Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “addendum”

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 397 records · Page 22

Zeptocalorimetry

Here we present the development of a Zeptocalorimeter. The motivation for designing and implementing such a device is driven, ultimately, by its anticipated exceptional sensitivity (10-21 J/K, at 2K). Such a device would be highly valuable in detecting minute quantities of mass for threat detection, studying fundamental phonon physics, and detecting energetic dissipation events at the attojoule level. To date, the most sensitive calorimeter demonstrated in the literature at 2K has been developed by the Roukes group at Caltech, where they achieved an addendum heat capacity of 10 -15 J/K with a 1/1000 sensitivity to external stimuli. To obtain such a low value of heat capacity requires a very small thermal mass, and thus, one of the greatest challenges in this project is the fabrication of this device, which requires numerous precision nanofabrication techniques. Furthermore, the heat capacity measurement of this device, as performed from room temperature to cryogenic temperatures, is equally challenging, as the transient signals used to determine the platform's thermal time constant require careful attention to the mitigation of feedthrough capacitance and delicate amplifier offsets. In this report we describe in detail the fabrication process flow for developing the calorimeter, including the layout and device design for obtaining a single lumped RC thermal resistance and capacitance, so that the device can be used for quantitative measurements of nanoscale materials with a suitable thermal link. The measurement method and experimental setup are also given, where we explain the heater and thermometer calibration methods, the thermal resistance measurements, the transient measurements, and lastly the cryogenic setup with intermediate frequency cabling and the thermal sinking of those lines.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

Relative Credits for Extra Efficiency Code Measures

Energy codes contain mandatory and prescriptive items. Mandatory items must be complied with and prescriptive items can be traded off with other efficiency measures by following a performance path. In addition, energy codes can contain an extra efficiency requirement, where one or a number of items can be chosen to satisfy it. These items are contained in section C406 of the IECC and there is currently an addendum under consideration for ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that would create several optional items with a requirement to select one.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Maintenance Plan for the Composite Analysis of the Hanford Site, Southeast Washington

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) manuals for radioactive waste management, DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 2 and DOE-STD-5002-2017, require that the Hanford Site maintain site performance assessments and composite analyses (CAs). This document describes the plan for maintaining the CA that supports waste disposal and remedial actions for the Hanford Site. An initial CA of the site was issued in 1998, conditionally approved in 1999, received further analysis to satisfy conditions in an addendum in 2001, and was approved in 2002. This document meets the maintenance plan requirements described in DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 2 and DOE-STD-5002-2017 and implements the requirements of the disposal authorization related to the CA for the U.S. Department of Energy, Richland Operations Office, the responsible field Office, and its contractors. In addition to providing current plans for revisions to the CA, this maintenance plan describes the work expected to be completed for ongoing reviews of new information; data related to residual sources of radioactive material, land use, and monitoring; and research and development related activities being conducted at the Hanford Site and within other U.S. Department of Energy programs. The main emphasis of this maintenance plan is to identify additional data and information to support the next revision of the Hanford Site CA. Improvements are expected regarding the knowledge of waste characterization and inventory, site-specific geotechnical data, and final disposition of major disposal facilities and waste sites.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Annual Status Report (FY 2018): Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site

In accordance with U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) requirements in DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 11, and as implemented by DOE/RL-2000-292, the DOE Richland Operations Office has prepared this annual summary of the Hanford Site Composite Analysis for fiscal year (FY) 2018. The Hanford Site Composite Analysis was originally reported in PNNL-118003 and PNNL-11800, Addendum 14 (hereinafter referred to collectively as the Hanford Site Composite Analysis). The Hanford Site Composite Analysis was approved by a 2002 memorandum. As required by DOE/RL-2000-29, an annual evaluation of new information and data developed by a number of onsite programs was completed. The reporting period for this annual evaluation is FY 2018 (October 1, 2017, through September 30, 2018).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Tritium Aging of Regenerated LANA.75

Tritium Aging of Regenerated LANA.75 is a multi-year project. Activities include: tritium aging of a LANA.75 sample regenerated in 2018, regenerating a second tritium-aged LANA.75 sample, and verifying the thermal stability of LANA.75 under regeneration conditions. During FY19, the Task Technical Plan (TTP) addendum providing testing guidance for monitoring tritium aging of the regenerated LANA.75 sample was approved. A desorption isotherm at 150 °C was collected on the regenerated LANA.75 sample. A second desorption isotherm at 150 °C is scheduled to be collected along with additional desorption isotherms at 80 and 120 °C. Fabrication, pressure testing, and leak testing of the high temperature test cell for regeneration of the second tritium-aged LANA.75 sample was completed. Selection of the second LANA.75 sample to be regenerated is anticipated in FY20. Thermal stability testing of LANA.75 material was completed. Hydrogen desorption isotherms at 80, 100 and 120 °C were collected prior to and after a lengthy annealing process (200 hours combined over two weeks) at 750 °C. The isotherms showed similar performances for all temperatures. However, the plateau region for the isotherms after the annealing process were flatter, suggesting that the annealing process was beneficial to the hydride. Sample analyses, including XRD, SEM, ICP and particle size distribution, are ongoing.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Considerations for Commercial Building Participation in a Transactive Energy: Additional Information on Commercial Buildings

The research done in FY 18 found that there were many factors particularly relevant to the commercial setting that would impact participation and should be considered when evaluating the effectiveness of a Transactive Energy (TE) system. One factor that became a major focus of this research was the ownership and lease structures, commercial real estate databases were used to estimate the percentage of commercial space that may be subject to a lease arrangement that inherently removed the incentive to participate in TE. Other major factors that were discussed were the impacts that participation could have on the production and revenue of a commercial space and how the state of the building and the equipment within it would effect the potential participation. The research on other factors was not discussed at the same level of detail; this addendum aims to analyze some of the other important factors on commercial participation in a TE system with similar rigor.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site (FY2019 Annual Status Report)

In accordance with DOE M 435.1-1 requirements and as implemented by DOE/RL-2000-29, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office has prepared this annual summary for fiscal year (FY) 2019. Originally reported in PNNL-11800 and PNNL-11800, Addendum 1, the Hanford Site Composite Analysis was approved through issuance of a 2002 memorandum. As required by DOE/RL-2000-29, an annual evaluation of new information and data developed by a number of onsite programs was completed. The reporting period for this annual evaluation is FY 2019 (October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019). The information provided in this evaluation includes activities performed in FY 2019 that are considered pertinent to the Hanford Site Composite Analysis - information that could change source terms considered, and monitoring, research, and development results.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Industry Partnerships & Their Role In Reducing Natural Gas Supply Chain Greenhouse Gas Emissions – Phase 2

This analysis is the product of collaboration between Our Nation’s Energy Future (ONE Future) and the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). This analysis is an update to Phase 1 of the collaboration between ONE Future and NETL. Phase 1 had three objectives: 1. Calculate a greenhouse gas (GHG) emission profile representative of ONE Future’s supply chain, including methane (CH 4 ) emission rates. 2. Compare ONE Future’s emission profile to the emission profile for the U.S. natural gas supply chain. 3. Evaluate specific emission reduction opportunities. Phase 2 has two key enhancements over Phase 1: 1. The reporting year of the data is updated from 2016 to 2017. 2. The emission profiles and the specific emission reduction opportunities are regionalized for the ONE Future supply chain. The ONE Future supply chain is based on data provided by ONE Future members for all their U.S. onshore assets. ONE Future’s data are mostly representative of their participation in the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and is supplemented by ONE Future facilities that are not required to report to GHGRP. The U.S. scenario is based on NETL’s life cycle analysis (LCA) of natural gas extraction and power generation, which also uses data from the GHGRP (but does not include non-GHGRP facilities). In addition to the data from these sources, NETL accounted for uncertainty due to data variability, data limitations, and variability in liquids unloading frequency and event duration. This report is a re-issue of the 2020 study (published on July 28, 2020). It revises the device count in the mitigation strategy “pipeline pump-down before maintenance” in the Marginal Abatement Cost (MAC) Analysis section of the report (Section 7). Please see the addendum for more details on this revision and resultant changes. This revision does not change most of our conclusions and recommendations. It only changes the total methane reduced from all the mitigation opportunities (low cost and high cost) from 6.5 Bcf CH 4 /yr to 4.8 Bcf CH 4 /yr.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

Definition of the UMaine VolturnUS-S Reference Platform Developed for the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine

The following report defines the UMaine VolturnUS-S reference floating offshore wind turbine (FOWT) semi-submersible designed to support the IEA-15-240-RWT 15-megawatt (MW) reference turbine. The semi-submersible is a generic steel version of the UMaine patented concrete floating foundation technology developed by the US Department of Energy. This report serves as an addendum to the previously published report, NREL/TP-5000-75698 IEA Wind TCP Task 37: Definition of the IEA Wind 15-Megawatt Offshore Reference Wind Turbine, and provides details on a floating semi-submersible design developed to support the15MW reference wind turbine.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

Work Plan for the Site-wide SSHAC Level 3 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis at INL

This work plan provides the overall framework, key activities, key tasks, and schedule for the execution of a probabilistic seismic hazard analysis at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The probabilistic seismic hazard analysis will follow processes and procedures appropriate for the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee (SSHAC) Level 3 study provided in U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission guidance, NUREG-2213. The SSHAC Level 3 probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) is being conducted as an INL site-wide effort. The work plan was developed and revised by participants who will perform the SSHAC Level 3 PSHA. The work plan also includes the quality assurance requirements commensurate with American Society of Mechanical Engineers Nuclear Quality Assurance NQA 1 2008/2009 and 2011 Addendum for design nuclear facilities under the U.S. Department of Energy and U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The scope of the SSHAC Level 3 PSHA is designed to produce the mean-centered definition of the seismic hazard with the appropriate treatment of uncertainties supported by the associated technical justifications. The SSHAC Level 3 study will properly implement and completely document the activities of evaluation, integration, and documentation. The evaluation process will consider data, models, and methods proposed by the larger technical community that are relevant to the PSHA at INL. The integration process will build seismic-source and ground-motion characterization models that represent the center, body, and range of technically defensible interpretations, taking into consideration the outcomes of the evaluation process. Key tasks and activities—such as a project kickoff meeting, three workshops, four formal working meetings, and a briefing meeting with the Participatory Peer Review Panel—will occur for the seven-member technical integration teams to construct seismic-source and ground-motion-characterization models. Both preliminary and final hazard-input documents will be developed to perform sensitivity analyses and the final PSHA, respectively. The entire study will be thoroughly documented in draft and final reports. The Participatory Peer Review Panel will review the SSHAC Level 3 study from start to finish, including the draft and final INL Site-wide PSHA reports, so they can provide a closure letter documenting the study’s adherence to SSHAC processes and technical adequacy of the final products.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 Determination of Energy Savings: Qualitative Analysis

This report provides the qualitative analysis of all addenda to ANSI/ASHRAE/IES1 Standard 90.1-2010 (referred to as Standard 90.1-2010 or 2010 edition) that were included in ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 (referred to as Standard 90.1-2013 or 2013 edition). All addenda in creating Standard 90.1-2013 were evaluated for their projected impact on energy efficiency. Each addendum was characterized as having a positive, neutral, or negative impact on overall building energy efficiency.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 Preliminary Determination: Qualitative Analysis

This report provides a preliminary qualitative analysis of all addenda to ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2010 (referred to as Standard 90.1-2010 or 2010 edition) that were included in ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013 (referred to as Standard 90.1-2013 or 2013 edition). All addenda in creating Standard 90.1-2013 were evaluated for their projected impact on energy efficiency. Each addendum was characterized as having a positive, neutral, or negative impact on overall building energy efficiency.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Y-12 Groundwater Protection Program Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling and Analysis Plan (CY 2021)

This plan provides a description of the groundwater and surface water quality monitoring activities planned for calendar year (CY) 2021 at the U.S. Department of Energy Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) that will be managed by the Y-12 Groundwater Protection Program (GWPP). Groundwater and surface water monitoring is performed by the GWPP. Groundwater and surface water monitoring will be performed in three hydrogeologic regimes at Y-12: the Bear Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (Bear Creek Regime), the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (East Fork Regime), and the Chestnut Ridge Hydrogeologic Regime (Chestnut Ridge Regime). The Bear Creek and East Fork regimes are located in Bear Creek Valley and the Chestnut Ridge Regime is located south of Y-12. Additional surface water monitoring will be performed north of Pine Ridge along the boundary of the Oak Ridge Reservation. The following sections of this report provide details regarding the CY 2021 groundwater and surface water monitoring activities. Section 2 describes the monitoring locations in each regime and the processes used to select the sampling locations. A description of the field measurements and laboratory analytes is provided in Section 3. Sample collection methods and procedures are described in Section 4, and Section 5 lists the documents cited for more detailed operational and technical information. The narrative sections of the report reference several appendices. Figures (maps and diagrams) and tables (excluding a data summary table presented in Section 4) are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. Groundwater Monitoring Schedules (when issued throughout CY 2021) will be inserted in Appendix C, and addenda to this plan (if issued) will be inserted in Appendix D. Laboratory requirements (bottle lists, holding times, etc.) are provided in Appendix E, and an approved Waste Management Plan is provided in Appendix F. Modifications to the CY 2021 monitoring program may be necessary during implementation. Changes in programmatic requirements may alter the analytes specified for selected monitoring wells or may add or remove wells from the planned monitoring network. Each modification to the monitoring program will be approved by the Y-12 GWPP manager and documented as an addendum to this sampling and analysis plan.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site (FY20 Annual Status Report)

In accordance with DOE M 435.1-1 requirements and as implemented by DOE/RL-2000-29, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office has prepared this annual summary for fiscal year (FY) 2020. Originally reported in PNNL-118003 and PNNL-11800, Addendum 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Hanford Site Composite Analysis), the Hanford Site Composite Analysis was approved through issuance of a 2002 memorandum. As required by DOE/RL-2000-29, an annual evaluation of new information and data developed by a number of onsite programs was completed. The reporting period for this annual evaluation is FY 2020 (October 1, 2019 through September 30, 2020).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Composite Analysis for Low Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site (Annual Status Report, FY 2021)

In accordance with DOE M 435.1-1 requirements and as implemented by DOE/RL-2000-29, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office has prepared this annual summary for fiscal year (FY) 2021. Originally reported in PNNL-11800 and PNNL-11800, Addendum 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Hanford Site Composite Analysis), the Hanford Site Composite Analysis was approved through issuance of a 2002 memorandum. As required by DOE/RL-2000-29, an annual evaluation of new information and data developed by a number of onsite programs was completed. The reporting period for this annual evaluation is FY 2021 (October 1, 2020 through September 30, 2021).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Composite Analysis for Low-Level Waste Disposal in the Central Plateau of the Hanford Site (Annual Status Report FY 2022)

In accordance with DOE M 435.1-1 requirements and as implemented by DOE/RL-2000-29, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations Office has prepared this annual summary for fiscal year (FY) 2022. Originally reported in PNNL-11800 and PNNL-11800, Addendum 1 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the Hanford Site Composite Analysis), the Hanford Site Composite Analysis was approved through issuance of a 2002 memorandum.5 As required by DOE/RL-2000-29, an annual evaluation of new information and data developed by several onsite programs was completed. The reporting period for this annual evaluation is FY 2022 (October 1, 2021 through September 30, 2022).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Historic Architectural Resource Survey of the Dosimetry Applications Research (DOSAR) Facility in the 7700 Area of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory

In May 2022, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., completed a historic architectural resource survey of buildings associated with the Dosimetry Applications Research Facility at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The laboratory is one of three Department of Energy facilities located on the Oak Ridge Reservation in Roane and Anderson Counties, Tennessee. The Dosimetry Applications Research Facility is located approximately 2 mi southeast of the main Oak Ridge National Laboratory campus. The survey included Buildings 7709, 7710, and 7712, which date to the 1960s. An additional DOSAR building (Building 7735) dates to the late 1980s and was not surveyed since it is outside the period of significance. The survey was conducted at the request of UT-Battelle, LLC, on behalf of the Department of Energy. As stipulated by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, the Department of Energy is required to identify any properties under its jurisdiction that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. In order to identify historic properties at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, in 2017–2018 Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., conducted a survey of the main campus as well as outlying facilities, publishing the findings in a 2018 report entitled Oak Ridge National Laboratory Historic Architectural Resource Survey. At the time of the 2017–2018 survey, buildings associated with the Dosimetry Applications Research Facility were not accessible for security reasons and the current report serves as an addendum to the 2018 report. In addition, the current survey incorporates information included in a documentation report on Building 7709 completed in 2019. The properties included in the current survey were also evaluated for their collective potential as a historic district. The identification of archaeological properties that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places is beyond the scope of this report. Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., recommends that none of the buildings surveyed for the current report are individually eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. However, the collective of buildings represents a facility that made notable contributions to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s scientific research endeavors from the 1960s to the 1980s, specifically in the field of Health Physics. The buildings and their associated features have also maintained their integrity of setting, materials, design, location, and association. Therefore, Cultural Resource Analysts, Inc., proposes the Dosimetry Applications Research Facility Historic District, which is recommended eligible for listing under Criterion A. The three buildings addressed in the current survey (Buildings 7709, 7710, and 7712) are recommended eligible as contributing resources of the historic district. The district boundary is scribed to incorporate the environs of these three facilities, as well as additional relevant features.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗