Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “timeline”

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 523 records · Page 29
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

2020 State of the Science Report, Chapter 13: Risk Retirement and Data Transferability for Marine Renewable Energy

Commercial-scale marine renewable energy (MRE) developments continue to progress slowly, in part because of complicated consenting/permitting (hereafter consenting) processes that invoke the precautionary principle within environmental legislative frameworks. This can lead to broad, poorly scoped environmental assessments, lengthy and expensive environmental data collection requirements, and extended consenting timelines. Much of this delay is associated with uncertainty about the potential effects of MRE on marine animals and habitats. https://tethys.pnnl.gov/publications/state-of-the-science-2020-chapter-13-risk-retirement

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2020

Wind Energy High-Fidelity Model Verification and Validation Roadmap

The development of a next generation high-fidelity modeling code for wind plant applications is one of the central focus areas of the U.S. Department of Energy Atmosphere to Electrons (A2e) initiative. The code is based on a highly scalable framework, currently called Nalu-Wind. One key aspect of the model development is a coordinated formal validation program undertaken specifically to establish the predictive capability of Nalu-Wind for wind plant applications. The purpose of this document is to define the verification and validation (V&V) plan for the A2e high-fidelity modeling capability. It summarizes the V&V framework, identifies code capability users and use cases, describes model validation needs, and presents a timeline to meet those needs.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Stainless Steel Coating Test Report

A process was developed to coat 316L stainless steel pieces having very low levels of fixed contamination on their surface (~100 dpm/100 cm²). The coating process served to significantly decrease the likelihood of any fixed contamination becoming loose contamination due to physical shocks. Prior to coating, the stainless steel was etched with a commercial methane sulfonic acid (MSA) solution in a heated ultrasonic bath, rinsed with deionized water, cleaned with a basic detergent solution, and then rinsed with deionized water. The MSA etched the surface of the stainless-steel pieces, creating a more favorable surface on which the coating could adhere. Due to the short timeline of the project, only commercially available clear coating products were considered. The clear coating had to be wear-resistant, shock resistant, radiation resistant, and have high adhesion to the surface of the stainless steel. Adhesion of coatings to stainless steel is notoriously difficult. A commercial, high molecular weight polymer coating was found that met these requirements. The adhesion properties of this coating to stainless steel are very good, and are significantly improved by the etching process. The etching process results in a higher surface area that is free of debris and other residues, making the surface much more wetable, and at the same time creating a favorable surface topography for adhesion. The polymer in its uncured form is a low viscosity liquid. It can be applied by brush or pipette, and it cures in air alone, but heat is required to speed up curing and attain the highest performance of the cured polymer. As the project progressed, the project team became interested in the composition of the selected commercial polymer coating, and in ways that this polymer coating could be made more wear resistant and potentially more radiation resistant. Nano-particle addition was chosen as the preferred way to achieve higher performance. Therefore, a series of tests were planned and performed. This report summarizes these tests, and presents the results.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

CUAS Regulatory Authority in the United States [Slides]

Slides describing: (1) How the United States (U.S.) Passes Federal Laws, (2) Initial Actions in Regulatory Space for CUAS, (3) Department of Justice (DOJ): Flow-down Authority, (4) Department of Homeland Security (DHS): Flow-down Authority, (5) CUAS Authority Granting Timeline, (6) CUAS Regulations, (7) Defining UAS Threats, (8) CUAS actions permitted pursuant to 50 USC 2661 for the Department of Energy, (9) Penalties

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hydropower Geotechnical Foundations: Executive Summary on Current Practice and Innovation Opportunities for Low-Head Applications

The following content provides a companion executive summary of Hydropower Geotechnical Foundations: Current Practice and Innovation Opportunities for Low-Head Applications (DeNeale et al. 2020), a technical report developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and Knight Piésold Consulting, with funding from the US Department of Energy (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO). This executive summary provides a brief synopsis of the broader information contained in the technical report. This study (and the associated technical report): (1) covers background information on hydropower; (2) describes various characteristics relevant to hydropower foundations for undeveloped US streams; (3) presents the current state of practice in foundation development; (4) provides a representative assessment of conventional hydropower foundation costs and timelines; (5) addresses key challenges facing conventional hydropower foundations; and (6) presents opportunity areas and examples for innovative hydropower foundation technologies while highlighting some advances in non-hydropower industries.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hydropower Geotechnical Foundations: Current Practice and Innovation Opportunities for Low-Head Applications

Hydropower is a renewable energy resource that produces electricity from flowing water under pressure. Engineered hydropower structures, such as dams, are used to create a hydraulic head, enabling a turbinegenerator unit to convert pressurized flow into electricity. While hydropower has been a source of renewable energy since antiquity, new development in the United States has slowed in recent decades. Based on recent resource assessments, the largest opportunity to expand hydropower in the United States is from new stream-reach development (i.e., new hydropower development along stream-reaches that do not currently have hydroelectric facilities or other forms of infrastructure, such as dams). Roughly 75% of identified new stream-reach development potential is from low-head sites (less than 30 ft of head), which typically suffer from smaller power densities and higher normalized costs, given economies of scale. Hydropower developers and other stakeholders are thus interested in strategies to reduce initial capital costs while practicing sustainable development to maximize environmental compatibility with minimal disruption to natural aquatic life, sediment, and water flows. Historically, civil works have represented a significant cost driver for new hydropower development, with the foundation system representing a major cost component and source of uncertainty. The foundation system is the collection of engineered structural features (e.g. cutoff trenches, walls, grouting, anchors) constructed at or below the preconstruction ground surface that interfaces between the overlying structures (superstructures) and the bed material below (subsurface). Development of a hydropower foundation system must consider the various characteristics of the surrounding stream environment and subsurface while adhering to the engineering requirements of the superstructure that it supports. The care of water, excavation, and other construction activities are important features of foundation design and construction. The design and construction cost of the foundation system is largely dependent on the site geology and riverbed composition and is influenced by the level of geotechnical assessment required and conducted. Thus, a hydropower facility’s geotechnical foundation is often highly site-specific, with proper site selection and assessment being important to project success. The foundation system is designed to provide structural stability (of the foundation and dam), limit seepage, ensure public safety, and maintain functionality for the project life, during both construction and facility operations. Inadequate foundation or dam design can result in dam failure and the uncontrolled release of significant volumes of water, which could cause a high number of casualties and extensive property damage downstream of the failure. According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, approximately 30% of all historical dam failures in the United States are attributed to foundation or abutment defects, and another 20% are attributed to piping or seepage through the embankment, foundation, or abutment. To ameliorate these safety considerations, foundations often require massive amounts of construction material (e.g., grout, concrete, engineered dam fill) and long construction times. Foundation design also requires significant analysis prior to construction because the initial in-stream and abutment subsurface conditions are site-specific, and sufficient data for them often are lacking. Current practice requires on-site assessment, using expensive drilling and invasive and non-invasive investigation methods, to determine the expected cost of foundation material and treatment. Additionally, foundation construction often requires site dewatering (and other care of water activities), which involves constructing temporary diversion structures upstream and often downstream, called cofferdams, and water diversion systems that route water around the construction site. Cofferdams and water diversion systems can drastically increase construction costs and contribute to environmental disruption, including modification of flow patterns and benthic habitats. Given the technical, economic, and environmental challenges associated with hydropower foundations, opportunities exist to improve the current state of practice and to develop new and innovative solutions to Hydropower is a renewable energy resource that produces electricity from flowing water under pressure. Engineered hydropower structures, such as dams, are used to create a hydraulic head, enabling a turbinegenerator unit to convert pressurized flow into electricity. While hydropower has been a source of renewable energy since antiquity, new development in the United States has slowed in recent decades. Based on recent resource assessments, the largest opportunity to expand hydropower in the United States is from new stream-reach development (i.e., new hydropower development along stream-reaches that do not currently have hydroelectric facilities or other forms of infrastructure, such as dams). Roughly 75% of identified new stream-reach development potential is from low-head sites (less than 30 ft of head), which typically suffer from smaller power densities and higher normalized costs, given economies of scale. Hydropower developers and other stakeholders are thus interested in strategies to reduce initial capital costs while practicing sustainable development to maximize environmental compatibility with minimal disruption to natural aquatic life, sediment, and water flows. Historically, civil works have represented a significant cost driver for new hydropower development, with the foundation system representing a major cost component and source of uncertainty. The foundation system is the collection of engineered structural features (e.g. cutoff trenches, walls, grouting, anchors) constructed at or below the preconstruction ground surface that interfaces between the overlying structures (superstructures) and the bed material below (subsurface). Development of a hydropower foundation system must consider the various characteristics of the surrounding stream environment and subsurface while adhering to the engineering requirements of the superstructure that it supports. The care of water, excavation, and other construction activities are important features of foundation design and construction. The design and construction cost of the foundation system is largely dependent on the site geology and riverbed composition and is influenced by the level of geotechnical assessment required and conducted. Thus, a hydropower facility’s geotechnical foundation is often highly site-specific, with proper site selection and assessment being important to project success. The foundation system is designed to provide structural stability (of the foundation and dam), limit seepage, ensure public safety, and maintain functionality for the project life, during both construction and facility operations. Inadequate foundation or dam design can result in dam failure and the uncontrolled release of significant volumes of water, which could cause a high number of casualties and extensive property damage downstream of the failure. According to the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, approximately 30% of all historical dam failures in the United States are attributed to foundation or abutment defects, and another 20% are attributed to piping or seepage through the embankment, foundation, or abutment. To ameliorate these safety considerations, foundations often require massive amounts of construction material (e.g., grout, concrete, engineered dam fill) and long construction times. Foundation design also requires significant analysis prior to construction because the initial in-stream and abutment subsurface conditions are site-specific, and sufficient data for them often are lacking. Current practice requires on-site assessment, using expensive drilling and invasive and non-invasive investigation methods, to determine the expected cost of foundation material and treatment. Additionally, foundation construction often requires site dewatering (and other care of water activities), which involves constructing temporary diversion structures upstream and often downstream, called cofferdams, and water diversion systems that route water around the construction site. Cofferdams and water diversion systems can drastically increase construction costs and contribute to environmental disruption, including modification of flow patterns and benthic habitats. Given the technical, economic, and environmental challenges associated with hydropower foundations, opportunities exist to improve the current state of practice and to develop new and innovative solutions to challenges frequently encountered with traditional approaches. With this understanding, it is critically important to understand and document the current state of practice for hydropower geotechnical foundations, identify key challenges, and define opportunities for innovative solutions. To this end, this report documents the current state of practice across the three main phases of geotechnical foundation development: (1) geotechnical site assessment, (2) design, and (3) construction for hydropower systems. It also describes the major challenges with conventional approaches and identifies opportunities for innovation to reduce hydropower foundations costs, timelines, and risks. Key takeaways from this report include the following: Approximately 80% of available low-head sites are expected to have foundations on soil beds rather than rock beds, suggesting that rockfill and earthfill dams may be the most cost-effective conventional dam type for new projects.; Geotechnical and geologic investigation activities are time-consuming and expensive but are essential to define the parameters and criteria needed for foundation design.; Certain riverbed soil and bedrock types present significant technical challenges or require expensive foundation construction, which can prove financially prohibitive for low-head project development.; Modular hydropower design and prefabricated modular foundations represent a promising but unproven paradigm for new hydropower development. Design and construction approaches using optimized and highly repeatable, reliable components would benefit project cost, time, and risk but require additional research and development.; Temporary construction features for foundations, including cofferdams, water diversion, and water control systems, can prove costly and have inherent construction risk.; For economically viable development, hydropower geotechnical foundations should be limited to 4 to 15% of the project’s total initial capital costs. Many proposed projects have experienced cost overruns attributable to foundation difficulties or surprises during construction. These overruns may have been due to inadequate investigations, lack of adequate engineering effort to tailor the structures to site geology and topography, and/or contractual terms, among other considerations.; Challenges for hydropower foundations and opportunities for innovative technology solutions are identified in the following areas (consistent with the three main phases of foundation development): Geotechnical site assessment, Foundation design and materials, Construction methods and technology. Ultimately, this report aims to provide information about geotechnical foundations for low-head hydropower and to motivate transformative technologies to support hydropower growth.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

U.S. Fusion D-Li Neutron Irradiation Facility: Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source (FPNS) Technology Study

A primary engineering challenge for the realization of fusion energy involves the development of high-performance structural and plasma-facing materials with dimensional stability and resistance to neutron degradation of mechanical properties. The harsh fusion environment, including high levels of helium production and other transmutation products along with high operating temperatures, poses an extreme challenge for materials. Identifying materials that can withstand these conditions is a high priority for fusion energy research. Critical to resolving this gap in scientific understanding is developing a neutron source facility with the ability to mimic the extreme conditions in a fusion reactor. Working with the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) and the Virtual Laboratory for Technology (VLT) organized a workshop to discuss the need for a Fusion Prototypic Neutron Source (FPNS). [1] While there are a variety of uses for FPNS neutrons, the main driver of US interest is expanding the scientific understanding of materials degradation in the deuterium-tritium (D-T) fusion environment. FPNS will help build the scientific foundation required to enable design of a next step fusion device. Using specifications from previous projects as a guide, key parameters were agreed upon for a near term, moderate cost US facility that would be complementary to the more extensive plans of the International Fusion Materials Irradiation Facility (IFMIF). Types of facilities that could potentially meet those criteria were identified. A scoping study for three technologies was initiated to answer three critical questions: 1) Can the concept meet the key parameters, 2) What is the estimated cost, and 3) What is the estimated schedule. One approach selected for the scoping study is a D-Li stripping source similar to the design of the IFMIF but at a lower beam power and atomic displacement rate for cost and schedule reasons. The purpose of this report is to document the results of the D-Li stripping source option study, providing answers to the three questions. The approach to generating a fusion prototypic neutron source using a deuteron beam incident on a flowing lithium target has been studied for more than 40 years. As a result of the research and development recently executed primarily in Europe and Japan, the ability of this approach to meet key parameters (damage parameters, irradiation volume) outlined in the US workshop for a near-term, moderate cost fusion prototypic neutron source facility is not in doubt. The main question that must be answered is the cost of such a facility. As a result, a strong focus was placed on understanding alternatives for developing the facility and their relative costs. The project was broken into four components for the cost estimate: the ion source, accelerator, lithium target system, and conventional facilities. The cost of the accelerator is an important cost driver for the D-Li stripping concept. To fully understand the range of the accelerator cost, multiple alternatives were considered including normal conducting and superconducting linacs and the frequency of the radiofrequency quadrupole. Multiple previous design studies dating from 1989 through 2017 were examined (costs were escalated to 2019 dollars) and compared. After analysis, two options were selected for costing, one superconducting and one room temperature. We found similar project costs for the two accelerator options, on the order of $100M including design and project management but excluding contingency. Including everything except the conventional facilities, the estimate for the neutron source facility is estimated to be $220M without contingency. Additional significant costs for the facility are the conventional costs arising from the need to construct buildings for the accelerator and target facilities, bringing electrical power to the site including a new substation, and removing the heat from the facility using heat exchangers. While ORNL would oversee this work, much of the effort would be executed by contractors. Estimates for this effort was based on similar projects that are currently being executed at ORNL or were executed at ORNL in the recent past. The estimate for conventional facilities for the neutron facility is $173M without contingency, bringing the total project cost to $393M without contingency. With a 50% contingency, the estimated cost is $589M. The estimate range was established using guidance from the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE). Specifically, guidance from recommended practice 17R-97 provides insight on the expected accuracy range of estimates based on the degree of project definition and the position of the project in the stage-gate process or maturity timeline. An AACE Class 5 type estimate is appropriate for concept screening. The expected accuracy range includes a low end of -50% to -20% and a high end of +30% to +100% around the estimated cost. For the D-Li stripping neutron source, a -20% to +100% cost range was applied for a recommended cost range of $471M to $1,179M. Less emphasis was placed on determining the project schedule due to the fact that the project costs were large and may eliminate this option from consideration. The development of the accelerator facility may require on the order of five years without contingency. A more realistic schedule with contingency may be seven years. However, this estimate should be scrutinized in a preconceptual design activity if a more realistic estimate is needed. Finally, one lesson learned in this process is that the requirements for a near-term, moderate cost facility drives the alternative selection toward existing facilities and infrastructure. The D-Li stripping neutron source option requires a green field site due to the lack of existing buildings and infrastructure that can be reused for this effort. As a result, the conventional facilities costs are a significant fraction of the total facility cost. Other neutron source options where buildings, electrical power, and cooling infrastructure already exist may be able to meet the requirements for a near term, moderate cost facility.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Pumped Storage Hydropower (PSH) FAST Commissioning Prize Technical Analysis

The US energy landscape has undergone major changes over the past 10 years and will continue to see significant changes in future decades as the power grid increases its reliance on variable renewable energy resources. Because of the inherent variability of these resources, renewable energy growth may require additional energy storage capacity to provide flexible load-following capabilities and other grid services that can quickly adjust to changes in energy demand and generation. Pumped storage hydropower (PSH)—one such energy storage technology—uses pumps to convey water from a lower reservoir to an upper reservoir for energy storage and releases water back to the lower reservoir via a powerhouse for hydropower generation. PSH facility pump and generation cycling often follows economic and energy demand conditions. Across the United States, 43 PSH facilities are in operation and 55 projects are in various permitting or licensing stages. Altogether, the 43 operational projects provide the wide majority (95%) of utility-scale electricity storage in the United States. These facilities also provide significant power and nonpower grid benefits, including large-scale electrical system reserve capacity, grid reliability support, and electricity supply-demand balancing through quick-response capabilities and operational flexibility. PSH systems can accomplish these at a scale (e.g., size) and cost that makes these systems highly attractive from a technical standpoint. Although these research concepts are still in their infancy, they demonstrate promising potential as future PSH energy storage technologies. Although PSH has many advantages, development in the United States has effectively stalled since the 1990s, partially because of the magnitude of project costs and financing interest during development and construction, the length of time from project investment until project revenue begins, permitting challenges, construction risks, competition from other storage technologies (e.g., batteries, hydrogen storage), and electricity market evolution and uncertainty. In short, the time, cost, and risk associated with modern PSH development have resulted in limited growth in the United States recently, despite the growing energy storage demand stemming from increased wind and solar power deployment. Technology innovation is needed to help reduce PSH commissioning time, cost, and risk, particularly during the post-licensing phase of project development. To address challenges facing the PSH industry and to improve PSH commissioning timelines, the US Department of Energy (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO) initiated the PSH Furthering Advancements to Shorten Time to (FAST) Commissioning Prize project.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Pumped Storage Hydropower FAST Commissioning Technical Analysis

This report was developed in tandem with the Furthering Advancements to Shorten Time (FAST) to Commissioning PSH Challenge and represents the underlying technical analysis that informed the competition. Lead by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the report is designed to address barriers and solutions to PSH development by establishing baseline project development knowledge, defining key aspects of project development, and identifying opportunities to reduce project timelines, costs, and risks. The document’s scope includes post-licensing activities and excludes factors related to permitting or licensing.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Ventilator Testbed

A number of open-source ventilator designs have been published online since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. These ventilator designs have been created and released to help address the limitations in manufacturing and distribution timelines, and to help drive availability of more cost efficient ventilators. Many of these ventilators have been designed to be relatively simple to build and to use components that can be easily-sourced and acquired in large numbers from local suppliers. A test bed for evaluating the performance of these open-source ventilators was developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory as part of the Technology Evaluation and Demonstration program.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Systems Engineering Approach to Accident Response Planning

This paper explores the Systems Engineering structure, strategies and tools for real world scenarios involving work with accident response groups. A systems engineering approach must be taken by the technical teams to prepare for a successful response and design the technical systems in support of the operations. The scope of this project is focused on laying out the foundation of the systems engineering approach taken to help the teams develop an accident response strategy and identify new engineering designs in support of these operations for the black box systems. This Master’s project involves several interdisciplinary teams & stakeholders across different areas. Identifying the proper tools to use is key to addressing the big picture needs of the multiple stakeholders. This project explores some of the key tools used by the integrated team. The integrated project work will primarily take place over the course of 8 weeks via integrated team meetings. Other work in support of this project will take place off-line as needed by the project lead. Details on the prospective timeline, milestones, key dates and work scope can be referenced in other sections of this paper. Key systems engineering methodologies and tools used thus far in support of this project includes: 1) Market Surveys and Interviews, 2) Project Charter, 3) Feasibility Study, 4) Swim Lane Diagram, and 5) Knowledge Management Plan.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Pumped Storage Hydropower FAST Commissioning Technical Analysis

This report is designed to address barriers and solutions to modern pumped storage hydropower (PSH) development by establishing baseline project development knowledge, defining key aspects of project development, and identifying opportunities to reduce project timelines, costs, and risks. This report’s scope includes post-licensing activities and excludes factors related to permitting or licensing. The U.S. PSH fleet is composed of 43 projects providing the majority (95%) of utility-scale electricity storage in the US. However, only one new PSH facility has become operational in the past 20 years. Several factors contribute to diminishing PSH growth in the US, including the magnitude of project costs and financing interest during development and construction; the length of time from project investment until project revenue; permitting challenges and construction risks; competition from other storage technologies; and unrecognized energy storage valuation. Although innovative PSH concepts (including underground, small, and modular systems) have been investigated, widespread application has yet to occur. In short, the time, cost, and risk associated with modern PSH development has resulted in limited recent growth in the United States, despite the rising energy storage demand from increased deployment of variable renewable technologies. To address these challenges, the US Department of Energy’s (DOE) Water Power Technologies Office initiated the PSH Furthering Advancements to Shorten Time to (FAST) Commissioning project, aimed at catalyzing new solutions, designs, and strategies to accelerate PSH development. This report uses available data from previous license applications, ongoing project cost data, and other global PSH project information based on a typical closed-loop PSH project.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2018

Initiation of Experimental Campaign to Address Knowledge Gaps Related to Simultaneous Thermal and Gamma Radiation Aging of Crosslinked Polyethylene and Ethylene-Propylene Rubber Cable Insulation

Key cable knowledge gaps identified in the Expanded Materials Degradation Assessment (EMDA) volume on Aging of Cables and Cable Systems (Volume 5) specifically relate to the combined effects of thermal and gamma irradiation stresses on cable insulation materials. These include dose rate effects (DRE), inverse temperature effects (ITE), and synergistic effects (S/E). Extent of radiation-induced polymer degradation is proportional to absorbed dose, but DRE describe the phenomenon in which degree of damage is based not only on total dose, but also on the dose rate experienced during dose accumulation. This can be particularly complicated in the presence of thermal stress as a material spends more time at elevated temperature to receive the same total dose at a lower dose rate. Rates of cable polymer degradation generally increases with temperature, but ITE describes the situation in which polymer material damage under irradiation is greater at lower temperatures than at higher temperatures. Finally, S/E describe the concept that the mechanism of polymer material degradation when exposed to thermal aging and radiation aging in succession may be different than when exposed to thermal and radiation aging concurrently. The experimental campaign at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) described in this report seeks to address these knowledge gaps through investigation of the degradation of relevant cable insulation materials at select conditions using controlled temperatures, dose rates and total doses. Insulation materials considered were chosen to represent those most commonly found in U.S. nuclear power plants in terms of manufacturers and polymer systems. They include products from manufactures including The Rockbestos Company; The Okonite Company; Boston Insulated Wire & Cable Company; Kerite Company; Anaconda Company; Brand Rex, Inc.; and Samuel Moore Company. The products include the most ubiquitous cross-linked polyethylene (XLPE) and ethylene-propylene rubber (EPR) classes of insulation polymer. Circulating air ovens with remote temperature sensing and control are positioned within the gamma irradiation beam to enable controlled temperatures during radiation exposure. Dose rates are controlled through repeatable positioning of specimens at determined distances from the Cobalt-60 gamma source. Total absorbed doses for comparing temperature and dose rate effects are controlled by removing samples from exposure at pre-determined time points. The effects of gamma beam geometry, source decay and attenuation due to samples, ovens and racks are determined and controlled for using local point dosimetry. The temperature, dose and dose rates selected for the experimental campaign described in this report were determined following input from a range of stakeholders and intended to balance the constraints of the experimental capabilities, available material, project timeline and project funding with the value of the effort in narrowing EMDA-identified knowledge gaps. Results from this campaign are anticipated to reduce uncertainty in the understanding of cable material degradation behavior in nuclear power plant environments and thereby support cable aging management in long term operation.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Systems Engineering Approach to Accident Response Planning.

This paper explores the Systems Engineering structure, strategies and tools for real world scenarios involving work with accident response planning. A systems engineering approach must be taken by the technical teams to prepare for a successful response and design the technical systems in support of the operations. The scope of this project is focused on laying out the foundation of the systems engineering approach taken to help the teams develop an accident response strategy and identify new engineering designs in support of these operations for the black box systems. This Masters project involved several interdisciplinary teams & stakeholders. Identifying the proper tools to use was key to addressing the big picture needs of the multiple stakeholders. The integrated project work primarily took place over the course of eight weeks via integrated team meetings. Other work in support of this project was conducted off-line as needed by the project lead. Details on the prospective timeline, milestones, key dates and work scope can be referenced in this paper. Key systems engineering methodologies and tools used in support of this project included but is not limited to: Market Surveys and Interviews Project Charter Feasibility Study Swim Lane Diagram Knowledge Management Plan. A full suite of tools and the details regarding the application of these tools and results of this study is provided in this report.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Performance Analysis of PIConGPU: Particle-in-Cell on GPUs using NVIDIA’s NSight Systems and NSight Compute

PIConGPU, Particle In Cell on GPUs, is an open source simulations framework for plasma and laser-plasma physics used to develop advanced particle accelerators for radiation therapy of cancer, high energy physics and photon science. While PIConGPU has been optimized for at least 5 years to run well on NVIDIA GPU-based clusters, there has been limited exploration by the development team of potential scalability bottlenecks using recently updated and new tools including NVIDIA’s NVProf tool and the brand-new NVIDIA NSight Suite (Systems and Compute) tools. PIConGPU is a highly optimized application that runs production jobs at scale on a system Oak Ridge Leadership Facility’s (OLCF) Summit supercomputer (using the full machine at 4600 nodes; at 98% of GPU utilization on all ~28000 NVIDIA Volta GPUs). PIConGPU has been selected as one of the the eight applications for OLCF’s coveted Center for Accelerated Application Readiness (CAAR) program aimed at the facility’s Frontier supercomputer (OLCF’s first exascale system to launch in 2021), to partner with our vendors (primary vendors: AMD and Cray/HPE) ensuring that Frontier will be able to perform large-scale science when it opens to users in 2022. To this effect, performance engineers on the PIConGPU team wanted to dive deep into the application to understand at the finest granularity, which portions of the code could be further optimized to exploit the hardware on Summit at it’s maximum potential and also to elucidate which key kernels should be tracked and optimized for the CAAR effort to port this code to Frontier. Any bottlenecks that are observed via performance profiling on Summit are likely to also impact scalability on the Frontier-dev system and the Frontier Early Access (EA) system. Additionally, the engineers wanted to take a closer look at the newest NVIDIA profiling tools which allows us to identify the most useful features on these tools and will provide an opportunity to compare it to new AMD and Cray’s performance analysis tool releases and provide feedback to our vendor partners on what features are most important and mission critical for CAAR efforts. The primary goal of this report is to focus on the evaluation of PIConGPU’s most time-intensive kernels using NVProf and NSight Suite. Three kernels, Current Deposition (also known as Compute Current), Particle Push (Move and Mark), and Shift Particles are known to be some of the most time-consuming kernels in PIConGPU. The Current xi Deposition kernel and Particle Push kernel both set up the particle attributes for running any physics simulation with PIConGPU, so it is crucial to improve the performance of these two kernels. In this report, we measure single GPU metrics for the three kernels, offer high level takeaways from the conducted analysis, and compare the profiling data from NSight Compute to that of NVProf. This analysis was performed using a grid size of 240 x 272 x 224, and 10 time steps with the Mid-November Figure of Merit (FOM) run setup. The Traveling Wave Electron Acceleration (TWEAC) science case used in this run is a representative science case for PIConGPU. This execution can also be used for baseline analysis on AMD MI50/ MI60 systems. As of the time of writing, the PIConGPU application has limited use for features of NSight Systems, so this report will mainly focus on insights garnered from NSight Compute. For this analysis, we run the “full” metric set available in NSight Compute version 2020.1.2 and use NSight Systems version 2020.3.1 to generate the application timeline.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2014

Draft Electric Rule 21 Test Protocols for Advanced Inverter Functions

Disclaimer: The following document includes draft certification protocols and should not be viewed as a consensus-based performance standard. Distributed energy resources (DERs), such as photovoltaic (PV) systems, when deployed in a large scale, are capable of significantly influencing the operation of bulk and local power systems. Looking to the future, European and American stakeholders are working on standards to make it possible to manage the potentially complex interactions between DER and the power system. One of the jurisdictions considering modifications to the DER interconnection requirements is California. To determine what changes could improve electric grid reliability and allow greater penetrations of renewable energy, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the California Energy Commission (CEC), in conjunction with consultant Frances Cleveland, convened the Smart Inverter Working Group (SIWG) in January 2013. The SIWG--composed of state agencies, utility engineers, national laboratories, manufacturers, trade associations, and advocacy groups--provided the CPUC a set of recommendations in early 2014 1 . The recommendations included specific advanced DER functions and interoperability requirements, along with a proposed timeline, for California to add new capabilities to grid-interconnected DER. On August 18, 2014 the three California Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs)--Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), Southern California Edison Company (SCE) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E)--drafted a Advice Letter filing to the CPUC setting forth revisions to Electric Tariff Rule 21 to conform to the seven recommendations made by the Working Group 2 . After a comment period, the CPUC issued an update to the IOU recommendations 3 . At the time of this publication, there was no final legal ruling on the CPUC Rulemaking (R.) 11-09-011 ("Order Instituting Rulemaking on the Commission's Own Motion to improve distribution level interconnection rules and regulations for certain classes of electric generators and electric storage resources"). In the U.S., Nationally Recognized Test Laboratories (NRTLs) independently verify products to safety and functional standards. PV inverters are certified to Underwriters Laboratories (UL) Standard 1741 4 . However, new advanced inverter functions described in the SIWG and IOU proposals are not included in this standard, so there is a critical need to develop test protocols for these functions in preparation of a positive ruling by the CPUC. Through a California Solar Initiative Grant, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia or SNL), Underwriters Laboratories (UL), Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. (EPRI), Xanthus Consulting, SunSpec Alliance, Loggerware, and utility and PV inverter manufacturers have collaborated to draft this certification protocol for the Rule 21 SIWG Phase 1 advanced inverter functions. This report also includes test procedures for Phase 2 and Phase 3 functions that will be demonstrated later in the CSI4 project. This collaborative effort was performed in close junction with the UL 1741 Standards Technical Panel (STP) working group. This document represents a snapshot of the draft testing protocols at the time of publication and not a consensus certification protocol for advanced inverters. 1 California Public Utilities Commission, "Recommendations for Updating the Technical Requirements for Inverters in Distributed Energy Resources, Smart Inverter Working Group Recommendations," Filed 7 Feb 2014. 2 J.J. Newlander, R.G. Litteneker, S.W. Walter, M. Dwyer, Joint motion of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (U 39 E), Southern California Edison Company (U 338 E) and San Diego Gas & Electric Company (U 902 E) regarding implementation of smart inverter functionalities, Rulemaking 11-09-011 Advice Letter, 18 July, 2014. 3 J.T. Sullivan, CPUC Rulemaking 11-09-011 Agenda ID #13460, 13 Nov, 2014. 4 Underwriters Laboratories Std. 1741 Ed. 2, "Inverters, Converters, Controllers and Interconnection System Equipment for use with Distributed Energy Resources," 2010.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electrical Breakdown in Gases: a Glimpse

The author of this document was motivated to write a review of electrical breakdown in gases. Considering the immense body of extant work in this field, conducting a thorough review is a huge undertaking. Moreover, the author had at his disposal a very (very!) short timeline within which to complete his review. Consequently, the result of his effort is more akin to a glimpse of the body of work, rather than a review of that body. With that admission being thus stated, the reader that is seeking a thorough review of electrical breakdown in gases is bound to be disappointed in what follows. However, the reader who seeks an almost thorough review of some of the most important fundamentals, plus suggestions as to where to look for additional information, may find what follows to be useful – this is the hope of the author.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗