Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Closure”

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 361 records · Page 20
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Use of Unmanned Aerial Systems for Post-closure Waste Site Maintenance and Surveillance - 20143

The P- and R-Area Reactor buildings, located at SRS near Aiken, SC, were in-situ decommissioned by grouting below-grade portions of the buildings and demolishing some above-grade structures to grade level. Other reactor building structures were left above-grade and sealed to prevent human or animal access. Because the above grade-structures are expected to continue in their present state for hundreds of years, the condition of the building roofs is critical to mitigate rainwater intrusion. For this reason, building roof areas were strengthened with high strength concrete to ensure the long-term integrity of the roof structure. Periodic inspections of the roof structures are required to ensure that the roofs are functioning properly and to identify damage areas. The traditional method of inspecting closed reactor buildings requires the use of a helicopter and photographer to generate photographs and videos for review. This method proved sufficient but lacked the resolution and clarity that is required for a thorough inspection of the building structure. Fortunately, the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) has established a Small Unmanned Aircraft System (sUAS) program using commercially available and custom-built remote-controlled aircraft. EC and ACP contacted the SRNL program to evaluate whether the sUAS technology could be employed for periodic reactor building inspections. The sUAS can fly within a few meters of the reactor buildings and hover, allowing for a more thorough aerial inspection. The initial sUAS inspection of the P-Area Reactor building was completed in February 2018 and at the R-Area Reactor building in August 2018 and were successful in providing higher resolution photos and videos. The sUAS inspections also revealed that vegetation had begun to grow on the roofs that could potentially damage the structure integrity. SRNL partnered with Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University to build a custom heavy lift sUAS that could be equipped with herbicides to remotely treat the vegetative growth. Herbicides were successfully applied to the R-Area Reactor building roof using the custom sUAS in September 2018. The use of unmanned aircraft systems at SRS to perform aerial inspections and herbicide treatment in otherwise inaccessible areas has proven to be an efficient and cost-effective technology that provides high value, increases knowledge of facility conditions, and provides for early detection of damage. Periodic inspections of the reactor building roofs using sUAS technology are performed safely, efficiently, and at a significant cost and schedule savings while reducing emissions, noise, and fossil fuel use. The use of sUAS equipment for building inspections and herbicide application at SRS is unique within the DOE complex. The goal of SRS is to apply this remote technology to other waste unit operations and maintenance activities in the future. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

Defining Probe Closure Offset and Scan Stitching Methodology for Element Contact Profilometry in the Hot Fuel Examination Facility

The Element Contact Profilometer (ECP) is a non-destructive post-irradiation examination (PIE) method established in the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF). The ECP suspends a fuel rod with a standard end-fitting in a vertical orientation and draws it between two opposed Sony probes with sapphire rod tips, which measure the diameter directly as a function of vertical stage position through contact profilometry. The ECP is equipped with concave rollers, which pinch the rod to maintain a consist position between these sapphire probe tips. A schematic of the analysis head is shown in Figure 1. The gripper that suspends the rod end-fitting is able to rotate to allow measuring of any azimuthal angle around the rod. This system is used to characterize the diameter of full-length light water reactor (LWR) irradiated fuel rods at multiple azimuthal angles in support of the Advanced Fuels Campaign (AFC).

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Using in-situ strain measurements to evaluate the accuracy of stress estimation procedures from fracture injection/shut-in tests

Fracture injection/shut-in tests are commonly used to measure the state of stress. Injection creates a hydraulic fracture (or in some cases, opens a preexisting fracture), and then the pressure after shut-in is monitored to identify fracture closure. Different interpretation procedures have been proposed for estimating closure, and the procedures sometimes yield significantly different results. In this study, direct, in-situ strain measurements are used to observe fracture reopening and closure. The tests were performed as part of the EGS Collab project, a mesoscale project performed at 1.25 and 1.5 km depth at the Sanford Underground Research Facility. The tests were instrumented with the SIMFIP tool, a double-packer probe with a high-resolution three-dimensional borehole displacement sensor. The measurements provide a direct observation of the fracture closure signature, enabling a high-fidelity estimate of the fracture closure stress (ie, the normal stress on the fracture). In two of the four tests, injection created an opening mode fracture, and so the closure stress can be interpreted as the minimum principal stress. In the other two tests, injection probably opened preexisting natural fractures, and so the closure stress can be interpreted as the normal stress on the fractures. The strain measurements are compared against different proposed methods for estimating closure stress from pressure transients. The shut-in transients are analyzed with two techniques that are widely used in the field of petroleum engineering – the ‘tangent’ method and the ‘compliance’ method. In three of the four tests, the tangent method significantly underestimates the closure stress. The compliance method is reasonably accurate in all four tests. Closure stress is also interpreted using two other commonly-used methods – ‘first deviation from linearity’ and the method of Hayashi and Haimson. In comparison with the SIMFIP data, these methods tend to overestimate the closure stress, evidently because they identify closure from early-time transient effects, such as near-wellbore tortuosity. In two of the tests, microseismic imaging provides an independent estimate of the size of the fracture created by injection. When combined with a simple mass balance calculation, the SIMFIP stress measurements yield predictions of fracture size that are reasonably consistent with the estimates from microseismic. In conclusion, the calculations imply an apparent fracture toughness 2-3x higher than typical laboratory-derived values.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Automated Symbolic Upscaling: 2. Model Generation for Extended Applicability Regimes

Abstract In this second part of the two paper series, we detail an algorithmic procedure for systematically implementing the generalized closure form strategy presented in Part 1. This strategy extends the applicability of homogenized models with respect to classical homogenization theory, as demonstrated in Part 1 where upscaled models are rigorously derived in moderately reactive physical regimes. After encoding the algorithm into Symbolica, an automated upscaling framework, we upscale two reactive mass transport problems and numerically validate the resulting nonlinear homogenized models by showing the absolute error estimates predicted by homogenization theory are satisfied. In both problems, nontrivial closure forms and closure problems are automatically formulated using the encoded strategy with no human interaction, nor prior knowledge regarding the closure required for the systems. We hope these demonstrations spark further interest in automated analytical frameworks for multiscale modeling, as such capabilities are invaluable for generating rigorous multiscale models of complex phenomena in porous media.

Pietrzyk, Kyle↗
DOE OSTI2023

Evaluating Shallow Convection Parameterization Assumptions With a q t – w Quadrant Analysis

Abstract Uncertainties associated with the response of shallow clouds to global warming remain a great challenge for climate projection. Due to the small size of these clouds, parameterizations are required to represent them in both current‐ and next‐generation climate models. We present a quantitative evaluation of several important assumptions used in both mass‐flux and Assumed‐PDF Higher‐Order Closure parameterizations of shallow convection. We use large‐eddy simulations (LESs) of four different shallow convection regimes as benchmarks and apply a q t (total moisture)– w (vertical velocity) quadrant analysis technique to identify the “coherent structures” of moist and dry up/down‐drafts. The statistics of these coherent structures and the environment are then used to evaluate commonly used assumptions in mass‐flux parameterizations related to (a) the convective downdrafts and (b) the subplume variability of convective updrafts. For quantitative evaluation of the PDF closure used in AP‐HOCs, we perform offline calculations with the PDF closure used in the Cloud Layers Unified By Bi‐normals and the Simplified Higher‐Order Closure schemes by supplying the closure with statistical quantities directly calculated from the LESs. Then, the impact of parameterization assumptions embedded in the PDF closure in the same two categories is analyzed and understood through comparisons of the output from the closure with the statistics of the moist and dry up/down‐drafts from the LESs.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan for Corrective Action Unit 572: Test Cell C Ancillary Building and Structures - Nevada National Security Site, Nevada with ROTC 1

This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses the actions needed to achieve closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 572, Test Cell C Ancillary Building and Structures, identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). CAU 572 comprises the following corrective action sites (CASs) located in Area 25 of the Nevada National Security Site: CAS 25-33-01, Building 3220, Equipment Building; CAS 25-33-02, Building 3230, Motor Drive Building; CAS 25-33-03, Building 3231, Pump House; CAS 25-33-04, Building 3232, Cryogenic Evaluation Lab; CAS 25-99-22, Ancillary Facilities. This plan provides the methodology for field activities needed to gather the necessary information for closing CAU 572. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of CAU 572 using the SAFER process. Additional information will be obtained by conducting a field investigation before selecting the appropriate corrective action. It is anticipated that the results of the field investigation and implementation of corrective actions will support a defensible recommendation that no further corrective action is necessary. The purpose of the corrective action investigation (CAI) will be to document and verify the adequacy of existing information; to affirm the decision for either clean closure, closure in place, or no further action; and to provide sufficient data to implement the corrective action. The actual corrective action selected will be based on characterization activities implemented under this SAFER Plan. If it is determined that complete clean closure cannot be accomplished during the CAI, then a hold point will have been reached and the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) will be consulted to determine whether the remaining contamination will be closed under the alternative corrective action of closure in place. This will be presented in a closure report that will be prepared and submitted to NDEP for review and approval.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Nuclear Criticality Safety Assessment of Criticality Control Containers without Moderation Control at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) provides for safe, permanent disposal of government-owned transuranic (TRU) and TRU mixed wastes. Receipt and disposal of waste at the WIPP site began in March 1999. The Sandia report, Consideration of Nuclear Criticality When Disposing of Transuranic Waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, addressed potential nuclear criticality safety issues based on the projected inventory characteristics known at the time [1]. As designs for inventory, waste forms, and disposal packages have changed, new analyses have been performed, and updates have been made to address any potential effects to the WIPP safety basis. New analyses performed include Saylor 2017 [2] and Brickner 2019 [3], which address certain waste containers with specified loadings under post-closure conditions. Both examined several hypothetical scenarios and included analyses to bound (from a criticality potential standpoint) credible configurations that could occur at WIPP during the repository regulatory post-closure disposal time period for feature, event, and process (FEP) considerations—10,000 years. During this post-closure period at WIPP, the screening of FEPs is governed by the risk-based standards and implementing regulations of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (i.e., 40 CFR 191 and 40 CFR 194, respectively) [4,5]. An FEP screening can be based on either a low-consequence or low-probability rationale. A low-probability rationale includes either (a) a qualitative rationale that the FEP is not credible or (b) a quantitative demonstration that the probability is less than 10-4 in 104 years. In this evaluation, a qualitative lowprobability rationale of not credible is used by demonstrating that bounding configurations of the waste are not critical. The demonstration of subcriticality is through quantitative calculations, but a probability of criticality is not evaluated. Rather, the rationale for this evaluation is that bounding configurations with an effective neutron multiplication factor (keff) well below the upper subcriticality limit (USL) make criticality incredible. Reference [2] documented a nuclear criticality assessment of the WIPP repository for disposal of dilute surplus plutonium materials using the Dilute and Dispose Approach and packaging in criticality control overpacks (CCOs). The CCO is the waste disposal container recently designed to allow for up to 380 fissile gram equivalent (FGE) 239 Pu per drum, which is a higher fissile loading than typical waste containers. The CCO consists of a criticality control container (CCC) positioned by upper and lower plywood spacers within a standard 55 gal drum. The CCC is used to establish a geometry control for fissile materials during transportation and WIPP emplacement operations. The current WIPP waste acceptance criteria for CCO payloads limit beryllium to less than or equal to 1% by weight of the waste contents and require the waste form to be non-machine compacted. Reference [2] considered two scenario progressions—room closure from salt creep, hereafter referred to as the reconfigured dry scenario, and flooding with brine, hereafter referred to as the reconfigured wet scenario. The subsequent drying out of the reconfigured wet scenarios was also considered. For all scenarios, subcriticality was maintained when 50 g of B 4 C (acting as a neutron absorber) per CCC was intermixed within the plutonium disposition waste form. The analysis used a waste form description that limits the amount of moderation that could be present within the waste form (i.e., it limits the amount of water and polyethylene that could be present based on planned processing conditions). This analysis to evaluate increased limits on the amount of moderation that could be present was performed as a companion to Reference [2] to address concerns associated with verifying moisture and/or plastic contents of waste materials following packaging of dilute surplus plutonium in the CCO. To that end, this analysis used the models and methods from Reference [2] to evaluate a more generic base waste form consisting of water and polyethylene that is more similar (and nearly identical) to the generic waste forms utilized in other models/analyses supporting the TRU Package Transporter Model II (TRUPACTII) safety analysis [6] (all are without moderation controls). The waste form in this analysis uses a base mixture of 75% water and 25% polyethylene, the total amount of which is varied to determine the optimum moderation to fissile material (H/Pu) ratio. The fissile loading is maintained at up to 380 FGE 239 Pu (modeled as PuO 2 ) per CCO with an additional 545 g of beryllium (to bound the 1% by weight contents restriction) and 50 g of B 4 C intermixed per CCO. The beryllium content (1% by weight) is based on the total allowed waste weight (this does not include packaging and container weights). Figures ES-1 and ES-2 display summary results, showing that with this model including 50 g of B 4 C per CCO, the system keff remains under 0.85 for all moderator amounts and provides a significant margin against post-closure criticality under postulated bounding conditions for compaction. Figure ES-1 compares an infinite model with a room model at the initial emplacement spacing and under full radial compaction. Full radial compaction places each CCC in direct contact and does not credit any anticipated spacing associated with current post-closure geomechanical modeling of the repository [7]. The effects of variations in the H/Pu ratio were evaluated by varying the amount of the water/polyethylene component of the waste model, with fissile loading maintained at 380 239 Pu FGE. Similarly, Figure ES-2 illustrates how various amounts of B 4 C per CCO influence k eff at different radial compactions, all at the H/Pu ratio of 200 (in the room array model). Therefore, while the results from Saylor 2017 [2] modeled more realistic process limits associated with packaging of dilute surplus plutonium, this analysis demonstrates that limits on moderation (plastic and water content) are not necessary to ensure subcriticality in the WIPP repository, provided the requisite B 4 C absorber is present.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan for Corrective Action Unit 114: Area 25 EMAD Facility Nevada National Security Site, Nevada, (Rev.0, with ROTC 1)

This Streamlined Approach for Environmental Restoration (SAFER) Plan addresses the actions needed to achieve closure for Corrective Action Unit (CAU) 114, Area 25 EMAD Facility, identified in the Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order (FFACO). CAU 114 comprises the following corrective action sites (CASs) located in Area 25 of the Nevada National Security Site (formerly, the Nevada Test Site): 25-41-03, EMAD Facility; 25-99-23, Manned Control Car (MCC) and Engine Installation Vehicle (EIV); and 25-33-05, Building 3901, Engine Transport System Maintenance Building. This plan provides the methodology for field activities needed to gather the necessary information for closing CAU 114. There is sufficient information and process knowledge from historical documentation and investigations of similar sites regarding the expected nature and extent of potential contaminants to recommend closure of CAU 114 using the SAFER process. Additional information will be obtained by conducting a field investigation before selecting the appropriate corrective actions for CAU 114. It is anticipated that the results of the field investigation and implementation of corrective actions will support a defensible recommendation that no further corrective action is necessary. The purpose of the corrective action investigation will be to document and verify the adequacy of existing information; to affirm the decision for either clean closure, closure in place, or no further action; and to provide sufficient data to implement the corrective action. The actual corrective action selected will be based on characterization activities implemented under this SAFER Plan. If specific conditions or findings fall outside the bounds of the SAFER Plan, the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) will be consulted to determine the path forward before proceeding. Upon completion of SAFER activities, a closure report will be prepared and submitted to NDEP for review and approval. The schedule for completion of the closure report will be established at the FFACO annual meeting.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Perspective on the Successes of the NNSS Underground Test Area (UGTA) Activity - 20221

Between 1951 and 1992, 828 underground nuclear tests were performed at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). Underground testing was done in five major testing areas, which included (1) Frenchman Flat, (2) Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain, (3) Yucca Flat/Climax Mine (4) Central Pahute Mesa, and (5) Western Pahute Mesa. About one third of the underground tests were detonated near, at or below the water table, and thus radioactive contamination was introduced to the groundwater system. The U.S. Department of Energy's Underground Test Area (UGTA) Activity was established in the late 1990's to address the fate and movement of residual radioactivity in groundwater, and characterize the risk that it may pose to NNSS workers and the offsite public. It has accomplished this goal through a process of iterative groundwater sampling and numerical groundwater flow and transport modeling, and long-term monitoring. The UGTA Activity draws on the expertise of scientists in the fields of geology, hydrology, radiochemistry, and risk assessment from the U.S. DOE staff, the lead contractor (currently Navarro) and many other organizations, in cooperation with the governing regulatory body, the State of Nevada's Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is one of the participating research organizations involved with the UGTA Activity. Under the direction of DOE and the lead contractor, LANL's role in UGTA has evolved over time from an initial focus on geologic characterization, to conducting field and laboratory experiments, and finally to its current role of providing modeling and geochemistry expertise to characterize the rates and directions of groundwater and radionuclide movement. In its current role, LANL has either developed or provided the numerical tools for developing flow and transport models in each of the four major testing areas. In addition, LANL has provided an independent assessment of future groundwater flow and transport behavior through the analysis of naturally-occurring geochemical and isotopic tracers in groundwater. The five major testing areas are now in different stages of investigation or closure: (1) Frenchman Flat is in its fifth year of post closure modeling; (2) The Rainier Mesa/Shoshone Mountain Closure Report has been submitted to NDEP and is awaiting approval; (3) The Yucca Flat/Climax Mine Closure Report is under development; and (4) Central and (5) Western Pahute Mesa is still undergoing investigation and flow and transport model development. The success of the UGTA Activity in reaching or approaching closure in three of the five major testing areas is primarily due to the DoE's focus on regulatory closure requirements, but also is in part attributable to a rigorous internal review process and the involvement of NDEP and Nye County water professionals as participants and observers in the reviews. County and state involvement in the internal review process has promoted trust that the U.S. DOE is deeply committed to ensuring the present and future safely of NNSS workers and the surrounding communities. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗