SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Criticality Safety”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2007

Software Safety Risk in Legacy Safety-Critical Computer Systems

Safety Standards contain technical and process-oriented safety requirements. Technical requirements are those such as "must work" and "must not work" functions in the system. Process-Oriented requirements are software engineering and safety management process requirements. Address the system perspective and some cover just software in the system > NASA-STD-8719.13B Software Safety Standard is the current standard of interest. NASA programs/projects will have their own set of safety requirements derived from the standard. Safety Cases: a) Documented demonstration that a system complies with the specified safety requirements. b) Evidence is gathered on the integrity of the system and put forward as an argued case. [Gardener (ed.)] c) Problems occur when trying to meet safety standards, and thus make retrospective safety cases, in legacy safety-critical computer systems.

Hill, Janice L.↗

DOE OSTI2025

Microreactor Assembly Transportation Cask Model Description for Criticality Safety Validation Basis Assessment

Criticality safety analyses are completed on a transportation cask used for microreactor assembly shipment to provide an example of model and analysis to industry for reproducing this type of study on their microreactor fuel shipment. The fuel assembly considered is based on a gas-cooled microreactor (GC-MR), which utilizes HALEU fuel in the form of TRISO particles and utilizes various design options considered in industry designs. Various versions of this GC-MR assembly were studied, with and without YH2 moderator, providing similar conclusions. The shipment cask design is revised based on an existing design ES-3100, developed by Y-12 for the transport of highly enriched uranium (HEU), but is enlarged to hold the GC-MR fuel assembly. Criticality safety analysis for the cask/GC-MR fuel assembly package was performed using the CSAS6 sequence of SCALE6.3.2, utilizing the ENDF/B-VII.1 based continuous energy neutron library, and the analysis strictly follows the guideline from NRC reference reports. Different scenarios, e.g. normal operation, undamaged cask with water flooded, damaged cask with optimal water moderation, have been analyzed and it could be concluded the package would always have a large margin of subcriticality even packed in an infinite array. Sensitivity and similarity analyses are also performed using the TSUNAMI sequence of SCALE6.3.2, and the similarity analysis uses all the experiments from the ICSBEP Handbook with Intermediate and Mixed Enriched Uranium (IEU) and Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) systems together with additional ones that are sponsored by the DNCSH program. These similarity analyses indicate that dry cases have no similar benchmark experiments (ck values greater than 0.8), which may become problematic if more assemblies are shipped together (or a fully loaded core is shipped) and margin to criticality is reduced. However, the damaged cask models with flooded assemblies exhibited similarities to many experiments with ck values greater than 0.8.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Developing a New Criticality Safety Hands-On Training Utilizing ZPPR Plates

Nuclear criticality safety is an extremely important part of the work at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). As part of the work LANL performs to continue to keep criticality safety a top priority, LANL has developed and regularly teaches nuclear criticality safety training classes for both the United States Department of Energy Nuclear Criticality Safety Program as well as internal trainings for LANL employees. A portion of the training classes is comprised of hands-on demonstrations, where students get the opportunity to handle special nuclear material at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC). One hands-on demonstration uses the “Class foils,” thin HEU foils which are stacked with lucite moderator plates. A hand-stack is performed until the multiplication reaches the “three-quarters rule,” where the demonstration is continued remotely on a vertical lift assembly up until the system is critical. This hands-on demonstration eventually achieves a critical configuration and follows the ANS-1 guidelines on an approach to critical. Another hands-on demonstration involves handling clad plutonium and neptunium spheres, and follows procedures using criticality safety evaluations to ensure that the hands-on demonstrations remain subcritical.This hands-on demonstration also involves the use of polyethylene shells around the plutonium sphere to demonstrate how additional reflector increases the criticality of a system. This paper is focused on developing a new hands-on demonstration using Zero Power Physics Reactor (ZPPR) plates. This new hands-on demonstration will follow the ANS-8 standards as it is not desired to achieve criticality with the ZPPR plates during the hands-on demonstration. A hands-on demonstration using multiple plutonium parts will likely be more applicable to personnel who handle plutonium on a daily basis, such as LANL glovebox operators.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

DOE OSTI2023

Nuclear Criticality Safety Pipeline Course with Hands-On Experimental Training at Lawrence Livermore's Inherently Safe Subcritical Assembly Training Center

The Nuclear Criticality Safety Divisions at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) have partnered with Prof. Massimiliano Fratoni of the University of California Berkeley to offer a semester long course on nuclear criticality safety. This course is part of a larger pipeline project among many of the Department of Energy (DOE) laboratories designed to stimulate student interest in the field of criticality safety. The course focuses on teaching the fundamentals of criticality safety, familiarity with national and consensus standards, and preparing criticality safety evaluations. Students also receive hands-on experience with special nuclear material by performing experiments with the Inherently Safe Subcritical Assembly (ISSA) at LLNL. Guest lectures are taught remotely and in-person by criticality safety engineers at LLNL and LANL, giving students an opportunity to interact with professionals in the field. The students complete a semester long project involving developing and writing a criticality safety evaluation. As universities tend to focus heavily on nuclear power and advanced nuclear reactor design, this course gives students a better understanding and perspective of what criticality safety entails. The goal of this pipeline course is to introduce students to criticality safety as another available field for nuclear engineers. It is also a way for criticality safety programs to identify talented students who have the interest and aptitude to work in criticality safety for hire upon graduation. LLNL and LANL have both hosted past students as summer students, participated in student's graduate projects, and hired students as criticality safety engineers. This has provided a unique opportunity for criticality safety programs to spot young talent with better retention outcomes.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Criticality Safety Evaluations (Part 1) [Slides]

Determine what a criticality safety evaluation is. Define the components to a criticality safety evaluation. Define what is needed and how to create a criticality safety evaluation.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Microreactor Core Transportation Cask Model Description for Criticality Safety Validation Basis Assessment (Rev. 1)

Criticality safety analyses are completed on transportation casks used for microreactor whole core shipment to provide examples of models and analyses to industry, regulators, and nuclear community at large to be used in verification and validation analyses of similar applications. The microreactors considered are based on a Gas-Cooled Microreactor (GCMR) and a Heat-Pipe Microreactor (HPMR), both utilize HALEU fuel in the form of TRISO particles and various other design options considered in industry microreactor designs. Variant design options of GCMR and HPMR were also investigated to provide a wider application range for each technology. Criticality safety analyses for the GCMR and HPMR packages were performed using the CSAS6 sequence of SCALE 6.3.2 with the ENDF/B-VII.1-based continuous energy neutron libraries. Different scenarios were investigated, including normal operation and water flooded conditions to represent nominal and hypothetical accident scenarios. Sensitivity and similarity analyses are also performed using the TSUNAMI sequence of SCALE 6.3.2, and the similarity analysis uses all the experiments from the ICSBEP Handbook with Intermediate and mixed Enriched Uranium (IEU) and Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) systems, together with additional experiments that are sponsored by the DNCSH program. Many experiments were found marginally similar to the GCMR and HPMR models, with similarity index (ck) values greater than 0.8 but less than 0.9. Among all the experiments analyzed, no case has a ck value greater than 0.9, indicating that additional critical experiments might be needed to further validate the criticality safety models for microreactors transport packages.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Microreactor Core Transportation Cask Model Description for Criticality Safety Validation Basis Assessment (Rev. 2)

Criticality safety analyses are completed on transportation casks used for microreactor whole core shipment to provide examples of models and analyses to industry, regulators, and nuclear community at large to be used in verification and validation analyses of similar applications. The microreactors considered are based on a Gas-Cooled Microreactor (GCMR) and a Heat-Pipe Microreactor (HPMR), both utilize HALEU fuel in the form of TRISO particles and various other design options considered in industry microreactor designs. Variant design options of GCMR and HPMR were also investigated to provide a wider application range for each technology. Criticality safety analyses for the GCMR and HPMR packages were performed using the CSAS6 sequence of SCALE 6.3.2 with the ENDF/B-VII.1-based continuous energy neutron libraries. Different scenarios were investigated, including normal operation and water flooded conditions to represent nominal and hypothetical accident scenarios. Sensitivity and similarity analyses are also performed using the TSUNAMI sequence of SCALE 6.3.2, and the similarity analysis uses all the experiments from the ICSBEP Handbook with High Enriched Uranium (HEU), Intermediate and mixed Enriched Uranium (IEU) and Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) systems. Many ICSBEP experiments were found marginally similar, with similarity index (ck) values greater than 0.8, to the GCMR and HPMR cask models, especially in flooded conditions that may be more constraining due to reduced reactivity margins. Some experiments using TRISO fuel particles and graphite moderator, including the recent THETA and Deimos experiments from LANL, together with some IRPhEP experiments, were also used for the similarity analyses. These TRISO-fueled and graphite moderated experiments behaved similarly to the GCMR models, with maximum ck value greater than 0.9, but they are less similar to the HPMR models. This observation indicates that additional critical experiments might be needed to further validate the criticality safety models, especially for heat-pipe based microreactor transport packages and for non-flooded transportation configurations.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

ANS-8 Nuclear Criticality Safety Consensus Standards - Current Initiatives

The nuclear criticality safety (NCS) consensus standards are developed as using rigorous procedures of the Standards Board of the American Nuclear Society. These procedures have been accredited by the American National Standards Institute, Inc., as meeting the criteria for American National Standards. The Nuclear Criticality Safety Consensus Committee (NCSCC) that approved all 18 NCS consensus standards is balanced to ensure that competent, concerned, and varied interests have had an opportunity to participate. The ANS-8 subcommittee (ANS-8) consists of 17 NCS experts with many years of experience as end users of ANS standards who serve on standard working groups to develop and maintain standards. ANS-8 ensures that the technical content of the standards is adequate for NCS community use. Attempts are made to ensure that ANS-8 consists of NCS professionals with a diverse range of experience such that all standards are applicable to as many sites as possible. ANS-8 is a very active subcommittee, and some active projects in progress are discussed in this paper: basis statement development for all standards, development of a glossary for consistency of definitions across all ANS-8 standards, and Considering the Criticality Safety Support Group (CSSG) Recommendation 2016-04 to the ANS Standards Board for changes in several ANS-8 standards.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

NASA NTRS2003

Certification Processes for Safety-Critical and Mission-Critical Aerospace Software

This document is a quick reference guide with an overview of the processes required to certify safety-critical and mission-critical flight software at selected NASA centers and the FAA. Researchers and software developers can use this guide to jumpstart their understanding of how to get new or enhanced software onboard an aircraft or spacecraft. The introduction contains aerospace industry definitions of safety and safety-critical software, as well as, the current rationale for certification of safety-critical software. The Standards for Safety-Critical Aerospace Software section lists and describes current standards including NASA standards and RTCA DO-178B. The Mission-Critical versus Safety-Critical software section explains the difference between two important classes of software: safety-critical software involving the potential for loss of life due to software failure and mission-critical software involving the potential for aborting a mission due to software failure. The DO-178B Safety-critical Certification Requirements section describes special processes and methods required to obtain a safety-critical certification for aerospace software flying on vehicles under auspices of the FAA. The final two sections give an overview of the certification process used at Dryden Flight Research Center and the approval process at the Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL).

Nelson, Stacy↗

NASA NTRS2003

Certification Processes for Safety-Critical and Mission-Critical Aerospace Software

Nelson, Stacy↗

DOE OSTI2023

Hand Calculation Methods for Nuclear Criticality Safety

This primer provides an overview of the most common hand calculation methods used for criticality safety calculations. The most widely used tools available to a nuclear criticality safety (NCS) practitioner are probably the common Monte Carlo or deterministic criticality safety codes, which can be used to model very complex systems. However, use of these codes can obscure the parameters to which a particular fissile system may be sensitive, whereas the hand calculation methods can be used to delve into the ways each parameter may affect the reactivity of a fissile material system. Furthermore, practitioners must avoid using computer codes as devices that take inputs and simply provide outputs (i.e., a “black box”). Many years ago, pioneers such as Joe Thomas, David Smith, and Hugh Paxton, among others in the field of nuclear criticality safety, took the time before the advent of high-speed desktop computers to create simple hand methods for criticality safety analyses. Some of the methods can be used for single fissile units; others are applicable to fissile units arranged into simple array configurations. This primer discusses the applicability of the various methods, illustrates how they are used, and provides an interpretation of the various results. The NCS practitioner will need to spend time to master the methods that could be most useful; however, they can provide the practitioner with fast and accurate answers to criticality safety problems if they are used correctly and if critical data exist for the problem at hand. Hand calculation methods can be used as a starting point for more advanced calculations, and in many circumstances, they can provide sensitivity and perturbation information more quickly than using a criticality code.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Status of the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project

The International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) has continued its work generating evaluations of new and historical benchmark experiments since the last update to the nuclear criticality safety (NCS) community at the 12th International Conference on Nuclear Criticality Conference held in 2023. One additional version of the ICSBEP Handbook has been published since that update, and the Technical Review Group (TRG) held two in-person meetings to review and approve additional benchmarks. The 2022 and 2023 editions of the handbook were combined into one release (published in November 2024) and contained 13 new evaluations with 46 different configurations and two major revisions to existing evaluations. The 2024 version of the handbook, currently under publication review, will contain two new evaluations with 15 new configurations and one major revision to HEU-MET-FAST-028, the evaluation of Flattop with a uranium core. The ICSBEP TRG met again in person in April 2025 to review benchmarks for the 2025 ICSBEP Handbook and final comment resolution is currently ongoing. Many of the new benchmarks represent contemporaneous experiments that have been specifically optimized to provide validation cases relevant to the NCS community. One major area of focus for new critical experiments is to target the sparsely populated intermediate energy (or resonance) region. Another focus of many of the new benchmarks is to provide experiments sensitive to different materials, such as chlorine, hafnium, tantalum, titanium, molybdenum, chromium, and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA, or Lucite). The ICSBEP continues to deliver high-quality, peer reviewed evaluations of integral experiments relevant to the nuclear data community.

HEU-MET-FAST-028↗

DOE OSTI2020

VADER: A Tool for Criticality Safety Validation

The purpose of criticality safety is to prevent any inadvertent criticality from occurring during the handling or storage of fissile material. Calculations are frequently used to demonstrate that a sufficient subcritical margin exists. Validation is a key aspect of the evaluation process, establishing the suitability, accuracy, and associated uncertainty of the computational method and data to be used for the intended application. The validation process is performed by comparing the results of critical experiments with the calculated results from models of the experiments using the computational method to be validated. Laboratory critical experiments are controlled systems that achieve a k eff of approximately 1 in order to investigate the parameters at which such a critical condition is achieved. The validation parameters that are traditionally applied to safety analysis calculations are the bias and the bias uncertainty . The bias is the deviation of the average k eff of the validation suite from unity. The bias uncertainty accounts for the statistical uncertainty in the bias based on the standard deviation, sample size, and distribution of k eff values of the validation suite. The values of bias and bias uncertainty ensure that the systems predicted to be subcritical by the computational method will indeed be subcritical. The bias and bias uncertainty are often combined to determine an upper subcritical limit (USL) or computational margin that can then be applied to safety analysis calculations. Many methods have been developed by different organizations to calculate the bias and bias uncertainty for various types of criticality analyses. Each of these methods typically requires that the validity of various underpinning statistical assumptions be confirmed to demonstrate that the method is appropriate for the analysis of a given validation suite. An example of the validation decision making flow is shown in Fig.1. As shown in Fig. 1, the analyst performing the validation fits a trend line to the data and performs a test to determine if the trend was a statistically better representation of the data than if it were treated as an uncorrelated sample. If the trend line is a better representation of the data, then the analyst uses any one of a number of trending techniques to determine the bias and bias uncertainty. If a trend is not an appropriate representation of the data, then the analyst proceeds to perform a normality assessment for the data. If the normal assumption can be shown to be acceptable, then the analyst calculates the bias and bias uncertainty with the parametric technique. If the assumption of normality cannot be justified, then the nonparametric technique is used. Once the decision flow has been followed and the appropriate technique has been selected, the bias and bias uncertainty is typically combined with an administrative margin to determine a USL below which calculated values of k eff for safety analysis models can be considered subcritical. The calculations used in each decision are often performed with spreadsheets or with small programs available at various sites performing criticality analyses. Expertise in understanding and interpreting the results must be maintained to perform these calculations. This can often be an error-prone process. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is currently developing the Validation and Data Evaluation Resource (VADER) to simplify and automate the criticality safety validation process and to provide a software quality assurance pedigree to the calculational methods used. This paper discusses the use of the Fulcrum user interface with VADER, the anticipated initial capabilities of VADER to perform validation analyses, and the output from the code.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Nuclear Criticality Safety Integral Experiment Covariance Determination

Integral benchmarks for criticality safety and nuclear data validation require expensive uncertainty quantification studies. Commonly, the uncertainty quantification ignores correlations between experiments that share components. Experiments such as the TEX (Thermal/Epithermal eXperiments) campaigns consist of many shared parts, such as fuel, which create a strong correlation in their uncertainties. While these correlations are known to exist, they are often not estimated due to the complexity of such calculations. This paper describes a software package that uses an intuitive method of determining the covariance for each of the experimental components, providing a correlation matrix for each family of parts across the multiple cases examined within a benchmark. The code uses the TEX-HEU campaign as a proof of concept, and we show that the correlations can be calculated with information commonly found in ICSBEP (International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project) benchmarks. The estimated covariances are used in χ 2 trending studies to evaluate their impact on nuclear data validation. Without covariances, χ 2 per degree of freedom was calculated as 2.203 and with covariances it was 1.179. The difference shows that omitting covariance information may cause overly pessimistic bias quantifications. The covariance determination code can be easily integrated into current benchmark evaluations as well as reevaluating legacy benchmark uncertainties. Uncertainty correlation calculations should become the baseline for criticality safety integral experiment benchmarks and can now be easily calculated with the described software package.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Nuclear Criticality Safety Integral Experiment Covariance Determination

Integral benchmarks for criticality safety and nuclear data validation require expensive uncertainty quantification studies. Commonly, the uncertainty quantification ignores correlations between experiments that share components. Experiments such as the TEX (Thermal/Epithermal eXperiments) campaigns consist of many shared parts between experiments, such as fuel, which creates a strong correlation in their errors. While these correlations are known to exist, they are often not estimated due to the complexity of such calculations. This paper describes a software package that uses an intuitive method of determining the covariance for each of the experimental components, providing a correlation matrix for each family of parts across the multiple cases examined within a benchmark. The code uses the TEX-HEU campaign as a proof of concept, and we show that the correlations can be calculated with information commonly found in ICSBEP (International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project) benchmarks. The estimated covariances are used in χ 2 trending studies to evaluate their impact on nuclear data validation. The covariance determination code can be easily integrated into current benchmark evaluations as well as reevaluating legacy benchmark uncertainties. Uncertainty correlation calculations should become the baseline for criticality safety integral experiment benchmarks and can now be easily calculated with the described software package.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Hand Calculations for Nuclear Criticality Safety – Primer Revision

The document “ Hand Calculation Methods for Criticality Safety – A Primer, ” was published by the authors (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-14244-M) in December 2006 to provide an overview of the most common hand calculation methods used for criticality safety analysis. Hand calculation methods can be used as a starting point for more advanced calculations, and in many circumstances, they can provide sensitivity and perturbation information quicker than using a criticality code, such as KENO or MCNP. This report has been revised to augment existing basis information and example problems for each of the methods discussed: 1-group and modified 1- group diffusion theory, core-density conversions, buckling conversions, limiting surface density method, density analog method, surface density method, and solid angle method. This primer discusses the applicability of the various methods, illustrates how they are used, and provides an interpretation of the example problem results. The example problems provided are simple, practical problems, and the reference data to solve each example problem is provided. This paper will provide an overview of the Primer revision and how it can be useful for new Nuclear Criticality Safety practitioners.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

NASA NTRS2007

Traceability of Software Safety Requirements in Legacy Safety Critical Systems

How can traceability of software safety requirements be created for legacy safety critical systems? Requirements in safety standards are imposed most times during contract negotiations. On the other hand, there are instances where safety standards are levied on legacy safety critical systems, some of which may be considered for reuse for new applications. Safety standards often specify that software development documentation include process-oriented and technical safety requirements, and also require that system and software safety analyses are performed supporting technical safety requirements implementation. So what can be done if the requisite documents for establishing and maintaining safety requirements traceability are not available?

Hill, Janice L.↗

DOE OSTI2026

Benchmark of the Chlorine Worth Study Experiments in Support of Chlorine Nuclear Data Validation for Nuclear Criticality Safety

The Chlorine Worth Study (CWS) was a critical experiment to address an urgent need for thermal chlorine nuclear data validation in plutonium systems. This urgent need is tied directly to plutonium recycle and recovery operations in the plutonium facility at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where exceptionally conservative criticality safety limits are used because no credit is taken for the neutron capture by chlorine. The experiment used weapons-grade plutonium metal plates clad in stainless steel, known as the PANN (plutonium aluminum no nickel) ZPPR (zero power physics reactor) plates. The plutonium was reflected and moderated by high-density polyethylene and included combinations of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC) as absorbers. The experiment and benchmark included three configurations mimicking 30 g 239 Pu/L plutonium, 300 g 239 Pu/L plutonium, and 600 g 239 Pu/L plutonium in an aqueous chloride solution. Uncertainties in the benchmark included five broad categories: (1) criticality measurement, (2) mass and density, (3) dimensions, (4) material compositions, and (5) positioning. The largest contribution to the overall uncertainties for all three cases came from the material compositions, in particular the PVC and CPVC absorber compositions. A detailed model was created to be a near match (that is within expectations of transport code users) and a simplified model was created to minimize offset dimensions and expedite modeling for code validation. Sample calculations were completed in MCNP6.3 with ENDF/B-VIII.0 and ENDF/B-VII.1 nuclear data. For the detailed and simplified models, the average difference between the computed and experimental k eff was 951 pcm. CWS will serve as the key validation experiment for nuclear criticality safety in support of aqueous chloride operations. The sensitivity to the chlorine capture cross section is orders of magnitude greater than other existing benchmarks. The current limits, as defined by nuclear criticality safety, are 520 g Pu per batch, i.e. the minimum critical mass of the Pu solution infinitely reflected by water [Criticality Handbook: Volume II, (1969)]. This extremely conservative critical mass limit does not credit any neutron capture by chlorine (in particular neutron capture by 35 Cl) and greatly impedes the throughput required for current and future operations.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗