Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Handbook”

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 829 records · Page 46
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

The ICARE Method

The ICARE method is a flexible, widely applicable method for systems engineers to solve problems and resolve issues in a complete and comprehensive manner. The method can be tailored by diverse users for direct application to their function (e.g. system integrators, design engineers, technical discipline leads, analysts, etc.). The clever acronym, ICARE, instills the attitude of accountability, safety, technical rigor and engagement in the problem resolution: Identify, Communicate, Assess, Report, Execute (ICARE). This method was developed through observation of Space Shuttle Propulsion Systems Engineering and Integration (PSE&I) office personnel approach in an attempt to succinctly describe the actions of an effective systems engineer. Additionally it evolved from an effort to make a broadly-defined checklist for a PSE&I worker to perform their responsibilities in an iterative and recursive manner. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Systems Engineering Handbook states, engineering of NASA systems requires a systematic and disciplined set of processes that are applied recursively and iteratively for the design, development, operation, maintenance, and closeout of systems throughout the life cycle of the programs and projects. ICARE is a method that can be applied within the boundaries and requirements of NASA s systems engineering set of processes to provide an elevated sense of duty and responsibility to crew and vehicle safety. The importance of a disciplined set of processes and a safety-conscious mindset increases with the complexity of the system. Moreover, the larger the system and the larger the workforce, the more important it is to encourage the usage of the ICARE method as widely as possible. According to the NASA Systems Engineering Handbook, elements of a system can include people, hardware, software, facilities, policies and documents; all things required to produce system-level results, qualities, properties, characteristics, functions, behavior and performance. The ICARE method can be used to improve all elements of a system and, consequently, the system-level functional, physical and operational performance. Even though ICARE was specifically designed for a systems engineer, any person whose job is to examine another person, product, or process can use the ICARE method to improve effectiveness, implementation, usefulness, value, capability, efficiency, integration, design, and/or marketability. This paper provides the details of the ICARE method, emphasizing the method s application to systems engineering. In addition, a sample of other, non-systems engineering applications are briefly discussed to demonstrate how ICARE can be tailored to a variety of diverse jobs (from project management to parenting).

Henke, Luke↗
NASA NTRS2012

Development of Human System Integration at NASA

Human Systems Integration seeks to design systems around the capabilities and limitations of the humans which use and interact with the system, ensuring greater efficiency of use, reduced error rates, and less rework in the design, manufacturing and operational deployment of hardware and software. One of the primary goals of HSI is to get the human factors practitioner involved early in the design process. In doing so, the aim is to reduce future budget costs and resources in redesign and training. By the preliminary design phase of a project nearly 80% of the total cost of the project is locked in. Potential design changes recommended by evaluations past this point will have little effect due to lack of funding or a huge cost in terms of resources to make changes. Three key concepts define an effective HSI program. First, systems are comprised of hardware, software, and the human, all of which operate within an environment. Too often, engineers and developers fail to consider the human capacity or requirements as part of the system. This leads to poor task allocation within the system. To promote ideal task allocation, it is critical that the human element be considered early in system development. Poor design, or designs that do not adequately consider the human component, could negatively affect physical or mental performance, as well as, social behavior. Second, successful HSI depends upon integration and collaboration of all the domains that represent acquisition efforts. Too often, these domains exist as independent disciplines due to the location of expertise within the service structure. Proper implementation of HSI through participation would help to integrate these domains and disciplines to leverage and apply their interdependencies to attain an optimal design. Via this process domain interests can be integrated to perform effective HSI through trade-offs and collaboration. This provides a common basis upon which to make knowledgeable decisions. Finally, HSI must be considered early in the requirements development phase of system design and acquisition. This will provide the best opportunity to maximize return on investment (ROI) and system performance. HSI requirements must be developed in conjunction with capability ]based requirements generation through functional. HSI requirements will drive HSI metrics and embed HSI issues within the system design. After a system is designed, implementation of HSI oversights can be very expensive. An HSI program should be included as an integral part of a total system approach to vehicle and habitat development. This would include, but not limited to, workstation design, D&C development, volumetric analysis, training, operations, and human -robotic interaction. HSI is a necessary process for Human Space Flight programs to meet the Agency Human ]System standards and thus mitigate human risks to acceptable levels. NASA has been involved in HSI planning, procedures development, process, and implementation for many years, and has been building several internal and publicly accessible products to facilitate HSI fs inclusion in the NASA Systems Engineering Lifecycle. Some of these products include: NASA STD 3001 Volumes 1 and 2, Human Integration Design Handbook, NASA HSI Implementation Plan, NASA HSI Implementation Plan Templates, NASA HSI Implementation Handbook, and a 2 ]hour short course on HSI delivered as part of the NASA Space and Life Sciences Directorate Academy. These products have been created leveraging industry best practices and lessons learned from other Federal Government agencies.

Whitmore, Mihriban↗
NASA NTRS2014

Materials International Space Station Experiment (MISSE): Overview, Accomplishments and Future Needs

Materials and devices used on the exterior of spacecraft in low Earth orbit (LEO) are subjected to environmental threats that can cause degradation in material properties, possibly threatening spacecraft mission success. These threats include: atomic oxygen (AO), ultraviolet and x-ray radiation, charged particle radiation, temperature extremes and thermal cycling, micrometeoroid and debris impacts, and contamination. Space environmental threats vary greatly based on spacecraft materials, thicknesses and stress levels, and the mission environment and duration. For more than a decade the Materials International Space Station Experiment (MISSE) has enabled the study of the long duration environmental durability of spacecraft materials in the LEO environment. The overall objective of MISSE is to test the stability and durability of materials and devices in the space environment in order to gain valuable knowledge on the performance of materials in space, as well as to enable lifetime predictions of new materials that may be used in future space flight. MISSE is a series of materials flight experiments, which are attached to the exterior of the International Space Station (ISS). Individual experiments were loaded onto suitcase-like trays, called Passive Experiment Containers (PECs). The PECs were transported to the ISS in the Space Shuttle cargo bay and attached to, and removed from, the ISS during extravehicular activities (EVAs). The PECs were retrieved after one or more years of space exposure and returned to Earth enabling post-flight experiment evaluation. MISSE is a multi-organization project with participants from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Defense (DoD), industry and academia. MISSE has provided a platform for environmental durability studies for thousands of samples and numerous devices, and it has produced many tangible impacts. Ten PECs (and one smaller tray) have been flown, representing MISSE 1 through MISSE 8, yielding long-duration space environmental performance and durability data that enable material validation, processing recertification and space qualification; improved predictions of materials and component lifetimes in space; model verification and development; and correlation factors between space-exposure and ground-facilities enabling more accurate in-space performance predictions based on ground-laboratory testing. A few of the many experiment results and observations, and their impacts, are provided. Those highlighted include examples on improved understanding of atomic oxygen scattering mechanisms, LEO coating durability results, and polymer erosion yields and their impacts on spacecraft design. The MISSE 2 Atomic Oxygen Scattering Chamber Experiment discovered that the peak flux of scattered AO was determined to be 45 deg from normal incidence, not the model predicted cosine dependence. In addition, the erosion yield (E(sub y)) of Kapton H for AO scattered off oxidized-Al is 22% of the E(sub y) of direct AO impingement. These results were used to help determine the degradation mechanism of a cesium iodide detector within the Hubble Space Telescope Cosmic Origins Spectrograph Experiment. The MISSE 6 Indium Tin Oxide (ITO) Degradation Experiment measured surface electrical resistance of ram and wake ITO coated samples. The data confirmed that ITO is a stable AO protective coating, and the results validated the durability of ITO conductive coatings for solar arrays for the Atmosphere-Space Transition 2 Explorer program. The MISSE 2, 6 and 7 Polymer Experiments have provided LEO AO Ey data on over 120 polymer and composites samples. The flight E(sub y) values were found to range from 3.05 x 10(exp -26) cu cm/atom for the AO resistant polymer CORIN to 9.14 x 10(exp -26) cu cm/atom for polyoxymethylene (POM). In addition, flying the same polymers on different missions has advanced the understanding of the AO E(sub y) dependency on solar exposure for polymers containing fluorine. The MISSE polymer results are highly requested and have impacted spacecraft design for WorldView-2 & -3, the Global Precipitation Measurement-Microwave Imager, and other spacecraft. The flight data has enabled the development of an Atomic Oxygen Erosion Predictive Tool that allows the erosion prediction of new and non-flown polymers. The data has also been used to develop a new NASA Technical Standards Handbook "Spacecraft Polymers Atomic Oxygen Durability Handbook." Many intangible benefits have also been derived from MISSE. For example, over 40 students have collaborated on Glenn's MISSE experiments, which have resulted in greater than $80K in student scholarships and awards in national and international science fairs. Students have also given presentations and won poster competition awards at international space conferences.

Flight Experiment↗
NASA NTRS2008

Enabling Innovation and Collaboration Across Geography and Culture: A Case Study of NASA's Systems Engineering Community of Practice

In 2004, NASA faced major knowledge sharing challenges due to geographically isolated field centers that inhibited personnel from sharing experiences and ideas. Mission failures and new directions for the agency demanded better collaborative tools. In addition, with the push to send astronauts back to the moon and to Mars, NASA recognized that systems engineering would have to improve across the agency. Of the ten field centers, seven had not built a spacecraft in over 30 years, and had lost systems engineering expertise. The Systems Engineering Community of Practice came together to capture the knowledge of its members using the suite of collaborative tools provided by the NASA Engineering Network (NEN.) The NEN provided a secure collaboration space for over 60 practitioners across the agency to assemble and review a NASA systems engineering handbook. Once the handbook was complete, they used the open community area to disseminate it. This case study explores both the technology and the social networking that made the community possible, describes technological approaches that facilitated rapid setup and low maintenance, provides best practices that other organizations could adopt, and discusses the vision for how this community will continue to collaborate across the field centers to benefit the agency as it continues exploring the solar system.

NEN↗
NASA NTRS2015

Update on CMH-17 Volume 5: Ceramic Matrix Composites

CMC components are projected to enter service in commercial aircraft in 2016. A wide range of issues must be addressed prior to certification of this hardware. The Composite Materials Handbook-17, Volume 5 on ceramic matrix composites is being revised to support FAA certification of CMCs for hot structure and other elevated temperature applications. The handbook supports the development and use of CMCs through publishing and maintaining proven, reliable engineering information and standards that have been thoroughly reviewed. Volume 5 will contain detailed sections describing CMC materials processing, design analysis guidelines, testing procedures, and data analysis and acceptance. A review of the status of and plans for two of these areas, which are being addressed by the M and P Working Group and the Testing Working Group, will be presented along with a timeline for the preparation of CMH-17, Volume 5.

design↗
NASA NTRS2017

Update on CMH-17 Volume 5 Ceramic Matrix Composites

A wide range of issues must be addressed during the process of certifying CMC (ceramic matrix composite) components for use in commercial aircraft. The Composite Materials Handbook-17, Volume 5, Revision A on ceramic matrix composites has just been revised to help support FAA certification of CMCs for elevated temperature applications. The handbook supports the development and use of CMCs through publishing and maintaining proven, reliable engineering information and standards that have been thoroughly reviewed. Volume 5 contains detailed sections describing CMC materialsprocessing design, analysisguidelines, testing procedures, and data analysis and acceptance. A review of the content of this latest revision will be presented along with a description of how CMH-17, Volume 5 could be used by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and others in the future.

characterization↗
NASA NTRS2017

CMH-17 Volume 5 Ceramic Matrix Composites

A wide range of issues must be addressed during the process of certifying CMC (ceramic matrix composite) components for use in commercial aircraft. The Composite Materials Handbook-17, Volume 5, Revision A on ceramic matrix composites has just been revised to help support FAA certification of CMCs for elevated temperature applications. The handbook supports the development and use of CMCs through publishing and maintaining proven, reliable engineering information and standards that have been thoroughly reviewed. Volume 5 contains detailed sections describing CMC materials processing, design analysis guidelines, testing procedures, and data analysis and acceptance. A review of the content of this latest revision will be presented along with a description of how CMH-17, Volume 5 could be used by the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and others in the future.

characterization↗
NASA NTRS2017

FOREWORD: Satellite Remote Sensing Beyond 2015

Satellite remote sensing has progressed tremendously since the first Landsat was launched on June 23, 1972. Since the 1970s, satellite remote sensing and associated airborne and in situ measurements have resulted in vital and indispensable observations for understanding our planet through time. These observations have also led to dramatic improvements in numerical simulation models of the coupled atmosphere-land-ocean systems at increasing accuracies and predictive capability. The same observations document the Earth's climate and are driving the consensus that Homo sapiens is changing our climate through greenhouse gas emissions. These accomplishments are the combined work of many scientists from many countries and a dedicated cadre of engineers who build the instruments and satellites that collect Earth observation data from satellites, all working toward the goal of improving our understanding of the Earth. This edition of the Remote Sensing Handbook (Vol. I, II, and III) is a compendium of information for many research areas of our Planet that have contributed to our substantial progress since the 1970s. Remote sensing community is now using multiple sources of satellite and in situ data to advance our studies, what ever they might be. In the following paragraphs, I will illustrate how valuable and pivotal role satellite remote sensing has played in climate system study over last five decades, The Chapters in the Remote Sensing Handbook (Vol. I, II, and III) provides many other specific studies on land, water, and other applications using EO data of last five decades, The Landsat system of Earth-observing satellites has led the way in pioneering sustained observations of our planet. From 1972 to the present, at least one and sometimes two Landsat satellites have been in operation. Starting with the launch of the first NOAA-NASA Polar Orbiting Environmental Satellites NOAA-6 in 1978, improved imaging of land, clouds, and oceans and atmospheric soundings of temperature were accomplished. The NOAA system of polar-orbiting meteorological satellites has continued uninterrupted since that time, providing vital observations for numerical weather prediction. These same satellites are also responsible for the remarkable records of sea surface temperature and land vegetation index from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometers (AVHRR) that now span more than 33 years, although no one anticipated these valuable climate records from this instrument before the launch of NOAA-7 in 1981. The success of data from the AVHRR led to the design of the MODIS instruments on NASA's Earth Observing System of satellite platforms that improved substantially upon the AVHRR. The first of the EOS platforms, Terra, was launched in 2000 and the second of these platforms, Aqua, was launched in 2002.

Tucker, Compton J.↗
NASA NTRS2019

TESS Data Release Notes: Sectors 1 – 13, Multi-Sector Search, DR20

These Data Release Notes provide information on the processing and export of data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). This data release is a combined, multi-sector transit search only. The underlying data products from individual observing sectors have been previously released. The data products included in this data release are the Data Validation (DV) reports, time series, and associated xml les for the threshold crossing events (TCEs) found by searching a combined data set including data from multiple observing sectors. These data products were generated by the TESS Science Processing Operations Center (SPOC, Jenkins et al., 2016) at NASA Ames Research Center from data collected by the TESS instrument, which is managed by the TESS Payload Operations Center (POC) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The format and content of these data products are documented in the Science Data Products Description Document (SDPDD)1. The SPOC science algorithms are based heavily on those of the Kepler Mission science pipeline, and are described in the Kepler Data Processing Handbook (Jenkins, 2017)2. The Data Validation algorithms are documented in Twicken et al. (2018) and Li et al. (2019). The TESS Instrument Handbook (Vanderspek et al., 2018)3 contains more information about the TESS instrument design, detector layout, data properties, and mission operations. The TESS Mission is funded by NASA's Science Mission Directorate.

Burke, Christopher J.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Design Thinking for the Applied Sciences: Developing a Novel Approach to Encourage the Use of Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) and Open Source Tools for Forest Monitoring

Earth observations from Synthetic Aperture Radar, or SAR, have yet to be fully leveraged for forest monitoring applications. While SAR sensors are uniquely able to capture components of forest structure over optical imagery, especially in cloud-heavy regions, there is a shortage of freely-available applied training materials and related case studies. With the wealth of available datasets from Sentinel-1 and other missions, such as ALOS-Palsar open historical archive, and in preparation for upcoming opendata policy SAR missions (e.g. NISAR and BIOMASS), the applied forestry community would benefit from increased access to relevant, understandable SAR training materials. This work documents lessons learned and best practices for creating EO capacity building/training materials gleaned from the SAR Handbook project. Strategies for increasing legibility for both print and online applications, illustration and editing guidelines for original and modified figures, and the development of quick-reference guides will be shared. Additionally, the conception and use of companion “explainer” videos, using cartoon characters and humor to outline relevant SAR concepts will be explored. Preliminary results indicate the SAR Handbook and supplemental project materials are already having an impact in training sessions. Increased uptake of SAR technologies in SERVIR Hub regions, where Hubs are leading follow-on SAR trainings, has also been noted. In addition, a review of download statistics from the SERVIR global website indicates widespread worldwide access. We conclude similar holistic approaches integrating design concepts into future content development would help increase uptake of EO applications by the earth science community.

Kucera, Leah M.↗
NASA NTRS2020

TESS Data Release Notes: Sector 21 DR 29

These Data Release Notes provide information on the processing and export of data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). The data products included in this data release are full frame images (FFIs), target pixel les, light curve les, collateral pixel les, cotrending basis vectors (CBVs), and Data Validation (DV) reports, time series, and associated xml les. These data products were generated by the TESS Science Processing Operations Center (SPOC, Jenkins et al., 2016) at NASA Ames Research Center from data collected by the TESS instrument, which is managed by the TESS Payload Operations Center (POC) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The format and content of these data products are documented in the Science Data Products Description Document (SDPDD)1. The SPOC science algorithms are based heavily on those of the Kepler Mission science pipeline, and are described in the Kepler Data Processing Handbook (Jenkins, 2017).2 The Data Validation algorithms are documented in Twicken et al. (2018) and Li et al. (2019). The TESS Instrument Handbook (Vanderspek et al., 2018) contains more information about the TESS instrument design, detector layout, data properties, and mission operations. The TESS Mission is funded by NASA's Science Mission Directorate.

Michael M. Fausnaugh↗
NASA NTRS2020

TESS Data Release Notes: Sector 24, DR35

These Data Release Notes provide information on the processing and export of data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). The data products included in this data release are full frame images (FFIs), target pixel fi les, light curve fi les, collateral pixel fi les, cotrending basis vectors (CBVs), and Data Validation (DV) reports, time series, and associated xml fi les. These data products were generated by the TESS Science Processing Operations Center (SPOC, Jenkins et al., 2016) at NASA Ames Research Center from data collected by the TESS instrument, which is managed by the TESS Payload Operations Center (POC) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The format and content of these data products are documented in the Science Data Products Description Document (SDPDD). The SPOC science algorithms are based heavily on those of the Kepler Mission science pipeline, and are described in the Kepler Data Processing Handbook (Jenkins, 2019).2 The Data Validation algorithms are documented in Twicken et al. (2018) and Li et al. (2019). The TESS Instrument Handbook (Vanderspek et al., 2018) contains more information about the TESS instrument design, detector layout, data properties, and mission operations. The TESS Mission is funded by NASA's Science Mission Directorate.

TESS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions: A Multi-Team Research Effort to Reduce Risk in the Human-System Integration Architecture for Future Deep-Space Missions

In future exploration missions beyond low earth-orbit, crew will have to execute complex operations and respond to off-nominal events, without real-time support from Mission Control. It is anticipated that increased reliance on automated systems, including human-centric vehicle and information architecture, will need to be designed to support the crew; increased risk to performance, health, and safety may occur if these are not implemented appropriately. The Human Factors and Behavioral Performance Element (HFBP) in the NASA Human Research Program supports research to characterize and mitigate such human health and performance risks, including the Risk of Adverse Outcome Due to Inadequate Human Systems Integration Architecture (HSIA). The HSIA risk addresses the integration of onboard capability and the crew roles and responsibilities necessary to enable the crew to respond effectively and efficiently in the increasingly autonomous mission operations environment. In 2017, HFBP released the “Human Capabilities Assessments for Autonomous Missions” (HCAAM) research topic to address HSIA related questions. HCAAM is a major NASA research effort that has assembled a multidisciplinary team from seven institutions to work closely with design and engineering efforts on research towards developing and refining human performance standards, guidelines and automation tools. The scientific focus is on quantitative assessment of human capabilities relevant to future deep-space missions during which earth/spacecraft communication is so delayed and intermittent that the crew must be able to function autonomously. The integrated strategy of the HCAAM project characterizes human capabilities and limitations related to potential performance decrements during long duration exploration mission spaceflight as relevant to both routine and complex task performance; defines system characteristics that reduce the likelihood or impact of potential decrements in human performance capabilities; performs integrated assessment of intelligent system responses within the context of an operational environment with relevant NASA tools, systems, and data structures in order to determine positive or negative interactions and validate recommended approaches; and proposes specific updates to existing standards and guidelines for inclusion in NASA handbooks for the design of future spacecraft intelligent systems that provide crew performance assessment/feedback, and to also serve as decision-support aids for the onboard crew (i.e., NASA-STD-3001, and NASA/SP-Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH)). The scientific research vectors being addressed by the seven HCAAM teams include: - crew task performance (accuracy, efficiency) (crew + automation) - crew performance (accuracy, efficiency) - crew Situation Awareness - procedure design and multi-modal enhancement - concurrent tasking (mixed manual + some level of autonomy) - task handover - crew self-planning and time-lining - task design - trust in automation, real-time calibration - human multi-sensory feedback and guidance - human trust in on-board software-based intelligent assistants - virtual assistants The presentation will highlight plans and progress made in each of these research areas as well as the methods by which surrogate astronaut crews in the NASA JSC HERA spaceflight analog facility will function as human test subjects for all of the HCAAM research projects.

HCAAM VNSCOR↗
NASA NTRS2021

TESS Data Release Notes: Sectors 1 – 36, Multi-sector Search, DR53

These Data Release Notes provide information on the processing and export of data from the Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). This data release is a combined, multi-sector transit search only. The underlying data products from individual observing sectors have been previously released. The data products included in this data release are the Data Validation (DV) reports, time series, and associated xml files for the threshold crossing events (TCEs) found by searching a combined data set including data from multiple observing sectors. These data products were generated by the TESS Science Processing Operations Center (SPOC, Jenkins et al., 2016) at NASA Ames Research Center from data collected by the TESS instrument, which is managed by the TESS Payload Operations Center (POC) at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). The format and content of these data products are documented in the Science Data Products Description Document (SDPDD)1. The SPOC science algorithms are based heavily on those of the Kepler Mission science pipeline, and are described in the Kepler Data Processing Handbook (Jenkins, 2020)2. The Data Validation algorithms are documented in Twicken et al. (2018) and Li et al. (2019). The TESS Instrument Handbook (Vanderspek et al., 2018) contains more information about the TESS instrument design, detector layout, data properties, and mission operations. The TESS Mission is funded by NASA's Science Mission Directorate.

TESS↗
NASA NTRS2021

Comparing Theoretically Scaled Biomechanical Models

BACKGROUND An investigation into incorporating space suit aspects required a 50th-percentile male model which was not part of the existing dataset of models. Previously, theoretical models for 5th-percentile female and 95th-percentile male were created utilizing a scaled test subject as close as possible to the target height and weight. Scaling factors were created by taking the height ratio and applying it uniformly to the model body segments, then fine tuning to ensure the theoretical model’s height is as expected. This study was initiated to examine the existing method of isometrically scaling in OpenSim [1,2] and to create alternative methods which do not rely on an existing subject being close in height and weight to the theoretical model of interest. Generating a theoretical biomechanical model provides additional abilities without the reliance on available OpenSim models or real subjects. Gained abilities include creating different percentile models and attaining representative anthropometry for any target height/weight, such as targeting specific crew populations or gaps within the current dataset. METHODS AND RESULTS This study includes 3 methods for generating the theoretical model; utilizing the modified unscaled OpenSim Full Body Rajagopal Model (FBRM) [3,4], a dataset of scaled OpenSim models, and existing scaling factors from Dumas et al. [5]. All methods use the Anthropometric Survey of US Army Personnel (ANSUR II) [6] as an input of necessary anthropometric measurements. The following measurements are retrieved from the ANSUR II collection: mass, stature, cervicale height, acromial height, axilla height, waist height, trochanterion height, lateral femoral epicondyle height, lateral malleolus height, acromion-radiale length, radiale-stylion length, palm length, ball of foot length, bicristal breadth, bimalleolar breadth. Some of the measurements are direct segment lengths and others are utilized to derive segment lengths. Height, weight, and age ranges are the required inputs to parse the collection for a mean value of the measurements. A simple iterative process may be necessary for the output of mean mass and stature consistent with the theoretical model of interest. In some cases, one may specify exact values instead of a range but that is dependent upon whether those exact values pertain to a single subject from the ANSUR II collection. Equations from Dumas et al. were used to calculate scaling factors for the two methods that utilize OpenSim scaled and unscaled models. In the third method, Dumas’ scaling factors were used directly instead of generating our own. After scaling factors are achieved, they are applied along with the mass and segment lengths retrieved from ANSUR II in order to calculate the segment mass, Center of Mass (CoM), mass Moment of Inertia (MoI), and the joint location in the parent frame. The theoretical models from the different methods were compared to the previous existing method of isometrically scaling in OpenSim, as well as the standards found in NASA STD-3000 [7] and the NASA Human Integration Design Handbook [8]. The whole-body center of mass is the main comparison performed between the models and the standards. The body segment mass properties were also compared when possible. In some cases, the standards do not provide complete data, or the center of mass location is not provided with respect to the appropriate joint coordinate system. For a 50th-percentile male subject, results from isometric scaling in OpenSim and the method utilizing the unscaled FBRM were compared to the standards in NASA STD-3000. According to the standard, the whole-body vertical CoM location was taken from the head vertex to the CoM. The standards provide 80.2 cm for the CoM vertical component whereas isometric scaling in OpenSim and utilizing the unscaled FBRM provide 82.2 and 82.3 cm, respectively. Through definition, the whole-body CoM in the medial/lateral direction agreed across the models. Investigation is on-going to clearly identify the reference point pertaining to dorsal/ventral whole-body CoM position in standards and relate that to the theoretical models. REFERENCES [1] Delp, S.L., et al., “OpenSim: Open-source Software to Create and Analyze Dynamic Simulations of Movement”, IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering, (2007). [2] Seth, A., Hicks J.L., Uchida, T.K., Habib, A., Dembia, C.L., Dunne, J.J., Ong, C.F., DeMers, M.S., Rajagopal, A., Millard, M., Hamner, S.R., Arnold, E.M., Yong, J.R., Lakshmikanth, S.K., Sherman,n M.A., Delp, S.L. OpenSim: Simulating musculoskeletal dynamics and neuromuscular control to study human and animal movement. Plos Computational Biology, 14(7). (2018) [3] R. K. Huffman, W. K. Thompson, C. A. Gallo, L. J. Quiocho, “Improvement of Scaling and Inverse Kinematic Results with Additional Upper Body Joints Added to Opensim Rajagopal Model”, NASA Human Research Program Investigator’s Workshop, (2019). [4] Huffman R.K., Thompson W., Gallo C., “Modified OpenSim Rajagopal Full Body Model”, New Technology Report, MSC-26872-1. (August 2020). [5] Dumas R., Cheze L. and Verriest J., 2007. “Adjustments to McConville et al. and Young et al. body segment inertial parameters”. Journal of Biomechanics 40, pp. 543-553 [6] Gordon C.C., 2012 “Anthropometric Survey of U.S. Army Personnel: Methods and Summary Statistics”, US Army Natick Soldier RD&E Center. [7] NASA STD-3000/REV-B, 1995. “The Man-System Integration Standards” [8] NASA/SP-2010-3407/REV-1, 2014. “The Human Integration Design Handbook (HIDH)”

F N Matari↗
DOE OSTI2021

Evaluation of Oak Ridge National Laboratory Health Physics Research Reactor Operation Data for Criticality Accident Alarm System Benchmark Creation

Over the last few decades, the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) Working Group has focused on gathering critical and subcritical benchmark experiment data from different facilities around the world for inclusion in the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments (ICSBEP Handbook). The compiled data can be used by criticality safety analysts to help validate their calculation tools and cross-section libraries for a variety of applications.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Evaluation of Oak Ridge National Laboratory Health Physics Research Reactor Operation Data for Critical Benchmark Creation [Abstract]

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Health Physics Research Reactor (HPRR) was a research reactor designed and built at ORNL in 1961. The critical assembly was using a highly enriched uranium and molybdenum alloy as the fuel, and it could be operated in steady-state or burst modes. The reactor was used for about 25 years to produce a lot of publications related to dosimetry, radiobiology and radiation detectors testing before its decommissioning in 1987. In recent years, the idea of using legacy operation data from the to create a valuable critical accident alarm system shielding benchmark arose. Such a benchmark has been submitted to the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiment Project (ICSBEP) Technical Review Group for a potential inclusion in the 2022 version of the handbook. Another way to use the valuable data from the operation of the HPRR is to evaluate the feasibility of the creation of a subcritical or prompt supercritical benchmark for inclusion in the ICSBEP or the International Reactor Physics Experiments Evaluation Project (IRPhEP) handbooks. To initiate a burst, the HPRR had to be operated in a slightly subcritical state for a few minutes. Then, the insertion of the burst control rod would greatly increase the reactivity of the system and start the burst. No critical configuration of the HPRR critical assembly could be located. The only information available concerns stable subcritical and prompt supercritical states, found in a burst experiments’ logbook. In the recovered logbook pages, information about 8 different bursts is available. The information includes the rods positions before and during a burst, the recorded subcritical reactor period and reactivity, and the burst fission yield derived from the temperature elevation sulfur pellet irradiation analysis. By using the HPRR logbook information and the as-built drawings of the critical assembly, a highly detailed model of the HPRR was created with SCALE 6.2.4/KENO-VI. Eight KENO-VI models were created to replicate the sub-critical assembly configurations described in the eight bursts from the recovered logbook pages. KENO-VI calculates k eff and it can be linked to a reactivity value in cents by using the delayed neutron fraction B eff , also calculated by KENO-VI. KENO-VI can also be used to model the prompt super-critical configurations of the HPRR and to assess the similarity with the burst measurements by comparing the calculated k eff and the measured fission yields between each burst. Unfortunately, high uncertainty exist and the obtained discrepancies between experiments and calculation results are high, compromising the creation of a valuable critical benchmark from HPRR operation data. The reasons of the discrepancies and potential ways to solve them are explored.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sensitivity/Uncertainty Comparison Study Involving IRSN, LANL, and ORNL Tools to Support Validation

Under a DOE Nuclear Criticality Safety Program (NCSP) task involving Analytical Methods, three Laboratories collaborated in a comparison of results obtained from Sensitivity/Uncertainty (S/U) packages relevant to validation of transport codes. The task involves Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire (IRSN), Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) comparing results of MORET 5/MACSENS V3.0, MCNP6.2/Whisper-1.1, and SCALE 6.2.3/TSUNAMI/USLSTATS respectively. All Monte Carlo transport code results utilize nuclear data from ENDF/B-VII.1 evaluation. This study examines five cases from the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments (ICSBEP Handbook) selected as application models: IEU-MET- FAST-002-001, LEU-COMP-THERM-001-001, LEU-SOL-THERM-004-001, MIX-COMP- THERM-001-001, and U233-SOL-THERM-001-001. This is a continuation of a previous study to examine Pu and HEU cases: HEU-MET-FAST-013-001, HEU-SOL-THERM-001-008, PU-MET- FAST-022-001, and PU-SOL-THERM-001-001. Ultimately, comparison is made between Upper Subcritical Limits (USLs) obtained using each code package for each application case. Since differences exist in whether packages take into account margin of subcriticality (MOS), the USL is computed using only bias and bias uncertainty, also known as the calculational margin (CM) in ANSI/ANS-8.24. Results comparison appears to show that benchmark selection has a greater influence on the USL than the method used for calculation of bias and bias uncertainty.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗