Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “EVALUATION”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Design of Modular Test Facility for Particle/sCO2 Heat Exchanger Evaluation

Heliogen has designed a 1.3 MW particle and supercritical carbon dioxide (sCO2) test loop to retire technical and manufacturing risks. The data from this facility will be used to validate near commercial-scale particle heat exchanger modules. The heat exchanger is scaled to capture all features of the full-scale modules. Testing will be conducted with CARBOBEAD HSP 16/30, a larger particle size than other recent testing. The system was designed to ASME codes with the constraint that sCO2 piping and other major components are stainless steels.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Uniform Methods Project: Smart Thermostat Evaluation Protocol

A smart thermostat is an internet-connected device that controls home heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) equipment and can automatically adjust temperature set points to optimize performance and achieve energy savings. Smart thermostat features often include two way communication, occupancy detection (such as geofencing and occupancy sensors), schedule learning, and seasonal optimization algorithms. Smart thermostats can control most conventional HVAC systems, including central air conditioners, heat pumps, and forced air furnaces. Several types of residential utility programs offer smart thermostats as replacements measures. Working with smart thermostat vendors, utilities can offer separate optimization programs to produce energy savings beyond those achieved by installing a smart thermostat. From an evaluation perspective, smart thermostat programs have several noteworthy features. First, the energy savings from a smart thermostat may change over the life of the device. As a smart thermostat is connected to the internet, original equipment manufacturers can update the thermostat software to improve the thermostat's energy efficiency. Likewise, users can adjust the thermostat settings and schedules over time in response to changes in weather, thermal comfort, energy prices, or preferences for energy efficiency. Additionally, many thermostat manufacturers offer seasonal optimization programs that recommend changes or make minor, automated adjustments to the thermostat settings to improve energy efficiency. These opt-in programs are now standard offerings for many smart thermostat manufacturers and provided at no additional cost to users. The potential for software updates and continuous optimization and the evolving nature of user interactions mean future energy savings may differ from first-year savings and the energy savings of smart thermostats may need to be evaluated more than once. Second, smart thermostats often have small unit energy savings relative to a home's total energy consumption, especially in comparison to whole- home retrofit programs. This can make it difficult to detect the smart thermostat savings in billing or advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) meter consumption data. For example, as cooling loads in many regions average about 20% of annual electricity consumption, smart thermostat savings of 10% of cooling energy use would equate to a 2% reduction in home electricity consumption. Evaluators should use regression analysis of whole-home billing consumption or advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) meter consumption data to evaluate smart thermostat savings because, as explained at greater length below , these data are usually available to evaluators and regression can control for the impacts of weather and other potentially confounding factors on a home's energy consumption. Finally, as with other energy efficiency programs, participation in smart thermostat programs is self-selective. As discussed at greater length below , smart thermostat participants tend to be, among other things, younger, higher-income, and more likely to adopt electric vehicles (EVs) and internet connected devices than nonparticipants. These differences are often unobservable to the evaluator and correlated with a home's energy consumption, creating the potential for bias in estimating savings. Due to the small unit savings of thermostats, errors and biases from self-selection that may not be very consequential when evaluating a whole- home retrofits (e.g., ±2% of home electricity consumption) can have a major impact when evaluating the savings and cost-effectiveness of smart thermostat programs. A percentage point change in the estimated savings could affect the cost-effectiveness of a program. This means it is important for evaluators to assess and to minimize the potential for error from selection bias in estimating smart thermostat program savings. The Uniform Methods Project provides model protocols for determining energy savings and demand reductions that result from specific energy efficiency measures implemented through state and utility programs. In most cases, the measure protocols are based on a particular option identified by the International Performance Verification and Measurement Protocol ; however, this work provides a more detailed approach to implementing that option. Each chapter is written by technical experts in collaboration with their peers, reviewed by industry experts, and subject to public review and comment. The UMP protocols can be used by utilities, program administrators, public utility commissions, evaluators, and other stakeholders for both program planning and evaluation.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

Development of a Technical, Economic, and Risk Assessment Tool for the Evaluation of Work Reduction Opportunities

Efficient and cost-effective operation of a nuclear power plant (NPP) is essential to ensuring long-term economical and safe operation. Multiple cost saving opportunities exist, referred to here as work reduction opportunities (WRO). These WROs reduce plant operating costs by employing various cost-effective strategies (e.g., implementation of modern technologies). Identifying and objectively screening WROs is an essential task to help reduce overall costs. However, there is no comprehensive framework for assessing WROs in the nuclear industry and evaluating their impact on plant operations. This report presents a novel framework for systematically evaluating WROs from a technical, economic, and risk perspective. As NPPs continue to add new technology and implement modernization strategies into their current processes, potential WROs are commonly identified. Although most WROs have the potential to reduce costs, not all opportunities will result in significant cost savings due to unforeseen risks, large implementation costs, or benefits that fall short of expectations. Examples of this can be the result of a technology that is not fully developed, uncertainty in the amount of cost reduction, or difficulties introducing a new process into an organization. These uncertainties can manifest several ways and can result in a WRO with limited cost savings or even a loss of investment. The framework developed emphasizes the importance of effectively screening the WROs from a holistic perspective to objectively identify inefficiencies and ensure a positive impact to the organization. This report presents the Technical, Economic, and Risk Assessment (TERA) as a key methodology for the screening and evaluation of potential WROs. The TERA framework begins with a screening phase where the process is examined through a hybrid combination of Lean Six Sigma and Integrated Operations for Nuclear (ION) guiding principles. This framework examines the current processes using the Lean Six Sigma SIPOC (Suppliers, Inputs, Process, Outputs, Consumers) methodology but retains the ION key elements of People, Technology, Process, and Governance as important factors to the nuclear decision-making process. By combining the principles of Lean Six Sigma and ION, the developed screening process is specific to the nuclear industry in that it systematically evaluates WROs in order to implement new technology that is comprehensively evaluated. The TERA begins by mapping current processes as they relate to WROs and examining the inefficiencies. Furthermore, the created process map can be used to identify and evaluate potential solutions. Using key performance indicators (KPIs), the TERA evaluates each area—technology, economics, and risk—for uncertainties and to perform cost-benefit analysis. The results of the TERA are important KPIs that allow for an evaluation of different processes and technology implementations. This assessment enables decision-makers to compare various WROs based on metrics and then make informed decisions for which opportunity to implement first. This research includes not only the creation of the TERA framework, but also the evaluation of its performance. A case study for screening potential WROs at Southern Nuclear Company is presented that utilizes the TERA methodology. Through the use of TERA, various WROs were screened, and the solutions evaluated for cost-benefit expectations. The report concludes by summarizing the overall effort and implications for utility modernization. The performance of the screening and TERA are discussed as well as the impact on the nuclear industry. The TERA process enables utilities to evaluate and inform investment decisions for WROs and mitigate any potential risks. Through this research, we provide utilities with a valuable framework to optimize operations, reduce costs, and drive continuous process improvement.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

A Review of the Evaluation of Building Energy Code Compliance in the United States

Building energy codes are essential tools for achieving energy efficiency in buildings. However, the full energy savings potential of these codes can only be realized if buildings are constructed in compliance with them. Therefore, evaluating building energy code compliance is crucial in bridging the gap between the energy efficiency requirements set by energy codes and the actualized energy savings achieved. An energy code compliance evaluation serves as a mechanism to assess construction practices, evaluate the effectiveness of code enforcement, identify gaps in compliance, and guide strategies for improvement through training and education. Conducting code compliance evaluation activities involves field studies that require careful design and significant resources. Historically, more emphasis has been placed on developing and adopting building energy codes, while efforts to evaluate compliance have been relatively limited and lacking consistent approaches. The passage of the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which mandated that states create plans for achieving 90% compliance within eight years, stimulated the need for an energy code compliance evaluation. As a result, federal, state, and local governments, and utilities have invested in the development of methodologies and tools for code compliance evaluation studies. This paper reviews the code compliance evaluation studies conducted in the United States over the past three decades. It describes and compares the methodologies and metrics used to assess building energy code compliance, summarizes the general elements and steps involved in the evaluation process, and discusses common issues in these studies. Over time, code compliance evaluation methodologies have evolved from isolated development within individual states, regions, and utilities, to widely accepted protocols applicable across different states and local jurisdictions. There has been a transition in compliance metrics, shifting from historical compliance rates to energy-consumption-oriented approaches.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

Producing Evaluation-quality 239 Pu Average Prompt Fission Neutron Multiplicities using a Correlated Fission Model

An evaluation of the average prompt fission neutron multiplicity, $\bar{ν}_p$, of 239 Pu(n,f) is shown. This evaluation includes (a) the correlated fission model CGMF, and (b) a detailed analysis of past and recently published experimental data. Using CGMF-calculated $\bar{ν}_p$ as prior enables to link, through the use of evaluated model input parameters, $\bar{ν}_p$ to other fission observables such as the prompt fission neutron spectrum (PFNS), preneutron emission fission yields as a function of mass, and the average total kinetic energy of the fragments. These evaluated parameters produce realistic predictions of many fission observables, while the evaluated $\bar{ν}_p$ agrees well (χ 2 ≈ 1) with data. Moreover, with the new evaluated $\bar{ν}_p$, the effective neutron multiplication factor of fast Pu ICSBEP critical assemblies are predicted with a mean bias of 58 pcm compared to 18 pcm with ENDF/B-VIII.0, when paired with a new 239 Pu PFNS and fission cross section. Due to these encouraging validation results, the evaluated $\bar{ν}_p$ is currently part of a release candidate for the 239 Pu ENDF/B-VIII.1 file. Hence, a correlated fission model was used for the first time for evaluating $\bar{ν}_p$ that is of evaluation quality. This is an important step towards consistent evaluations of prompt fission observables.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Evaluated 238 U(n,f) Average Prompt Fission Neutron Multiplicities Including the CGMF Model

This report documents an evaluation of the average prompt fission neutron multiplicity, $\overline{v}_p$, of 238 U from 800 keV to MeV. This evaluation had to be re-done from “scratch” as the input to previous $\overline{v}_p$ evaluations, specifically ENDF/B-VIII.0, was not found. That means that all available experimental data were re-analyzed and uncertainties were re-estimated. The new evaluated 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ based on only experimental data differs distinctly from ENDF/B-VIII.0 $\overline{v}_p$ from 2 to 4.5 MeV, and from 6 to 7 MeV, and is otherwise similar. The difference from 2 to 4.5 MeV stems from the fact that ENDF/B-VIII.0 was tweaked in this energy range to data of Frehaut, while two other, equally trustworthy, data sets would indicate an evaluated 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ that is up to 2% higher. Also, second chance fission in ENDF/B-VIII.0 was smoothed over from 6–7 MeV. Another major difference to ENDF/B-VIII.0 is that one of the evaluations presented here includes model information from the Hauser-Feshbach fission fragment decay code CGMF, while ENDF/B-VIII.0 is based purely on experimental data. CGMF links several fission quantities with each other; $\overline{v}_p$ is predicted by assumptions made on, e.g., pre-neutron emission yields as a function of mass, the total kinetic energy, or spin and parity of fission fragments. This allows to validate the new 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ by using CGMF parameters obtained from fitting to experimental 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ to predict yields as a function of mass, the average total kinetic energy, or the mean energy of the prompt fission neutron spectrum. These model-predicted values can then be compared to experimental and evaluated data. The model-predicted fission-observable values using evaluated parameters obtained here are reasonably close to experimental data for some observables, but are farther away from experimental data related to TKE observables. In addition to that, the evaluated 238 U(n,f) $\overline{v}_p$ shows similar deviations from ENDF/B-VIII.0 as for the evaluation with only experimental data. This difference is expected to lead to changes in simulated effective neutron multiplication factor, $k_{eff}$ of ICSBEP critical assemblies that are sensitive to 238 U in the fast range (BigTen, Flattop, Flattop-Pu). These changes in $k_{eff}$ need to be counter-balanced. Chi-Nu PFNS experimental data are expected to be released in the next few months that might lead to the needed changes in the PFNS. Until then, we hold off in benchmarking the new 238 U(n,f) $\overline{v}_p$ as well as submitting it to ENDF/B-VIII.1. Also, new high-precision 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ are expected to be measured by the CEA in the next two years that will shed further light on question on 238 U $\overline{v}_p$ from 2–4.5 and 6–7 MeV.

238U↗
DOE OSTI2025

Consistent $\overline{ν}$ evaluation for minor U isotopes with $\tt{CGMF}$

Following several successful prompt $\overline{ν}$ evaluations using $\tt{CGMF}$, including consistent evaluations for minor Pu isotopes, we detail in this report our efforts to perform a consistent $\overline{ν}$ evaluation for minor U isotopes during FY25. Although we have not yet produced a finalized evaluation, we present the progress that we have made towards such an evaluation for 232,233,234,236,237,239 U prompt $\overline{ν}$. Our milestone explicitly calls out evaluations for 233 U, 234 U, and 236 U, however, to better constrain the model with reliable experimental $\overline{ν}$ data, we also include 235 U and 238 U in the evaluation procedure. Then, we additionally produce evaluations for 232 U, 237 U and 239 U $\overline{ν}$ as a byproduct. Elsewhere, we will report our efforts on a stand-alone 233 U $\overline{ν}$ evaluation. This report is organized in the following manner. In Sec. 2, we briefly outline the updates to CGMF that were needed to be able to calculate all of these minor U fission reactions. The experimental data overview is given in Sec. 3. The evaluation methodology and results are presented in Secs. 4 and 5, respectively. Finally, we conclude and outline work for FY26 in Sec. 6.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Status of the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project

The International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) has continued its work generating evaluations of new and historical criticality benchmark experiments since the last update to the nuclear criticality safety community at the 11th International Conference on Nuclear Criticality Safety (ICNC 2019) in Paris, France. Three additional versions of the ICSBEP Handbook have been published since that update, and the Technical Review Group (TRG) held two in-person (in 2019 and 2023) and three virtual (2020 and 2021) meetings to review and approve additional benchmarks. The 2019 edition of the ICSBEP Handbook included five new evaluations with 79 new configurations, the 2020 version of the ICSBEP Handbook contained five new evaluations totaling 76 new configurations, and the 2021 version of the ICSBEP handbook contained five new evaluations with a total of 57 different configurations. The ICSBEP TRG met in October and December 2021, to review benchmarks for potential inclusion in the 2022 ICSBEP Handbook, with seven evaluations receiving provisional approval pending resolution of review group comments. Final comment resolution for some of these evaluations is currently underway and handbook publication should be completed soon. The ICSBEP TRG met again in person in April 2023 to review benchmarks for the 2023 ICSBEP Handbook, provisionally approving 7 new evaluations. The ICSBEP continues to deliver high-quality, peer reviewed evaluations of experiments relevant to the nuclear criticality safety community.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Criticality Safety Evaluation Project Development for University of California Berkely Nuclear Criticality Safety Pipeline Course

The Nuclear Criticality Safety Division at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) has taken a unique approach to developing criticality safety evaluation topics in support of the University of California Berkeley criticality safety pipeline course. The evaluation topics are designed to go beyond the typical evaluation examples used for many training courses including vault storage and variations on storage arrays. These types of evaluations provide in-depth analysis into the fundamentals of criticality safety and are complex but may be far off from what a new criticality safety engineer may actually be evaluating. To provide more practical examples of criticality safety evaluation topics that are better fit for the knowledge level of a criticality safety engineer in-training, variations of current and future operations and research operations performed at LLNL are used as evaluation topics. Additionally, an emphasis on research is included in all evaluation topics as it allows students to take advantage of the concepts learned in class to apply them for process improvement, engineering equipment that is favorable for criticality safety, and negotiation tactics to work with operations personnel. The process used by LLNL to develop project topics for the pipeline course is provided in this paper. The intent is to provide an alternative technique for training students and potentially younger staff members in criticality safety on developing criticality safety evaluations.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Evaluation of proposed Section III Division 5 Class B rules: Piping example problem

Evaluation of proposed Section III Division 5 Class B rules: Piping example problem to be presented include Z pipe geometry and model problem statement, Z pipe loads and design inputs problem statement, Primary Stress Limit overview, Primary stress limit pseudo yield stress calculation, Primary stress limited factored load procedure, Strain limit evaluation composite load cycle, Strain limit evaluation pseudo yield stress, Strain limit evaluation strain limit criteria and ratcheting check, Creep fatigue damage evaluation overview, Creep fatigue damage evaluation alternating stress calculations, Creep fatigue damage evaluation lower bound stress, Creep fatigue damage evaluation stress relaxation history, Creep fatigue damage evaluation damage fractions, and Recommendations to consider for Z-pipe problem.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Release of Evaluated 235 U(n,f) Average Prompt Fission Neutron Multiplicities Including the CGMF Model

This report documents an evaluation of the average prompt fission neutron multiplicity, $\overline{v}_p$, of 235 U from 200 keV to 15 MeV that is a potential release candidate for the upcoming U.S. nuclear data library, ENDF/B-VIII.1. This evaluation had to be re-done from "scratch", as the input to the $\overline{v}_p$ evaluation of the previous library, ENDF/B-VIII.0, was lost. That means that all available experimental data were re-analyzed and uncertainties were re-estimated. Another major difference to ENDF/B-VIII.0 is that this evaluation includes model information from the Hauser-Feshbach fission fragment decay code CGMF, while ENDF/B-VIII.0 is based purely on experimental data. CGMF links several fission quantities with each other; $\overline{v}_p$ is predicted by assumptions made on, e.g., pre-neutron emission yields as a function of mass, the total kinetic energy, or spin and parity of fission fragments. This allows to perform two types of validation for the new 235 U $\overline{v}_p$: On the one hand, one can employ evaluated CGMF parameters obtained from fitting to experimental 235 U $\overline{v}_p$ to predict yields as a function of mass, the average total kinetic energy, or the mean energy of the prompt fission neutron spectrum. These model-predicted values can then be compared to experimental and evaluated data. The model-predicted fission-observable values using evaluated parameters obtained here are reasonably close to experimental data indicating the evaluated 235 U(n,f) $\overline{v}_p$ are physical. On the other hand, one can validate 235 U $\overline{v}_p$ with respect to integral responses such as fast ICSBEP critical assemblies or LLNL pulsed spheres. LLNL pulsed-sphere neutron-leakage spectra are minimally impacted by the new 235 U $\overline{v}_p$ as these experimental data are shape data and the $\overline{v}_p$ would mostly lead to a change in normalization of the data as the spheres are relatively thin (0.7 and 1.5 mean-free path) and, thus, mostly depend on 235 U $\overline{v}_p$ from 12-15 MeV. The change in the predicted effective neutron multiplication factor, k eff , of selected ICSBEP critical assemblies, however, is large compared to values using ENDF/B-VIII.0 and experimental k eff : The average bias is 108 pcm across all studied k eff values versus 12 pcm for ENDF/B-VIII.0. A reasonable performance in simulating keff (mean bias of 14 pcm) can be retained by tweaking 235 U $\overline{v}_p$ from 3-5 MeV, and combining it with a recent 235 U PFNS evaluation that is also a ENDF/B-VIII.1 release candidate.

235U↗
DOE OSTI2020

Overview of the OECD-NEA Working Party on International Nuclear Data Evaluation Cooperation (WPEC)

The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) Working Party on International Nuclear Data Evaluation Cooperation (WPEC) was established in 1989 to facilitate collaboration in nuclear data activities. Over its thirty year history, different Subgroups have been created to address topics in nearly every aspect of nuclear data, including: experimental measurements, evaluation, validation, model development, quality assurance of databases and the development of software tools. WPEC has recently completed activities on fission yield evaluation, the general nuclear database structure (GNDS) to replace the ENDF-6 format, methods to provide feedback to evaluation, studies of specific capture cross sections, new methods in thermal scattering kernel evaluation and the Collaborative International Evaluated Library Organisation (CIELO) Pilot Project. Ongoing activities in GNDS application programming interface (API) development, methods for covariance evaluation and quality assurance in nuclear data validation using the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) database are complemented by the work of two Expert Groups that oversee the High-Priority Request List (HPRL) for Nuclear Data and the continuous development of the GNDS. New activities on the use of integral experiments for nuclear data validation and adjustment, as well as the use of the Shielding Integral Benchmark Archive and Database (SINBAD) for validation have begun and will be coordinated alongside future Subgroups. After three decades we will review the status of WPEC, how it integrates other collections and activities organised by the NEA and how it dovetails with the initiatives of the IAEA and other bodies to effectively coordinate international activities in nuclear data.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗