Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Software Verification”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Fiscal Year 2024 Software Quality Assurance Activities for the ARC Software

The continued goal of the ARC SQA project in the Advanced Reactor Technologies program of DOE is to resolve the QA gaps for the ARC software that limit, or prevent, commercialization of the software for industry users. This project started in earnest in fiscal year 2023 which saw the entire code system moved from a SVN repository to a GitLab repository and an associated software quality assurance plan (SQAP) developed and ratified. Most of the QA gaps in the ARC software were identified in collaboration with industry partners and work begin in fiscal year 2023 and continued in 2024. The primary documentation that is missing includes user manuals, user guides, software verification reports, and code coverage assessments. The SUMMAR manual was completed this fiscal year and work was started on creating manuals for SE2ANL, SE2RCT, and DASSH. Software verification work was carried out for DIF3D and REBUS in a previous program and the current fiscal year saw the completion of software verification reports for GAMSOR, GAMSRC, VARPOW, EvaluateFlux, and SUMMAR. The goal for the next fiscal year is to complete the PERSENT software verification work and begin planning the software verification work for DASSH, SE2ANL, and SE2RCT. The code coverage reports for DIF3D and MC2-3 were completed in the previous fiscal year and the goal is to generate code coverage reports for REBUS, GAMSOR, PERSENT, and DASSH in the coming fiscal year. A considerable amount of effort was spent in the current fiscal year working on the continuous integration capability for automated regression testing in GitLab. The first version of the testing was created in the previous fiscal year and applied to DIF3D and its utility programs. That testing was extended this year to cover GAMSOR, REBUS, and PERSENT. To accomplish this, the first version of the new testing methodology had to be updated to make a single output checking methodology viable for all of the ARC software. This will result in a single document to detail the automated regression testing methodology and minor documents to detail the tolerance settings that have been applied to the output for each ARC code. The previous methodology put into place with SVN would have required a separate document for each ARC code to detail the output checking methodology and the tolerance settings for the output from each code. Because some of our industry partners are providing funds to add new capabilities to the ARC software to meet their needs, all of which must be reviewed and approved by the SQA program funded by this project, a summary of that development work is detailed in this report. Overall progress on resolving the QA gaps has been good this year with the most impactful improvement for our industry partners in capability being the creation of a threaded version of DIF3D-VARIANT that allows the DIF3D, REBUS, and GAMSOR run times to be reduced by a factor of 4-6. The most impactful QA gap that was resolved was the software verification of GAMSRC and VARPOW.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Fiscal Year 2025 Software Quality Assurance Activities for the ARC Software

The continued goal of the ARC SQA project in the Advanced Reactor Technologies program of DOE is to resolve the QA gaps for the ARC software that limit, or prevent, commercialization of the software for industry users. This project started in earnest in fiscal year 2023 which saw the entire code system moved from a SVN repository to a GitLab repository and an associated software quality assurance plan (SQAP) developed and ratified. Most of the QA gaps in the ARC software were identified in collaboration with industry partners and work begin in fiscal year 2023 and continued through 2024 and 2025. The continuous integration testing was extended to RCT, DASSH, and SE2ANL. Minor changes were required to the original continuous integration methodology to make this happen. When full confidence in the methodology is complete, a report will be created to detail the automated regression testing methodology and minor reports will be created to detail the tolerance settings that have been applied to the output for each ARC code. The primary documentation that is missing includes user manuals, user guides, software verification reports, and code coverage assessments. The DASSH, SE2ANL, and SE2RCT manuals were completed this fiscal year. A review of the SE2ANL software identified that it is unrealistic to include updated correlations or different geometry models and it was scheduled for deprecation in favor of DASSH. The SE2ANL manual is essential for SE2RCT as they are similar but quite different in purpose. The only piece of software missing a manual consistent with the source code is NUBOW-3D which is a focus of the coming year. The code coverage report for DIF3D was updated and code coverage reports were created for REBUS, RCT, PERSENT, GAMSRC, and DASSH. Minor coverage issues were identified for all of these pieces of software which did not prevent the work done to transition them to the OneAPI compiler. Because SE2ANL was scheduled for deprecation, it was not transitioned, but it was successfully tested with the OneAPI compiler. This leaves SE2RCT and NUBOW-3D as the only pieces of software not transitioned to OneAPI and further work is required to get SE2RCT to work properly. The SE2RCT software transition will begin early next year while the NUBOW-3D software requires a manual before it can begin. Software verification work has been completed for DIF3D, REBUS, GAMSOR, GAMSRC, VARPOW, EvaluateFlux, and SUMMAR. The PERSENT software verification work was completed this year which was somewhat delayed because of unexpected bugs in the software. The PERSENT manual was updated to detail some of the issues and discuss the bowing reactivity worth feature added in the previous fiscal year. The RCT, DASSH, SE2RCT, and NUBOW-3D software are the only maintained pieces of software without verification reports. The software verification work for DASSH will be a focus in the upcoming fiscal year and it is hoped that some of the test cases created can serve as verification tests for SE2RCT. The NUBOW-3D work will begin when the manual and requirements report are completed. Only minor industry partner software development funds were provided this year. The DASSH software was updated to handle general axial geometry for each assembly and the NUBOW-3D software was updated to incorporate a new input format and better output. Overall progress on resolving the QA gaps has been good this year.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Fiscal Year 2025 Software Quality Assurance Activities for the ARC Software

The continued goal of the ARC SQA project in the Advanced Reactor Technologies program of DOE is to resolve the QA gaps for the ARC software that limit, or prevent, commercialization of the software for industry users. This project started in earnest in fiscal year 2023 which saw the entire code system moved from a SVN repository to a GitLab repository and an associated software quality assurance plan (SQAP) developed and ratified. Most of the QA gaps in the ARC software were identified in collaboration with industry partners and work begin in fiscal year 2023 and continued through 2024 and 2025. The continuous integration testing was extended to RCT, DASSH, and SE2ANL. Minor changes were required to the original continuous integration methodology to make this happen. When full confidence in the methodology is complete, a report will be created to detail the automated regression testing methodology and minor reports will be created to detail the tolerance settings that have been applied to the output for each ARC code. The primary documentation that is missing includes user manuals, user guides, software verification reports, and code coverage assessments. The DASSH, SE2ANL, and SE2RCT manuals were completed this fiscal year. A review of the SE2ANL software identified that it is unrealistic to include updated correlations or different geometry models and it was scheduled for deprecation in favor of DASSH. The SE2ANL manual is essential for SE2RCT as they are similar but quite different in purpose. The only piece of software missing a manual consistent with the source code is NUBOW-3D which is a focus of the coming year. The code coverage report for DIF3D was updated and code coverage reports were created for REBUS, RCT, PERSENT, GAMSRC, and DASSH. Minor coverage issues were identified for all of these pieces of software which did not prevent the work done to transition them to the OneAPI compiler. Because SE2ANL was scheduled for deprecation, it was not transitioned, but it was successfully tested with the OneAPI compiler. This leaves SE2RCT and NUBOW-3D as the only pieces of software not transitioned to OneAPI and further work is required to get SE2RCT to work properly. The SE2RCT software transition will begin early next year while the NUBOW-3D software requires a manual before it can begin. Software verification work has been completed for DIF3D, REBUS, GAMSOR, GAMSRC, VARPOW, EvaluateFlux, and SUMMAR. The PERSENT software verification work was completed this year which was somewhat delayed because of unexpected bugs in the software. The PERSENT manual was updated to detail some of the issues and discuss the bowing reactivity worth feature added in the previous fiscal year. The RCT, DASSH, SE2RCT, and NUBOW-3D software are the only maintained pieces of software without verification reports. The software verification work for DASSH will be a focus in the upcoming fiscal year and it is hoped that some of the test cases created can serve as verification tests for SE2RCT. The NUBOW-3D work will begin when the manual and requirements report are completed. Only minor industry partner software development funds were provided this year. The DASSH software was updated to handle general axial geometry for each assembly and the NUBOW-3D software was updated to incorporate a new input format and better output. Overall progress on resolving the QA gaps has been good this year.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-494: A Multi-Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification Using Golden Beam Data

Purpose: In general, beam data of individual linac is measured for independent dose verification software program and the verification is performed as a secondary check. In this study, independent dose verification using golden beam data was compared to that using individual linac’s beam data. Methods: Six institutions were participated and three different beam data were prepared. The one was individual measured data (Original Beam Data, OBD) .The others were generated by all measurements from same linac model (Model-GBD) and all linac models (All-GBD). The three different beam data were registered to the independent verification software program for each institute. Subsequently, patient’s plans in eight sites (brain, head and neck, lung, esophagus, breast, abdomen, pelvis and bone) were analyzed using the verification program to compare doses calculated using the three different beam data. Results: 1116 plans were collected from six institutes. Compared to using the OBD, the results shows the variation using the Model-GBD based calculation and the All-GBD was 0.0 ± 0.3% and 0.0 ± 0.6%, respectively. The maximum variations were 1.2% and 2.3%, respectively. The plans with the variation over 1% shows the reference points were located away from the central axis with/without physical wedge. Conclusion: The confidence limit (2SD) using the Model-GBD and the All-GBD was within 0.6% and 1.2%, respectively. Thus, the use of golden beam data may be feasible for independent verification. In addition to it, the verification using golden beam data provide quality assurance of planning from the view of audit. This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development(AMED)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Package Testing Program Process for Validation and Verification of Software

The purpose of this document is to define the process for validation and verification (V&V) of software used to test the thermal data acquisition equipment in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Package Testing Program (PTP) as part of the testing configuration(s). This process adheres to all applicable ORNL Standards Based Management System requirements and correlates with the PTP Quality Management System and the Software Quality Assurance Plan.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2016

MO-FG-202-01: A Fast Yet Sensitive EPID-Based Real-Time Treatment Verification System

Purpose: To create a real-time EPID-based treatment verification system which robustly detects treatment delivery and patient attenuation variations. Methods: Treatment plan DICOM files sent to the record-and-verify system are captured and utilized to predict EPID images for each planned control point using a modified GPU-based digitally reconstructed radiograph algorithm which accounts for the patient attenuation, source energy fluence, source size effects, and MLC attenuation. The DICOM and predicted images are utilized by our C++ treatment verification software which compares EPID acquired 1024×768 resolution frames acquired at ∼8.5hz from Varian Truebeam™ system. To maximize detection sensitivity, image comparisons determine (1) if radiation exists outside of the desired treatment field; (2) if radiation is lacking inside the treatment field; (3) if translations, rotations, and magnifications of the image are within tolerance. Acquisition was tested with known test fields and prior patient fields. Error detection was tested in real-time and utilizing images acquired during treatment with another system. Results: The computational time of the prediction algorithms, for a patient plan with 350 control points and 60×60×42cm^3 CT volume, is 2–3minutes on CPU and <27 seconds on GPU for 1024×768 images. The verification software requires a maximum of ∼9ms and ∼19ms for 512×384 and 1024×768 resolution images, respectively, to perform image analysis and dosimetric validations. Typical variations in geometric parameters between reference and the measured images are 0.32°for gantry rotation, 1.006 for scaling factor, and 0.67mm for translation. For excess out-of-field/missing in-field fluence, with masks extending 1mm (at isocenter) from the detected aperture edge, the average total in-field area missing EPID fluence was 1.5mm2 the out-of-field excess EPID fluence was 8mm^2, both below error tolerances. Conclusion: A real-time verification software, with EPID images prediction algorithm, was developed. The system is capable of performing verifications between frames acquisitions and identifying source(s) of any out-of-tolerance variations. This work was supported in part by Varian Medical Systems.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-T-268: A Feasibility Study of Independent Dose Verification for Vero4DRT

Purpose: Vero4DRT (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd.) has been released for a few years. The treatment planning system (TPS) of Vero4DRT is dedicated, so the measurement is the only method of dose verification. There have been no reports of independent dose verification using Clarksonbased algorithm for Vero4DRT. An independent dose verification software program of the general-purpose linac using a modified Clarkson-based algorithm was modified for Vero4DRT. In this study, we evaluated the accuracy of independent dose verification program and the feasibility of the secondary check for Vero4DRT. Methods: iPlan (Brainlab AG) was used as the TPS. PencilBeam Convolution was used for dose calculation algorithm of IMRT and X-ray Voxel Monte Carlo was used for the others. Simple MU Analysis (SMU, Triangle Products, Japan) was used as the independent dose verification software program in which CT-based dose calculation was performed using a modified Clarkson-based algorithm. In this study, 120 patients’ treatment plans were collected in our institute. The treatments were performed using the conventional irradiation for lung and prostate, SBRT for lung and Step and shoot IMRT for prostate. Comparison in dose between the TPS and the SMU was done and confidence limits (CLs, Mean ± 2SD %) were compared to those from the general-purpose linac. Results: As the results of the CLs, the conventional irradiation (lung, prostate), SBRT (lung) and IMRT (prostate) show 2.2 ± 3.5% (CL of the general-purpose linac: 2.4 ± 5.3%), 1.1 ± 1.7% (−0.3 ± 2.0%), 4.8 ± 3.7% (5.4 ± 5.3%) and −0.5 ± 2.5% (−0.1 ± 3.6%), respectively. The CLs for Vero4DRT show similar results to that for the general-purpose linac. Conclusion: The independent dose verification for the new linac is clinically available as a secondary check and we performed the check with the similar tolerance level of the general-purpose linac. This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2019

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Verification and Validation Plan for the Versatile Test Reactor

Software verification and validation (V&V) hold an important role in the safety analysis for nuclear facilities. Codes and models utilized in calculations that demonstrate the safety basis as part of a license application or authorization must demonstrate an acceptable pedigree with regard to key critical characteristics that are comprised of the functional and performance requirements of the software. This document describes the methodology for verification and validation of the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 systems-level liquid-metal safety analysis software in support of DOE authorization of the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR). The overall goal of this V&V effort is to demonstrate the suitability of SAS4A/SASSYS-1 for evaluation of safety performance and characterization of safety margins in VTR. To that end, the V&V methodology will be used to demonstrate the adequacy of the component and physical models of SAS4A/SASSYS-1 for the corresponding VTR design elements. This methodology, which has been derived as a generalized approach to the U.S. NRC’s evaluation model development and assessment process (EMDAP) of Regulatory Guide 1.203, entails four high-level activities: software requirements identification, assessment base development, determination of acceptance, and gap closure. The methodology has been generalized to be suitable for both verification and validation of the software for the VTR project. Several high-level engineering analysis quality assurance measures as well as supporting V&V methodology documentation are also described in this document to help support demonstration of software acceptance. To support initial development of the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 V&V basis, existing verification test problems and systems benchmarks are also identified and briefly described in this document.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2014

Verification and validation plan for the SFR system analysis module

This report documents the Verification and Validation (V&V) Plan for software verification and validation of the SFR System Analysis Module (SAM), developed at Argonne National Laboratory for sodium fast reactor whole-plant transient analysis. SAM is developed under the DOE NEAMS program and is part of the Reactor Product Line toolkit. The SAM code, the phenomena and computational models of interest, the software quality assurance, and the verification and validation requirements and plans are discussed in this report.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

RAPIDS2: A SciDAC Institute for Computer Science, Data, and Artificial Intelligence (University of Delaware)

This report summarizes the activities, technical accomplishments, and outcomes of the RAPIDS2 Institute project at the University of Delaware (UD). The RAPIDS2 Institute was a large multi-institution project with the objective of assisting SciDAC and Office of Science application teams in the use of DOE supercomputing resources to achieve scientific breakthroughs. The UD team contributed to this effort through work on formal software verification. This thrust aims to reduce software developer time and effort, especially regarding debugging and testing, and to increase confidence in the correctness of the results computed by the software.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2014

RELAP5-3D Resolution of Known Restart/Backup Issues

The state-of-the-art nuclear reactor system safety analysis computer program developed at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL), RELAP5-3D, continues to adapt to changes in computer hardware and software and to develop to meet the ever-expanding needs of the nuclear industry. To continue at the forefront, code testing must evolve with both code and industry developments, and it must work correctly. To best ensure this, the processes of Software Verification and Validation (V&V) are applied. Verification compares coding against its documented algorithms and equations and compares its calculations against analytical solutions and the method of manufactured solutions. A form of this, sequential verification, checks code specifications against coding only when originally written then applies regression testing which compares code calculations between consecutive updates or versions on a set of test cases to check that the performance does not change. A sequential verification testing system was specially constructed for RELAP5-3D to both detect errors with extreme accuracy and cover all nuclear-plant-relevant code features. Detection is provided through a “verification file” that records double precision sums of key variables. Coverage is provided by a test suite of input decks that exercise code features and capabilities necessary to model a nuclear power plant. A matrix of test features and short-running cases that exercise them is presented. This testing system is used to test base cases (called null testing) as well as restart and backup cases. It can test RELAP5-3D performance in both standalone and coupled (through PVM to other codes) runs. Application of verification testing revealed numerous restart and backup issues in both standalone and couple modes. This document reports the resolution of these issues.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Verification and Validation of the PLTEMP/ANL Code for Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Experimental and Test Reactors (Code Version 4.3)

The document compiles in a single volume the verification and validation works done for the PLTEMP/ANL code during the years of its development and improvement. The verification of sixteen capabilities of the PLTEMP/ANL Version 4.3 code that were identified by research reactor analysts as frequently used in their thermal-hydraulic analysis are described and documented. Each chapter of the document deals with the verification or validation of a specific part of the software that calculates a specific phenomenon, e.g., channel flow calculation, coolant property calculation, heat transfer calculation, and flow instability calculation. The software verification work is usually done by comparing the code with hand calculation, Microsoft spreadsheet calculation, or Mathematica calculation. The software validation is done by comparing the code with experimental data or a widely tested code like the RELAP5 code. In addition, some PLTEMP/ANL verification works that are available in the open literature are simply referenced and not included in the document. PLTEMP/ANL has been used in conversion safety analysis reports of several US and foreign research reactors that have been licensed and converted. A list of such reactors is given.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Program Verification for Extreme-Scale Applications (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The project seeks to develop tools and techniques to help software developers verify the correctness and accuracy of their code. The target domain is scientific software of the kind widely used and developed in the Department of Energy research community, with a particular focus on "extreme scale" programs - those that are expected to involve possibly millions of parallel threads of execution. The report covers the University of Delaware contribution to the collaborative project. The project had a number of successful outcomes, especially regarding the development and extension of the CIVL software verification framework. CIVL is a verification tool for C or Fortran programs that use MPI, OpenMP, CUDA, and/or Pthreads for parallelization. CIVL went through vast improvements and extensions, and was successfully applied to a number of challenging codes. It found a subtle bug in the Devito PDE framework. It was able to verify the functional correctness of a conjugate gradient solver using a novel probabilistic technique with vanishingly small chance of error. CIVL was used very successfully in verification competitions, and the CIVL solutions to the competition challenges were presented and published. CIVL was also used successfully by other researchers on a computational chemistry kernel.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2019

Comparative Assessment of Experimental Testing of Instrument with an Embedded Digital Device Using Model-Based and Conventional Methods

The use of digital equipment has not been widespread in U.S. nuclear facilities. A major contributing factor to this situation arises from regulatory concerns about common cause failures (CCFs) stemming from the use of identical software in redundant systems, questions as to how to quantify the reliability of software-based products, validity of tools that are used for software verification and validation (V&V), and the effectiveness of software QA procedures. Compounding the concerns are sporadic incidents of digital equipment malfunctions in nuclear power plants, including lockups resulting from software memory leaks, feedwater control malfunctions due to excessive traffic on Ethernet networks, software logic errors, and other problems leading to plant trips. Additionally, the limited amount of demonstrated research and a lack of industry consensus on quantitative software reliability methodologies has hindered the widespread adoption of digital I&C in the nuclear industry. In a recent Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified concerns about the impact of greater use of instrumentation and control (I&C) equipment with an embedded digital device (EDD) [1]. Specifically, the NRC staff states that increased use of such devices “may increase a facility’s vulnerability to a CCF” (i.e., common-cause failure). The prevailing NRC guidance regarding software CCF (SCCF) identifies two design attributes that are acceptable for eliminating CCF concerns: (1) diversity or (2) testability (specifically, 100% testability). Either solution can result in high costs and remaining licensing uncertainty (i.e., how much diversity is enough? how to ensure test coverage of every possible sequence of device states?). Consequently, many utilities and reactor designers have limited or avoided more extensive use of digital technology to minimize licensing, scheduling, and financial risk. Without development of cost effective qualification methods to satisfy regulatory requirements and address the potential for CCF vulnerability associated with EDDs, the nuclear power industry may not be able to realize the benefits of digital technology achieved by other industries. In order to address these challenges, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is sponsoring this research to assess the prospect of CCF in digital I&C equipment. The purpose of the current research is to develop an effective approach employing science-based methods to resolve concerns about CCF vulnerability that serve to inhibit deployment of advanced instrumentation (e.g., sensors, actuators, microcontrollers) with EDDs in nuclear power applications. The research objectives address the challenge of establishing high levels of safety and reliability assurance needed for the qualification of EDDs (e.g., microprocessors, programmable logic devices) that are subject to software design faults, complex failure modes, and CCF vulnerability. Specific objectives are: (1) assess the regulatory context for treatment of CCF vulnerability a graded approach to their qualification, (3) develop and extend model-based testing methods to enable effective demonstration of whether devices are subject to CCF, which may arise from vulnerabilities introduced at any stage of the design lifecycle, (4) establish a cost-effective testing framework that incorporates automation and test scenario prioritization, and (5) demonstrate the qualification approach through selection and testing of candidate digital device(s). This report documents an assessment of the results from experimental testing of a representative instrument with an embedded digital device. The experiment serves as a proof-of-concept demonstration of a model-based testing (MBT) framework. The objective of MBT is to ensure that an EDD undergoes suitably comprehensive testing to establish that it is not subject to SCCF. The approach by which MBT accomplishes this objective is through development and application of an effective test suite that provides the appropriate coverage to detect the full range of postulated faults that may arise at the requirements, design, and code (implementation) level of the EDD software. The findings of the experiment involve the application of the MBT framework by Ohio State University (OSU) through testing of the selected demonstration instrument (i.e., the prototype smart pressure sensor developed by Virginia Commonwealth University, VCU). In addition, the experiment findings also involve application of a more conventional black-box testing approach that serves as a baseline against which the MBT methodology can be compared. The primary outcome documented in this report is the comparative analysis of the capabilities demonstrated for each method. The results of the analysis demonstrate clear benefits that arise from the MBT methodology. The comparison indicates greater effectiveness from the more comprehensive evidence available through MBT and enhanced efficiency achieved through automation within the MBT framework. The structure of the report addresses the approach and application of each test method as well as the comparative analysis of the experimental results. Chapter 2 gives a summary overview of the demonstration approach. Chapter 3 covers the baseline testing and Chapter 4 documents the model-based testing. Chapter 5 describes the findings of the comparative analysis and presents the conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness and efficiency of the MBT methodology.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Uncertainty Propagation from Flux to α and from Time to α in Reaction History

This report documents measurement uncertainty propagation from flux to α and from time to α in gamma reaction history. Analytical formulas are derived, and on the basis of them, their discrete versions are provided to serve for current reaction history software verification, and for development of the future versions of the software. The discrete version is provided for the general case: sparse data with varying time intervals between the data points.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Verification of the REBUS Software

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. REBUS is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the Triangular-Z and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of REBUS to be verified. Previous work identified the REBUS features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying REBUS’s ability to correctly intepret the user input model, verifying that the features identified yield the intended results, and verifying the correctness of the REBUS output tables. The REBUS software verification relies heavily upon the accuracy of the embedded DIF3D software, the verification of which was completed and documented elsewhere. Given that DIF3D produces an accurate solution, the primary focus of the verification in the REBUS software is to ensure that it properly uses the DIF3D solution and that the depletion system (Bateman equations) are correctly implemented. This manuscript reiterates the verification tasks and displays results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Analytic solutions of the Batemen equations are displayed and the results calculated with REBUS are displayed demonstrating the accuracy. Since coupled Bateman and neutron diffusion/transport solutions are extremely difficult to obtain, much of the focus is placed on how REBUS uses a given DIF3D solution assuming the accuracy of the DIF3D solution. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to the design usage of REBUS, and thus REBUS version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. It is important to note that several outputs of REBUS are identified to be inaccurate, such as burnup in MWD/MT. Most of the relevant ones for VTR are generally accurate with 10-20% errors which is not impactful as all regular REBUS users are aware of this issue and know how to hand calculate the results. The REBUS manual further makes it clear that these values are consistent with the methodology being used by REBUS and thus the “errors” are more of an inconsistent definition with respect to what a user would expect given a definition in literature. Other issues that were identified included unclear documentation and software bugs all of which were inconsequential to the final results.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Software Quality Assurance Plan ANSYS LSDYNA Version 2023R1

ANSYS Inc. develops and markets engineering simulation software and services used in the aerospace, automotive, manufacturing, electronics, biomedical, energy, defense, and many other industries. ANSYS is dedicated to engineering simulation and is the world’s leading software provider. ANSYS was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. ANSYS provides an engineering analysis tool combining structural, thermal, computational fluid dynamics, acoustic and electromagnetic simulation capabilities. ANSYS LS-DYNA is the most used explicit simulation program capable of simulating the response of materials to short periods of severe loading. Its many elements, contact formulations, material models, and other controls can be used to simulate complex models with control over all the details of the problem. ANSYS LS-DYNA has a vast array of capabilities to simulate extreme deformation problems using its explicit solver. Engineers can tackle simulations involving material failure and look at how the failure progresses through a part or through a system. Models with large amounts of parts or surfaces interacting with each other are also easily handled, and the interactions and load passing between complex behaviors are modeled accurately. Using computers with higher numbers of CPU cores can drastically reduce solution times. In addition, many consulting firms and hundreds of universities use ANSYS for analysis, research, and educational purposes. ANSYS is recognized worldwide as one of the most widely used and capable programs of its type. ANSYS has successfully passed over 100 customer quality system audits against American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) NQA-1 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, since the company was founded, over 60 of which have been since 1997. ANSYS has successfully passed over 100 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 assessments. ANSYS design analysis software is the first created within a quality system with ISO 9001 certification, which is the internationally accepted quality standard. Product development, testing, maintenance, and support processes also meet the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) quality requirements, as they have for nearly four decades. ANSYS staff perform more than 60,000 software verification tests before releasing each new product. ASME NQA-1-2012 (Subpart 2.7 is specific to software) is the industry- and NRC-accepted approach (consensus standard) for meeting 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, requirements.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2016

SU-D-BRC-03: Development and Validation of an Online 2D Dose Verification System for Daily Patient Plan Delivery Accuracy Check

Purpose: All plan verification systems for particle therapy are designed to do plan verification before treatment. However, the actual dose distributions during patient treatment are not known. This study develops an online 2D dose verification tool to check the daily dose delivery accuracy. Methods: A Siemens particle treatment system with a modulated scanning spot beam is used in our center. In order to do online dose verification, we made a program to reconstruct the delivered 2D dose distributions based on the daily treatment log files and depth dose distributions. In the log files we can get the focus size, position and particle number for each spot. A gamma analysis is used to compare the reconstructed dose distributions with the dose distributions from the TPS to assess the daily dose delivery accuracy. To verify the dose reconstruction algorithm, we compared the reconstructed dose distributions to dose distributions measured using PTW 729XDR ion chamber matrix for 13 real patient plans. Then we analyzed 100 treatment beams (58 carbon and 42 proton) for prostate, lung, ACC, NPC and chordoma patients. Results: For algorithm verification, the gamma passing rate was 97.95% for the 3%/3mm and 92.36% for the 2%/2mm criteria. For patient treatment analysis,the results were 97.7%±1.1% and 91.7%±2.5% for carbon and 89.9%±4.8% and 79.7%±7.7% for proton using 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm criteria, respectively. The reason for the lower passing rate for the proton beam is that the focus size deviations were larger than for the carbon beam. The average focus size deviations were −14.27% and −6.73% for proton and −5.26% and −0.93% for carbon in the x and y direction respectively. Conclusion: The verification software meets our requirements to check for daily dose delivery discrepancies. Such tools can enhance the current treatment plan and delivery verification processes and improve safety of clinical treatments.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗