SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This report describes one study that was completed as part of the project titled “A critical gap in our ability to quantify and model earth system interactions - Development of a global, mechanistic understanding of methane emissions from trees.”
Development of non-power molten salt reactors (MSRs) are under consideration to further establish an MSR experience base, support the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.43(e), and provide any additional analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. Guidance provided in this report is based on MSRs operating with liquid fuel (i.e., fuel dissolved within a molten salt). These reactors, unless owned by the DOE or DOD, will require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Standard review plan (SRP) guidance for large light water reactors (LWRs) is available in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; Light Water Reactor (LWR) Edition. However, NRC staff observed that NUREG-0800 is very cumbersome to apply to non-power reactors “because of the great differences in complexity and hazards between non-power reactors and nuclear power plants.” Therefore, a program to develop performance-based guidance applicable to non-power reactors was initiated. In 1996, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, was published. Part 1, the format and content guide, suggests a uniform format for presenting information in non-power reactor applications that is acceptable to the NRC staff, but conformance with the format and content is not required. Part 2, the SRP, ensures the quality and uniformity of the staff review of an application. Unfortunately, the application guidelines and SRP do not provide adequate guidance for all advanced non-LWR technologies and applications. This discrepancy eventually led to the 2012 development of interim staff guidance (ISG) for NUREG-1537, which includes criteria for describing and reviewing aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs). Specifically, NUREG-1537 ISG, 2012 expanded the original document to address three areas: 1. updated criteria for heterogeneous non-power reactors, 2. criteria for licensing AHRs, and 3. criteria for licensing a Part 50-licensed isotope production facility. In 2015, the US Department of Energy (DOE) opted to build on the AHR NUREG-1537 ISG experience by performing a gap analysis of the guidance that would be used to license a non-power MSR. MSRs represent one of the advanced non-LWR technologies selected by DOE for development through a multiyear cost share award with Southern Company Services. Under this Advanced Reactor Concepts 2015 (DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts [ARC] 15) award program, the DOE tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate the guidance changes that the NRC may need to consider when licensing an MSR non-power reactor. ORNL staff, with support from Boston Government Services, LLC, focused on five system-related chapters in NUREG-1537 that were considered most relevant to inform the effort that would be required for a non-power MSR applicant. ORNL documented this review in a technical report, ORNL/TM-2018/834, Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Non-Power Reactor License Applications (NUREG-1537). The report was subsequently shared with industry and the NRC. The 2018 review was limited in scope, focusing on key system chapters based on the expected significance of each chapter relative to expected differences in addressing advanced non-LWR technologies, specifically non-power MSRs, compared with heterogeneously fueled non-power reactors. In the ORNL report, proposed generic adaptations were suggested for the following NUREG-1537 chapters: Chapter 4, “Reactor Description”; Chapter 5, “Reactor Coolant Systems”; Chapter 6, “Engineered Safety Features”; Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems”; Chapter 11, “Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management” The inclusion of Chapter 11 in the previous review effort was intended to provide guidance for categorizing the waste-handling process for an MSR operating with homogenous fuel. The introductions from Parts 1 and 2 of the 2012 NUREG-1537 ISG provide guidance for the application and review of production facilities. After a period of operation, non-power MSRs with homogenous fuel will include gaseous and soluble fission products. The gaseous fission products will be collected and held for decay in an off-gas system. There might also be an initiative to polish or filter the soluble fission products in the fuel salt by some mechanical or chemical means. The treatment and handling of fission products in the non-power MSR fuel salt and the description of this process in the safety analysis report (SAR) must be very precise to avoid the waste treatment facility being construed as a co-located special nuclear material (SNM) fuel cycle facility (see Section 2.3 of this report). Subsequent to the release of ORNL/TM-2018/834, NRC staff expressed a desire to continue the regulatory gap analysis that was begun in that report. This would provide additional clarity and information addressed in certain sections of the original report, while also providing new guidance on certain topics not addressed in the original report. This revision would benefit the NRC staff reviewing applications involving non-power MSR designs and would help developers understand how the NRC staff might approach the review of such applications. The focus of this report is to provide infrastructure support to the NRC staff for the regulatory review of non-power MSRs.
Attached are the updated Medical Waste Management Plans and Emergency Action Plans for Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL) Biosafety Level 2 (BSL-2) facilities and Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) facility. A redline version of each document has also been provided. Minor changes such as facility personnel, contact information, and titles for those that support onsite Biosafety Labs at LLNL have been made to the document. It should be noted that the most recent versions of the Medical Waste Large Quantity Generator Registration Application Form and Medical Waste Management Plan were incorporated and sourced from the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health website.
By its nature, electrification enhances the coupling between the electric sector and end-use sectors. Assessing the impacts of electrification requires both an examination of the complex interactions between sectors and a broader assessment of multiple parts of the energy system. The Electrification Futures Study (EFS) uses several complementary modeling and analysis tools to analyze the impacts of electrification on the U.S. energy system. In particular, the EFS relies on an overarching scenario analysis approach, but through the use of separate modeling approaches designed to assess various electricity demand- and supply-side futures. The primary model employed to generate the supply-side scenarios is the Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) model, which is a capacity expansion model for the U.S. electricity system through 2050. Traditionally, the model has been primarily exercised in scenario analysis that implicitly assumed limited electrification. Because of this assumption, resulting future load profiles are approximated by historical ones, load growth is driven primarily by population and economic growth only, and changes in direct end-use natural gas consumption do not effect natural gas costs for electricity generation. In this report, we (1) reflect the potential for resource sharing between regions given these changes in demand, (2) represent how changes in natural gas consumption in end-use sectors could impact the economics of natural gas-fired generation, and (3) document a new model representation of demand-side flexibility used for the EFS. These improvements to ReEDS are employed for the EFS supply-wide analysis, which is summarized in a companion EFS report titled Electrification Futures Study: Scenarios of Power System Evolution and Infrastructure Development for the United States (Murphy et al. 2019). The data and methods documented in this report could also be adapted for other models with similar scope and limitations as ReEDS, and these data and methods could be used to assess future electric system scenarios.
The Austin SHINES project and solution is a software management platform, for an electric grid with a high penetration of dispersed photovoltaic (PV) solar generation sites, which maintains the traditional power quality and reliability associated with grid service. This project developed and deployed the platform as a Distributed Energy Resource Management System (DERMS), engaging multiple advanced controls, to evaluate operation and optimization of a fleet of diverse DER assets, installed at several locations among Austin Energy’s customers and distribution system. The project also produced a methodology to create a replicable DERMS template, adaptable to other regions and market structures. Last, Austin SHINES aimed to demonstrate the solution’s methodology would enable the DER grid ecosystem to serve load at a technical cost (System Levelized Cost of Electricity, or System LCOE) of less than the U.S. Department of Energy SHINES program metric of $0.14/kWh, in a defined boundary, while enabling a high penetration of distributed PV. Research was categorized in 6 reports (Final Deliverables = FD) listed below, with titles and descriptions indicating which area of understanding was investigated: FD-1: System Levelized Cost of Electricity (System LCOE) Methodology The creation and use of the System LCOE to Serve Load metric that encompasses the holistic, system-level costs and benefits of all resources, and enables them to be evaluated based on their ability to support an efficient and low-cost integrated grid ecosystem. FD-2: Software Platform Product Description The creation of new DER control methodologies deployable within a utility-grade software platform that enable DER's to maximize their benefit within a grid, that is capable of serving load enabling a high penetration of distributed PV generation. FD-3: Optimal Design Methodology Optimal design methodologies for individual DER installations that enable utilities to determine the optimal combinations and sizing for individual DER sites. FD-4: Austin SHINES Ownership and Operation Models for DER System Performance A comparison of multiple DER aggregation and ownership methodologies including direct utility control, third-party aggregator, and autonomous. FD-5: Economic Modeling & Optimization A comparison of multiple DER technology mixes and configurations within the distribution system, providing insight into an optimal blend of technologies that best enable the distribution system to serve load at the lowest cost at high penetrations of solar. FD-6: Fielded Assets Deployed DER assets within the Austin Energy SHINES circuits. Austin SHINES provided an opening for state-of-the-art technology products to be deployed, providing a rich opportunity for improving how each of the products perform as stand-alone products, and in concert with other complementary products. The Austin SHINES project comprised of two key metrics for System LCOE: SystemLCOE_SHINES<$0.14/kWh Modeled ΔSystemLCOE_SHINES/ΔSystemLCOE_Base≥20% at same solar penetration The System LCOE calculation uses the costs of the utility-owned infrastructure as it exists today, the cost of the DERs that exist in the system today, and the cost of the purchase of energy from ERCOT wholesale markets over the course of the calendar year. All costs are on an annualized basis. The capital and operating costs are derived from the rate case, which produces a yearly cost. The net cost of energy and services imported to the system is integrated over the test year, as is the load served and solar penetration. The first metric was easily achieved by every scenario considered. The goal was set when the Department of Energy’s SHINES Funding Opportunity Announcement was written in 2015 and was a more difficult target at the time. Due mostly to rapidly declining costs for DERs and the significant decrease in the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) energy market prices, which results in lower net cost of energy purchases, the System LCOE is well below this target for all scenarios considered. A fleet of DERs can assume different mixtures, each of which serves the load at a different LCOE. The optimal mixture of DERs serves load at the smallest System LCOE. The second metric (hereinafter %delta metric) asks that the holistic DERMS controls reduce the incremental cost above the baseline of going to a high solar penetration future by at least 20% as compared to the case of a DER deployment with no sophisticated controls (autonomous). Many comparison sets were created throughout this project. Physical technology was installed for informing utility engineering and testing several types of operational control schemes, through the DERMS. The types of operational control which were compared for valuation of the System LCOE Metric were: Holistic control = using the full suite of the DERMS platform to decide and optimize how/why the systems operate depending on weather, market, and reliability signal input. Autonomous control = a local mode at the asset site, wherein a schedule operates the asset, with visibility into performance only No control = the baseline for comparing value against the other two types of control The types of ownership control included: Direct Utility control = the utility dispatches a signal to each asset Third-Party Aggregator = a third party aggregates a fleet of assets and the utility dispatches one signal for all Autonomous = a local mode is set for operation at the asset site, wherein a schedule operates the asset, with visibility into performance only The types of control methodologies deployable within a utility-grade software platform included: Utility Peak Load Reduction = Lower transmission cost obligation Day-Ahead Energy Arbitrage = Realize economic value through price differential Real-Time Price Dispatch = Realize economic value from real-time price spikes Voltage support = Reduce losses and increase solar generation Distribution Congestion Management = Increase local grid reliability Demand Charge Reduction = Lower customer bills and realize system benefit The fielded assets deployed for the project were: Utility Scale Kingsbery Energy Storage System: 1.5 MW / 3 MWh Li-Ion battery storage Mueller Energy Storage System: 1.75 MW / 3.2 MWh Li-Ion battery storage, 7 Energy Storage Units (250 kW each) La Loma Community Solar: 2.6 MW Commercial Scale Aggregated storage installations at 3 sites, with existing solar (300+ kW): One 18 kW / 36 kWh Li-Ion battery storage Two 72 kW / 144 kWh Li-Ion battery storage Residential Scale Aggregated storage installations: -Six stationary battery storage systems (10 kWh each) at homes with existing solar -One Electric Vehicle installed as Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G) Utility-Controlled Solar via Smart Inverters at 12 homes Autonomously-Controlled Smart Inverters at 6 homes Over the course of the project, Austin SHINES undertook installing more than 3 MW of distributed battery energy storage, smart PV inverters, a DER control platform, and other enabling technologies utilizing customer and utility locations and aggregation models. All of these resources were to be integrated and optimized at the utility level. DER assets and control methodologies were designed to achieve a credible pathway to a System LCOE for energy delivered to load of $0.14//kWh or less by 2020, while maximizing distributed solar generation and maintaining acceptable standards of power quality. The project also established a template for other regions to follow, to maximize the adoption of distributed solar PV in support of an economic and efficient grid. In total, the Austin SHINES project added value to the DER subject area in each layer of integration. From utility, to commercial to residential scales, the sheer hierarchy of communication and coordination was a significant accomplishment in addition to learnings from what these communications revealed was unique to each. Economically, the most effective method demonstrated was the criticality of planning phases. Contingencies and multiple projection scenarios helped guide the project to deploy optimal design as close as feasible, in real world conditions. The project and reports will serve public benefit by outlining specific areas of DER strategy and installation where many stakeholders and needs can be addressed with improved efficiency. Overall, communities and utilities should use the results to guide the increasing options available for powering the grid with DER, renewables, and carbon considerate energy.
This report summarizes work done under the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) project titled "Incorporating physical constraints into Gaussian process surrogate models?' In this project, we explored a variety of strategies for constraint implementations. We considered bound constraints, monotonicity and related convexity constraints, Gaussian processes which are constrained to satisfy linear operator constraints which represent physical laws expressed as partial differential equations, and intrinsic boundary condition constraints. We wrote three papers and are currently finishing two others. We developed initial software implementations for some approaches. This report summarizes the work done under this LDRD.
An atomic force microscope (AFM) equipped with gas dosing capabilities and a scanning tunneling microscope (STM) housed within a vacuum chamber with Pu sputtering capabilities and the potential for rapid heating via electron bombardment have been devised for investigations of Pu surface aging (such as oxidation, corrosion, and self-irradiation damage), reactivity, and rapid heating. These instruments are capable of probing Pu surface areas ranging from a fractions of nm2 (STM) to hundreds of μm2 (AFM) to obtain three dimensional imaging of surface microstructure and morphology, as well as mapping of the local electronic structure (i.e., the occupied and unoccupied electronic states), surface chemical, and mechanical properties. A detailed description of our surface probe microscopy (SPM) capability, specifically designed for handling of Pu coupons is given in the references. In FY20, four tasks have been undertaken: Resumed maintenance of Pu AFM and modification of STM capabilities including calibration, annual measurement of Pu surface, and implementation of additional instrumentation for rapid heating effort; Analyzed AFM FY19 gas dosing experiment data of 7 at% gallium-stabilized δ-phase Pu (δ-Pu) coupon; Determined the direction of future gas dosing experiments to investigate reversibility of surface features; and, Published a paper titled "Effects of ion sputtering on plutonium surfaces" in the Journal of Nuclear Materials.
Understanding the friction behavior between two sliding bodies can inform the design of machines, processing of materials, and simulation of dynamic processes. Kinetic friction is a complex phenomenon that depends on a multitude of factors such as sliding velocity, normal force, contact area, surface roughness, material properties, lubrication conditions, and thermal effects. This literature review covers the major known effects of sliding velocity, normal load, and surface roughness on the measured kinetic friction coefficient in the context of microscopic friction phenomena. Classic macroscale friction models are reviewed to illustrate approaches for simulating friction behavior. Prominent experimental friction setups within the literature are discussed with respect to achievable velocity and pressure regimes. The background information gathered here will be used to inform experimental procedures and modeling strategies of the exploratory research (ER) project titled “Measurement of Dynamic Friction via Kolsky Bar” (20200418ER).
This summary report contains an overview of work performed under the work package entitled “MS- 20IN020107 - BISON advanced numerical model development and usability improvements - INL”, which is focused on the development and support of the fuel performance code BISON [1]. The second chapter lists FY20 milestones titles, completion schedule, and milestone level. Subsequent chapters summarize and demonstrate completion of milestones and activities. The last chapter outlines FY21 proposed future work.
As the Tank Operations Contractor for U.S. Department of Energy operations at the Hanford site in Washington State, Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS) is responsible for managing highly radioactive wastes stored in tanks at Hanford. WRPS tests air-purifying respirator (APR) and powered air-purifying respirator (PAPR) chemical cartridges commonly used at Hanford Tank Farms to determine the period of time that the cartridges would provide adequate performance for APRs and PAPRs used to protect workers when exposed to a mixture of Chemicals of Potential Concern (COPC) from any vapors exiting headspaces in the storage tanks. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard promulgated in Title 29 of the Code of the Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.134(d)(3)(iii)(b)(2) specifies that for protection against gases and vapors, employers shall implement a schedule for cartridges to ensure that change-outs occur before the end of service life. The change schedule can be based on objective information or data that ensures cartridge change-outs occur before the end of their service life.[2-5] The primary function of the WRPS Cartridge Test Program is to obtain objective data to determine service lives for the APR and PAPR cartridges used at Hanford Tank Farms. WRPS contracted with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to analyze the test data and offer an independent analysis and any recommendations. Volume 1 of this report summarizes data analysis of APR and PAPR cartridge testing on vapors from the AP tank farm exhauster. Previous testing of APR cartridges was conducted on the AP exhauster in June 2016. However, an AP exhauster upgrade was completed in September 2016. Two different APR cartridges from SCOTT Safety (Monroe, North Carolina) were assessed for the new AP exhauster source, along with two different PAPR cartridges—one from MSA Safety Inc. (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) and another from 3M (Maplewood, Minnesota). Volume 2 provides an introduction to the raw data, including analytical laboratory analysis results that supported the analysis and conclusions documented in Volume 1.
The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 3420 Building, which is part of the Physical Sciences Facility (PSF), houses radiological capabilities that results in the requirement that emissions monitoring must be conducted for potential radionuclides in the exhaust air discharge of this building. The air monitoring system is required to conform to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations part 61 (40 CFR 61) Subpart H, which in turns requires a sampling probe in the exhaust stream to conform to the criteria of American National Standards Institute / Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-2011, Sampling and Monitoring Releases of Airborne Radioactive Substances from the Stack and Ducts of Nuclear Facilities. To support the air emissions permit for the 3420 Building on the PNNL campus, stack testing that used computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling as a surrogate stack and verification tests of velocity uniformity and flow angle on the retrofitted facility stack was performed. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-2011 criteria for the air monitoring probe location are that velocity uniformity, gaseous tracer uniformity, and particulate tracer uniformity must be less than or equal to 20%COV. 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°. The CFD modeling of the stack, as reported by Recknagle et al. (2018) demonstrated that the stack meets the criteria at the probe location. The velocity uniformity and flow angle results from the 3420 stack verification tests, performed in October 2020, demonstrated that the CFD model results may be used to support the qualification of the stack sampling location. The measured velocity uniformity verification test result was 1.4%COV. This value is well within the uniformity criterion, which is that the velocity uniformity be =20%COV. Additionally, this value is well within the criterion that the actual stack measurement must be within 5% of the surrogate stack result of 2.1%COV when all four fans were operating. Additionally, the measured average flow angle at the 3420 stack monitor location was 15.5 degrees. Although this is higher than expected based on the CFD model, the result is =20 degrees, so the criterion is met. Based on these stack verification test results, the reconfigured 3420 Building filtered exhaust stack meets the qualification criteria given in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-2011 standard. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this and the CFD report (Recknagle et al., 2018) may require additional tests and additional analysis to determine compliance with the standard.
Three prototypes the ORNL-SFC-W-1 special form capsules (SFCs) of the same design were evaluated to determine if the requirements of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 173.469, Tests for Special Form Class 7 (Radioactive) Materials, were met. The results of the special form tests are documented in this test report. This report describes the special form testing activities performed on the three ORNL-SFC-W-1 capsules. The test units were designated as TU-1, TU-2 and TU-3. TU-1 was subjected to leak testing, impact testing and percussion testing. TU-1 was leak tested using the leak rate test specified in 49 CFR 173.469(a)(4)(i). The impact test was conducted according to the requirements in 49 CFR 173.469 (b)(1). The percussion test that was carried out on TU-1 was conducted in accordance with 49 CFR 173.469 (b)(2). Both TU-2 and TU-3 were subjected to a leak rate test as specified in 173.469(a)(4)(i) and a heat test as specified in 49 CFR 173.469(b)(4). Each test unit was leak tested before and after these respective tests. The leak rate tests performed were helium back-pressure tests and bubble tests as specified in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N14.5-2014.The measured leak rates were converted to standard condition leak rates as specified in American Society for Testing and Measurement (ASTM) E 493. The determined standardized leak rates obtained from the test and the calculations for all the test units met the requirements for special form certification. The testing was performed under the direction of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Package Testing Program (PTP).
The Center for Global Security Research (CGSR) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) hosted a workshop titled, “Rethinking U.S. Biosecurity Strategy for the Decade Ahead” on October 27-29, 2020. The workshop included participants from the policy, military, and technical communities in the United States as well as from U.S. allies. The workshop, convened virtually due to the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic, was a close collaboration between CGSR and the Physical Life Sciences (PLS) Directorate at LLNL. While the scope of conference extended beyond current circumstances to include precedents and predictions for both public health and bioweapons, contemporary events weighed heavily on the discussion participants.
A historical talk addressing the Los Alamos Rover program in which scientists worked on nuclear powered rocket engines. The talk is by historian Alan Carr, this talk is a refresh of an older talk on the subject with the same title.
On December 15-17, 2020, the Center for Global Security Research (CGSR) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) hosted a workshop titled “The 2021 Defense Strategy Review and Modern Strategic Conflict.” This session was the 7 th Annual Deterrence Workshop that CGSR organized, bringing together participants drawn across the policy, military, and technical communities of the United States and its allies. The workshop examined the challenges of regional wars and multi-domain competition and how a potential 2021 defense strategy review should address them. A special attention was paid to the question of escalation and how it can be controlled at various levels of conflict.
On June 8-10, the Center for Global Security Research (CGSR) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) hosted a workshop titled “Fit for Purpose? The U.S. Nuclear Posture in 2030 and Beyond.” This session brought together participants drawn across the policy, military, and technical communities. The workshop aimed to examine the existing modernization plans, the challenges that might obstruct their implementation, and the new deterrence requirements that might emerge in the future, in light of the modernization efforts of Russia and China.
On February 19-20, the Center for Global Security Research (CGSR) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) hosted a workshop titled “Nuclear Risk Reduction in an Era of Major Power Rivalry.” This session brought together participants drawn across the policy, military, and technical communities. Among the participants, there were experts from allied countries in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, as well as experts from Russia and China.
The Center for Global Security Research (CGSR) at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) hosted a workshop titled, “The Security Implications of Global Climate Change” on January 5-7, 2021, convened virtually due to the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic. The workshop included participants from scientific/technical, defense, diplomacy, advocacy, and academic communities in the United States as well as from U.S. allies.