Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “verifications”

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 379 records · Page 21

Verification Challenges at Low Numbers

Many papers have dealt with the political difficulties and ramifications of deep nuclear arms reductions, and the issues of “Going to Zero”. Political issues include extended deterrence, conventional weapons, ballistic missile defense, and regional and geo-political security issues. At each step on the road to low numbers, the verification required to ensure compliance of all parties will increase significantly. Looking post New START, the next step will likely include warhead limits in the neighborhood of 1000 . Further reductions will include stepping stones at1000 warheads, 100’s of warheads, and then 10’s of warheads before final elimination could be considered of the last few remaining warheads and weapons. This paper will focus on these three threshold reduction levels, 1000, 100’s, 10’s. For each, the issues and challenges will be discussed, potential solutions will be identified, and the verification technologies and chain of custody measures that address these solutions will be surveyed. It is important to note that many of the issues that need to be addressed have no current solution. In these cases, the paper will explore new or novel technologies that could be applied. These technologies will draw from the research and development that is ongoing throughout the national laboratory complex, and will look at technologies utilized in other areas of industry for their application to arms control verification.

Nuclear Weapons↗

A Runtime Verification Framework for Control System Simulation

n a standard workflow for the validation of a control system, the control system is implemented as an extension to a simulator. Such simulators are complex software systems, and engineers may unknowingly violate constraints a simulator places on extensions. As such, errors may be introduced in the implementation of either the control system or the simulator leading to invalid simulation results. This paper presents a novel runtime verification approach for verifying control system implementations within simulators. The major contribution of the approach is the two-tier specification process. In the first tier, engineers model constraints using a domain-specific language tailored to modeling a controller’s response to changes in its input. The language is high-level and effectively hides the implementation details of the simulator, allowing engineers to specify design-level constraints independent of low-level simulator interfaces. In the second tier, simulator developers provide mapping rules for mapping design-level constraints to the implementation of the simulator. Using the rules, an automated tool transforms the design-level specifications into simulator-specific runtime verification specifications and generates monitoring code which is injected into the implementation of the simulator. During simulation, these monitors observe the input and output variables of the control system and report changes to the verifier. The verifier checks whether these changes follow the constraints of the control system. We describe application of this approach to the verification of the constraints of an HVAC control system implemented with the power grid simulator GridLAB-D.

control system↗

NUMERICAL VERIFICATION OF THE RELAP-7 CORE CHANNEL SINGLE-PHASE MODEL

The RELAP-7 code is the next generation of nuclear reactor system safety analysis code being developed at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). All the physics in RELAP-7 are fully coupled and the errors resulted from the traditional operator-splitting approach are eliminated. By using 2nd order methods in both time and space and eliminating operator-splitting errors, the numerical error of RELAP-7 can be minimized. Numerical verification is the process to verify the orders of numerical methods. It is an important part of modern verification and validation process. The core channel component in RELAP-7 is designed to simulate coolant flow as well as the conjugated heat transfer between coolant flow and the fuel rod. A special treatment at fuel centerline to avoid numerical singularity for the cylindrical heat conduction in the continuous finite element mesh is discussed. One steady state test case and one fast power up transient test case are utilized for the verification of the core channel model with single-phase flow. Analytical solution for the fuel pin temperature and figures of merit such as peak clad temperature and peak fuel temperature are used to define numerical errors. These cases prove that the mass and energy are well conserved and 2nd order convergence rates for both time and space are achieved in the core channel model.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

AUTOMATED, HIGHLY ACCURATE VERIFICATION OF RELAP5-3D

Computer programs that analyze light water reactor safety solve complex systems of governing, closure and special process equations to model the underlying physics. In addition, these programs incorporate many other features and are quite large. RELAP5-3D[1] has over 300,000 lines of coding for physics, input, output, data management, user-interaction, and post-processing. For software quality assurance, the code must be verified and validated before being released to users. Verification ensures that a program is built right by checking that it meets its design specifications. Recently, there has been an increased importance on the development of automated verification processes that compare coding against its documented algorithms and equations and compares its calculations against analytical solutions and the method of manufactured solutions[2]. For the first time, the ability exists to ensure that the data transfer operations associated with timestep advancement/repeating and writing/reading a solution to a file have no unintended consequences. To ensure that the code performs as intended over its extensive list of applications, an automated and highly accurate verification method has been modified and applied to RELAP5-3D. Furthermore, mathematical analysis of the adequacy of the checks used in the comparisons is provided.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Automated Installation Verification of COMSOL via LiveLink for MATLAB

Verifying that a local software installation performs as the developer intends is a potentially time-consuming but necessary step for nuclear safety-related codes. Automating this process not only saves time, but can increase reliability and scope of verification compared to ‘hand’ comparisons. While COMSOL does not include automatic installation verification as many commercial codes do, it does provide tools such as LiveLink™ for MATLAB® and the COMSOL API for use with Java® through which the user can automate the process. Here we present a successful automated verification example of a local COMSOL 5.0 installation for nuclear safety-related calculations at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR).

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

ON-LINE MONITORING OF I&C TRANSMITTERS AND SENSORS FOR CALIBRATION VERIFICATION AND RESPONSE TIME TESTING WAS SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTED AT ATR

The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) has always had a comprehensive procedure to verify the performance of its critical transmitters and sensors, including RTDs, and pressure, level, and flow transmitters. These transmitters and sensors have been periodically tested for response time and calibration verification to ensure accuracy. With implementation of online monitoring techniques at ATR, the calibration verification and response time testing of these transmitters and sensors are verified remotely, automatically, hands off, include more portions of the system, and can be performed at almost any time during process operations. The work was done under a DOE funded SBIR project carried out by AMS. As a result, ATR is now able to save the manpower that has been spent over the years on manual calibration verification and response time testing of its temperature and pressure sensors and refocus those resources towards more equipment reliability needs. More importantly, implementation of OLM will help enhance the overall availability, safety, and efficiency. Together with equipment reliability programs of ATR, the integration of OLM will also help with I&C aging management goals of the Department of Energy and long-time operation of ATR.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

Radiological Verification for the Remediation of LLRW at the Port Granby Project - 19210

The Port Granby Project is part of the Port Hope Area Initiative (PHAI) that Canadian Nuclear Laboratory (CNL) is using to manage long-term historic low level radioactive waste (LLRW) resulting from 60 years of uranium and radium processing operations in the urban setting of Port Hope, Ontario. Port Granby remediation scope includes constructing a new, secure long-term waste management facility (LTWMF) and supporting infrastructure and excavating and relocating LLRW and marginally contaminated soil from the Port Granby Waste Management Facility (PGWMF) which accepted waste until the 1980's to the newly constructed LTWMF. The PGWMF contains an estimated 450,000 cubic meters of LLRW deposited in unmarked and unlined trenches throughout the southern portion of the site that borders Lake Ontario. Project requirements include excavating contaminated material, verifying that the trench bottoms are below action levels using Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) guidance, and final restoration. This paper describes challenges of meeting remediation verification requirements using traditional field and laboratory confirmation methods in areas of deep trench areas located in rugged terrain with ponded water and mud and presents a process that has expedited the traditional MARSSIM method for verification with greater productivity, and with enhanced safety and reliability as compared to the use of traditional methods alone. This enhanced process has been successfully employed for in-situ verification so that the excavated area can be backfilled and returned to a vegetative state. This enhanced process has been examined by federal regulatory staff through the course of their onsite audits and outcomes from these examinations have all been positive. The method involves a visual inspection and traditional walkover of the area to identify any areas with radiation measurements above the region's background followed by a full area survey performed using Wood's proprietary Orion ScanPlotSM system. The ScanPlotSM data is evaluated, mapped and overlaid on top of an aerial image of the surveyed area allowing remaining radiological material at surface or near surface to be quickly and easily identified for removal. Field staff then collect soil samples from evenly distributed points within the surveyed area and field screen the samples using an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis for the three primary contaminates of potential concern (CoPCs) (arsenic, uranium and lead) that are indicative of the historical contamination. Samples passing XRF field screening are packaged and sent to a local laboratory for a full suite of analyses and checked against the CoPC list to assess whether the soil matches the profile for nearby native soils and passes the remediation goals. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

On-line monitoring of I and C transmitters and sensors for calibration verification and response time testing was successfully implemented at ATR - 326

The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) has always had a comprehensive procedure to verify the performance of its critical transmitters and sensors, including RTDs, and pressure, level, and flow transmitters. These transmitters and sensors have been periodically tested for response time and calibration verification to ensure accuracy. With implementation of on-line monitoring techniques at ATR, the calibration verification and response time testing of these transmitters and sensors are verified remotely, automatically, hands off, include more portions of the system, and can be performed at almost any time during process operations. The work was done under a DOE funded SBIR project carried out by AMS. As a result, ATR is now able to save the manpower that has been spent over the years on manual calibration verification and response time testing of its temperature and pressure sensors and refocus those resources towards more equipment reliability needs. More importantly, implementation of OLM will help enhance the overall availability, safety, and efficiency. Together with equipment reliability programs of ATR, the integration of OLM will also help with I and C aging management goals of the Department of Energy and long-time operation of ATR. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Verification of MCNP6.1, MCNP6.1.1, and MCNP6.2-pre for Criticality Safety Applications

Several suites of verification/validation benchmark problems were run in early 2016 to verify that MCNP6.1, MCNP6.1.1, and MCNP6.2-pre are performing correctly for nuclear criticality safety (NCS) applications. MCNP6.1 is the production version of MCNP{sup R} released in 2013; MCNP6.1.1 is the update released in 2014; MCNP6.2-pre is the pre-release development version of MCNP6.2, which is targeted for release in the near future. All versions of MCNP6 include all of the standard features for NCS calculations that have been available for the past 15 years, along with new features for sensitivity-uncertainty based methods for NCS validation. Results from the benchmark suites were compared with results from previous verification testing. Several standard criticality benchmark suites were used for the verification calculations: - VERIFICATION-KEFF - A suite of criticality problems for which exact analytical results are available, - VALIDATION-CRITICALITY - 31 ICSBEP problems, using ENDF/B-VII.1, - VALIDATION-CRIT-EXPANDED - 119 ICSBEP problems, using ENDF/B-VII.1. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

CFD Verification and Validation of Wire-Wrapped Pin Assemblies

TerraPower is participating in a cooperative project among industry, the national lab system, and academia to perform Verification and Validation (V and V) of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods for predicting the flow and heat transfer within liquid-metal-cooled nuclear fuel assemblies with wire-wrapped fuel pins. This project, consisting of both experimental and numerical components, uses surrogate fluids and electrically heated fuel pins to substitute for the liquid metal coolant and the nuclear heat source. The experiments include both unheated assemblies to measure the flow velocities with Laser Doppler Velocimetry (LDV) and Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV), as well as heated assemblies to measure the temperatures of the fluid and the simulated fuel pins with thermocouples. Both sets of experiments also measure the pressure at multiple locations in the system. The numerical component of this work involves high-fidelity Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) modeling and industry-standard Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) modeling of the experiments. Furthermore, the experiments and simulations will be conducted on two duct geometries: the first is a non-deformed hexagonal duct that has flat internal duct faces that represents a beginning of life geometry. The other is a deformed duct where the internal hexagonal flow area enlarges then decreases along the axial height to represent the changes that occur to the duct geometry from pressure and irradiation effects in the core. This paper describes the methods and results of the industrial, RANS-based CFD code verification, solution verification, and solution validation. The V and V simulations are being performed for the following experiment test geometries: - Isothermal non-deformed bundle; - Heated non-deformed bundle; - Isothermal deformed bundle; - Heated deformed bundle. These flows have been computed at first with the pre-test design specifications, without the aid of any experimental results. Later, post-test calculations will be performed incorporating the actual test conditions and input from some of the experimental results. These RANS simulations of helically wire-wrapped fuel assemblies employ meshes of bare pins without the wire-wrap in the bundle. The effect of wire-wrap on the flow is accounted for by introducing a momentum source into the governing fluid equations. The momentum source is only applied to cells corresponding to the location of the wire-wrap, and its components in each cell are based on the local flow field. This methodology simplifies the geometry and mesh generation and reduces the cell count, while still capturing the effects of the wire-wrap. The momentum source approach is used for all of the assembly simulations performed in this study. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Verification of the Two-Fluid Model in the Spectral Element Code Nek-2P for Adiabatic Flow Conditions

The simulation of multiphase flow is a difficult physical, computational, and numerical problem. Sophisticated tools are necessary to provide results encompassing a wide range of physical phenomena. The development of these tools must be supported by rigorous analysis and ongoing efforts of verification and validation to ensure the accuracy of simulations. The Nek-2P multiphase code is being developed at Argonne with the general goal of simulating a wide range of multiphase flows and the primary goal of simulating boiling flows in LWR fuel assemblies. As part of this, there is an ongoing effort to verify the code and validate the underlying physical models. The objective of this work is to present recent results in the verification of Nek-2P. As a starting point, this work is focused on adiabatic flows for the sake of simplicity with the immediate next planned step to expand the effort to include heat and mass transfer. Details of the verification of the implemented mass fraction transport, momentum conservation, and pressure equations in Nek-2P are presented. Results of simulations are compared to analytic solutions when possible, however due to the complexity of multiphase flows, these are seldom available. To overcome this difficulty, an independent model is used to provide solutions for comparison.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

VALIDATION, VERIFICATION, AND CALIBRATION THROUGH A CAUSAL LENS

This paper presents an alternative method based on causal inference to perform validation, verification, and calibration of simulation models. While classical validation and verification approaches focus on the identification of the associations between data elements using statistical and machine learning methods, the novel methods in this paper focus instead on the identification of causal relationships between data elements. Statistical and machine learning-based approaches are strictly data-driven, meaning that they provide quantitative comparison measures between datasets without explicitly considering the hypotheses behind them. This can lead to the erroneous conclusion that, if two data sets are close enough, then the models that generated them are similar. In addition, when experimental and simulated data differ to an extent that fails to meet the acceptance criteria, calibration techniques are used to tweak simulation model parameters to reduce the gap between the two types of data. This produces the false expectation that a simulation model will match reality. The methods presented in this paper move away from these strictly data-driven methods for validation and calibration toward more robust, model-driven methods based on causal inference. Causal inference aims to identify the possible mechanisms that might have generated data. Thus, this analysis targets the prediction of the effects when one (or more) of the identified mechanisms are altered. There are many approaches to identify, quantify and illustrate causal relationships. For the scope of this paper, directed graphs are employed as causal models. If the directed graph lacks cycles it is known as a directed acyclic graph (DAG). A node in such a graph represents an observed data element while a directed edge connecting two nodes represents a causal relationship between two variables. The developed causal methods are designed to extract causal models from simulation models and from experimental data. Causal models capture the causal relationships between data elements (e.g., simulated and experimental data). In this context, validation and verification are performed by comparing causal models. The proposed approach does not only inform system analysts on how a simulation model matches real-world data, but also identifies elements of the simulation model that should be revised when discrepancies between simulation and experimental data are observed. Through these causal methods, analysts have a means to identify the portion of the model equation(s) that are behind an edge connecting two variables. Hence, once the structural differences between causal models have been determined, model calibration can occur by changing only those model parameters that impact the identified causal relationships.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Summary Report Of The FY25 Computational Fluid Dynamics Verification And Validation Exercises In The Advanced Reactor Technologies - Gas-cooled Reactor Program

Verification and Validation (V&V) of numerical tools is critical for ensuring reasonable predictions during design, safety analysis, and licensing. Recent work in the Advanced Reactor Technologies - Gas-cooled Reactor (ART-GCR) program has focused on V&V of common Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) tools that are used within the Untied States. This report presents an update on these CFD V&V activities. These Generation IV Forum (GIF) Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) Computational Methods, Validation, and Benchmarking (CMVB) is an international organization dedicated to the verification and validation of High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR) simulation tools. Participation in the CMVB provides additional value to the V&V activities, as it allows for access to a wider range of data, and provides valuable benchmarking exercises. Three HTGR phenomena are targeted: Reactor Cavity Cooling System (RCCS) performance, core bypass flow, and lower plenum mixing. Simulations of the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) RCCS facilities are performed with Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) in StarCCM+. Results are compared for both forced and natural convection conditions, with both exhibiting good agreement with experimental measurements. The Idaho National Laboratory (INL) matched index of refraction (MIR) and Korean Atomic Energy Research Institute (KAERI) bypass flow expeirments are used to validation CFD predictions of bypass flow. Simulations are performed with RANS in StarCCM+ and with Large Eddy Simulation (LES) in NekRS. Finally, preliminary simulations of the Institute of Nuclear and New Energy Technology (INET) lower plenum mixing facilities are presented. Initial work has developed models with LES, RANS, and porous media models. These preliminary models are presented and compared to each other to gauge differences in predictions with each of the three methods.

and Benchmarking (CMVB)↗

Formal verification and validation of run-to-completion style state charts using Event-B

State chart notations with ‘run to completion’ semantics are popular with engineers for designing controllers that react to environment events with a sequence of state transitions but lack formal refinement and rigorous verification methods. State chart models are typically used to design complex control systems that respond to environmental triggers with a sequential process. The model is usually constructed at a concrete level and verified and validated using animation techniques relying on human judgement. Event-B, on the other hand, is based on refinement from an initial abstraction and is designed to make formal verification by automatic theorem provers feasible. Abstraction and formal verification provide greater assurance that critical (e.g. safety or security) properties are not violated by the control system. In this paper, we introduce a notion of refinement into a ‘run to completion’ state chart modelling notation and leverage Event-B’s tool support for theorem proving. We describe the difficulties in translating ‘run to completion’ semantics into Event-B refinements and suggest a solution. We illustrate our approach and show how models can be validated at different refinement levels using our scenario checker animation tools. We show how critical invariant properties can be verified by proof despite the reactive nature of the system and how behavioural aspects of the system can be verified by testing the expected reactions using a temporal logic, model checking approach. To verify liveness, we outline a proof that the run to completion is deadlock-free and converges to complete the run.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Verification and validation of the maximum entropy method for reconstructing neutron flux, with MCNP5, Attila-7.1.0 and the GODIVA experiment

Verification and validation of reconstructed neutron flux based on the maximum entropy method is presented in this paper. The verification is carried out by comparing the neutron flux spectrum from the maximum entropy method with Monte Carlo N Particle 5 version 1.40 (MCNP5) and Attila-7.1.0-beta (Attila). A spherical 100% 235U critical assembly is modeled as the test case to compare the three methods. The verification error range for the maximum entropy method is 15–21% where MCNP5 is taken to be the comparison standard. Attila relative error for the critical assembly is 20–35%. Validation is accomplished by comparing a neutron flux spectrum that is back calculated from foil activation measurements performed in the GODIVA experiment (GODIVA). The error range of the reconstructed flux compared to GODIVA is 0–10%. The error range of the neutron flux spectrum from MCNP5 compared to GODIVA is 0–20% and the Attila error range compared to the GODIVA is 0–35%. The maximum entropy method is shown to be a fast reliable method, compared to either Monte Carlo methods (MCNP5) or 30 multienergy group methods (Attila) and with respect to the GODIVA experiment.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

Molecular basis for damage recognition and verification by XPC-RAD23B and TFIIH in nucleotide excision repair

Global genome nucleotide excision repair (GG-NER) is the main pathway for the removal of bulky lesions from DNA and is characterized by an extraordinarily wide substrate specificity. Remarkably, the efficiency of lesion removal varies dramatically and certain lesions escape repair altogether and are therefore associated with high levels of mutagenicity. Central to the multistep mechanism of damage recognition in NER is the sensing of lesion-induced thermodynamic and structural alterations of DNA by the XPC-RAD23B protein and the verification of the damage by the transcription/repair factor TFIIH. Additional factors contribute to the process: UV-DDB, for the recognition of certain UV-induced lesions in particular in the context of chromatin, while the XPA protein is believed to have a role in damage verification and NER complex assembly. In this paper, we consider the molecular mechanisms that determine repair efficiency in GG-NER based on recent structural, computational, biochemical, cellular and single molecule studies of XPC-RAD23B and its yeast ortholog Rad4. We discuss how the actions of XPC-RAD23B are integrated with those of other NER proteins and, based on recent high-resolution structures of TFIIH, present a structural model of how XPC-RAD23B and TFIIH cooperate in damage recognition and verification.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

Independent calculation-based verification of IMRT plans using a 3D dose-calculation engine

Independent monitor unit verification of intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) plans requires detailed 3-dimensional (3D) dose verification. The aim of this study was to investigate using a 3D dose engine in a second commercial treatment planning system (TPS) for this task, facilitated by in-house software. Our department has XiO and Pinnacle TPSs, both with IMRT planning capability and modeled for an Elekta-Synergy 6 MV photon beam. These systems allow the transfer of computed tomography (CT) data and RT structures between them but do not allow IMRT plans to be transferred. To provide this connectivity, an in-house computer programme was developed to convert radiation therapy prescription (RTP) files as generated by many planning systems into either XiO or Pinnacle IMRT file formats. Utilization of the technique and software was assessed by transferring 14 IMRT plans from XiO and Pinnacle onto the other system and performing 3D dose verification. The accuracy of the conversion process was checked by comparing the 3D dose matrices and dose volume histograms (DVHs) of structures for the recalculated plan on the same system. The developed software successfully transferred IMRT plans generated by 1 planning system into the other. Comparison of planning target volume (TV) DVHs for the original and recalculated plans showed good agreement; a maximum difference of 2% in mean dose, − 2.5% in D95, and 2.9% in V95 was observed. Similarly, a DVH comparison of organs at risk showed a maximum difference of +7.7% between the original and recalculated plans for structures in both high- and medium-dose regions. However, for structures in low-dose regions (less than 15% of prescription dose) a difference in mean dose up to +21.1% was observed between XiO and Pinnacle calculations. A dose matrix comparison of original and recalculated plans in XiO and Pinnacle TPSs was performed using gamma analysis with 3%/3 mm criteria. The mean and standard deviation of pixels passing gamma tolerance for XiO-generated IMRT plans was 96.1 ± 1.3, 96.6 ± 1.2, and 96.0 ± 1.5 in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes respectively. Corresponding results for Pinnacle-generated IMRT plans were 97.1 ± 1.5, 96.4 ± 1.2, and 96.5 ± 1.3 in axial, coronal, and sagittal planes respectively.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

Analysis of an Indirect Neutron Signature for Enhanced UF6 Cylinder Verification

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) currently uses handheld gamma-ray spectrometers combined with ultrasonic wall-thickness gauges to verify the declared enrichment of uranium hexafluoride (UF6) cylinders. The current method provides relatively low accuracy for the assay of 235U enrichment, especially for natural and depleted UF6. Furthermore, the current method provides no capability to assay the absolute mass of 235U in the cylinder due to the localized instrument geometry and limited penetration of the 186-keV gamma-ray signature from 235U. Also, the current verification process is a time-consuming component of on-site inspections at uranium enrichment plants. Toward the goal of a more-capable cylinder assay method, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory has developed the hybrid enrichment verification array (HEVA). HEVA measures both the traditional 186-keV direct signature and a non-traditional, high-energy neutron-induced signature (HEVANT). HEVANT enables full-volume assay of UF6 cylinders by exploiting the relatively larger mean free paths of the neutrons emitted from the UF6. In this work, Monte Carlo modeling is used as the basis for characterizing HEVANT in terms of the individual contributions to HEVANT from nuclides and hardware components. Monte Carlo modeling is also used to quantify the intrinsic efficiency of HEVA for neutron detection in a cylinder-assay geometry. Modeling predictions are validated against neutron-induced gamma-ray spectra from laboratory measurements and a relatively large population of Type 30B cylinders spanning a range of enrichments. Implications of the analysis and findings on the viability of HEVA for cylinder verification are discussed, such as the resistance of the HEVANT signature to manipulation by the nearby placement of neutron-conversion materials.

Monte Carlo↗