Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “standards”

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 OSTI2021

Standardizing Dainotti-correlated gamma-ray bursts, and using them with standardized Amati-correlated gamma-ray bursts to constrain cosmological model parameters

ABSTRACT We show that each of the three Dainotti-correlated gamma-ray burst (GRB) data sets recently compiled by Wang et al. and Hu et al., that together probe the redshift range 0.35 ≤ z ≤ 5.91, obey cosmological-model-independent Dainotti correlations and so are standardizable. We use these GRB data in conjunction with the best currently available Amati-correlated GRB data, that probe 0.3399 ≤ z ≤ 8.2, to constrain cosmological model parameters. The resulting cosmological constraints are weak, providing lower limits on the non-relativistic matter density parameter, mildly favouring non-zero spatial curvature, and largely consistent with currently accelerated cosmological expansion as well as with constraints determined from better-established data.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Standardizing Platinum Dainotti-correlated gamma-ray bursts, and using them with standardized Amati-correlated gamma-ray bursts to constrain cosmological model parameters

ABSTRACT We show that the Platinum gamma-ray burst (GRB) data compilation, probing the redshift range 0.553 ≤ z ≤ 5.0, obeys a cosmological-model-independent three-parameter Fundamental Plane (Dainotti) correlation and so is standardizable. While they probe the largely unexplored z ∼ 2.3–5 part of cosmological redshift space, the GRB cosmological parameter constraints are consistent with, but less precise than, those from a combination of baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) and Hubble parameter [H(z)] data. In order to increase the precision of GRB-only cosmological constraints, we exclude common GRBs from the larger Amati-correlated A118 data set composed of 118 GRBs and jointly analyse the remaining 101 Amati-correlated GRBs with the 50 Platinum GRBs. This joint 151 GRB data set probes the largely unexplored z ∼ 2.3–8.2 region; the resulting GRB-only cosmological constraints are more restrictive, and consistent with, but less precise than, those from H(z) + BAO data.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS1990

Frequency shifts in a rubidium frequency standard due to coupling to another standard

Highly reliable timing system, such as used on board satellites, may incorporate a hot standby atomic clock besides the active one. RF couplings between them may affect the performance of the active clock. The effect of such couplings between two rubidium atomic clocks was investigated, and it was found that they will add an oscillatory term to the Allan Variance of the active clock, degrading its frequency stability, and that under certain circumstances they may also shift the active clock's operating frequency. These two effects are discussed in detail, and the level of isolation required to render them negligible is established.

Jaduszliwer, Bernardo↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Standards Roadmapping for Mission Assurance in Commercial Spaceflight

This paper explores the application of established roadmapping approaches in standards planning and roadmap development to support mission assurance objectives. Mission assurance requires proactive planning across multiple domains including technical, schedule, cost, organizational, and policy. The intersection of these domains happens at the enterprise level, and enterprise systems engineering processes can systematically guide mission assurance activities, including development of standards roadmaps. Standards planning and development is a critical contributor to an effective mission assurance strategy, although standards are often developed and adopted reactively. Technology and standards planning is a key Enterprise Process Management activity, as identified by the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge, and technology and standards roadmaps are strategic tools used to enable that process. Technology roadmapping has proven effective in guiding enterprise architecture and concept design, and standards planning supports enterprise requirements definition and management. However, there are limited methodologies to guide such standards planning activities. The application of technology roadmapping principles to standards planning formalizes the process and establishes a repeatable framework for standards development and integration. The framework development described in this paper fills a methodological gap by adapting proven roadmapping techniques to standards planning. Through a comparison of roadmapping methodologies and a case study analysis, this approach outlines a systematic process for anticipating and planning standards needs. In the case of developing a standards integration roadmap for NASA’s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance (OSMA), technology roadmapping principles were adapted to develop a roadmap framework to allow NASA and OSMA to define an agency-wide standards integration plan for commercial and industry safety and mission assurance standards. The outcome highlights key adaptations required for roadmapping in a standards context and describes the process steps to formalize a standards planning activity. The roadmapping framework adapted for standards development and integration enables more strategic, forward-looking standards planning and allows for better alignment between evolving capabilities and mission assurance requirements. Beyond its application to mission assurance, this methodology can be transferred to other domains requiring standards development, providing a systematic approach that integrates systems engineering principles into policy strategy and decision-making processes.

Enterprise Systems Engineering↗
DOE OSTI2020

National Cost-effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016

The purpose of this analysis is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the 2016 edition of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 2016). Standard 90.1 is developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1. It is the model energy standard for commercial and multi-family residential buildings over three floors (42 USC 6833). PNNL analyzed the cost-effectiveness of changes in Standard 90.1 from 90.1-2013 to 90.1-2016, as applied in commercial buildings across the United States. During the development of new editions of Standard 90.1, the cost-effectiveness of individual changes (addenda) is often calculated to support the deliberations of ASHRAE Standard Standing Project Committee (SSPC) 90.1. The ASHRAE process, however, does not include analysis of the cost-effectiveness of the entire package of addenda from one edition of the standard to the next, which is of particular interest to adopting State and local governments. Providing States with an analysis of cost-effectiveness may encourage more rapid adoption of newer editions of energy codes based on Standard 90.1. This information may also inform the development of future editions of Standard 90.1. To establish the cost-effectiveness of Standard 90.1-2016, three main tasks were addressed: (1) Identification of building elements impacted by the updated standard; (2) Allocation of associated installation, maintenance, and replacement costs; and (3) Cost-effectiveness analysis of required changes In addition to installation, maintenance, and replacement costs, energy cost differences were needed to determine cost-effectiveness. The energy costs for each edition of Standard 90.1 were determined previously under the development of Standard 90.1-2016, as described below. The current analysis builds on the previous PNNL analysis (as outlined in Section 5.2) of the energy use and energy cost saving impacts of Standard 90.1-2016 compared to previous editions. The overall energy savings analysis of Standard 90.1 utilized a suite of 16 prototype EnergyPlus building models in 15 climate locations representing all eight U.S. climate zones. Detailed methodology and overall energy saving results from Standard 90.1-2016 are documented in the DOE technical report titled Energy Savings Analysis: ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 (DOE. 2018b).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2025

Domestic and International Consensus Standards for Nuclear Criticality Safety - Overview & Status

The domestic and international consensus standards for nuclear criticality safety (NCS) were developed based on the lessons-learned from process criticality accidents. These consensus standards were developed to reduce the rate of process criticality accidents in facilities that process, store, handle, or transport fissionable materials by hand. After a significant increase in criticality accidents through the mid-1960s, the rate of criticality accidents decreased as a result of these standards, and the criticality accident rate is extremely low from an industrial safety perspective. The last known criticality accident inside the United States was in 1978 (nearly 47 years ago) at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, and outside the United States, an accident occurred at Tokai-mura, Japan, in 1999 (almost 26 years ago). The domestic consensus standards for NCS include the American National Standards (ANS) that are prepared and published by the American Nuclear Society and approved by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The ANS Standards Board, the NCS Consensus Committee, and the ANS-8 Subcommittee oversee the development and maintenance of these standards. There are currently 18 standards in the ANS-8 series. Nine ANS-8 standards are either in revision mode or planned for revision. A new standard for the use of nondestructive assay measurements (ANSI/ANS-8.28-2024) for NCS was approved in March of 2024. The international consensus standards for NCS calculations, procedures, and practices are maintained and developed within the International Organization for Standardization, Technical Committee 85 “Nuclear Energy,” Subcommittee 5, “Nuclear Fuel Technology,” and Working Group 8, “Nuclear Criticality Safety.” Eleven standards are currently available, four standards are proposed for revision, and four standards are at various stages of development. This paper provides the NCS community with a high-level overview and status report of domestic and international NCS consensus standards to stimulate interest and to support their continued development.

Bowen, Douglas G [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000212460026)↗
DOE OSTI2022

Domestic and International Standards for Nuclear Criticality Safety – Overview and Status

The domestic and international consensus standards for nuclear criticality safety (NCS) have provided guidance for staff performing hands-on work in operations with fissionable materials. These consensus standards have contributed directly to the significant reduction in the rate of criticality accidents in process facilities since the 1940s. The last known criticality accident inside the United States was in 1978 (nearly 43 years ago) at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, and outside the United States, an accident occurred at Tokai-mura, Japan, in 1999 (23 years ago). The domestic consensus standards for NCS include the American Nuclear Society (ANS) standards. The ANS Standards Board, the NCS Consensus Committee, and the ANS-8 Subcommittee oversee the development and maintenance of these standards. There are currently eighteen standards in the ANS-8 series. Currently, there are six ANS-8 standards in revision mode and eleven in a maintenance mode with one new standard under development. The international consensus standards for NCS calculations, procedures, and practices are maintained and developed within the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Technical Committee 85 on Nuclear Energy, Subcommittee 5 on Nuclear Fuel Technology, and Working Group 8, “Nuclear Criticality Safety.” Eleven standards are currently available, three standards are in revision mode, and two standards are development. This paper provides the NCS community with an overview and status report of domestic and international NCS consensus standards to stimulate interest and to support their continued development.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Domestic and International Standards for Nuclear Criticality Safety - Overview & Status [Abstract]

The domestic and international consensus standards for nuclear criticality safety (NCS) have provided guidance for staff performing hands-on work in operations with fissionable materials. These consensus standards have contributed directly to the significant reduction in the rate of criticality accidents in process facilities since the 1940s. The last known criticality accident inside the United States was in 1978 (nearly 43 years ago) at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, and outside the United States, an accident occurred at Tokai-mura, Japan, in 1999 (22 years ago). The domestic consensus standards for NCS include the American Nuclear Society (ANS) standards. The ANS Standards Board, the NCS Consensus Committee, and the ANS-8 Subcommittee oversee the development and maintenance of these standards. There are currently eighteen standards in the ANS-8 series. Currently, there are six ANS-8 standards in re- vision mode and eleven in a maintenance mode with one new standard under development. The international consensus standards for NCS calculations, procedures, and practices are maintained and developed within the International Organization for Standardization, Technical Committee 85 on Nuclear Energy, Subcommittee 5 on Nuclear Fuel Technology, and Working Group 8, “Nuclear Criticality Safety.” Eleven standards are currently available, three standards are in revision mode, and two standards are development. This paper provides the NCS community with an overview and status report of domestic and international NCS consensus standards to stimulate interest and to support their continued development.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comparison of ISO and ANSI/ANS Nuclear Criticality Safety Standards [Slides]

This paper provides a high-level comparison between the international and domestic nuclear criticality safety (NCS) standards, as requested by members of the Nuclear Criticality Safety Division. Currently, there are 18 enacted American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/American National Standards (ANS) standards, and 1 ANSI/ANS standard, in progress. There are 11 NCS standards from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Technical Committee 85 (TC85) on Nuclear Energy, Subcommittee 5 (SC5) on Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Working Group 8 (WG8). NCS standard revisions are in progress for both standards organizations. The key differences between the ISO TC85/SC5/WG8 and ANSI/ANS-8 consensus NCS standards are summarized. The hard work done by the ANS-8 and WG8 volunteers allows for applicable, high-quality consensus standards for use by the NCS community. This paper defines the current status of each ANSI/ANS and ISO standard, the work in in progress, the revisions/amendments in progress, and WG8/ANS-8 non-standard business in progress. A forthcoming paper will compare the development process for ISO and ANSI/ANS standards.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗