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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 433 records · Page 24

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Verification of Spent Fuel Inside Dry Storage Casks Using Neutron Mapping (2022 Midyear Report)

Development of a spent-fuel verification method based upon positional measurement of fast neutrons emitted from the top surface of the dry storage casks. A proof-of-principle field test on a partially loaded spent-fuel cask will be conducted by measuring the fast neutron flux on the top of the cask as a function of position using a single detector. If a useful verification signature is demonstrated, a multi-detector scanning array will be built and tested to demonstrate a practical rapid verification system.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Verification of Spent Fuel Inside Dry Storage Casks by Fast/Epi-thermal Neutron Mapping (FY2022 NA-241 Annual Report)

Development of a spent-fuel verification method based upon positional measurement of fast neutrons emitted from the top surface of the dry storage casks. A proof-of-principle field test on a partially loaded spent-fuel cask will be conducted by measuring the fast neutron flux on the top of the cask as a function of position using a single detector. If a useful verification signature is demonstrated, a multidetector scanning array will be built and tested to demonstrate a practical rapid verification system.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2022

The Impact of Increased Requirements for Verification Measurements of Category III and IV Receipts

As part of the regular nuclear material accounting and control process, sites that have accountable nuclear material regularly perform measurements of the material in their possession. The expectation for the type of measurements and their frequency is set out in Department of Energy (DOE) Order 474.2, and further detailed in each site’s respective material control and accountability (MC&A) plan and associated controlling documents. The measurements of interest in this report are those performed on external (between DOE sites) transfer receipts of Category III or IV accountable materials. In 2020, a revision of DOE Order 474.2 was proposed that would significantly increase the requirement that measurements be performed upon receipt of material, and further, that those measurements be quantitative verification (rather than qualitative confirmatory) measurements. A survey was performed of DOE sites to discuss the impact on their MC&A measurements program if more rigorous verification measurements requirements for Category III and IV receipts were implemented. An assessment of nondestructive assay (NDA) measurement instruments to meet those needs was also performed. Across the board, sites indicated that personnel and budget would cause the largest impact. Sites which are qualified as Category I/II indicated a reduced impact as these sites already have the measurement capabilities and some personnel but would require the acquisition of additional measurement systems. Category III/IV sites indicated a much larger impact as these sites generally have smaller MC&A programs. A few smaller sites stated a measurement program would need to be created to handle the demand. Calorimetry, quantitative gamma spectroscopy and neutron coincidence counting systems were identified as common systems that could meet the verification measurement requirements. The other, and perhaps larger issue is the need for calibration standards for the calorimetry and neutron coincidence counting systems. It is proposed that a comparative study be performed for ISOCS and ISOTOPICS, qualification of a COTS calorimetry system be performed, and development of an AWCC system that uses a neutron generator.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

DOE OSTI2023

Spring 2023 Verification Presentation to Headquarters [Slides]

Testing codes is important, and more tests are needed. Verification testing is different than software-quality assurance, like regression suites. Tests should be simple, but not too simple, and tests should be code agnostic. Developing verification methods is still open research. Testing single-physics code pieces in isolation may lead to bad results when they are coupled. Good verification tests must include multiple physics models, multiple materials, and be performed in multiple dimensions.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Verification Testing of Body Forces due to a Prescribed Angular Velocity in DYNA3D/Paradyn

This report documents the verification testing and regression testing done on a new feature in DYNA3D/Paradyn, which allows users to prescribe body force loads based upon an angular velocity. This feature is unique in that the direction of the angular velocity vector follows the unit vector formed by two coordinate points associated with two nodes or the average coordinates of two separate small collection of nodes. The angular velocity direction will follow the directional vector defined by these nodes while the angular velocity magnitude is defined by a load curve. A simple single element verification test was performed to determine the correct implementation of this feature, and two separate regression tests were added to the DYNA3D Software Quality Assur ance test suite. The nodal positions, velocities, and accelerations from the solution of the single element verification test compare well to analytically derived values of those nodal quantities. The regression tests serve as good examples of this new feature’s use case and were consequently added to the SQA test suite to ensure that further modifications of the DYNA3D source code do not unintentionally change the generated baseline answers.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2024

Income Verification Strategies for Income-Based Solar Programs

The Inflation Reduction Act has created substantial new programs that support adoption of solar power by low-income households, including the $7 billion Solar For All program and the Low-Income Communities Bonus Credit Program, which increases the investment tax credit for certain types of deployment. In addition, a growing number of states are using solar programs to reduce energy burdens and create energy justice opportunities for low-income households and disadvantaged communities. Verifying the income of participating customers is an important component of these programs. Program managers are seeking strategies to verify a large number of subscribing customers in an accurate, timely, and cost-efficient manner. To help inform program managers, Berkeley Lab investigated how a number of energy and non-energy programs manage income verification. The most common approach is to require proof through tax documents, pay stubs, or other formal income documentation, which can pose an impediment to enrolling eligible customers and create a paperwork burden for administrators. In order to reduce the burden for both the applicant and the program manager, some programs use alternative methods. We identify three common alternative verification methods: -Categorical eligibility: Customers enrolled in other, similar income-verified assistance programs are automatically eligible for enrollment in other income-qualified programs. -Geographic eligibility: Eligibility is based on the customer’s location within a specified area, typically a low-income or disadvantaged community or census tract, and; -“Self-attestation”: The participant claims eligibility with or without further documentation. We describe these options, their pros and cons, give examples of how they are used, and explore how some low-income programs address administrative issues, audits, or other quality control measures. Finally, we explore the risk of mistaken verifications (finding a participant eligible when they are not) in the different strategies. While this memo was initiated by a request relating to income-based community solar programs, the methods are applicable to any program with income eligibility requirements in the energy or non-energy sector. Funding was provided for this research by the Solar Energy Technologies Office of the US Department of Energy, through the National Community Solar Partnership.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

The First Tri-Lab Workshop on Formal Verification: Capabilities, Challenges, Research Opportunities, and Exemplars

The First Tri-Lab Workshop on Formal Verification was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, on December 5th, 2023. This workshop gathered staff from Sandia, Los Alamos, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories and NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. This report summarizes and expands on the presentations given and discussion had at this workshop. In this report, we describe the current capabilities and research needs related to formal methods at the NNSA labs. In particular, we identify medium-term and long-term research gaps in programming languages, formalization efforts of complex systems, embedded systems verification, hardware verification, cybersecurity, formal methods usability, workflows, numerical methods, the use of formal methods for artificial intelligence (and its converse, artificial intelligence for formal methods), and collaboration opportunities and considerations on these topics. We conclude with a small number of exemplar research problems related to these topics.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Electropotential Verification for Nuclear Safeguards

The international safeguards regime desires methods to efficiently verify that facilities are only performing declared activities. Electropotential verification (EPV) is a newly proposed technique that was tested for its feasibility to perform facility design information verification (DIV) and verification of spent nuclear fuel while in a cooling pool. EPV works by passing a constant, low voltage current through a conductive system (facility infrastructure of nuclear fuel assembly) and measuring the resulting voltage at various places throughout the infrastructure in order to establish a baseline. Changes made to the system affect these voltage readings, which will deviate from the baseline and indicate that a change to the system was made. For facility DIV, it appears feasible that changes in configuration of the system’s grounding can be detected in real-time, and the location of the change can be inferred from the measured intensity of the change in voltage. Determination of whether or not spent fuel was present in a fuel rod, as well as the presence/absence of a fuel rod from an assembly using EPV, proved unsuccessful with the sensitivity of instrumentation used in this study.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Verification of the ENDF/B-VII.1 Based MC 2 -3 Library Rev.1

The MC 2 -3 code, developed by Argonne National Laboratory under the DOE-NE NEAMS program, is a multigroup cross section generation code for fast reactor applications. Last year, the ENDF/B-VII.0 (E70) MC 2 -3 library, which has been extensively used, verified, and validated over a long period, was intensively reverified and updated to support the commercial grade dedication (CGD) requirement of the TerraPower Natrium project. This year, the ENDF/B-VII.1 (E71) MC 2 -3 library, the preliminary version of which was generated several years ago, was regenerated and rigorously verified to support the Natrium project as well as the completion of verification of the E71 library. The E71 library was verified using the process developed during the verification of the E70 library, including comparisons of cross sections with the NJOY-generated cross sections, comparisons of the resolved resonance cross sections with those using the PEDNF library, and comparison of total cross sections with the sum of partial cross sections. Additional verifications were conducted to ensure that the benchmark problem solutions with the E71 library are reasonable compared to the corresponding Monte Carlo solutions. Furthermore, the E71 gamma library was generated, which includes data for prompt gamma, delayed gamma, and delayed beta as well as neutron and gamma heating. The gamma library was verified at the level of individual isotopes. The EBR-II core solutions from MC 2 -3/ DIF3D and MCNP were compared, demonstrating that those solutions in terms of k-effective and assembly powers were in good agreement.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Addendum to SAND2023-09604 Xyce lumped-element transmission line model verification to support Empire-Cable cable SGEMP analyses

This report supplements the Verification of Empire-Cable SAND report by expanding on the use of Xyce to simulate the coupling to a transmission line cable model. While Empire-Cable solves its governing equations on a high-order, finite-element mesh with an an implicit-in-time formulation, Xyce must use a first order graph for the circuit and explicit-in-time approach to be compatible with non-linear electrical device models. Thus, given the different solution methodologies in Xyce as compared to Empire-Cable, the convergence rates are expected to be different but the overall quality of the solution should be the same. The original four canonical problems studied in the Empire-Cable verification report are replicated here running in Xyce using transmission line modeling parameters from the verification report. Overall, agreement between the codes is excellent with Xyce’s convergence rates being limited mostly to first order due to the circuit network approximation of a transmission line being a first order approximation.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2025

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Verification Testing for Sodium Fast Reactor Application: Acceptance Testing Report

AS4A/SASSYS-1 (SAS) is a simulation tool used to perform deterministic analyses of anticipated events as well as design basis and beyond design basis accidents for advanced liquid-metal-cooled nuclear reactors. With its origin as SAS1A in the late 1960s, the SAS series of codes has been under continuous use and development for over sixty years and represents a critical investment in safety analysis capabilities for the U.S. Department of Energy. To support the dedication effort, this report has been generated to provide a detailed description of the available verification testing. The verification testing presented in this report captures functionality testing, focusing mainly on the testing of specific functions and algorithms for accuracy and precision of output, and interface testing, focusing mainly on the testing of critical input parameters and their valid ranges. Although SAS was developed to support the analysis of any liquid-metal-cooled nuclear reactor, the testing described in this document primarily focuses on the verification of SAS capabilities as they relate to a generic pool-type Sodium Fast Reactor (SFR).

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2019

Updated Verification and Validation Assessment for VERA

The Virtual Environment for Reactor Applications (VERA) code suite is assessed in terms of capability and credibility against the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) Verification and Validation Plan (presented herein) in the context of three selected challenge problems: CRUD-Induced Power Shift (CIPS), Departure from Nucleate Boiling (DNB), and Pellet-Clad Interaction (PCI). Capability refers to evidence of required functionality for capturing phenomena of interest while credibility refers to the evidence that provides confidence in the calculated results. For this assessment, each challenge problem defines a set of phenomenological requirements against which the VERA software is assessed. This approach, in turn, enables the focused assessment of only those capabilities relevant to the challenge problem. The evaluation of VERA against the challenge problem requirements represents a capability assessment. The mechanism for assessment is the Sandia-developed Predictive Capability Maturity Model (PCMM) that, for this assessment, evaluates VERA on 8 major criteria: (1) Representation and Geometric Fidelity, (2) Physics and Material Model Fidelity, (3) Software Quality Assurance and Engineering, (4) Code Verification, (5) Solution Verification, (6) Separate Effects Model Validation, (7) Integral Effects Model Validation, and (8) Uncertainty Quantification. For each attribute, a maturity score from zero to three is assigned in the context of each challenge problem. The evaluation of these eight elements constitutes the credibility assessment for VERA.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2025

BlueCRAB Domain Overlapping Coupling: Theory & Verification

Coupling low- and high-fidelity codes is a useful way to model complex engineering systems. Thanks to the high-fidelity code, complex phenomena can be resolved in areas of the system where this is required, yet the efficiency of the lower-fidelity code is still retained in modeling the rest of the system. This document details the theory and implementation of coupling two different thermal-hydraulic codes: the system thermal-hydraulics (STH) code System Analysis Module (SAM) and the coarse-mesh computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code Pronghorn. Both applications are included in the Comprehensive Reactor Analysis Bundle (BlueCRAB) code suite and are based on the Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) framework. The domain overlapping (DO) coupling approach was adopted, as it offers proven advantages over more conventional domain decomposition methods. In the DO coupling, SAM provides Pronghorn with boundary conditions that depend on the system-level simulation of the entire plant. In return, the overlapping coupled SAM components–termed “surrogate components”–receive friction factors and source terms computed online based on the Pronghorn simulation. The framework is designed to be generic and enable coupling regardless of geometry and the number of inlet/outlet boundaries in the DO coupled domain. The developed method leads to consistent pressure drops, enthalpies, and scalar concentrations when comparing the coupled SAM and Pronghorn simulations. This document presents the DO coupling approach, along with two verification and two demonstration cases. The proposed problems explore different physical aspects relevant to nuclear reactor analysis, including buoyancy-driven flows, complex flow patterns, and multiple inlets and outlets. Periodically, new versions of this “BlueCRAB Domain Overlapping Coupling: Theory & Verification” report will be issued to reflect future developments and verification tests.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2018

3D Measurement Simulation and Relative Pointing Error Verification of the Telescope Mount Assembly Subsystem for the Large Synoptic Survey Telescope

An engineering validation of a large optical telescope consists of executing major performing tests at the subsystem level to verify the overall engineering performance of the observatory. Thus, the relative pointing error verification of the telescope mount assembly subsystem is of special interest to guarantee the absolute pointing performance of the large synoptic survey telescope. This paper presents a new verification method for the relative pointing error assessment of the telescope mount assembly, based on laser tracker technology and several fiducial points fixed to the floor. Monte-Carlo-based simulation results show that the presented methodology is fit for purpose, even if floor movement occurs due to temperature variation during the measurement acquisition process. A further research about laser tracker technology integration into the telescope structure may suggest that such laser tracker technology could be permanently installed in the telescope in order to provide an active alignment system that aims to detect and correct possible misalignment between mirrors or to provide the required mirror positioning verification accuracy after maintenance activities. The obtained results show that two on-board laser tracker systems combined with eight measurement targets could result in measurement uncertainties that are better than 1 arcsec, which would provide a reliable built-in metrology tool for large telescopes.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

NASA NTRS1978

The verification of LANDSAT data in the geographical analysis of wetlands in west Tennessee

The reliability of LANDSAT imagery as a medium for identifying, delimiting, monitoring, measuring, and mapping wetlands in west Tennessee was assessed to verify LANDSAT as an accurate, efficient cartographic tool that could be employed by a wide range of users to study wetland dynamics. The verification procedure was based on the visual interpretation and measurement of multispectral imagery. The accuracy testing procedure was predicated on surrogate ground truth data gleaned from medium altitude imagery of the wetlands. Fourteen sites or case study areas were selected from individual 9 x 9 inch photo frames on the aerial photography. These sites were then used as data control calibration parameters for assessing the cartography accuracy of the LANDSAT imagery. An analysis of results obtained from the verification tests indicated that 1:250,000 scale LANDSAT data were the most reliable scale of imagery for visually mapping and measuring wetlands using the area grid technique. The mean areal percentage of accuracy was 93.54 percent (real) and 96.93 percent (absolute). As a test of accuracy, the LANDSAT 1:250,000 scale overall wetland measurements were compared with an area cell mensuration of the swamplands from 1:130,000 scale color infrared U-2 aircraft imagery. The comparative totals substantiated the results from the LANDSAT verification procedure.

Rehder, J.↗

NASA NTRS1978

Considerations in STS payload environmental verification

Considerations regarding the Space Transportation System (STS) payload environmental verification are reviewed. It is noted that emphasis is placed on testing at the subassembly level and that the basic objective of structural dynamic payload verification is to ensure reliability in a cost-effective manner. Structural analyses consist of: (1) stress analysis for critical loading conditions, (2) model analysis for launch and orbital configurations, (3) flight loads analysis, (4) test simulation analysis to verify models, (5) kinematic analysis of deployment/retraction sequences, and (6) structural-thermal-optical program analysis. In addition to these approaches, payload verification programs are being developed in the thermal-vacuum area. These include the exposure to extreme temperatures, temperature cycling, thermal-balance testing and thermal-vacuum testing.

Keegan, W. B.↗

NASA NTRS1978

Using tools for verification, documentation and testing

Methodologies are discussed on four of the major approaches to program upgrading -- namely dynamic testing, symbolic execution, formal verification and static analysis. The different patterns of strengths, weaknesses and applications of these approaches are shown. It is demonstrated that these patterns are in many ways complementary, offering the hope that they can be coordinated and unified into a single comprehensive program testing and verification system capable of performing a diverse and useful variety of error detection, verification and documentation functions.

Osterweil, L. J.↗

NASA NTRS1978

Verification test report on a solar heating and hot water system

Information is provided on the development, qualification and acceptance verification of commercial solar heating and hot water systems and components. The verification includes the performances, the efficiences and the various methods used, such as similarity, analysis, inspection, test, etc., that are applicable to satisfying the verification requirements.

Source record↗