Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Assessment”

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 613 records · Page 34
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2003

Analyzing Discrepancies in a Software Development Project Change Request (CR) Assessment Process and Recommendations for Process Improvements

The Change Request (CR) assessment process is essential in the display development cycle. The assessment process is performed to ensure that the changes stated in the description of the CR match the changes in the actual display requirements. If a discrepancy is found between the CR and the requirements, the CR must be returned to the originator for corrections. Data was gathered from each of the developers to determine the type of discrepancies and the amount of time spent assessing each CR. This study sought to determine the most common types of discrepancies, and the amount of time required to assessing those issues. The study found that even though removing discrepancy before an assessment would save half the time needed to assess an CR with a discrepancy, the number of CR's found to have a discrepancy was very small compared to the total number of CR's assessed during the data gathering period.

Cunningham, Kenneth James↗
NASA NTRS2015

Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment - How They Play Together

Since the Space Shuttle Challenger accident in 1986, NASA has extensively used probabilistic analysis methods to assess, understand, and communicate the risk of space launch vehicles. Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), used in the nuclear industry, is one of the probabilistic analysis methods NASA utilizes to assess Loss of Mission (LOM) and Loss of Crew (LOC) risk for launch vehicles. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment that uses a combination of fault trees, event trees, event sequence diagrams, and probability distributions to analyze the risk of a system, a process, or an activity. It is a process designed to answer three basic questions: 1) what can go wrong that would lead to loss or degraded performance (i.e., scenarios involving undesired consequences of interest), 2) how likely is it (probabilities), and 3) what is the severity of the degradation (consequences). Since the Challenger accident, PRA has been used in supporting decisions regarding safety upgrades for launch vehicles. Another area that was given a lot of emphasis at NASA after the Challenger accident is reliability engineering. Reliability engineering has been a critical design function at NASA since the early Apollo days. However, after the Challenger accident, quantitative reliability analysis and reliability predictions were given more scrutiny because of their importance in understanding failure mechanism and quantifying the probability of failure, which are key elements in resolving technical issues, performing design trades, and implementing design improvements. Although PRA and reliability are both probabilistic in nature and, in some cases, use the same tools, they are two different activities. Specifically, reliability engineering is a broad design discipline that deals with loss of function and helps understand failure mechanism and improve component and system design. PRA is a system scenario based risk assessment process intended to assess the risk scenarios that could lead to a major/top undesirable system event, and to identify those scenarios that are high-risk drivers. PRA output is critical to support risk informed decisions concerning system design. This paper describes the PRA process and the reliability engineering discipline in detail. It discusses their differences and similarities and how they work together as complementary analyses to support the design and risk assessment processes. Lessons learned, applications, and case studies in both areas are also discussed in the paper to demonstrate and explain these differences and similarities.

Safie, Fayssal↗
NASA NTRS2017

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (ORION)

NASA uses two HRA assessment methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is still expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a PRA model that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more problematic. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana↗
NASA NTRS2017

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. To determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators, and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules, and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Behavioral Assessment of Spaceflight Effects on Neurocognitive Performance: Extent and Longevity

Exposure to the microgravity environment during spaceflight missions impacts crewmembers' sensorimotor function. Bock et al. [1] studied the cognitive demands of human sensorimotor performance and dual tasking during long duration missions and concluded that both stress and scarcity of cognitive resources required for sensorimotor adaptation may be responsible for these deficits during spaceflight. Therefore, in consideration of the health and performance of crewmembers in- and post-flight, we are conducting this study to investigate the effects of spaceflight on the extent, longevity and neural bases of sensorimotor, cognitive, and neural changes. The data presented will focus on the behavioral measures that were collected pre-, in- and post-flight including spatial cognition, processing speed, bimanual coordination, functional mobility, computerized dynamic posturography (CDP), and vibrotactile induced vestibular evoked myogenic potential (VEMP). To date, data were collected over the course of two pre-flight sessions and four post-flight sessions on five crewmembers (n=13) using the protocol described in Koppelmans et al. [2]. Balance control was assessed using CDP, with eyes closed and a sway-referenced base of support (Sensory Organization Test 5), with and without head movements in the pitch plane. Spatial working memory was assessed using Thurston's Card Rotation Test and a Mental Rotation Test. The Rod and Frame Test was performed to test visual dependence. The Digit Symbol Substitution Test was performed to evaluate processing speed, and the Purdue Pegboard Task was performed to test bimanual coordination. Vestibular function was assessed by eliciting ocular VEMP via a hand held striker on the side of the head as subjects lay supine on a gurney. Subjects also performed the Functional Mobility Test of walking through an obstacle course to assess rate of early motor learning. Data were also collected on the same crewmembers during three in-flight sessions on the International Space Station (ISS). In-flight, spatial working memory was assessed using the Mental Rotation Test, adaptation to visuo-motor transformation in manual control was assessed using the Sensorimotor Adaptation Test, and multi-tasking ability was assessed using the Dual Task Test. These three tests were performed in a strapped-in configuration mimicking a seated position - waist bungees pulled the crewmember toward the "floor" with feet secured in foot loops. The Mental Rotation Test was also performed in a free-floating configuration while the crewmember floated while holding on to the gamepad controller used to provide input that was secured to the equipment rack on the ISS. Preliminary findings from data collected to date, will be included in the presentation. Eventual comparison to results from supporting bed rest and longitudinal studies will enable the parsing out of the multiple mechanisms contributing to any observed spaceflight-induced sensorimotor and cognitive behavioral changes.

De Dios, Y. E.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Assessing Alternatives in the Systems Engineering Process: Case Study of an Earth Observing Satellite Concept

Defining design alternatives constitutes one of the critical initial steps of the systems engineering process. Once these design alternatives have been identified, assessing which alternatives best satisfy the project’s objectives can prove to be challenging when dealing with complex decision frameworks. Complex systems often involve the participation of different interest groups, who have different value systems and are focused on distinct aspects of the project. For example, design alternatives might be assessed predominantly for their technical merit by one group of stakeholders, while a different group might be more inclined to assess the design alternatives primarily based on programmatic values. MESCAL (Monitoring the Evolving State of Clouds and Aerosol Layers) is an ongoing NASA / CNES (Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales) joint study for an active remote sensing Earth observing satellite. Several design alternatives have been identified and the assessment of these alternatives requires consideration of a variety of factors. This paper presents the approach that was used to support a global assessment of the MESCAL design alternatives. A mapping of the interactions between mission, instrument, and science requirements was modeled to support the assessment of the trade space. In addition, a set of metrics was developed to structure the assessment that was conducted. Finally, this paper also discusses the general applicability of these metrics to other science mission concepts in the formulation phase.

Ivanco, Marie L.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Assessing Reliability of NDE Flaw Detection Using Smaller Number of Demonstration Data Points

The paper provides an engineering analysis approach for assessing reliability of NDE flaw detection using smaller number of demonstration data points. It explores dependence of probability of detection (POD), probability of false positive (POF), on contrast-to-noise ratio, and net decision threshold-to-noise ratio in a simulated data; and draws some generically applicable inferences to devise the approach. ASTM nondestructive evaluation standards provide requirements on signal-to-noise ratio and/or contrast-to-noise ratio in order to provide reliable flaw detection and limit false positive calls. POD analysis of inspection test data results in an estimated flaw size, denoted by 𝑎90/95. This flaw size has 90% POD and minimum 95% confidence. POF is also estimated in the analysis. POD demonstration requires specimens with flaws of known size. In many situations, it is very expensive to produce the large number of flaws required for the POD analysis. In some situations, only real flaws can truly represent the flaws for demonstration. Real flaws of correct size and location in part configuration specimen may be difficult to produce, if not impossible. Here, an engineering analysis approach is devised using simulation to assess reliability of NDE technique when a limited number of flaws are available for demonstration. In this simulation, a technique is considered reliable, if it provides flaw detectability size equal to or better than the theoretical 𝑎90𝑡ℎ used in simulation and also provides a POF less than or equal to a chosen value. The paper uses simulated signal response versus flaw size data to devise the approach. Linear correlation is used between the signal response data and flaw size. POD software mh1823 uses generalized linear model (GLM) in POD analysis after transforming the flaw size and signal response, if needed, using logarithm. Therefore, this approach is in agreement with the linear signal correlation used in mh1823. Using the POD analysis of data, generic conditions on contrast-to-noise ratio and net decision threshold-to-noise ratio are derived for reliable flaw detection. In order to assess technique reliability using the engineering approach, signal response-to-flaw size correlation about the flaw size of concern is needed. In addition, measurement of noise is also needed. If the technique meets the above requirements, assumption of linear signal-to-flaw size correlation and conditions on noise, then the technique can be assessed using this analysis as it fits the underlying POD model used here. The approach is conservative and is designed to provide a larger flaw size compared to the POD approach. Such NDE technique assessment approach, although, not as rigorous as POD, can be cost effective if the larger flaw size can be tolerated. Typically, this is a situation for all quality control NDE inspections. Here, an NDE technique needs to be reliable and 𝑎90/95 is not estimated, but the assessed flaw size is assumed to be larger than the unknown a90 due to conservative factors or margins. Applicability of the approach for assessing reliability of flaw detection in x-ray radiography and 2D imaging in general is also explored.

Koshti, Ajay M.↗
NASA NTRS2018

Assessment of Terra MODIS Thermal Emissive Band Calibration Using Cold Targets and Measurements in Lunar Roll Events

Terra MODIS has provided continuous global observations for science research and applications for more than 18 years. The MODIS Thermal emissive bands (TEB) radiometric calibration uses a quadratic function for instrument response. The calibration coefficients are updated using the response of an on-board blackbody (BB) in quarterly warm-up and cool-down (WUCD) events. As instrument degradation and electronic crosstalk of long-wave infrared (LWIR) bands 27 to 30 developed substantial issues, accurate calibration is crucial for a high-quality L1B product. The on-board BB WUCD temperature ranges from 270 K to 315 K and the derived nonlinear response has a relatively large uncertainty for the offset, especially for these LWIR bands, which affects the measurements of low brightness temperature (BT) scenes. In this study, the TEB radiometric calibration impact on the L1B product is assessed using selected cold targets and the measurements during regular lunar rolls. The cold targets include Antarctic Dome Concordia (Dome-C) and deep convective clouds (DCC) for the calibration assessment, focusing on bands 27 to 30. Dome-C area is covered with uniformly-distributed permanent snow, and the atmospheric effect is small and relatively constant. Usually the DCC is treated as an invariant earth target to evaluate the reflective solar band calibration. The DCC can also be treated as a stable target to assess the performance of TEB calibration. During a scheduled lunar observation event with a spacecraft roll maneuver to view the moon through the space view port, the instrument cavity provides a stable reference for calibration assessment. The long-term trending of BT measurements and the relative difference between scan mirror sides and detectors are used for the assessment of the calibration consistency and stability. The comparison of L1B products over the selected targets before and after the calibration coefficients update can be used to assess the impact of a calibration look-up table (LUT) update. This assessment is beneficial for future calibration algorithm and LUT update procedure improvements for enhancing the L1B product quality.

Chang, Tiejun↗
NASA NTRS2019

Quantitative Technology Assessment in Space Mission Analysis

New technologies will need to be developed to create feasible concepts for NASA's ambitious missions of the future, but quantitative assessments of the impacts that technologies have on systems or architectures are sporadic and often inadequate. The Space Mission Analysis Branch at NASA's Langley Research Center is developing a quantitative technology assessment framework to address this issue with a vision of being able to understand the mission and system architecture impacts of technology development activities. A phased approach is being pursued to answer technology needs assessment and technology forecasting questions. First, the integration of subject matter experts, data collection, and data analysis techniques ensures that the framework is accessible and analyzable. Second, systems analysis determines the impact of key technologies from the first phase on systems, architectures, and campaigns. The goal of a quantitative technology assessment framework is to accelerate technology assessments, to improve the accuracy of those assessments, and to provide deeper insights into the impact of new technologies. Keywords: technology assessment, data analysis, systems analysis.

Arney, Dale C.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Guidelines for Assessing the Toxic Hazard of Spacecraft Chemicals and Test Materials

This document describes the criteria and procedural guidelines used by the NASA/JSC Toxicology Office (JSCSTO), to perform toxicological evaluations. The JSCSTO is responsible for conducting toxicological assessments and assigning toxic hazard levels (THLs) for essentially all chemicals and test materials to be used in or transported to the habitable areas of U.S. spacecraft, non‐U.S. spacecraft inhabitaed by U.S. crew members or habitable areas of off‐Earth habitats where U.S. crew members would be present, including chemicals carried by visiting spacecraft(visiting vehicles) to and from the International Space Station (ISS). Biohazard assessments for biological materials used in payload experiments are performed by the NASA Biosafety Review Board. Radioactive materials are assessed by the Space Radiation Analysis Group for radiation hazards; the flammability rating on flammable materials is assessed by the JSC Materials and Processes Branch, ES4. This document will focus on the assessment of chemically‐induced toxicity hazards. The toxicological assessments, together with assessments on radioactive, biological, physical, and flammability hazards, are incorporated into a mission‐specific Hazardous Materials Summary Table (HMST).

Valerie Elizabeth Ryder↗
NASA NTRS2022

SpaceVPX Interoperability Assessment

The existing VMEbus (VersaModular Eurocard bus) International Trade Association (VITA)-78 industry standard, also known as SpaceVPX, is an avionics board- and chassis-level standard derived from the OpenVPX standard as defined in VITA-65. While VITA-65 defines backplane and board-level profiles from COTS vendors to ensure interoperability of products used in developing systems and subsystems, the VITA-78 standard defines SpaceVPX to incorporate fault tolerance features that are required by many spaceflight systems. However, VITA-78 allows so much flexibility that interoperability between modules cannot be assured. This assessment provides guidelines on the use of, and extensions to, the VITA-78 standard to enable avionics interoperability for future NASA missions. The assessment team was comprised of subject matter experts (SMEs) from Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Johnson Space Center (JSC), and Langley Research Center (LaRC). The team included valuable external consulting support from a SME who was a key participant in the development of the VITA-78 standard. The team had extensive collaboration with the NASA Space Technology Mission Directorate (STMD) High Performance Spaceflight Computing (HPSC) project, specifically in the development of SpaceVPX interconnect findings, observations, and NESC recommendations. To provide an understanding of the breadth of implementations that SpaceVPX must accommodate, multiple NASA use cases were analyzed to assess the requirements for SpaceVPX implementations across a wide range of NASA missions (Appendix C). Applications included crewed missions, science missions, and orbital and surface robotic systems. Product surveys were conducted to assess the level of industry support for SpaceVPX, applications, and the variations in their implementations (Appendix D). In-depth analysis was conducted in the areas of: (a) power management and distribution, (b) form factors and daughtercards, (c) interconnect, and (d) fault tolerance. Leveraging the use cases, product surveys, and SMEs from multiple NASA Centers, these areas were analyzed to determine the range of implementations permitted by the VITA-78 standard and potential interoperability issues. Applicable findings and NESC recommendations were provided for each area. During this assessment, there were multiple opportunities to engage with other agencies to learn about their interest in SpaceVPX, their strategies for implementing SpaceVPX-based systems, and their internal development efforts. These engagements also generated findings and NESC recommendations. Based on this assessment analysis, NESC recommendations were made regarding the feature set and module profiles to support NASA SpaceVPX implementations. This feature set includes restrictions on features in VITA-78, and extensions to the standard. Key recommendations in this area include the use of 10 Gigabit Ethernet and Peripheral Component Interconnect Express (PCIe) as high bandwidth interconnect on the backplane, the retention of SpaceWire interconnect for control functions, and support for 3U (unit) and 6U, form factors for NASA systems. Restrictions were proposed on the usage of user-defined signals to promote interoperability, and specific power managements and distribution schemes for 3U systems. Beyond the technical implementation of SpaceVPX, recommendations were made on areas that warrant further investigation. Primary among these is the recommendation for NASA to collaborate with other space-going agencies and industry to incorporate recommendations into a future ‘dot spec’ of VITA-78. This would ensure wide adoption and availability of the modules that comply with the specification. The assessment includes appendices with candidate module profiles that can be considered as a starting point for this activity, and example systems based on the recommendations. Follow-on studies are recommended for architectures beyond SpaceVPX to address potential enhancements including condensed set of interconnect, software required to implement protocol layers on the interconnect (and other features), alternative power architectures, and system-level testability.

SpaceVPX↗
DOE OSTI2014

US DOE-EM On-Site Disposal Cell Working Group - Fostering Communication On Performance Assessment Challenges

On-site disposal cells are in use and being considered at several U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE) sites as the final disposition for large amounts of waste associated with cleanup of contaminated areas and facilities. These facilities are typically developed with regulatory oversight from States and/or the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in addition to USDOE. The facilities are developed to meet design standards for disposal of hazardous waste as well as the USDOE performance based standards for disposal of radioactive waste. The involvement of multiple and different regulators for facilities across separate sites has resulted in some differences in expectations for performance assessments and risk assessments (PA/RA) that are developed for the disposal facilities. The USDOE-EM Office of Site Restoration formed a working group to foster improved communication and sharing of information for personnel associated with these Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) disposal cells and work towards more consistent assumptions, as appropriate, for technical and policy considerations related to performance and risk assessments in support of a Record of Decision and Disposal Authorization Statement. The working group holds teleconferences, as needed, focusing on specific topics of interest. The topics addressed to date include an assessment of the assumptions used for performance assessments and risk assessments (PA/RAs) for on-site disposal cells, requirements and assumptions related to assessment of inadvertent intrusion, DOE Manual 435.1-1 requirements, and approaches for consideration of the long-term performance of liners and covers in the context of PAs. The working group has improved communication among the staff and oversight personnel responsible for onsite disposal cells and has provided a forum to identify and resolve common concerns.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2017

Network reliability assessment

The present disclosure pertains to systems and methods for assessing reliability of communication links in a software defined network (SDN). In one embodiment, a system may include an SDN architecture subsystem configured to generate SDN architecture information and a bandwidth subsystem configured to generate bandwidth information. A latency subsystem may receive the bandwidth information from the bandwidth subsystem and may be configured to generate latency information using the bandwidth information. A failover subsystem may receive the SDN architecture information, the bandwidth information, and the latency information and generate a failover assessment and a failover route for the communication link. A reliability assessment subsystem may receive the SDN architecture information, the bandwidth information, and the latency information, and the failover assessment and generate a reliability assessment. A traffic routing subsystem may receive the reliability assessment and route data traffic to the failover route based on the reliability assessment.

Smith, Rhett↗
DOE OSTI2020

Building Battery Energy Storage System Performance Data into an Economic Assessment

Economic assessments of battery energy storage systems (BESSs) rely on optimal dispatch methods to capture temporal interdependency of BESS operations and coupling among different grid applications. Many existing BESS economic assessment studies are based on a simplified first-order scalar model using BESS nameplate numbers. Such a method cannot accurately capture varying capabilities and nonlinear dynamics of a BESS, leading to inaccurate assessment results. This paper presents a practical implementation of performance data into the economic assessment of the BESSs recently developed within the Snohomish Public Utility District system in Washington State. Extensive testing conducted over multiple seasons is used to assess the technical performance and develop high-fidelity models of the BESSs. A dynamic programming algorithm is proposed to optimally dispatch the BESSs and assess the potential benefits from stacked value streams. The proposed method can be adapted for the economic assessment of other BESSs with different applications.

Wu, Di↗
DOE OSTI2015

Preliminary performance assessment for the Waste Management Area C at the Hanford site in southeast Washington - 15331

A performance assessment of Single-Shell Tank Waste Management Area C located at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hanford Site in southeastern Washington is being conducted to satisfy the requirements of the Hanford Federal Facility Agreement and Consent Order, as well as other Federal requirements and State-approved closure plans and permits. The Waste Management Area C performance assessment assesses the fate, transport, and impacts of radionuclides and hazardous chemicals within residual wastes left in tanks and ancillary equipment and facilities in their assumed closed configuration and the subsequent risks to humans into the far future. The part of the performance assessment focused on radiological impacts is being developed to meet the requirements for a closure authorization under U.S. Department of Energy Order 435.1 that include a waste incidental to reprocessing determination for residual wastes remaining in tanks, ancillary equipment, and facilities. An additional part of the performance assessment will evaluate human health and environmental impacts from hazardous chemical inventories in residual wastes remaining in Waste Management Area C tanks, ancillary equipment, and facilities needed to meet the requirements for permitted closure under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. Preliminary results of the performance assessment are evaluating the groundwater and air pathways to determine radiation exposure once radionuclides are released to the environment due to degradation of the engineered barriers. Per DOE Order 435.1, results of the preliminary analyses are being compared to the performance objectives during the 1,000-year post-closure period of compliance. Per the Order, performance assessment results are also being compared to the performance measures related to acute and chronic inadvertent intruder analyses and groundwater protection. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2016

Preliminary structural assessment of VHTR graphite components according to ASME code - 18532

In this study, a preliminary structural assessment on a graphite component of a VHTR was done in accordance with the semi-probabilistic assessment procedures of the latest 2015 edition of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section III, Div. 5, Subpart HHA-Graphite Materials. Establishment of the Weibull distribution for the tensile strength is essential to set up the stress limits based on the probability of failure of the graphite materials. All parameters required in the ASME code were identified and evaluated for a nuclear graphite material, IG-110. The assessment of design level was done on one of fuel elements in a Korean VHTR design by two methodologies in the ASME code: (1) Simplified assessment and (2) Full assessment. The structural integrity of the fuel element was assured by both assessment methods. Also, the effect of the number of integration volume groups on the probability of failure in the full assessment was investigated and a recommendation for the conservative results was suggested. (authors)

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Work In Progress: Using Internships as Means for Indirect Assessment of ABET Criteria 3 “1-7” Student Outcomes

The Electrical & Computer Engineering (ECE) Department at Portland State University (PSU) has developed a Power Engineering Internship (PEI) program that provides engineering career development pathways within the electric utility industry. The PEI is supported by several U.S. Department of Energy grants that aim to develop quality career opportunities and develop a future electric utility workforce that represents the nation’s diverse populations. The PSU ECE Department intends to use surveys of internship participants as assessment tools for its ABET accreditation process, in particular, the ABET Criteria 3 Student Outcomes (SOs). SOs relate to the knowledge, skills, and behaviors that students acquire as they progress through an engineering program [1]. They describe what engineering students are expected to know and should be able to do by the time they graduate. Engineering education literature presents multiple methods for using internships as means for assessing SOs. Methods include using self-assessments that derive from internship experiences as well as mapping survey responses from employers and interns to SOs. Such methods gain value as they are assessed over multiple years. However, the majority of this literature discusses assessment tools that were developed for the ABET 2000 Criteria 3 “a through k” SOs. One of our motivations is to provide assessment tools that can be used to assess modern Criteria 3 SOs based on students’ internship experiences.

Bass, Robert [Portland State University]↗