Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “compiler verification”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Site Composite Analysis: LLBG-200-W B Vadose Zone Model

The objectives of the vadose modeling for the updated Hanford Site Composite Analysis (CA) are to simulate the flow and transport of water and radionuclide releases from the surface to the water table and to provide radionuclide transfer rates to the CA saturated zone model (CP-57037, Model Package Report: Plateau to River Groundwater Model, Version 8.3). Water additions include natural recharge and water discharged to the ground as a result of industrial processes associated with Hanford Site operations. Contaminant sources include radionuclides in water discharged to the ground during operations and radionuclides disposed “dry” in solid waste burial grounds or other means. The following 16 radionuclides were selected for this modeling effort: carbon-14 (C-14), chlorine-36 (Cl-36), tritium (H-3), iodine-129 (I-129), neptunium-237 (Np-237), rhenium-187 (Re-187), strontium-90 (Sr-90), technetium-99 (Tc-99), uranium-232 (U-232), uranium-233 (U-233), uranium-234 (U-234), uranium-235 (U-235), uranium-236 (U-236), uranium-238 (U-238), radium-226 (Ra-226), and thorium-230 (Th-230). The simulation time starts in 1943 and ends at 12070, which is 10,000 years after assumed Hanford Site closure in 2070. The parallel version of the Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (STOMP 1 ) simulator, officially named the exascale Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases (eSTOMP), is used to simulate flow and transport for the vadose models. The documentation for the STOMP code is comprehensive. The theoretical and numerical approaches applied in the STOMP code are documented in a published theory guide (PNNL-12030, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 2.0 Theory Guide). The code has undergone a rigorous verification procedure against analytical solutions, laboratory-scale experiments, and field-scale demonstrations. The application guide (PNNL-11216, STOMP Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Application Guide) provides instructive examples in the application of the code to classical groundwater problems. The user’s guide (PNNL-15782, STOMP: Subsurface Transport Over Multiple Phases Version 4.0: User’s Guide) describes the general use, input file formatting, compilation, and execution of the code. The primary output of the vadose zone modeling is radionuclide transfer rates to the groundwater for input into the saturated zone model. The rates will be summed over the 100 by 100 m saturated zone model grid cells that fall within the vadose zone model source domain.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Code Coverage Status of ARC Code-DIF3D

The Argonne Reactor Code (ARC) software system supports users in their fast reactor design goals by providing neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, and structural analysis capabilities. DIF3D plays a pivotal role in the ARC system as the primary homogenized assembly neutronic calculation methodology for fast reactor problems. Over its 40 years history, ARC software usage with DIF3D has been applied to numerous fast and thermal spectrum reactor analysis projects with good to excellent comparison against experiments. With continued improvement of computation resources, many of the geometry modeling capabilities in DIF3D that were primarily used in low order schemes are not really needed anymore. Today, the diffusion and transport capabilities of DIF3D-VARIANT are primarily used in the reactor design process with some scattered usage of DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-Nodal. In recent work, the DIF3D software verification was completed for DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT on the geometry options used in the Versatile Test Reactor project. While we can be confident that these capabilities of DIF3D are well used and thus trusted, it does not demonstrate that all possible input options of DIF3D are actually working, but just those that were tested as part of VTR are and that they are correct. Thus, the purpose of the present work is to identify a set of test problems for DIF3D and assess the code coverage of DIF3D for those test problems. The goal is to document what parts of the existing DIF3D code are touched by the set of test problems and which are not. Because the verification work done on DIF3D-VARIANT and DIF3D-FD was focused on the most common uses of DIF3D for fast reactor analysis, the code coverage assessment of those capabilities is the highest priority. This will ensure that nothing is being missed by the existing verification test problems that DIF3D relies upon. The DIF3D-Nodal capability will also be inspected for code coverage as part of this work to further ensure that regular regression testing of DIF3D will trap any likely errors the end user might experience with the DIF3D software. The code coverage analysis of DIF3D was performed with the Code Coverage Tool of the Intel Fortran compiler which requires modifications to the compilation of DIF3D. The detailed coverage tables are given for each submodule of DIF3D separately, and for the submodules which are primarily developed for DIF3D, most of the source files could be at least partially touched. Most of the uncovered parts/files could be easily ignored, because they are either for error message and debugging output or obviously not needed by DIF3D. Out of the entire source codes of DIF3D, only a few uncovered modules deserve further investigation.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Code Coverage Status of the ARC Code DIF3D

The Argonne Reactor Code (ARC) software system supports users in their fast reactor design goals by providing neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, and structural analysis capabilities. DIF3D plays a pivotal role in the ARC system as the primary homogenized assembly neutronic calculation methodology for fast reactor problems. Over its 40 years history, ARC software usage with DIF3D has been applied to numerous fast and thermal spectrum reactor analysis projects with good to excellent comparison against experiments. With continued improvement of computation resources, many of the geometry modeling capabilities in DIF3D that were primarily used in low order schemes are not really needed anymore. Today, the diffusion and transport capabilities of DIF3D-VARIANT are primarily used in the reactor design process with some scattered usage of DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-Nodal. In recent work, the DIF3D software verification was completed for DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT on the geometry options used in the Versatile Test Reactor project. While we can be confident that these capabilities of DIF3D are well used and thus trusted, it does not demonstrate that all possible input options of DIF3D are actually working, but just those that were tested as part of VTR are and that they are correct. Thus, the purpose of the present work is to identify a set of test problems for DIF3D and assess the code coverage of DIF3D for those test problems. The goal is to document what parts of the existing DIF3D code are touched by the set of test problems and which are not. Because the verification work done on DIF3D-VARIANT and DIF3D-FD was focused on the most common uses of DIF3D for fast reactor analysis, the code coverage assessment of those capabilities is the highest priority. This will ensure that nothing is being missed by the existing verification test problems that DIF3D relies upon. The DIF3D-Nodal capability will also be inspected for code coverage as part of this work to further ensure that regular regression testing of DIF3D will trap any likely errors the end user might experience with the DIF3D software. The code coverage analysis of DIF3D was performed with the Code Coverage Tool of the Intel Fortran compiler which requires modifications to the compilation of DIF3D. The detailed coverage tables are given for each submodule of DIF3D separately, and for the submodules which are primarily developed for DIF3D, most of the source files could be at least partially touched. Most of the uncovered parts/files could be easily ignored, because they are either for error message and debugging output or obviously not needed by DIF3D. Out of the entire source codes of DIF3D, only a few uncovered modules deserve further investigation.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2022

The eROSITA Final Equatorial-Depth Survey (eFEDS)

In 2019, the eROSITA telescope on board the Russian-German satellite Spectrum-Roentgen-Gamma (SRG) began to perform a deep all-sky X-ray survey with the aim of identifying ~100 000 clusters and groups over the course of four years. As part of its performance verification phase, a ~140 deg 2 survey, called eROSITA Final Equatorial-Depth Survey (eFEDS), was performed. With a depth typical of the all-sky survey after four years, it allows tests of tools and methods as well as improved predictions for the all-sky survey. As part of this effort, a catalog of 542 X-ray selected galaxy group and cluster candidates was compiled. Here, in this paper, we present the optical follow-up, with the aim of providing redshifts and cluster confirmation for the full sample. Furthermore, we aim to provide additional information on the dynamical state, richness, and optical center of the clusters. Finally, we aim to evaluate the impact of optical cluster confirmation on the purity and completeness of the X-ray selected sample. We used optical imaging data from the Hyper Suprime-Cam Subaru Strategic Program and from the Legacy Survey to identify optical counterparts to the X-ray detected cluster candidates. We make use of the multi-component matched filter cluster confirmation tool (MCMF), as well as of the optical cluster finder CAMIRA to derive cluster redshifts and richnesses. MCMF provided the probabilities with which an optical structure would be a chance superposition with the X-ray candidate. These probabilities were used to identify the best optical counterpart as well as to confirm an X-ray candidate as a cluster. The impact of this confirmation process on catalog purity and completeness was estimated using optical to X-ray scaling relations as well as simulations. The resulting catalog was furthermore matched with public group and cluster catalogs. Optical estimators of the cluster dynamical state were constructed based on density maps of the red-sequence galaxies at the cluster redshift. By providing redshift estimates for all 542 candidates, we construct an optically confirmed sample of 477 clusters and groups with a residual contamination of 6%. Of these, 470 (98.5%) are confirmed using MCMF, and 7 systems are added through cross-matching with spectroscopic group catalogs. Using observable-to-observable scaling and the applied confirmation threshold, we predict that 8 ± 2 real systems have been excluded with the MCMF cut required to build this low-contamination sample. This number agrees well with the 7 systems found through cross-matching that were not confirmed with MCMF. The predicted redshift and mass distribution of this catalog agree well with simulations. Thus, we expect that these 477 systems include >99% of all true clusters in the candidate list. Using an MCMF-independent method, we confirm that the catalog contamination of the confirmed subsample is 6 ± 3%. Application of the same method to the full candidate list yields 17 ± 3%, consistent with estimates coming from the fraction of confirmed systems of ~17% and with expectations from simulations of ~20%. We also present a sample of merging cluster candidates based on the derived estimators of the cluster dynamical state.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sierra/SD – Verification Test Manual – 5.18

Tests from the Sierra Structural Dynamics verification test suite are reviewed. Each is run nightly and the results of the test checked versus the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Sierra/SD – Verification Test Manual – 5.0

This document presents tests from the Sierra Structural Mechanics verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/SD code suite and the results of the test checked versus the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SD code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Sierra/SD–Verification Test Manual - 4.58

This document presents tests from the Sierra Structural Mechanics verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/SD code suite and the results of the test checked versus the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SD code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Sierra/SD - Verification Test Manual - 5.2

This document presents tests from the Sierra Structural Mechanics verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/SD code suite and the results of the test checked versus the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SD code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sierra/SD - Verification Test Manual - 5.4

This document presents tests from the Sierra Structural Mechanics verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/SD code suite and the results of the test checked versus the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SD code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sierra/SD - Verification Test Manual - 5.6

This document presents tests from the Sierra Structural Mechanics verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/SD code suite and the results of the test checked versus the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SD code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sierra/SD - Verification Test Manual - 5.8

This document presents tests from the Sierra Structural Mechanics verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/SD code suite and the results of the test checked versus the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SD code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sierra/SD: Verification Test Manual - 5.10

This document presents tests from the Sierra Structural Mechanics verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/SD code suite and the results of the test checked versus the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SD code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

SIERRA Multimechanics Module: Aria Verification Manual - Version 4.58

Presented in this document is a portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra Thermal/Fluids verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/TF code suite and the results of the test checked under mesh refinement against the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Sierra/Aria Verification Manual (V.5.0)

Presented in this document is a portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra Thermal/Fluids verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/TF code suite and the results of the test checked under mesh refinement against the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Sierra/Aria Verification Manual (V.5.2)

Presented in this document is a portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra Thermal/Fluids verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/TF code suite and the results of the test checked under mesh refinement against the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

SIERRA Multimechanics Module: Aria Verification Manual (V.5.4)

Presented in this document is a portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra Thermal/Fluids verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/TF code suite and the results of the test checked under mesh refinement against the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

SIERRA Multimechanics Module: Aria Verification Manual (V.5.6)

Presented in this document is a portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra Thermal/Fluids verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/TF code suite and the results of the test checked under mesh refinement against the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

SIERRA Multimechanics Module: Aria Verification Manual - Version 5.8

Presented in this document is a portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra Thermal/Fluids verification test suite. Each of these tests is run nightly with the Sierra/TF code suite and the results of the test checked under mesh refinement against the correct analytic result. For each of the tests presented in this document the test setup, derivation of the analytic solution, and comparison of the code results to the analytic solution is provided. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems.

42 ENGINEERING↗