SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
A user created a notification of a significant software error in AMPX on February 26th. The error was primarily detected as a result of code-to-code comparisons. This is definitive proof that validation is needed for each TSL as it is possible to have processing errors that do not impact all files.
The objective of Phase III of the Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) project was to evaluate the accuracy of aerodynamic load predictions by offshore wind modeling tools for a floating offshore wind turbine as it experiences large surge-translational and pitch-rotational motion, as would occur during normal operation. A variety of models were examined in the project, with the goal of performing a three-way validation between engineering-level tools, higher-fidelity tools, and measurement data from two wind tunnel experimental campaigns. This document provides the necessary information to model and simulate the system studied in the OC6 Phase III project. This information is not only useful for project participants, but also future modelers who want to replicate this work for verification and validation purposes.
The Department of Energy (DOE)’s NEAMS focuses its efforts on the development of advanced modeling and simulation (M&S) tools for light-water reactors (LWRs) and non–LWRs (i.e., molten salt reactors, high-temperature gas reactors, microreactors, and fast reactors). In the previous fiscal year, the Multiphysics Applications Driver Technical Area funded molten salt reactor (MSR) M&S at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to generate multigroup macroscopic cross sections with Shift for a MSRE 2D lattice model in Griffin. In addition, Shift’s capability to calculate gamma dose rates from activated components in the primary exchangers in a molten salt breeder reactor was also demonstrated. In fiscal year 2023, ORNL generated multigroup macroscopic cross sections using Shift for a 3D MSRE core model. MSRE depletion calculations using Griffin were also demonstrated in this fiscal year. For the depletion calculation, one-group microscopic cross sections for the 3D MSRE core were generated using Shift, and the decay transmutation library from ORIGEN was converted to an ISOXML file, which is required as input in Griffin. Several Monte Carlo codes, such as OpenMC and Serpent, were also used to benchmark and supplement multigroup cross sections generated by Shift. Multigroup libraries were generated with 8 and 20 group structures, and the study found the 8-group structure to be more accurate when comparing Griffin results to continuous energy (CE) Monte Carlo results. The average flux from CE Shift calculations is up to ~6% higher than the CE Serpent calculations because of different values applied for the energy released per fission (κ values). The average flux in the fuel salt calculated by Griffin using cross sections generated with Shift agrees well with the reference CE Shift solution; the same is valid for the corresponding Serpent results. The maximum relative error is ~6% and ~2% compared to the CE Shift and Serpent reference solutions, respectively. Meanwhile, the average flux calculated by Griffin in the graphite moderator shows a higher difference in the thermal range when compared to both reference Monte Carlo solutions; this result suggests a need for improvement in cross section generation for the graphite moderator in the thermal range in both Monte Carlo codes. Griffin depletion calculations using cross sections from Shift and Serpent were performed and compared against ORIGEN calculations, and the nuclide densities calculated by Griffin were found to be generally in agreement with those of ORIGEN. Because a different approach was taken to calculate the energy released per fission ( κ values) in Shift and Serpent, a difference in nuclide densities from differences in the average flux was observed between Griffin using Serpent and Shift cross sections. Griffin calculations with Shift cross sections produced higher average flux in the salt than with Serpent cross sections, leading to higher consumption of 235 U and higher production of 135 Xe. For time-dependent depletion calculations, cross sections were generated with Serpent, and Griffin’s results using these cross sections were compared to CE Serpent depletion results, demonstrating good agreement. The average difference in keff between Serpent and Griffin as a function of burnup is about 155 pcm. Similarly, good agreement with small differences up to ~0.5% was also noticed in the nuclide density of 235 U and 135 Xe. More details regarding the methodologies invoked to generate the cross section to make code-to-code comparisons are discussed further in this report. User feedback on Griffin and Shift capabilities that will enhance these calculations is provided in this report for future consideration. The work performed this fiscal year can be extended further for multiphysics coupling of Griffin-Pronghorn/SAM with Mole to study precursor flow and salt chemistry.
This report describes the work conducted in FY23 within the High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR) Applications Drivers activity under the Multiphysics Applications technical area in the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program within DOE-NE. The focus of this past year’s activity was on the OECD/NEA thermal hydraulic benchmark for high temperature gas-cooled reactors using HTTF data (HTGR T/H). The activities focus on code-to-code comparisons for two benchmark problems: (1) Depressurized Conduction Cooldown using SAM, and (2) Lower Plenum Mixing using Nek5000/RS.
In this report we describe the Kinetic Phase Transition (KPT) framework that has been worked out over the last 10 years (from around 2014) and the implementation of it into three different codes, the one-dimensional hydro- LASLO and the three-dimensional magneto-hydro- ALEGRA, Sandia codes, via subroutines in the LAMBDA Equations of State and constitutive models package, and Flag, an arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian multiphysics code developed within the Lagrangian Applications project (LAP) at LANL. We discuss the introduction of phase mass (and/or volume) fractions that are needed in a code for it to be ‘phase aware’, that is, not only the thermodynamic state is known in each point but also the mixture of the materials’ phases in that point. Further we point to the need of a full Equations of State for each phase in a material to achieve phase awareness and we review the equilibrium phase model, where a phase mixture is at its lowest Gibbs free energy state, to make this point clear. Contrasting the kinetic phase transition to this equilibrium model seamlessly introduce us to the KPT framework that is subsequently thoroughly discussed. While the determination of the total state and the states and mass fractions of phases in each point is a problem that can borrow many of its numerical details from Eulerian codes and mixture of materials (not phases), the update of mass fractions with time in a KPT framework needs a new set of considerations. General for any update model is that we need to prevent mass fractions from becoming unphysical (negative or their sum to be larger than one). We have solved this problem by implementing a subdivision of the hydro time step that prevents the phase from being fully present to not present at all in one subdivided time step by limiting the size of the subdivided time step. This scheme also corrects numerical problems from abrupt changes in parameter values, the so called Gibbs phenomena, that gives rise to slushing between phases in the KPT framework. Interspersed throughout the report are discussions on different thermodynamics considerations. EOS validity windows, limitations on the EOS phase space, are needed for the KPT framework and are discussed separately and exemplified. The KPT framework described in this report has been verified by code comparison, but validation is still an active area of research. There is room for improvement in the update model, both in the model for determination of rates and in how to prevent the mass fractions from becoming unphysical. In addition, the parameters in the KPT update model and the placement of the phase boundary in the EOS phase space, and interactions with other constitutive models, are closely related and interfering with each other. One possible way forward is to simultaneously develop KPT parameters, EOS, and constitutive models for each material.
The Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation, and unCertainty (OC6) is an international project focused on verifying and validating modeling tools used in the analysis of floating offshore wind systems. The fourth phase of the project aims to assess the ability of the tools to model a novel floating wind design. The TetraSpar was designed by Stiesdal Offshore Technologies and was selected as the subject platform for the project. The platform is a unique design that features spar-like stability with a very low center of gravity, but does not require rare deep-water ports. This combination is achieved with a system made of two separate steel structures, a hull at the water's surface that supports the wind turbine tower, and a keel that is suspended below the main body. This lower keel has a very high density and drives the total platform's low center of gravity. The TetraSpar, with hull and keel, spar-type stability, and relatively slender components, is unique compared to platforms studied in earlier phases of OC3-OC6 projects, and it offers an opportunity to evaluate the applicability of modeling tools to a novel design, especially unique hydrodynamics and compliant cables. Scaled model tests of the TetraSpar design were performed in 2018-2019 by the University of Maine. The data collected in the model tests provides a detailed description of the response of the platform in various controlled and relatively well understood conditions. Comparison with this data provides a good opportunity for validation of numerical models. The OC6 Phase IV work focuses on the specific parameters used in these scaled model tests. Descriptions of the platform and the test campaign in this document are based on the report written by Allen and Fowler of the University of Maine in 2019.
The Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration 7 (OC7) project is organized under the International Energy Agency Wind Technology Collaboration Programme Task 56 with an objective to evaluate and enhance the predictive accuracy of engineering-level modeling tools used in the design of offshore wind energy systems. Phase I of OC7 is focused on improving the models and modeling practices of hydrodynamic viscous loads on floating offshore wind turbine platforms. In alignment with this goal, Work Package 1.1 of OC7 Phase I is formulated to investigate the modeling of hydrodynamic viscous loads on several different geometric components commonly encountered with floating offshore wind platform designs, including cylindrical columns, heave plates, and rectangular pontoons. Work Package 1.1 also explores the dependence of hydrodynamic coefficients on the sea state to drive toward practical guidance on how these coefficients can be selected or adjusted for different conditions. This report outlines the motivation and objectives behind each subphase of OC7 Phase I, along with the necessary technical specifications and load case definitions to guide the project participants. It also serves as an important part of the project documentation for future modelers who would like to reproduce this work or make use of the data and information generated from the OC7 project.
Under the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) Program, an integrated multiphysics approach is being developed to model the core bowing phenomena important to liquid metal-cooled fast reactors. Core bowing is an important passive safety mechanism in liquid metal-cooled fast reactors and involves multiphysics effects including radiation transport, fluid flow, heat transfer, and mechanical response to temperature and flux gradients. This report summarizes recent progress on developing a multiphysics, MOOSE-based workflow to predict core bowing and associated reactivity feedback. Significant new capabilities in the reactor physics code Griffin - sodium backfill and pin power reconstruction for deformed geometries - were applied in this effort. This year’s work included verification, code comparisons, sensitivity studies, and coupled demonstrations that advance the state of MOOSE-based core bowing workflow. Griffin’s sodium backfill capability was verified by demonstrating that its automated treatment of geometry expansion and material-density updates reproduces manual calculations exactly, confirming solid mass conservation and proper coolant backfilling in expanded geometries. Reconstructed pin powers were compared for Griffin’s ductheterogeneous and ring-heterogeneous treatments in single-, seven-, and nineteen-assembly cases, with best agreement observed in lower-leakage configurations and the duct-heterogeneous approach offering substantially lower computational cost. Thermal-hydraulic sensitivity sensitivities showed that MOOSE SCM, SAM, and CFD are expected to produce similar deformation predictions despite variances in their temperature predictions, and that explicit treatment of inter-assembly flow becomes increasingly important as gap flow rate increases. Finally, coupled demonstrations on small multi-assembly configurations using Griffin, MOOSE Solid Mechanics, MOOSE SCM, and Heat Conduction produced physically consistent reactivity feedback from thermal expansion and bowing. The coupled demonstrations simulated grid plate expansion as well as resultant core bowing at full power conditions. Simplifications were made in current workflow, namely the assumption of instantaneous full power conditions following hot zero power, and pre-expanding the Griffin geometry axially due to lack of an axial fuel pin expansion model and temperature feedback to Griffin.
The Offshore Code Comparison, Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation (OC5) is an international research project run under the International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Task 30. The project is focused on validating the tools used design offshore wind systems. OC5 consists of four phases. Phase 1a: Analysis of a suspended cylinder in a wave basin This website provides the data used for validation in these four phases, as well as simulation results from multiple participants.
The Offshore Code Comparison, Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation (OC5) is an international research project run under the International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Task 30. The project is focused on validating the tools used design offshore wind systems. OC5 consists of four phases. • Phase 1b: Analysis of a fixed-bottom cylinder in a wave basin This website provides the data used for validation in these four phases, as well as simulation results from multiple participants.
The Offshore Code Comparison, Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation (OC5) is an international research project run under the International Energy Agency (IEA) Wind Task 30. The project is focused on validating the tools used design offshore wind systems. OC5 consists of four phases. • Phase 2: Analysis of a scaled wind turbine on a floating semisubmersible in an ocean basin This website provides the data used for validation in these four phases, as well as simulation results from multiple participants.
Phase II of the Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) project was used to verify the implementation of a new soil-structure interaction (SSI) model for use within offshore wind turbine modeling software. The REDWIN Macro-element model implemented and verified in this study enables a computationally efficient way to model the linear and nonlinear SSI problem, including hysteretic damping, of a monopile structure. The modeling approach was integrated into several modeling tools and a series of increasingly complex simulations was conducted using the IEA 10MW reference turbine mounted on a monopile support structure to verify the coupling between the tools and the REDWIN Macro-element SSI model. This campaign includes only numerical verification between various software and modeling approaches so no experimental measurements are available. The load cases (LC) considered include: LC1 – static response of the tower and substructure LC2 – frequency and mode-shape analysis of the tower and substructure LC3 – response of the tower and substructure due to wind-only loading LC4 – response of the tower and substructure due to wave-only loading LC5 – response of the tower and substructure due to wind and wave loading. Detailed properties of the modeled system are found in the following reference, “Bergua, Roger, Amy Robertson, Jason Jonkman, and Andy Platt. 2021. "Specification Document for OC6 Phase II: Verification of an Advanced Soil-Structure Interaction Model for Offshore Wind Turbines.” Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5000-79938. https://www.nlr.gov/docs/fy21osti/79938.pdf. Details on the results from the OC6 Phase II project can be found in the following reference, “Bergua R, Robertson A, Jonkman J, et al. OC6 Phase II: Integration and verification of a new soil–structure interaction model for offshore wind design.” Wind Energy. 2022;25(5):793-810. doi:10.1002/we.2698
The objective of Phase III of the Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) project was to validate the accuracy of aerodynamic load predictions by offshore wind modeling tools for a floating offshore wind turbine as it experiences large surge-translational and pitch-rotational motion, as would occur during normal operation. The test data considered were generated at Politecnico di Milano – a wind tunnel with a robotic excitation system to emulate wave loading on the wind turbine. Testing was performed using a scaled version of the DTU 10-MW reference model, and motion was prescribed as harmonic oscillations in the surge and pitch directions, independently. A variety of models were examined in the project, performing a three-way validation between engineering-level tools, higher-fidelity tools, and measurement data from two wind tunnel experimental campaigns. The Load Cases (LC) considered in this testing are as follows: LC 1.X - Steady Wind LC 2.X - Unsteady Wind - Surge Motion LC 3.X - Unsteady Wind - Pitch Motion Details on the results of the OC6 Phase III campaign can be found in the following reference: Bergua R., et al. OC6 project Phase III: validation of the aerodynamic loading on a wind turbine rotor undergoing large motion caused by a floating support structure, Wind Energ. Sci., 8, 465–485, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-8-465-2023, 2023.
Two validation campaigns were examined within the Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) Phase 1 project to examine the modeling tools' underprediction of loads and motion of a floating wind semisubmersible (semi) at their surge and pitch natural frequencies. These campaigns were performed at the Maritime Research Institute Netherlands (MARIN) in 2017 and 2018. The load cases (LC) considered include: LC1 – Load measurements across semi under current loading; LC2 - Load measurements across semi under forced surge oscillation; LC3 – Load measurements across semi under wave loading, while held fixed; LC4 – Free-decay motion measurements in surge, pitch, and heave; and LC5 – Motion measurements under wave loading. Details on the results from the OC6 Phase Ia project can be found in the reference, “OC6 Phase 1: Investigating the underprediction of low-frequency hydrodynamic loads and responses of floating wind turbines”, J Phys: Conf Series 1618 032033.
The fourth phase of the Offshore Code Comparison, Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation and unCertainty (OC6) aims to assess the ability of the tools to model a novel floating wind design. The design that was selected for this project is the TetraSpar designed by Stiesdal Offshore Technologies. The platform is a unique design that features a spar like stability with a very low center of gravity, but does not require deep-water ports. This combination is achieved with a system made of two separate steel structures, a hull at the water’s surface that supports the wind turbine tower, and a keel that is suspended below the main body. This lower keel has a very high density and drives the total platform’s low center of gravity. Scaled model tests of the TetraSpar design were performed in 2018-2019 by the University of Maine. The tests were performed with 1:43 Froude scaling. The data collected in the model tests provide a detailed description of the response of the platform in various controlled and relatively well understood conditions. Comparison with these data provides a good opportunity for validation of numerical models. The OC6 Phase IV work will focus on the specific parameters used in these scaled model tests. The load cases (LC) considered in this project are as follows: LC 1.X - Equilibrium and Static Offset Tests LC 2.X - Platform Free Decays LC 3.X - Turbine Thrust (Wind Only) LC 4.X - Regular and Irregular Waves (Wave only) LC 5.X - Combined Wind and Wave Loading
Currently, the design of floating offshore wind systems is primarily based on mid-fidelity models with empirical drag forces. The tuning of the model coefficients requires data from either experiments or high-fidelity simulations. As part of the OC6 (Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation, and unCertainty (OC6) is a project under the International Energy Agency Wind Task 30 framework) project, the present investigation explores the latter option. A verification and validation study of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models of the DeepCwind semisubmersible undergoing free-decay motion is performed. Several institutions provided CFD results for validation against the OC6 experimental campaign. The objective is to evaluate whether the CFD setups of the participants can provide valid estimates of the hydrodynamic damping coefficients needed by mid-fidelity models. The linear and quadratic damping coefficients and the equivalent damping ratio are chosen as metrics for validation. Large numerical uncertainties are estimated for the linear and quadratic damping coefficients; however, the equivalent damping ratios are more consistently predicted with lower uncertainty. Some difference is observed between the experimental and CFD surge-decay motion, which is caused by mechanical damping not considered in the simulations that likely originated from the mooring setup, including a Coulomb-friction-type force. Overall, the simulations and the experiment show reasonable agreement, thus demonstrating the feasibility of using CFD simulations to tune mid-fidelity models.
The cores of main sequence intermediate- and high-mass stars are convective. Mixing at the radiative–convective boundary, waves excited by the convection, and magnetic fields generated by convective dynamos all influence the main sequence and post-main sequence evolution of these stars. These effects must be understood to accurately model the structure and evolution of intermediate- and high-mass stars. Unfortunately, there are many challenges in simulating core convection due to the wide range of temporal and spatial scales, as well as many important physics effects. In this review, we describe the latest numerical strategies to address these challenges. We then describe the latest state-of-the-art simulations of core convection, summarizing their main findings. These simulations have led to important insights into many of the processes associated with core convection. Two outstanding problems with multidimensional simulations are, 1. it is not always straightforward to extrapolate from simulation parameters to the parameters of real stars; and 2. simulations using different methods sometimes appear to arrive at contradictory results. To address these issues, next generation simulations of core convection must address how their results depend on stellar luminosity, dimensionality, and turbulence intensity. Furthermore, code comparison projects will be essential to establish robust parameterizations that will become the new standard in stellar modeling.
The worldwide effort to design and commission floating offshore wind turbines (FOWT) is motivating the need for reliable numerical models that adequately represent their physical behavior under realistic sea states. However, properly representing the hydrodynamic quadratic damping for FOWT remains uncertain, because of its dependency on the choice of drag coefficients (dimensionless or not). It is hypothesized that the limited degree of freedom (DoF) drag coefficient formulation that uses only translational drag coefficients causes mischaracterization of the rotational DoF drag, leading to underestimation of FOWT global loads, such as tower base fore-aft shear. To address these hydrodynamic modeling uncertainties, different quadratic drag models implemented in the open-source mid-fidelity simulation tool, OpenFAST, were investigated and compared with the experimental data from the Offshore Code Comparison Collaboration, Continued, with Correlation (OC5) project. The tower base fore-aft shear and up-wave mooring line tension were compared under an irregular wave loading condition to demonstrate the effects of the different damping models. Two types of hydrodynamic quadratic drag formulations were considered: (1) member-based dimensionless drag coefficients applied only at the translational DoF (namely limited-DoF drag model) and (2) quadratic drag matrix model (in dimensional form). Based on the results, the former consistently underestimated the 95th percentile peak loads and spectral responses when compared to the OC5 experimental data. In contrast, the drag matrix models reduced errors in estimates of the tower base shear peak load by 7–10% compared to the limited-DoF drag model. The underestimation in the tower base fore-aft shear was thus inferred be related to mischaracterization of the rotational pitch drag and the heave motion/drag by the limited-DoF model.