Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Software 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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2015

A quantification of the effectiveness of EPID dosimetry and software-based plan verification systems in detecting incidents in radiotherapy

Purpose: Complex treatments in radiation therapy require robust verification in order to prevent errors that can adversely affect the patient. For this purpose, the authors estimate the effectiveness of detecting errors with a “defense in depth” system composed of electronic portal imaging device (EPID) based dosimetry and a software-based system composed of rules-based and Bayesian network verifications. Methods: The authors analyzed incidents with a high potential severity score, scored as a 3 or 4 on a 4 point scale, recorded in an in-house voluntary incident reporting system, collected from February 2012 to August 2014. The incidents were categorized into different failure modes. The detectability, defined as the number of incidents that are detectable divided total number of incidents, was calculated for each failure mode. Results: In total, 343 incidents were used in this study. Of the incidents 67% were related to photon external beam therapy (EBRT). The majority of the EBRT incidents were related to patient positioning and only a small number of these could be detected by EPID dosimetry when performed prior to treatment (6%). A large fraction could be detected by in vivo dosimetry performed during the first fraction (74%). Rules-based and Bayesian network verifications were found to be complimentary to EPID dosimetry, able to detect errors related to patient prescriptions and documentation, and errors unrelated to photon EBRT. Combining all of the verification steps together, 91% of all EBRT incidents could be detected. Conclusions: This study shows that the defense in depth system is potentially able to detect a large majority of incidents. The most effective EPID-based dosimetry verification is in vivo measurements during the first fraction and is complemented by rules-based and Bayesian network plan checking.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

M-Star ® Software Test and Verification

Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC) currently manages the risk for retained hydrogen in the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) vessels by implementing a Retained Hydrogen Program. The current program relies on Sludge Batch (SB) 8 Gas Chromatograph data and on conservative assumptions concerning gas release and retention to determine allowable vessel Quiescent time (Q-time). The authors identified M-Star ® CFD as a software that could simulate processes such as fluid flow, heat transfer, species transport, chemical reactions, particle transport, and retained hydrogen gas release. Preliminary simulation results suggest that more realistic assumptions on gas retention and release may be feasible for the DWPF retained hydrogen program. Because of the desire to use the M-Star ® software to perform analyses that support nuclear safety, SRMC has requested Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) to upgrade the software classification level of M-Star ® CFD from level D to level A to perform analyses that support nuclear safety.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2017

Software Quality Assurance and Verification for the MPACT Library Generation Process

This report fulfills the requirements for the Consortium for the Advanced Simulation of Light-Water Reactors (CASL) milestone L2:RTM.P14.02, “SQA and Verification for MPACT Library Generation,” by documenting the current status of the software quality, verification, and acceptance testing of nuclear data libraries for MPACT. It provides a brief overview of the library generation process, from general-purpose evaluated nuclear data files (ENDF/B) to a problem-dependent cross section library for modeling of light-water reactors (LWRs). The software quality assurance (SQA) programs associated with each of the software used to generate the nuclear data libraries are discussed; specific tests within the SCALE/AMPX and VERA/XSTools repositories are described. The methods and associated tests to verify the quality of the library during the generation process are described in detail. The library generation process has been automated to a degree to (1) ensure that it can be run without user intervention and (2) to ensure that the library can be reproduced. Finally, the acceptance testing process that will be performed by representatives from the Radiation Transport Methods (RTM) Focus Area prior to the production library’s release is described in detail.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2014

Dual-Slab Verification Detector (DSVD) Operations Software User Guide

The Dual-Slab Verification Detector (DSVD) is used with a MiniGRAND to acquire data at different positions on a spent-fuel cask and then to make a determination regarding the safeguards status of the fuel stored in the cask. The software described in this document, the DSVD Operations Software, provides an interface to perform the various activities required to use the DSVD to make safeguards determinations. Data acquired by the software is saved in a set of worksheets in an Excel spreadsheet. Plateau, background, and calibration data are each placed on separate pages, and each cask has its own page containing data acquired for that cask. The spreadsheet is backed up each time the software begins executing.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2022

M-Star® Software Test and Verification for Impeller Mixing in a Tank

Before a sample of the Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) can be taken, the SME product sampling procedure requires that the agitator power be stable between 20 and 30 kW for at least one hour. The SME transfer to Melter Feed Tank (MFT) procedure also requires the SME agitator power be stabilized between 20 and 30 kW prior to transfer. These requirements are specified to ensure samples are homogeneous, as discussed in the Waste Form Qualification Report. During SME Batch 804, the agitator power dropped to 19 kW and struggled to achieve and maintain 20 kW. It was later discovered that the cause of the power drop was due to one of the bottom blades of the agitator breaking off. Both the sample and the transfer occurred without the power stabilizing between 20 and 30 kW. Therefore, the quality of SME Batch 804 is indeterminate, and homogeneity was questionable.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Verification of the PERSENT Software

Ongoing commercial design activities require a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes to be performed. DIF3D is central to this system and substantial work has been done to verify its accuracy on several identified commercial needs. This manuscript details the verification work done on PERSENT which relies upon the DIF3D for its forward and adjoint flux solution.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Verification of the PERSENT Software

Ongoing commercial design activities require a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system and substantial work has been done to verify its accuracy on several identified commercial needs. This manuscript details the verification work done on PERSENT which relies upon the DIF3D code for its forward and adjoint flux solution. Previous work identified the PERSENT features required to be verified to support commercial design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying PERSENT’s ability to correctly calculate four key quantities: perturbation worth distributions, kinetics parameters, sensitivity coefficients, and cross section uncertainty quantification. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to these quantities needed for commercial design activities. For the perturbation worth distributions, hand calculations are deployed to verify the PERSENT calculated results. Similarly, hand calculation of the PERSENT computed kinetics parameters is also used to verify the PERSENT results. In both of these, the input to PERSENT is manipulated to ensure the hand calculation exactly matches the equations PERSENT is calculating. The sensitivity coefficients involve calculating the derivatives of a parameter (such as reactivity worth), with respect to the cross section data. Direct finite difference calculations with DIF3D are used to verify the PERSENT calculated results. For the uncertainty quantification, manufactured input to PERSENT is used to allow an exact hand calculation to reproduce the PERSENT calculated results. The work detailed in this report verified that significant issues were identified for earlier versions of PERSENT for sensitivity coefficients which were corrected in this work and thus version 12.1.0 of PERSENT must be used to reproduce all of the verified work in this report.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2012

Open-source MFIX-DEM software for gas–solids flows: Part I—Verification studies

With rapid advancements in computer hardware, it is now possible to perform large simulations of granular flows using the Discrete Element Method (DEM). As a result, solids are increasingly treated in a discrete Lagrangian fashion in the gas–solids flow community. In this paper, the open-source MFIX-DEM software is described that can be used for simulating the gas–solids flow using an Eulerian reference frame for the continuum fluid and a Lagrangian discrete framework (Discrete Element Method) for the particles. This method is referred to as the continuum discrete method (CDM) to clearly make a distinction between the ambiguity of using a Lagrangian or Eulerian reference for either continuum or discrete formulations. This freely available CDM code for gas–solids flows can accelerate the research in computational gas–solids flows and establish a baseline that can lead to better closures for the continuum modeling (or traditionally referred to as two fluid model) of gas–solids flows. In this paper, a series of verification cases is employed which tests the different aspects of the code in a systematic fashion by exploring specific physics in gas–solids flows before exercising the fully coupled solution on simple canonical problems. It is critical to have an extensively verified code as the physics is complex with highly-nonlinear coupling, and it is difficult to ascertain the accuracy of the results without rigorous verification. These series of verification tests set the stage not only for rigorous validation studies (performed in part II of this paper) but also serve as a procedure for testing any new developments that couple continuum and discrete formulations for gas–solids flows.

Computational fluid dynamics↗
DOE OSTI2024

A Formalization of Core Why3 in Coq

Intermediate verification languages like Why3 and Boogie have made it much easier to build program verifiers, transforming the process into a logic compilation problem rather than a proof automation one. Why3 in particular implements a rich logic for program specification with polymorphism, algebraic data types, recursive functions and predicates, and inductive predicates; it translates this logic to over a dozen solvers and proof assistants. Accordingly, it serves as a backend for many tools, including Frama-C, EasyCrypt, and GNATProve for Ada SPARK. But how can we be sure that these tools are correct? The alternate foundational approach, taken by tools like VST and CakeML, provides strong guarantees by implementing the entire toolchain in a proof assistant, but these tools are harder to build and cannot directly take advantage of SMT solver automation. As a first step toward enabling automated tools with similar foundational guarantees, we give a formal semantics in Coq for the logic fragment of Why3. We show that our semantics are useful by giving a correct-by-construction natural deduction proof system for this logic, using this proof system to verify parts of Why3's standard library, and proving sound two of Why3's transformations used to convert terms and formulas into the simpler logics supported by the backend solvers.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the polynomial order used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis (Rev. 3)

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Fiscal Year 2023 Software Quality Assurance Activities for the ARC Software

The Argonne Reactor Code (ARC) software suite [1-17] has been developed by Argonne researchers for fast reactor design and analysis since the 1970s. With the ARC software suite, a user can quickly build a model of a proposed or existing fast spectrum reactor and carry out fuel cycle, nominal thermal analysis and flow requirements, and assess, as is appropriate, whether the core design and constraint system yield an acceptable mechanical behavior. For transient reactor analysis with SAS4A [18], the ARC software suite can be used to generate reactivity coefficients and kinetics parameters at any modeled fuel cycle time point which forms part of the input to SAS4A. The ARC suite was consistently being developed until the 1990s and followed a software QA program which was an appropriate standard for the time. In the 1990s, the DOE funding to fast reactor research and development was all but eliminated and the ARC software was put into maintenance mode. In the early 2000s, the software quality assurance (SQA) program for ARC was still in place to define an official version, but by 2005 it all but was abandoned as there were insufficient staff to fill the work roles. Since 2005, there has been a considerable increase in research and design work on fast spectrum reactors. The ARC software as a whole has since been exported to many universities and commercial companies and ANL support has been given to the various projects over the years [19-23]. Further, MC 2 -3, PERSENT, and DASSH were all developed after 2005 without any adherence to a software standard. In recent time, the DOE VTR project [22] paid for verification work to be done on the ARC software as part of the goal of making it NQA-1 complaint. The VTR project was not considered the appropriate pathway to fund and maintain a SQA program for the ARC software and while software developments (DASSH) were made and several manuals were updated and software verification work was carried out, the ARC software is not NQA-1 compliant. More recently the Advanced Reactor Development Program (ARDP [23]) has funded the creation of manuals for some ARC utility programs and funded additional software verification work on DIF3D [6, 7] and MC 2 -3 [2-5] for the purpose of commercial grade dedication. Because of the VTR and ARDP projects, software verification work was completed on MC 2 -3 and DIF3D, and detailed reports were created for each piece of software, which discuss the inputs and outputs from the codes that are covered by the verification work and link various analytic, code-to-code, and hand calculation based verification work presented in the report with verification test problems provided with the software. This is a key part of the commercial grade dedication work and constitutes the bulk of the cost to get the ARC software to commercial grade. The ARC software suite is a valuable asset as a fast reactor design and analysis tool set that has been reasonably well verified and validated with various fast reactor benchmark problems and experiments over decades. Some or all of the ARC software suite has been utilized for designing the IFR [20], PGSFR [21], VTR [22], and Natrium [23] reactors and we can expect it to continue to be used for advanced fast reactor design and/or confirmatory calculation purposes in the future. Due to increased interest by commercial companies and regulatory bodies, it is becoming more important to make the ARC software suite complete and ready-to-use in terms of its SQA pedigree and commercial grade dedication needs. This report discusses the achievements made towards building a new SQA program for the ARC software and dealing with outstanding identified QA gaps.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2013

Reactor physics verification of the MCNP6 unstructured mesh capability

The Monte Carlo software package MCNP6 has the ability to transport particles on unstructured meshes generated from the Computed-Aided Engineering software Abaqus. Verification is performed using benchmarks with features relevant to reactor physics - Big Ten and the C5G7 computational benchmark. Various meshing strategies are tested and results are compared to reference solutions. Computational performance results are also given. The conclusions show MCNP6 is capable of producing accurate calculations for reactor physics geometries and the computational requirements for small lattice benchmarks are reasonable on modern computing platforms. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-254: Development of a HDR-BT QA Tool for Verification of Source Position with Oncentra Applicator Modeling

Purpose: To develop a High Dose Rate Brachytherapy (HDR-BT) quality assurance (QA) tool for verification of source position with Oncentra applicator modeling, and to report the results of radiation source positions with this tool. Methods: We developed a HDR-BT QA phantom and automated analysis software for verification of source position with Oncentra applicator modeling for the Fletcher applicator used in the MicroSelectron HDR system. This tool is intended for end-to-end tests that mimic the clinical 3D image-guided brachytherapy (3D-IGBT) workflow. The phantom is a 30x30x3 cm cuboid phantom with radiopaque markers, which are inserted into the phantom to evaluate applicator tips and reference source positions; positions are laterally shifted 10 mm from the applicator axis. The markers are lead-based and scatter radiation to expose the films. Gafchromic RTQA2 films are placed on the applicators. The phantom includes spaces to embed the applicators. The source position is determined as the distance between the exposed source position and center position of two pairs of the first radiopaque markers. We generated a 3D-IGBT plan with applicator modeling. The first source position was 6 mm from the applicator tips, and the second source position was 10 mm from the first source position. Results: All source positions were consistent with the exposed positions within 1 mm for all Fletcher applicators using in-house software. Moreover, the distance between source positions was in good agreement with the reference distance. Applicator offset, determined as the distance from the applicator tips at the first source position in the treatment planning system, was accurate. Conclusion: Source position accuracy of applicator modeling used in 3D-IGBT was acceptable. This phantom and software will be useful as a HDR-BT QA tool for verification of source position with Oncentra applicator modeling.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Computational Analysis of Coupled Geoscience Processes in Fractured and Deformable Media

Prediction of flow, transport, and deformation in fractured and porous media is critical to improving our scientific understanding of coupled thermal-hydrological-mechanical processes related to subsurface energy storage and recovery, nonproliferation, and nuclear waste storage. Especially, earth rock response to changes in pressure and stress has remained a critically challenging task. In this work, we advance computational capabilities for coupled processes in fractured and porous media using Sandia Sierra Multiphysics software through verification and validation problems such as poro-elasticity, elasto-plasticity and thermo-poroelasticity. We apply Sierra software for geologic carbon storage, fluid injection/extraction, and enhanced geothermal systems. We also significantly improve machine learning approaches through latent space and self-supervised learning. Additionally, we develop new experimental technique for evaluating dynamics of compacted soils at an intermediate scale. Overall, this project will enable us to systematically measure and control the earth system response to changes in stress and pressure due to subsurface energy activities.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗