Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “verification & validation”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2012

Verification and validation of linear gyrokinetic simulation of Alfven eigenmodes in the DIII-D tokamak

A verification and validation study is carried out for a sequence of reversed shear Alfven instability time slices. The mode frequency increases in time as the minimum (q{sub min}) in the safety factor profile decreases. Profiles and equilibria are based upon reconstructions of DIII-D discharge (no. 142111) in which many such frequency up-sweeping modes were observed. Calculations of the frequency and mode structure evolution from two gyrokinetic codes, GTC and GYRO, and a gyro-Landau fluid code TAEFL are compared. The experimental mode structure of the instability was measured using time-resolved two-dimensional electron cyclotron emission imaging. The three models reproduce the frequency upsweep event within {+-}10% of each other, and the average of the code predictions is within {+-}8% of the measurements; growth rates are predicted that are consistent with the observed spectral line widths. The mode structures qualitatively agree with respect to radial location and width, dominant poloidal mode number, ballooning structure, and the up-down asymmetry, with some remaining differences in the details. Such similarities and differences between the predictions of the different models and the experimental results are a valuable part of the verification/validation process and help to guide future development of the modeling efforts.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
NASA NTRS2016

NASA Operational Simulator for Small Satellites: Tools for Software Based Validation and Verification of Small Satellites

The NASA Operational Simulator for Small Satellites (NOS3) is a suite of tools to aid in areas such as software development, integration test (IT), mission operations training, verification and validation (VV), and software systems check-out. NOS3 provides a software development environment, a multi-target build system, an operator interface-ground station, dynamics and environment simulations, and software-based hardware models. NOS3 enables the development of flight software (FSW) early in the project life cycle, when access to hardware is typically not available. For small satellites there are extensive lead times on many of the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components as well as limited funding for engineering test units (ETU). Considering the difficulty of providing a hardware test-bed to each developer tester, hardware models are modeled based upon characteristic data or manufacturers data sheets for each individual component. The fidelity of each hardware models is such that FSW executes unaware that physical hardware is not present. This allows binaries to be compiled for both the simulation environment, and the flight computer, without changing the FSW source code. For hardware models that provide data dependent on the environment, such as a GPS receiver or magnetometer, an open-source tool from NASA GSFC (42 Spacecraft Simulation) is used to provide the necessary data. The underlying infrastructure used to transfer messages between FSW and the hardware models can also be used to monitor, intercept, and inject messages, which has proven to be beneficial for VV of larger missions such as James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). As hardware is procured, drivers can be added to the environment to enable hardware-in-the-loop (HWIL) testing. When strict time synchronization is not vital, any number of combinations of hardware components and software-based models can be tested. The open-source operator interface used in NOS3 is COSMOS from Ball Aerospace. For testing, plug-ins are implemented in COSMOS to control the NOS3 simulations, while the command and telemetry tools available in COSMOS are used to communicate with FSW. NOS3 is actively being used for FSW development and component testing of the Simulation-to-Flight 1 (STF-1) CubeSat. As NOS3 matures, hardware models have been added for common CubeSat components such as Novatel GPS receivers, ClydeSpace electrical power systems and batteries, ISISpace antenna systems, etc. In the future, NASA IVV plans to distribute NOS3 to other CubeSat developers and release the suite to the open-source community.

Verification↗
DOE OSTI2021

Verification and Validation Tests of Gamma Library of MC2-3 for Coupled Neutron and Gamma Heating Calculation

For the accurate assessment of the heat generation rate in fast reactors, the gamma library of MC2 -3 and the MC2 -3 + GAMSOR procedure employing the coupled neutron and gamma heating calculation has been thoroughly verified against Monte Carlo results and validated using the ZPPR-15D gamma dose measurement data. NJOY outputs are post-processed in a consistent way with the NJOY procedure to avoid any missing data or double counting of data. Prompt heating for 379 out of 391 isotopes in the gamma library was verified against MCNP6.2 to within 1% relative error in total heating for most isotopes. For both a simple one-dimensional slab problem representing a sodium cooled fast reactor and the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) benchmark problem, the root-mean-square values of assembly power error were less than 0.5% for fuel assemblies, ~1% in blankets and ~1 to ~3% in reflectors compared to MCNP6.2 results. The most plausible cause for the 3% error in a reflector assembly is believed to be the error in the multigroup neutron cross sections for the reflector assembly. For validation, gamma doses measured with thermoluminiscent dosimeters (TLDs) in the ZPPR-15D experiment were calculated using GAMSOR. Due to the uncertainty in the TLD measurement with regards to the energy deposition of photons and neutrons, the validation data leads to a 12.7% uncertainty on the experimental measurement. With this uncertainty bound, the calculated doses all fell within one standard deviation of the measured value. Combined with the accurate calculation of reaction rate distributions and neutron spectrum measurements, these results indicate good agreement for the neutron and gamma heating calculations that were performed.

coupled neutron and gamma heating↗
DOE OSTI2017

A Systematic Method for Verification and Validation of Gyrokinetic Microstability Codes

My original proposal for the period Feb. 15, 2014 through Feb. 14, 2017 called for an integrated validation and verification effort carried out by myself with collaborators. The validation component would require experimental profile and power-balance analysis. In addition, it would require running the gyrokinetic codes varying the input profiles within experimental uncertainties to seek agreement with experiment before discounting a code as invalidated. Therefore, validation would require a major increase of effort over my previous grant periods which covered only code verification (code benchmarking). Consequently, I had requested full-time funding. Instead, I am being funded at somewhat less than half time (5 calendar months per year). As a consequence, I decided to forego the validation component and to only continue the verification efforts.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2016

Shift Verification and Validation

This documentation outlines the verification and validation of Shift for the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL). Five main types of problems were used for validation: small criticality benchmark problems; full-core reactor benchmarks for light water reactors; fixed-source coupled neutron-photon dosimetry benchmarks; depletion/burnup benchmarks; and full-core reactor performance benchmarks. We compared Shift results to measured data and other simulated Monte Carlo radiation transport code results, and found very good agreement in a variety of comparison measures. These include prediction of critical eigenvalue, radial and axial pin power distributions, rod worth, leakage spectra, and nuclide inventories over a burn cycle. Based on this validation of Shift, we are confident in Shift to provide reference results for CASL benchmarking.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Verification and validation of detonation-shock-dynamics relations for explosives described by general equation of state and chemical reaction models

Detonation shock dynamics is a powerful method to model the behaviour of High Explosives (HE). However in order to use this method, the underlying relationship between the local radius of curvature and the detonation speed must be known. Previous work has developed methods to calculate this effect using simple, single-step Arrhenius and polytropic gas, models for the chemical reaction and the equation of state, respectively. In recent years, more complex models for both reaction rates and equations of state have been developed which show better agreement with experimental data than these simple models, especially when considering condensed phase explosives.. This work presents the governing equations for solving these problems in a way that is generalised to use arbitrary equations of state as well as reaction models which may have more than a single step and multiple product species. This implementation is verified against exact solutions, demonstrating that the equations were implemented properly. The verified algorithm is then validated against experimental data and high fidelity simulations, showing that it is able to make accurate predictions in a regime where the underlying assumptions of the governing equations are valid. Importantly, this approach has many applications: from creating equivalent detonation shock dynamics models for existing reactive burn calibrations for HE; to developing new functional forms and calibrations of reactive burn models for condensed phase high explosives.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2012

Verification and Validation of EnergyPlus Conduction Finite Difference and Phase Change Material Models for Opaque Wall Assemblies

Phase change materials (PCMs) represent a potential technology to reduce peak loads and HVAC energy consumption in buildings. There are few building energy simulation programs that have the capability to simulate PCM but their accuracy has not been completely tested. This report summarizes NREL efforts to develop diagnostic tests cases to obtain accurate energy simulations when PCMs are modeled in residential buildings.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2015

Verification and Validation Propensity Improvements via Solution Verification Automation: Presentation Package (Part 1 of 2) (FY15 ASC L2 milestone #5320)

A new tool, called Mesh Scaling, for producing series of hexahedral meshes suitable for solution verification was enhanced and hardened by this milestone. In addition, solution verification using the meshes produced from Mesh Scaling was performed and documented. We conclude that Mesh Scaling now produces meshes suitable for solution verification, while offering a substantial decrease in the computational cost of solution verification.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Validation and Verification for INL Modelica-based TEDS models Via Experimental Results

This report provides an overview on the verification and validation (V&V) of the Thermal Energy Distribution System (TEDS) model developed in the Modelica process modeling ecosystem using experimental data. Model development has led to the creation of a dynamic process model of the experimental TEDS facility housed within the Energy Systems Laboratory (ESL) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The model was then used during the preconstruction phase of the experimental effort to inform experimental design (e.g., insulation requirements, bypass line placement, expected performance of components) and to test innovative control schemes prior to the initial operation. The TEDS model developed in Modelica includes the primary components of the TEDS experimental unit: a 200kW Chromalox heater; a single-tank packed-bed thermal energy storage system filled with 0.125-inch alumina (Al2O3) beads; an ethylene-glycol-to-Therminol-66 heat exchanger; system piping; five control valves; and all associated temperature, pressure, and volumetric flow sensors. Using the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) V&V methodologies, considered the gold standard in the engineering field, the model was verified using a combination of static analysis, spatial convergence, and regression tests. Then using dynamic time warping (DTW) initial runs to validate and tune the TEDS model versus the experiment were conducted. This tuning method was accomplished using the INL Risk Analysis Virtual ENvironment (RAVEN) software package. Tuning is required to account for physical phenomena that are less understood within the empirical heat transfer correlations. Through the commencement of this work, a systems-level model of TEDS with associated control systems, sensors, piping diameters, and component capabilities has been created. This model was utilized in the pre-experimental phase to inform system design, insulation thicknesses, and potential control schemes to operate the system effectively and safely. Then, initial experimental startup and operational data were used to demonstrate the validation and tuning methodology. This process demonstrates the classical two-step approach of a model informing experimental design followed by the experiment validation and tuning the model.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Verification and validation testing and tools: comparison between MCNP code versions and nuclear data libraries [Slides]

This presentation discusses the primary goal of software testing which is to test the code for correctness. It also discusses the results for individual suites and the role of validation and verification also referred to in the presentation as V&V. In summation, the V&V framework enables easy comparison between calculations performed with different code versions and/or nuclear data libraries. This entire framework will be distributed with the upcoming MCNP6.3 release. V&V test suites shown and several that were not (Criticality, LAQGSM, Lockwood) will be distributed in the new framework.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS1987

A formal approach to validation and verification for knowledge-based control systems

As control systems become more complex in response to desires for greater system flexibility, performance and reliability, the promise is held out that artificial intelligence might provide the means for building such systems. An obstacle to the use of symbolic processing constructs in this domain is the need for verification and validation (V and V) of the systems. Techniques currently in use do not seem appropriate for knowledge-based software. An outline of a formal approach to V and V for knowledge-based control systems is presented.

Castore, Glen↗
NASA NTRS2016

Simulation-To-Flight (STF-1): A Mission to Enable CubeSat Software-Based Validation and Verification

The Simulation-to-Flight 1 (STF-1) CubeSat mission aims to demonstrate how legacy simulation technologies may be adapted for flexible and effective use on missions using the CubeSat platform. These technologies, named NASA Operational Simulator (NOS), have demonstrated significant value on several missions such as James Webb Space Telescope, Global Precipitation Measurement, Juno, and Deep Space Climate Observatory in the areas of software development, mission operations/training, verification and validation (V&V), test procedure development and software systems check-out. STF-1 will demonstrate a highly portable simulation and test platform that allows seamless transition of mission development artifacts to flight products. This environment will decrease development time of future CubeSat missions by lessening the dependency on hardware resources. In addition, through a partnership between NASA GSFC, the West Virginia Space Grant Consortium and West Virginia University, the STF-1 CubeSat will hosts payloads for three secondary objectives that aim to advance engineering and physical-science research in the areas of navigation systems of small satellites, provide useful data for understanding magnetosphere-ionosphere coupling and space weather, and verify the performance and durability of III-V Nitride-based materials.

navigation↗
NASA NTRS2019

Verification and Validation of a Three-Dimensional Composite Impact Model with Tabulated Input

A material model which incorporates several key capabilities which have been identified by the aerospace community as lacking in the composite impact models currently available in the commercial transient dynamic finite element code LS-DYNA® has been developed. The material model utilizes experimentally based tabulated input to define the evolution of plasticity and damage as opposed to specifying discrete input parameters (such as modulus and strength. The plasticity portion of the orthotropic, three-dimensional, macroscopic composite constitutive model is based on an extension of the Tsai-Wu composite failure model into a generalized yield function with a non-associative flow rule. The capability to account for the rate and temperature dependent deformation response of composites has also been incorporated into the material model. For the damage model, a strain equivalent formulation is utilized to allow for the uncoupling of the deformation and damage analyses. In the damage model, a diagonal damage tensor is defined to account for the directionally dependent variation of damage. However, the terms in the damage matrix are semi-coupled such that the damage in a particular coordinate direction is a function of the stresses and plastic strains in all of the coordinate directions. For the failure model, a tabulated approach is utilized in which a stress or strain based invariant is defined as a function of the location of the current stress state in stress space to define the initiation of failure, which allows an arbitrarily shaped failure surface to be defined. A systematic series of validation and verification studies, at a variety of length scales ranging from single element simulations to simulations of a flat panel impact test, have been performed to fully exercise and evaluate the capabilities of the developed model.

Impact↗