. While attempting to be as inclusive as possible, the review focuses its examination on the relationships between cognitive appraisal, attention, memory, and stress as they relate to information processing and human performance. The review begins with an overview of constructs and theoretical perspectives followed by an examination of effects across attention, memory, perceptual-motor functions, judgment and decision making, putative stressors such as workload, thermals, noise, and fatigue and closes with a discussion of moderating variables and related topics. In summation of the review, a conceptual framework for cognitive process under stress has been assembled. As one might imagine, the research literature that addresses stress, theories governing its effects on human performance, and experimental evidence that supports these notions is large and diverse. In attempting to organize and synthesize this body of work, I was guided by several earlier efforts (Bourne & Yaroush, 2003; Driskell, Mullen, Johnson, Hughes, & Batchelor, 1992; Driskell & Salas, 1996; Haridcock & Desmond, 2001; Stokes & Kite, 1994). These authors should be credited with accomplishing the monumental task of providing focused reviews in this area and their collective efforts laid the foundation for this present review. Similarly, the format of this review has been designed in accordance with these previous exemplars. However, each of these previous efforts either simply reported general findings, without sufficient experimental illustration, or narrowed their scope of investigation to the extent that the breadth of such findings remained hidden from the reader. Moreover, none of these examinations yielded an architecture that adequately describes or explains the inter-relations between information processing elements under stress conditions.

Stress↗

Proposal for Ground Safety Review Coordination at ISS Launch Sites

As the transportation of ISS payloads and cargo shifts from KSC to other launch sites, close coordination of ground safety review processes would be of benefit to all parties. The benefit would have the launch sites receiving consistent data that would require less effort to review while still meeting their needs. Until recently, ground safety focus for the ISS program has been almost exclusively for prelaunch processing at KSC/post-landing processing at KSC/DFRC Each launch site, used by the ISS Program, has a ground safety review process. Ground safety viewed as local prerogative. Up till now, ground processing has consisted of low risk/low hazard items; but this will not always be the case. Recent coordination issues associated with the ground safety review of ORU's to be processed at Tanegashima for HTV-2, illustrate that IP ground safety review processes are not well understood by the ISS community at large. Confusion for data providers (US only?). Lack of internal review process for data being submitted to launch sites can lead to inconsistent submittals. NCRs/HRs. Majority of IP ground safety requirements are based upon old KHB 1700.7 (now KNPR 8715.3, Chapter 20). Proposals include: Establish a ground safety working group as part of the MS&MAP. Search for efficiencies in requirements and data submittal processes. Document processes in NSTS 13830/SSP 30599. Each launch site report out its payload ground safety status at the F2F (Monthly's as required). Completions/due dates/NCRs/issues/changes. Establish internal processes for review of ground safety submittals.

Kirkpatrick, Paul D.↗

Automated Assignment of Proposals to Reviewers

A computer program automates the process of selecting unbiased peer reviewers of research proposals submitted to NASA. Heretofore, such selection has been performed by manual searching of two large databases subject to a set of assignment rules. One database lists proposals and proposers; the other database lists potential reviewers. The manual search takes an average of several weeks per proposal. In contrast, the present software can perform the selection in seconds. The program begins by selecting one entry from each database, then applying the assignment rules to this pair of entries. If and only if all the assignment rules are satisfied, the chosen reviewer is assigned to the chosen proposal. The assignment rules enforced by the program are (1) a maximum allowable number of proposals assigned to a single reviewer; (2) a maximum allowable number of reviewers assigned to a single proposal; (3) if the proposing team includes a member affiliated with an industry, then the reviewer must not be affiliated with any industry; and (4) the reviewer must not be a member of the proposing team or affiliated with the same institution as that of a member of the proposing team.

Kantak, Anil↗

NASA Standing Review Board Handbook: Revision B

This SRB Handbook provides review guidance for the program and project communities and for the SRBs regarding the expectations, processes, products, timelines, and working interfaces with review organizations, Centers, Mission Directorates, Mission Support Organizations, and Management Councils. It provides guidelines for membership selection, review implementation, review products, and reporting of results. The SRB Handbook guidance may be tailored, with the Convening Authorities' approval, to meet the needs of the Agency, Mission Directorates, Centers, and the programs and projects being reviewed. The final review agreement of the SRB, program and project, and Convening Authorities for program and project Life-Cycle Reviews (LCRs) is documented in the terms of reference, as described in Section 4.1 and Appendix H.

Tahani R Amer↗

Appreciation of the 2015 JGR Space Physics Peer Reviewers

The Editors of the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics are deeply indebted to the many people among the research community that serve this journal through peer review. The journal could not exist without the time and effort invested by the community through this voluntary activity, providing expert evaluations and thoughtful assessments of the work of others. In 2015, the journal had 1506 scientists contribute to the process with at least one peer review, for a total of 3575 reviews completed, including additional reviews of resubmitted manuscripts. There were 277 reviewers that contributed four or more reports in 2015. The average number of reviews per referee in 2015 was, therefore, 2.4. Note that the total number of manuscript final decisions (i.e., accept or reject) for Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) Space Physics was 1147 in 2015. Of this, 774 were accepted and 373 were declined, for an acceptance rate of 67% last year. If the 1334 "revision" decisions are included in the tally, then the total number of decisions made in 2015 was 2481. Working out the arithmetic, it means that on average, a manuscript gets about 1.2 revision decisions before a final accept-or-reject decision. This explains the ~3.1 average number of reviews per manuscript throughout each paper's lifetime in the submission-revision editorial process. We are pleased and happy that the research community is willing and able to devote their resources toward this service endeavor. We appreciate each and every one of you that helped maintain the high quality of papers in JGR Space Physics last year. We look forward to another excellent year working with all of you through the year ahead.

Liemohn, Michael W.↗