Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “verifications”

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

HDL to verification logic translator

The increasingly higher number of transistors possible in VLSI circuits compounds the difficulty in insuring correct designs. As the number of possible test cases required to exhaustively simulate a circuit design explodes, a better method is required to confirm the absence of design faults. Formal verification methods provide a way to prove, using logic, that a circuit structure correctly implements its specification. Before verification is accepted by VLSI design engineers, the stand alone verification tools that are in use in the research community must be integrated with the CAD tools used by the designers. One problem facing the acceptance of formal verification into circuit design methodology is that the structural circuit descriptions used by the designers are not appropriate for verification work and those required for verification lack some of the features needed for design. We offer a solution to this dilemma: an automatic translation from the designers' HDL models into definitions for the higher-ordered logic (HOL) verification system. The translated definitions become the low level basis of circuit verification which in turn increases the designer's confidence in the correctness of higher level behavioral models.

Gambles, J. W.↗

Requirement Assurance: A Verification Process

Requirement Assurance is an act of requirement verification which assures the stakeholder or customer that a product requirement has produced its "as realized product" and has been verified with conclusive evidence. Product requirement verification answers the question, "did the product meet the stated specification, performance, or design documentation?". In order to ensure the system was built correctly, the practicing system engineer must verify each product requirement using verification methods of inspection, analysis, demonstration, or test. The products of these methods are the "verification artifacts" or "closure artifacts" which are the objective evidence needed to prove the product requirements meet the verification success criteria. Institutional direction is given to the System Engineer in NPR 7123.1A NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements with regards to the requirement verification process. In response, the verification methodology offered in this report meets both the institutional process and requirement verification best practices.

Alexander, Michael G.↗

Projected Impact of Compositional Verification on Current and Future Aviation Safety Risk

The projected impact of compositional verification research conducted by the National Aeronautic and Space Administration System-Wide Safety and Assurance Technologies on aviation safety risk was assessed. Software and compositional verification was described. Traditional verification techniques have two major problems: testing at the prototype stage where error discovery can be quite costly and the inability to test for all potential interactions leaving some errors undetected until used by the end user. Increasingly complex and nondeterministic aviation systems are becoming too large for these tools to check and verify. Compositional verification is a "divide and conquer" solution to addressing increasingly larger and more complex systems. A review of compositional verification research being conducted by academia, industry, and Government agencies is provided. Forty-four aviation safety risks in the Biennial NextGen Safety Issues Survey were identified that could be impacted by compositional verification and grouped into five categories: automation design; system complexity; software, flight control, or equipment failure or malfunction; new technology or operations; and verification and validation. One capability, 1 research action, 5 operational improvements, and 13 enablers within the Federal Aviation Administration Joint Planning and Development Office Integrated Work Plan that could be addressed by compositional verification were identified.

Reveley, Mary S.↗

Guidelines for Verification Strategies to Minimize RISK Based on Mission Environment, -Application and -Lifetime (MEAL)

There is a trend of compromising verification testing to address the cost and schedule constraints, which poses a high-risk posture for programs/projects. Current and emerging aerospace scientific and/or human exploration programs continue to pose new technological challenges. These technological challenges combined with finite budgets and truncated schedules are forcing designers, scientists, engineers, and managers to push technologies to their physical limits. In addition, budget and schedule pressures challenge how those technologies/missions are verified. A clear understanding of the different verification processes is needed to ensure the proper verification of the technology within the mission (i.e., capabilities, advantages, and limitations). The goal of verification is to prove through test, analysis, inspection, and/or demonstration that a product provides its required function while meeting the performance requirements. It is important that verification yield understanding of representative performance under worst-case conditions so that margins to failure can be evaluated for proposed applications. The capabilities, advantages, and limitations of the testing and inspection performed at each level are different, and the risk incurred by omitting a verification step depends on the level of integration as well as Mission, Environment, Application and Lifetime (MEAL). This paper focuses on verification processes. The goal of the verification process is to ensure the given avionics technology could be safely implemented on the given MEAL consistent with the program/project risk posture.

Gonzalez, Oscar↗

EXAMINING THE ROLE AND RESEARCH CHALLENGES OF SOCIAL MEDIA AS A TOOL FOR NONPROLIFERATION AND ARMS CONTROL TREATY VERIFICATION

Traditional arms control treaty verification activities typically involve a combination of technical measurements via physical and chemical sensors, state declarations, political agreements, and on-site inspections involving international subject matter experts. However, the ubiquity of the internet, and the electronic sharing of data that it enables, has made available a wealth of open source information with the potential to benefit verification efforts. Open source information is already being used by organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency to support the verification of state-declared information, prepare inspectors for in-field activities, and to maintain situational awareness . The recent explosion in social media use has opened new doors to exploring the attitudes, moods, and activities around a given topic. Social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube, offer an opportunity for individuals, as well as institutions, to participate in a global conversation at minimal cost. Social media data can also provide a more data-rich environment, with text data being augmented with images, videos, and location data. The research described in this paper investigates the utility of applying social media signatures as potential arms control and nonproliferation treaty verification tools and technologies, as determined through a series of case studies. The treaty relevant events that these case studies touch upon include detection of undeclared facilities or activities, determination of unknown events recorded by the International Monitoring System (IMS), and the global media response to the occurrence of an Indian missile launch. The case studies examine how social media can be used to fill an information gap and provide additional confidence to a verification activity. The case studies represent, either directly or through a proxy, instances where social media information may be available that could potentially augment the evaluation of an event. The goal of this paper is to instigate a discussion within the verification community as to where and how social media can be effectively utilized to complement and enhance traditional treaty verification efforts. In addition, this paper seeks to identify areas of future research and development necessary to adapt social media analytic tools and techniques, and to form the seed for social media analytics to aid and inform arms control and nonproliferation policymakers and analysts. While social media analysis (as well as open source analysis as a whole) will not ever be able to replace traditional arms control verification measures, they do supply unique signatures that can augment existing analysis.

nonproliferation, arms control, social media↗

SU-E-T-435: Development and Commissioning of a Complete System for In-Vivo Dosimetry and Range Verification in Proton Therapy

Purpose: In-vivo dose and beam range verification in proton therapy could play significant roles in proton treatment validation and improvements. Invivo beam range verification, in particular, could enable new treatment techniques one of which, for example, could be the use of anterior fields for prostate treatment instead of opposed lateral fields as in current practice. We have developed and commissioned an integrated system with hardware, software and workflow protocols, to provide a complete solution, simultaneously for both in-vivo dosimetry and range verification for proton therapy. Methods: The system uses a matrix of diodes, up to 12 in total, but separable into three groups for flexibility in application. A special amplifier was developed to capture extremely small signals from very low proton beam current. The software was developed within iMagX, a general platform for image processing in radiation therapy applications. The range determination exploits the inherent relationship between the internal range modulation clock of the proton therapy system and the radiological depth at the point of measurement. The commissioning of the system, for in-vivo dosimetry and for range verification was separately conducted using anthropomorphic phantom. EBT films and TLDs were used for dose comparisons and range scan of the beam distal fall-off was used as ground truth for range verification. Results: For in-vivo dose measurement, the results were in agreement with TLD and EBT films and were within 3% from treatment planning calculations. For range verification, a precision of 0.5mm is achieved in homogeneous phantoms, and a precision of 2mm for anthropomorphic pelvic phantom, except at points with significant range mixing. Conclusion: We completed the commissioning of our system for in-vivo dosimetry and range verification in proton therapy. The results suggest that the system is ready for clinical trials on patient.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

SU-E-T-602: Patient-Specific Online Dose Verification Based On Transmission Detector Measurements

Purpose: Intensity modulated radiotherapy requires a comprehensive quality assurance program in general and ideally independent verification of dose delivery. Since conventional 2D detector arrays allow only pre-treatment verification, there is a debate concerning the need of online dose verification. This study presents the clinical performance, including dosimetric plan verification in 2D as well as in 3D and the error detection abilities of a new transmission detector (TD) for online dose verification of 6MV photon beam. Methods: To validate the dosimetric performance of the new device, dose reconstruction based on TD measurements were compared to a conventional pre-treatment verification method (reference) and treatment planning system (TPS) for 18 IMRT and VMAT treatment plans. Furthermore, dose reconstruction inside the patient based on TD read-out was evaluated by comparing various dose volume indices and 3D gamma evaluations against independent dose computation and TPS. To investigate the sensitivity of the new device, different types of systematic and random errors for leaf positions and linac output were introduced in IMRT treatment sequences. Results: The 2D gamma index evaluation of transmission detector based dose reconstruction showed an excellent agreement for all IMRT and VMAT plans compared to reference measurements (99.3±1.2)% and TPS (99.1±0.7)%. Good agreement was also obtained for 3D dose reconstruction based on TD read-out compared to dose computation (mean gamma value of PTV = 0.27±0.04). Only a minimal dose underestimation within the target volume was observed when analyzing DVH indices (<1%). Positional errors in leaf banks larger than 1mm and errors in linac output larger than 2% could clearly identified with the TD. Conclusion: Since 2D and 3D evaluations for all IMRT and VMAT treatment plans were in excellent agreement with reference measurements and dose computation, the new TD is suitable to qualify for routine treatment plan verification. Funding Support, Disclosures, and Conflict of Interest: COIs: Frank Lohr: Elekta: research grant, travel grants, teaching honoraria IBA: research grant, travel grants, teaching honoraria, advisory board C-Rad: board honoraria, travel grants Frederik Wenz: Elekta: research grant, teaching honoraria, consultant, advisory board Zeiss: research grant, teaching honoraria, patent Hansjoerg Wertz: Elekta: research grant, teaching honoraria IBA: research grant.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗

SU-D-BRC-03: Development and Validation of an Online 2D Dose Verification System for Daily Patient Plan Delivery Accuracy Check

Purpose: All plan verification systems for particle therapy are designed to do plan verification before treatment. However, the actual dose distributions during patient treatment are not known. This study develops an online 2D dose verification tool to check the daily dose delivery accuracy. Methods: A Siemens particle treatment system with a modulated scanning spot beam is used in our center. In order to do online dose verification, we made a program to reconstruct the delivered 2D dose distributions based on the daily treatment log files and depth dose distributions. In the log files we can get the focus size, position and particle number for each spot. A gamma analysis is used to compare the reconstructed dose distributions with the dose distributions from the TPS to assess the daily dose delivery accuracy. To verify the dose reconstruction algorithm, we compared the reconstructed dose distributions to dose distributions measured using PTW 729XDR ion chamber matrix for 13 real patient plans. Then we analyzed 100 treatment beams (58 carbon and 42 proton) for prostate, lung, ACC, NPC and chordoma patients. Results: For algorithm verification, the gamma passing rate was 97.95% for the 3%/3mm and 92.36% for the 2%/2mm criteria. For patient treatment analysis,the results were 97.7%±1.1% and 91.7%±2.5% for carbon and 89.9%±4.8% and 79.7%±7.7% for proton using 3%/3mm and 2%/2mm criteria, respectively. The reason for the lower passing rate for the proton beam is that the focus size deviations were larger than for the carbon beam. The average focus size deviations were −14.27% and −6.73% for proton and −5.26% and −0.93% for carbon in the x and y direction respectively. Conclusion: The verification software meets our requirements to check for daily dose delivery discrepancies. Such tools can enhance the current treatment plan and delivery verification processes and improve safety of clinical treatments.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

SU-F-T-494: A Multi-Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification Using Golden Beam Data

Purpose: In general, beam data of individual linac is measured for independent dose verification software program and the verification is performed as a secondary check. In this study, independent dose verification using golden beam data was compared to that using individual linac’s beam data. Methods: Six institutions were participated and three different beam data were prepared. The one was individual measured data (Original Beam Data, OBD) .The others were generated by all measurements from same linac model (Model-GBD) and all linac models (All-GBD). The three different beam data were registered to the independent verification software program for each institute. Subsequently, patient’s plans in eight sites (brain, head and neck, lung, esophagus, breast, abdomen, pelvis and bone) were analyzed using the verification program to compare doses calculated using the three different beam data. Results: 1116 plans were collected from six institutes. Compared to using the OBD, the results shows the variation using the Model-GBD based calculation and the All-GBD was 0.0 ± 0.3% and 0.0 ± 0.6%, respectively. The maximum variations were 1.2% and 2.3%, respectively. The plans with the variation over 1% shows the reference points were located away from the central axis with/without physical wedge. Conclusion: The confidence limit (2SD) using the Model-GBD and the All-GBD was within 0.6% and 1.2%, respectively. Thus, the use of golden beam data may be feasible for independent verification. In addition to it, the verification using golden beam data provide quality assurance of planning from the view of audit. This research is partially supported by Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development(AMED)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

Verification of Maximal Oxygen Uptake in Active Military Personnel During Treadmill Running

Figueiredo, PS, Looney, DP, Pryor, JL, Doughty, EM, McClung, HL, Vangala, SV, Santee, WR, Beidleman, BA, and Potter, AW. Verification of maximal oxygen uptake in active military personnel during treadmill running. J Strength Cond Res 36(4): 1053–1058, 2022—It is unclear whether verification tests are required to confirm “true” maximal oxygen uptake ($\dot{V}_{o2}$max) in modern warfighter populations. Our study investigated the prevalence of $\dot{V}_{o2}$max attainment in U.S. Army soldiers performing a traditional incremental running test. In addition, we examined the utility of supramaximal verification testing as well as repeated trials for familiarization for accurate $\dot{V}_{o2}$max assessment. Sixteen U.S. Army soldiers (1 woman, 15men; age, 21±2 years; height, 1.73±0.06m; body mass, 71.6±10.1 kg) completed 2 laboratory visits, each with an incremental running test (modified Astrand protocol) and a verification test (110% maximal incremental test speed) on a motorized treadmill. We evaluated $\dot{V}_{o2}$max attainment during incremental testing by testing for the definitive $\dot{V}_{o2}$ plateau using a linear least-squares regression approach. Peak oxygen uptake ($\dot{V}_{o2}$peak) was considered statistically equivalent between tests if the 90% confidence interval around the mean difference was within 62.1 ml·kg -1 ·min -1 . Oxygen uptake plateaus were identified in 14 of 16 volunteers for visit 1 (87.5%) and all 16 volunteers for visit 2 (100%). Peak oxygen uptake was not statistically equivalent, apparent from the mean difference in $\dot{V}_{o2}$peak measures between the incremental test and verification test on visit 1 (2.3 ml·kg -1 ·min -1 , [1.3–3.2]) or visit 2 (1.1 ml·kg -1 ·min -1 [0.2–2.1]). Interestingly, $\dot{V}_{o2}$peak was equivalent, apparent from the mean difference in $\dot{V}_{o2}$peak measures between visits for the incremental tests (0.0ml·kg -1 ·min -1 [-0.8to 0.9]) but not the verification tests (-1.2 ml·kg -1 ·min -1 [-2.2 to -0.2]). Modern U.S. Army soldiers can attain $\dot{V}_{o2}$max by performing a modified Astrand treadmill running test. Additional familiarization and verification tests for confirming $\dot{V}_{o2}$max in healthy active military personnel may be unnecessary.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

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↗

Stochastic Verification by Analysis for Autonomous Systems Management Architecture (ASMA)

The Gateway Vehicle Systems Manager (VSM) is the top-level of a distributed, hierarchical software control system. VSM is data-driven and will make decisions related to mission, fault, resource management and vehicle control. These attributes combined with a high degree of autonomy make it susceptible to emergent behavior. In order to achieve the high level of confidence needed in this critical system, the VSM team has developed a multifaceted verification strategy employing traditional verification techniques, simulation, model checking, and runtime verification. Individual algorithms are verified using conventional testing and model checking using assume-guarantee contracts. A discrete event-based simulation approach is being developed to verify timelines. This presentation describes an enhancement to the verification approach using analysis to enhance system robustness by detecting and resolving the potential for emergent behavior. The verification by analysis employs a Software in the Loop (SITL) environment with real flight software executing on emulated processors, simulations of vehicle subsystems, flight dynamics, and human inputs. Since the possible input space and configuration data set are too large for exhaustive testing, a Monte Carlo approach is used to cover feasible scenarios, augmented with corner cases and known higher-risk scenarios. A key problem in using Monte Carlo-based system verification is evaluating test results to ensure that system behavior is correct. The presentation describes the approach the VSM team uses to monitor behavior for compliance with predetermined boundaries and to identify anomalous behavior for further analysis. This presentation describes the multi-level systems approach to verification, and the simulation-based layer that covers the feasible state space: 1. Overview of the Gateway VSM 2. Special challenges due to heterogeneous, hierarchical architecture 3. Modeling and simulation environment using flight software and system simulations 4. Developing input sets to ensure state-space coverage 5. Developing model and data configuration sets to ensure model coverage 6. Interpreting results without predetermined outcomes 7. Lessons learned and future work

Verification and Validation↗

Computer Modeling and Simulation: Increasing Reliability by Disentangling Verification and Validation

Verification and validation (V&V) of computer codes and models used in simulations are two aspects of the scientific practice of high importance that recently have been discussed widely by philosophers of science. While verification is predominantly associated with the correctness of the way a model is represented by a computer code or algorithm, validation more often refers to the model’s relation to the real world and its intended use. Because complex simulations are generally opaque to a practitioner, the Duhem problem can arise with verification and validation due to their entanglement; such an entanglement makes it impossible to distinguish whether a coding error or the model’s general inadequacy to its target should be blamed in the case of a failure. I argue that a clear distinction between computer modeling and simulation has to be made to disentangle verification and validation. Drawing on that distinction, I suggest to associate modeling with verification and simulation, which shares common epistemic strategies with experimentation, with validation. To explain the reasons for their entanglement in practice, I propose a Weberian ideal–typical model of modeling and simulation as roles in practice. I examine an approach to mitigate the Duhem problem for verification and validation that is generally applicable in practice and is based on differences in epistemic strategies and scopes. Based on this analysis, I suggest two strategies to increase the reliability of simulation results, namely, avoiding alterations of verified models at the validation stage as well as performing simulations of the same target system using two or more different models. In response to Winsberg’s claim that verification and validation are entangled I argue that deploying the methodology proposed in this work it is possible to mitigate inseparability of V&V in many if not all domains where modeling and simulation are used.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Sierra/SolidMechanics Verification Report

This document presents the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification plan. This plan centers on the tests in the Sierra/SM verification test suite, a subset of which are documented in the Sierra/SM Verification Tests Manual. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the tests are checked against analytic solutions. For each of the tests presented in the Verification Tests Manual, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This verification plan discusses these various types of tests and what they mean for Sierra/SM verification. Many other activities also contribute to Sierra/SM quality. These address code and solution quality and range from low-level unit tests, run nightly, up to full-fidelity acceptance tests, used to verify release stability. This acceptance test suite checks that new versions of Sierra/SM continue to yield the same answers for high-resolution analyst problems. Further code quality measures include an extensive suite of intermediate-size regression tests and automated nightly code quality checks. While these additional activities do not fall under a strict definition of verification, they greatly add to the quality, stability, and reliability of Sierra/SM, and are discussed here as well.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

FY2021 Improvements to the New CTH Code Verification & Validation Test Suite

Over the past few years, the CTH multiphysics hydrocode has overhauled its software quality and testing processes, implementing current best practices in software quality and building a robust V&V test suite comprised of traditional hydrocode verification problems, including ASC Tri-Lab Test Suite and Enhanced Tri-Lab Test Suite problems, as well as validation problems for some of CTH’s most frequently used equations of state, materials models, and other key capabilities. Substantial progress towards building this new test suite was made in FY19 and FY20. In FY21, the test suite has been expanded to include verification and validation tests of the Steinberg-Guinan-Lund (ST) viscoplastic model and the Johnson Cook (JFRAC) fracture model. Additionally, two new verification tests were added, covering hydrodynamics and high explosive (HE) modeling capabilities: the Kidder Gaussian density problem and the Escape of HE Products (EHEP) problem from the Tri-Lab Test Suite. This report discusses each of these test problems in detail. Verification test results are compared to analytic solutions. Validation test results are compared to experimental data. Wherever possible, convergence or mesh refinement studies are included. Additionally, while implementing the Kidder verification problem, a bug was identified that affects the use of tables to initialize pressure or density in 1D or 2D calculations. A brief discussion of the bug and its fix is included. CTH demonstrates good performance overall on the new test suite problems. Simulation results showed good agreement with analytic solutions for the Kidder problem, with convergence rates ranging between 1.8 and sub-linear, and relatively good agreement for the EHEP problem, though convergence rates for pressure and density were nearly 0. The ST and JFRAC strain rate loading verification tests show good agreement with analytic solutions. Likewise, CTH simulation results show good agreement with experimental validation data, including Taylor rod impact testing, for the materials tested. Future V&V work will focus on adding 2D and 3D versions of existing verification tests as well as adding validation tests of other frequently used capabilities such as other fracture models.

42 ENGINEERING↗

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↗

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↗

Expanded verification and validation studies of hypersonic aerodynamics with multiple physics-fidelity models

Hypersonic aerothermodynamics is an important domain of modern multiphysics simulation. The Multi-Fidelity Toolkit is a simulation tool being developed at Sandia National Laboratories to predict aerodynamic properties for compressible flows from a range of physics fidelities and computational speeds. These models include the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations, the Euler equations with momentum-energy integral technique (MEIT), and modified Newtonian aerodynamics with flat-plate boundary layer (MNA+FPBL) equations, and they can be invoked independently or coupled with hierarchical Kriging to interpolate between high-fidelity simulations using lower-fidelity data. However, as with any new simulation capability, verification and validation are necessary to gather credibility evidence. This work describes formal code- and solution-verification activities, as well as model validation with uncertainty considerations. Code verification activities on the MNA+FPBL model build on previous work by focusing on the viscous portion of the model. Viscous quantities of interest are compared against those from an analytical solution for flat-plate, inclined-plate, and cone geometries. The code verification methodology for the MEIT model is also presented. Test setup and results of code verification tests on the laminar and turbulent models within MEIT are shown. Solution-verification activities include grid-refinement studies on simulations that model the HIFiRE-1 wind tunnel experiments. These experiments are used for validation of all model fidelities. A thorough validation comparison with prediction error and uncertainty is also presented. Three additional HIFiRE-1 experimental runs are simulated in this study, and the solution verification and validation work examines the effects of the associated parameter changes on model performance. Finally, a study is presented that compares the computational costs and fidelities from each of the different models.

42 ENGINEERING↗