Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “dynamic load model”

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.

998 records · Page 56
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

matsim-agents v1.0

matsim-agents is a multi-agent AI framework for atomistic materials simulation and discovery. It orchestrates large language models (LLMs), machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs), and DFT codes into a single agentic loop running on laptops and DOE leadership-class supercomputers. MULTI-AGENT ORCHESTRATION A LangGraph state machine with three nodes: a Planner that converts a natural-language research objective into structured tasks; an Executor that dispatches atomistic tools and loops until the queue is empty; and an Analyst that summarizes results into a human-readable report. State is checkpointed after every step and human-in-the-loop gates can be inserted at any edge. HYPOTHESIS-DRIVEN DISCOVERY CHAT An interactive REPL (matsim-agents chat) that couples LLM dialogue with atomistic simulation. Chemical formulas are automatically detected in conversation turns and trigger a full crystal-phase exploration: structure generation → relaxation → stability scoring → result injection back into the conversation, creating a closed hypothesis-refinement loop. CRYSTAL PHASE ENUMERATION Given a composition, the phase explorer enumerates prototypes by stoichiometry: elemental (fcc/bcc/hcp/sc/diamond), binary 1:1 (rocksalt/CsCl/zincblende/ wurtzite/fluorite/rutile), ternary 1:1:3 (cubic perovskite), ternary 1:2:4 (perovskite + spinel), quaternary 1:1:2:6 (Fm-3m double perovskite). 2-D prototypes (graphene, h-BN, MoS2 2H/1T) and multilayer stacking are also supported via --include-2d and --num-layers. SUPERCELL GENERATION AND SITE DECORATION Auto-tiling to a minimum atom count (--min-atoms), explicit NxNxN tiling (--supercell), symmetry-distinct site decorations (--n-orderings), and isotropic lattice-scale sweeps (--lattice-scales) for volume bracketing. MLFF RELAXATION AND STABILITY SCORING HydraGNN (multi-headed GNN) drives structure relaxation via ASE with FIRE, BFGS, or BFGSLineSearch. Stability output: delta-E/atom ranking across phases and a max-residual-force dynamical-stability proxy. Other MLIPs (MACE, NequIP, Orb) can be plugged in through the same interface. DFT BACKENDS Quantum ESPRESSO pw.x and VASP 6.6 are first-class labellers. Both have validated GPU builds and SLURM/PBS launchers for three DOE platforms: Frontier (AMD MI250X, ROCm), Aurora (Intel PVC, oneAPI), Perlmutter (NVIDIA A100, CUDA). QE produces ~100 binaries (pw.x, ph.x, epw.x, ...). VASP supports scf, relax, vc-relax, and vc-relax-shape run types. ACTIVE-LEARNING LOOP matsim-agents al run CONFIG.yaml drives an iterative HydraGNN-DFT loop: MD generates candidates → ensemble/MC-dropout uncertainty selects the most informative → DFT labels them in parallel inside one allocation → dataset grows → HydraGNN retrains → repeat. DFT backend is a single YAML toggle (dft.backend: vasp | qe). LLM-generated seed structures are supported (no curated POSCAR library needed). Config uses ${VAR}, ${VAR:-default}, ${VAR:?msg} shell-style substitution for cross-user/cross-site portability. LLM BACKENDS Ollama (local, default), vLLM (HPC multi-GPU serving), OpenAI, Anthropic, HuggingFace Transformers+Accelerate. Selected at runtime via flag or env var with no code changes. HPC PORTABILITY Same Python entry points run on Frontier (ROCm 7.2), Aurora (oneAPI), and Perlmutter (CUDA 12). DFT and ML stacks are never co-loaded in the same shell; they couple through the scheduler and filesystem. Advanced multi-node launchers (serve, discovery-chat, single-relaxation, active-learning, QE warm-start) are provided for all three platforms. CODABENCH COMPETITION BUNDLE A self-contained benchmark: 159 atomistic test structures across 11 material classes, 5 tasks (formation energy, forces, ML relaxation, AI-DFT relaxation, phase stability ranking), public/private leaderboard split (30/70), and four ready-to-run baselines: MACE-MP-0, HydraGNN, UMA, AllScAIP.

Lupo Pasini, Massimiliano [Oak Ridge National Labo↗
DOE OSTI2023

Final Report DE-FE0031785 Mohsen Ahmadian, Ph.D. Demonstration of Proof of Concept of a Multiphysics Approach for Real-Time Remote Monitoring of Dynamic Changes in Pressure and Salinity in Hydraulically Fractured Networks

Hydraulic fracturing has evolved into a multistep process with varying flow rates, carrier fluids (e.g., gel or slickwater), proppant loadings, and proppant grain sizes. As a result, primary recovery from a hydraulically fractured tight-oil reservoir is often a tiny fraction of the original oil in place, ranging between 5 and 10%. As stated in the FOA1990, “part of this problem is due to the inability of current well completion processes to effectively stimulate the entire reservoir volume in contact with the wellbore. Innovative technologies are needed that can help improve the effectiveness of reservoir completion methods, maximize stimulated reservoir volumes, and optimize recovery over the entire producing life span of a well”. We first need to enhance the current fracture diagnostic techniques to improve a well-completion design. However, detecting and delineating a subsurface hydraulic fracture is extremely difficult because the induced fracture network is only fractionally propped, and these propped fractures are generally very thin. Microseismic and tiltmeter monitoring techniques can provide information on the fracture extent but provide little or no information on the movement and final distribution of proppant or production fluids. On the other hand, electromagnetic (EM) imaging has shown the capability to monitor proppant distribution throughout the fracture area, especially in the presence of Electrically Active Proppants (EAPs). A previous EM survey of hydraulic fracturing at the Devine Fracture Pilot Site (DFPS) and subsequent EM code developments demonstrated this survey as a robust technique to remotely interrogate the extent of the EAP-filled hydraulic fracture during its propagation. The objectives of the project were threefold: (1) to capitalize on the material properties of an EAP to demonstrate remote monitoring of relative changes in pressure, pressure, and flow that are commonly encountered during production from a hydraulically fractured reservoir; (2) to evaluate EM imaging tools, to achieve Objective 1 in near real-time; and (3) to develop a multi-physics joint inversion approach to precisely predict flow patterns and physiochemical changes within an EAP-filled fracture network. This research project was built upon our previous work at the Devine Test Site managed by the Bureau of Economic Geology (BEG) at The University of Texas at Austin (UT-Austin). It also leveraged a significant investment from the Advanced Energy Consortium (AEC) to address the DOE's interest in subsurface flow, containment, and characterization by multiple signals. This three-year and three-month project succeeded in demonstrating the feasibility of a real-time dynamic fluid flow mapping technique at Technology Readiness Level 5 (TRL5) by utilizing a commercially available surface-based Controlled-Source Electromagnetic (CSEM) method (Objectives 1, 2). We demonstrated that injections into an EAP-filled fracture could be successfully coupled with real-time electric field measurements on the surface, leading to remote monitoring of dynamic changes within the EAP-filled fracture. Furthermore, the observed electric field in our study is influenced by bottomhole pressure, flow rate, and salinity, which is demonstrated by comparing these parameters with the electrical field potentials. EM simulations solely based on assumptions of fracture conductivity changes during injection did not reproduce the whole measured electric field magnitudes. Preliminary estimates showed that including Streaming Potential (SP) in our geophysical model is likely needed to reduce the simulation misfit.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2025

An Overview of the Molten Salt Thermal Properties Database–Thermophysical, Version 4.0 (MSTDB-TP V.4.0)

A central repository of thermophysical and thermochemical properties of molten salt compositions of relevance to molten salt reactors (MSRs) is vital in supporting the broad community of MSR developers, who are at various stages of developing and deploying their reactor designs. In general, these MSR designs differ significantly from developer to developer (e.g., with respect to the hardness of the neutron spectra, level of fissile loading, target multicomponent temperatures and power levels, and moderating capabilities). Therefore, the fuel and coolant salts being considered vary greatly: they may be chlorides or fluorides, they utilize different actinides at different ratios, and the cations in the melt are selected based on perceived advantages and disadvantages. Considering the general need for thermal properties, and the vastness of the array of potential candidate salt mixtures, the Molten Salt Thermal Properties Database (MSTDB) was initiated in 2018 with the goal of providing thermophysical and thermochemical characterization of key molten salt compounds and mixtures across their temperature and compositional domains. The MSTDB is thus divided into the thermophysical arm (MSTDB-TP) and the thermochemical arm (MSTDB-TC). The MSTDB is an effort funded by the Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program, and the MSR Campaign. This report provides an overview of the MSTDB-TP v4.0 in terms of the data contained within, the state of the tools used to access the data, the availability of predictive models that leverage the raw data in the database, the preliminary status of developmental efforts that are currently underway, and an account of future goals for MSTDB-TP. The primary goal for the update from MSTDB-TP v.3.1 to v4.0 was the incorporation of surface tension data into the database; this property is important for thermal hydraulics modeling and species transport in other tools that have been developed under the NEAMS program. A breakdown of the surface tension data that have been added into MSTDB-TP v4.0 is provided herein, and the manner in which the quality of the data has been assessed is also documented. For MSTDB-TP v4.0, newly published thermophysical property data—primarily from collaborative experimental efforts under the MSR Campaign—have been incorporated into the database, and the resulting expansion is documented here. Because of the size to which MSTDB-TP has grown, the raw data format has now been recast into JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) format for easier connection with the MSTDB-TP application programming interface (API). Saline; the pre-existing comma-separated value (CSV) format has been deprecated but is still maintained, accessible, and up to date. As a final effort in packaging the MSTDB-TP v4.0 update, the graphical user interface (GUI) for MSTDB has been updated to allow full accessibility to the density and viscosity predictive models, which are based on Redlich-Kister expansions of MSTDB-TP raw data. Some other major aspects of this report, in terms of preliminary and future work, include: (1) documentation of the formalism and preliminary testing of a kinetic theory model that may act as a predictive model for thermal conductivity; (2) documentation of the candidate predictive models that may be considered in the future for surface tension, making use of the surface tension data now in MSTDB-TP v4.0; (3) a preliminary account of a data collection process that will enable the filling of additional gaps within MSTDB-TP, namely with data which have been collected computationally (e.g., through ab initio molecular dynamics).

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

The Transactive Energy Network Template Metamodel

While transactive energy, which is defined as an allocation of electricity based on dynamically discovered values or prices, has been extensively studied, its uptake and use has been slow. This report describes a tool, the transactive network template, which should hasten the creation and uptake of transactive energy networks. Some basic principles of transactive energy are familiar from existing wholesale electricity markets. Locational prices are calculated today for zones within bulk electric transmission systems. Locational prices differ while accounting for the locational costs of electricity generation and the losses and constraints incurred when electricity is transmitted from generators and distributed to consumers. A transactive energy network might include these transmission zones. However, current research strives to apply transactive energy also in electricity distribution circuits, buildings, and even for individual generating and consuming devices. At the same time, researchers explore how to apply transactive energy in real time during increasingly shorter time intervals. Automated computational agents become necessary as transactive energy becomes applied to smaller circuit zones and at faster dynamic timescales. A transactive energy network is an example of a multi-agent system. Each zone in the network is represented by its transactive agent, which makes decisions for and acts on behalf of a business entity that is responsible for and manages one of the circuit regions. A transactive energy network is also an example of a decentralized, distributed control system. Control decisions and responsibilities are distributed among the network’s transactive agents. The transactive agents are independent; that is, there typically is no centralized authority or oversight function. Instead, transactive agents exchange transactive signals and thereby negotiate the prices and quantities of electricity that they will exchange. Initially, the circuit regions and responsibilities of transactive agents appear to be very dissimilar. Each circuit region may comprise transmission, distribution, or building-level circuits. Each has a unique position and electrical connectivity within the transactive energy network. Each possesses unique assets that either generate or consume electricity, and these (e.g., renewable energy generator, diesel generator, aggregate utility load, building load, space conditioning, refrigerator, etc.) may further differ in their price flexibility and in their strategies for responding to dynamic electricity prices. Given such diversity, an implementer’s first inclination might be to start from scratch to define all these devices and to engineer their seemingly unique interactions. Given that each implementer’s perspective may be narrow within a transactive energy network, it is unlikely that uniquely engineered systems would interact well. This is where the transactive network template is applicable. The transactive network template is a metamodel that has been developed to guide implementers as they configure their own transactive agent within a network of such agents. The object-oriented design of the transactive network template provides basic code object types that may be used and extended by implementers to represent each of the assets in their circuit region. These objects further facilitate the transactive agent’s necessary computations, which are divided among responsibilities to schedule power usage, balance electric supply and demand, and coordinate the exchange of electricity with the other transactive agents. This report addresses the conceptual transactive network template design. Implementers are directed to more formal design documents and reference implementations. A Python™-based1 reference implementation of the transactive network template has been coded, and three implementations have been configured to represent a national laboratory and two university campuses. Version 2 of the transactive node template generalizes the market class and its methods to facilitate multiple, and more diverse market coordination mechanisms than were facilitated by and demonstrated using Version 1. Version 3 includes new Appendix B, which addresses the designs of methods that would make dynamic prices track approved electricity rates. In the future, the author wishes to make the transactive network template more generally applicable to networks that require more accurate power flow. Development of the transactive network template is jointly funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the DOE Office of Electricity. In late 2015, one of the first projects to be funded by the DOE Grid Laboratory Modernization Laboratory Consortium was the Clean Energy and Transactive Campus project, led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. DOE funds were matched by an investment by the Washington Department of Commerce through its Clean Energy Fund. The transactive network template was developed to guide the implementation of transactive energy networks within this project’s scope.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Modeling and Experimental Validation of a Direct-Contact Counter-Flow Fluidized Bed Heat Exchanger for Thermal Energy Storage (TES) Applications

Particle-based thermal energy storage (TES) systems are an emerging energy storage technology. The technological advances have reduced costs, making TES more competitive and reliable in the marketplace but an efficient and reliable operation is heavily dependent on coherent heat transfer between air to particles or vice versa. The particle-based TES technologies provide an intermediate system that can store energy for short (0-10 h), long (10-200 h) and seasonal (> 200 h) timescales. The TES systems store energy by converting electricity to thermal energy; electricity can be directly sourced intermittent generation technologies and/or the grid, helping manage peak loads and other mismatches in supply and demand. The overall efficiency of the TES system depends on the performance of system components (particle storage silos and particle transfer mechanism etc.). The particle heat exchanger is one of the key system components that affects the system efficiency. The pressurized fluidized bed heat exchanger (PFB HX) performance is challenging to predict due to the chaotic behavior of particle and fluid interaction. This research presents a computational study of a novel direct-contact, counter-flow and air-to-particles PFB HX, that contributes in advancing the particle-based long-duration TES technologies. For the current analysis an unsteady Eulerian-Eulerian CFD model was developed and validated against experiments performed at the National Laboratory of the Rockies for two particle sizes (600 ..mu..m and 825 ..mu..m ). Following validation, parametric simulations were conducted to evaluate the effects of interphase drag models (Syamlal-O'Brien and Gidaspow), particle size, bed height and the influence of a frictional-viscosity term on hydrodynamics and heat transfer between the air & particles. The key findings from the analysis are: (1) for the studied operating window Syamlal-O'Brien provides superior agreement with measured gas temperatures (errors generally < 10%) while Gidaspow shows large deviations for the coarse particle case; (2) model predictions are most sensitive in the lower 0.2 m above the air distributor where bubble initiation and local mixing dominate interphase heat transfer; (3) representation of the distributor (number of inlet ports) materially affects predicted local mixing and temperature stratification; and (4) the Eulerian-Eulerian framework reproduces bulk thermal trends but shows regime dependent limitations for coarse particles, motivating mesoscale informed closures for scale-up analysis for future studies. These results provide validated guidance for drag selection and distributor design in particle-based thermal energy storage applications. Collectively, the validated model and parametric results quantify key drivers of PHB-HX performance and provide practical guidance for design and optimization. The results provide confidence in the model predictability and provide a step forward to improve on heat exchange performance. The demonstrated performance and modeling approach support the deployment and further development of this novel PHB-HX concept for robust, particle-based long-duration thermal energy storage systems.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2021

Modeling Summary of ASNF in DOE Sealed Standard Canisters

A pathway for road-ready and final disposition packaging configurations for the aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel (ANSF) fuel dictates storage within helium backfilled sealed DOE standard canisters. The typical packaging configuration for the 15-foot DOE canisters places 10 advance test reactor (ATR) elements within a Type 1a basket, and three baskets are loaded within each DOE canister. During in-reactor operations and cooling pond storage conditions, oxyhydroxide layers form on the surface of the aluminum clad fuel. These layers produce hydrogen gas over time due to the fuel’s radiation field. As part of the packing procedure, the ATR fuel should be dried to remove any residual physio-/chemi- sorbed water bound to the surface. The results of this modeling will include results at fully saturated and fully dried conditions. In addition, fuels that are currently stored at the Savannah River Site were also studied for their potential for hydrogen and pressure build up. These two additional fuels modeled were the Missouri University Research Reactor (MURR) fuel, which is packaged in the same configuration as the ATR, but with a 10-foot-tall DOE standard canister. This was selected due to its relatively high decay heat compared to other DOE-managed ASNF. The second additional fuel studied with the modeling effort was the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) fuel. This fuel is modeled as two separate DOE canisters with the inner and outer annulus split for storage. The HFIR was selected for study due to its high aluminum cladding surface area. In the associated experimental work, Task 2 - Oxyhydroxide Layer Radiolytic Gas Generation Resolution, additional tests were completed in a helium environment, and updated G-values for the radiolytic production of hydrogen from the oxyhydroxide layers were provided. These values were 2.92 ×10 -4 µmol/J at 50% relative humidity and 4.12 ×10 -4 µmol/J at 100% relative humidity. These values are lower than the value for Argon that was used in prior modeling results. In addition, prior modeling results have been completed with the G-value applied to just the mass of the corrosion layer, and this has been updated to apply the G-value for hydrogen generation to the full mass of the fuel. These two effects combine to show much smaller pressure and hydrogen build up for the sealed canister model. For a nominal scenario of stored ATR fuel, after 50 years the model results give a 1.36 atm total pressure, 7% mole percent hydrogen, for the upper decay heat, 1.51 atm total pressure, 16% mole percent hydrogen, and for upper decay heat with undried fuel 2.6 atm total pressure, 15% mole percent hydrogen. For the MURR nominal case, the model results give 1.34 atm and 6% hydrogen, for upper decay heat this gives 1.41 atm total pressure with 10.8 % hydrogen, and for upper decay heat with undried fuel, this gives 2.38 atm total pressure with 9.9% hydrogen. The nominal scenario for HFIR fuel gives 1.39 atm total pressure with 9.9% hydrogen, the upper decay heat case gives 1.43 atm with 12.1% hydrogen, and the upper decay heat with undried fuel gives 2.17 atm total pressure with 11.9% hydrogen. These results confirm the ATR scenario bounds the other intact ASNF modeled here. No case modeled yields significant oxygen, and the lower decay heat cases for all fuels modeled have hydrogen concentrations that are under the 4% flammability limit after 50 years of storage. In addition, the modeled pressures for all cases are all significantly below the 500-psi limit for the DOE standard sealed canister.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗