Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “evaluations”

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
NASA NTRS1984

Evaluation program for secondary spacecraft cells. Initial evaluation tests of General Electric Company 4.0 ampere-hour nickel-cadmium spacecraft cells for the AMPTE satellite program

Cells found to have electrolyte leakage, internal shorts, low capacity, or inability of any cell to recover its open circuit voltage above 1.150 volts during the internal short test are addressed. The Active Magnetic Particle Tracer Explorer (AMPTE) cell design was characterized and the effects of specific mission parameters on cell life were demonstrated.

Harkness, J. D.↗
NASA NTRS1991

SRB environment evaluation and analysis. Volume 1: Redesigned SRB flight heating evaluation

Following the Space Shuttle STS-51L disaster on January 28, 1986, a considerable redesign effort was launched on the Solid Rocket Booster. This effort culminated in three instrumented flights, STS-26R, 27R, and 29R, beginning in September of 1989. Aeroheating data were obtained on these flights in the form of pressure, heat flux, and gas temperature probe measurements. These data were analyzed from an ascent and reentry heating point of view. The flight data were verified, compared with historic and theoretical results, and scaled to design. Impact of these results on the current design environment set was assessed and recommendations made. This report documents this effort.

Crain, William K.↗
NASA NTRS2002

Evaluation of SAGE II and Balloon-Borne Stratospheric Aerosol Measurements: Evaluation of Aerosol Measurements from SAGE II, HALOE, and Balloonborne Optical Particle Counters

Stratospheric aerosol measurements from the University of Wyoming balloonborne optical particle counters (OPCs), the Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment (SAGE) II, and the Halogen Occultation Experiment (HALOE) were compared in the period 1982-2000, when measurements were available. The OPCs measure aerosol size distributions, and HALOE multiwavelength (2.45-5.26 micrometers) extinction measurements can be used to retrieve aerosol size distributions. Aerosol extinctions at the SAGE II wavelengths (0.386-1.02 micrometers) were computed from these size distributions and compared to SAGE II measurements. In addition, surface areas derived from all three experiments were compared. While the overall impression from these results is encouraging, the agreement can change with latitude, altitude, time, and parameter. In the broadest sense, these comparisons fall into two categories: high aerosol loading (volcanic periods) and low aerosol loading (background periods and altitudes above 25 km). When the aerosol amount was low, SAGE II and HALOE extinctions were higher than the OPC estimates, while the SAGE II surface areas were lower than HALOE and the OPCS. Under high loading conditions all three instruments mutually agree to within 50%.

Hervig, Mark↗
NASA NTRS2022

A Coupled Evaluation of Operational MODIS and Model Aerosol Products for Maritime Environments Using Sun Photometry: Evaluation of the Fine and Coarse Mode

Although satellite retrievals and data assimilation have progressed to where there is a good skill for monitoring maritime Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD), there remains uncertainty in achieving further degrees of freedom, such as distinguishing fine and coarse mode dominated species in maritime environments (e.g., coarse mode sea salt and dust versus fine mode terrestrial anthropogenic emissions, biomass burning, and maritime secondary production). For the years 2016 through 2019, we performed an analysis of 550 nm total AOD550, fine mode AOD (FAOD550; also known as FM AOD in the literature), coarse mode AOD (CAOD550), and fine mode fraction (η550) between Moderate Resolution Spectral Imaging Radiometer (MODIS) V6.1 MOD/MYD04 dark target aerosol retrievals and the International Cooperative for Aerosol Prediction (ICAP) core four multi-model consensus (C4C) of analyses/short term forecasts that assimilate total MODIS AOD550. Differences were adjudicated by the global shipboard Maritime Aerosol Network (MAN) and selected island AERONET sun photometer observations with the application of the spectral deconvolution algorithm (SDA). Through a series of conditional and regional analyses, we found divergence included regions of terrestrial influence and latitudinal dependencies in the remote oceans. Notably, MODIS and the C4C and its members, while having good correlations overall, have a persistent +0.04 to +0.02 biases relative to MAN and AERONET for typical AOD550 values (84th% < 0.28), with the C4C underestimating significant events thereafter. Second, high biases in AOD550 are largely associated with the attribution of the fine mode in satellites and models alike. Thus, both MODIS and C4C members are systematically overestimating AOD550 and FAOD550 but perform better in characterizing the CAOD550. Third, for MODIS, findings are consistent with previous reports of a high bias in the retrieved Ångström Exponent, and we diagnosed both the optical model and cloud masking as likely causal factors for the AOD550 and FAOD550 high bias, whereas for the C4C, it is likely from secondary overproduction and perhaps numerical diffusion. Fourth, while there is no wind-speed-dependent bias for surface winds <12 m s−1, the C4C and MODIS AOD550s also overestimate CAOD550 and FAOD550, respectively, for wind speeds above 12 m/s. Finally, sampling bias inherent in MAN, as well as other circumstantial evidence, suggests biases in MODIS are likely MODIS and the C4C products have their own strengths and challenges for a given climate application and discuss needed research. even larger than what was diagnosed here. We conclude with a discussion on how

Aerosols↗
NASA NTRS2023

Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition Program On-ramp #2 Airbus U.S. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Evaluation Report

In 2017, NASA’s Earth Science Division (ESD) launched the Private-Sector Small Constellation Satellite Data Product Pilot, now referred to as the Commercial Smallsat Data Acquisition (CSDA) program. The objective of CSDA is to identify, evaluate, and acquire commercial remote sensing data that support NASA’s Earth science research and application activities. The Pilot successfully concluded in early 2020, when CSDA transitioned into a sustained program with on-ramping opportunities for new vendors as the industry emerges with new candidates and capabilities. In October 2019, a Request for Information (RFI) seeking capability statements from parties interested in providing data from spaceborne platforms was released for the CSDA on-ramp #2 evaluations. To be responsive to the RFI, the commercial satellite constellations had to consist of three or more operating spacecraft actively collecting data in a non-geostationary orbit with full latitudinal coverage and be U.S. companies. Two vendors responded to the RFI and were evaluated by a committee composed of NASA ESD leadership, program managers, and scientists. Both vendors satisfied the RFI requirements and were asked to respond to a Request for Proposal (RFP). After review of the proposals, NASA entered into a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with Airbus Defense and Space GEO, Inc. (Airbus) U.S. in September 2021 and with BlackSky Geospatial Solutions, Inc. (BlackSky) in November 2021. In this report, CSDA provides an evaluation of the usefulness of data provided by the Airbus U.S. Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) satellite constellation, consisting of TerraSAR-X (launched in 2007), TanDEM-X (launched in 2010), and PAZ (launched in 2018), for advancing NASA’s Earth system science research and applications. The evaluation of the BlackSky commercial data will be provided in a separate report. To conduct the Airbus evaluation, NASA’s ESD augmented 13 existing research projects that could potentially benefit from, and had the expertise to evaluate, the commercial data being considered for longer-term purchase. Investigators from NASA’s Research and Analysis Program science focus areas and from NASA’s Applied Sciences Program elements participated in the evaluation. A summary of the research areas evaluated by the Principal Investigator (PI) teams is presented in Figure 3. CSDA also funded a dedicated activity to evaluate the satellite data quality (calibration and geolocation) independently by assessing the accuracy of data from Airbus. Evaluation activities were carried out by the selected PIs from December 7, 2022, to December 7, 2023. Delivery of datasets requested by the researchers began in January 2023. The vendors were evaluated on the accessibility of data, accuracy and completeness of metadata, and promptness and quality of user support services. Datasets purchased during the evaluation have been archived by NASA and will be made available to current and future government-funded researchers in accordance with the End User License Agreement (EULA). This synthesis report distills and integrates the findings of research reports commissioned by NASA for the Airbus evaluation. This report also includes recommendations that inform the way ahead for the program. The scientific results from the evaluations demonstrated that the commercial data from Airbus were able to advance NASA research and applications. However, the PIs encountered limitations that diminished the usefulness of the data due to the amount of effort that was required to access, preprocess, and analyze these data. One significant issue encountered was the limited spatial and temporal coverage of the data in the Airbus archive that could be used to conduct time series analyses or assessments over large spatial scales. Overall, however, the utility and the quality of the evaluated data outweighed the difficulties encountered, and NASA has concluded that the Airbus SAR data would complement NASA’s existing Earth observation capabilities and Airbus U.S. would qualify to participate in the sustained phase of the program.

Batuhan Osmanoglu↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Objective Structured Clinical Evaluation (OSCE) of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Clinical Decision Support System (CDSS) Tool

BACKGROUND Objective Structured Clinical Evaluations (OSCEs) have long been established as a robust methodology for summative assessment of clinical skills and decision-making during medical education. The recent integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into clinical decision-making processes has prompted the need for novel evaluation frameworks to assess the efficacy and reliability of AI clinical decision support system (CDSS) tools. This abstract outlines the process of quantitatively evaluating a novel CDSS (“Doc in a Box” Google 2024) trained on curated medical spaceflight data in the psychomotor domain as it interfaces with a human volunteer acting as the crew medical officer (CMO). PURPOSE The AI CDSS under review was developed as part of the Lunar Command and Control Interoperability (LuCCI) project, which is intended to address a gap in how Lunar Surface Systems (LSS) would interoperate across multiple programs, commercial partners, and international partners. The project objective is to define, prototype, integrate, and evaluate an interoperable lunar command, control, data, and software reference architecture to enable autonomy and informatics capability through common standards across LSS. A multi-modal AI-based CDSS compatible with Federated LSS will assist clinicians in diagnosing and managing complex medical conditions by providing evidence-based recommendations through predictive analytics. Given the critical role of decision-support as NASA continues to evolve its Earth-independent medical operations (EIMO), it is imperative to ensure that such AI tools perform reliably and align with clinical standards during progressive lunar and Martian exploration class missions. METHODS The OSCE framework, traditionally used for evaluating human clinicians, was adapted to assess the AI tool's decision-making capabilities in simulated clinical scenarios. In this adapted OSCE, the AI CDSS was tested across a series of structured clinical scenarios designed to mimic real-life spaceflight patient cases. These scenarios included a range of conditions and complexities, allowing for comprehensive assessment of the tool's performance. Key evaluation metrics included accuracy of diagnosis, timeliness of decision-making, and appropriate recommendations for therapies. The OSCE was scored by human physician evaluators who assessed the AI's recommendations in comparison with expert clinicians' medical decision making to ensure alignment with best practices and the standard of care. RESULTS Preliminary results indicate that the AI CDSS demonstrated high accuracy in diagnostic recommendations and decision support across various scenarios. However, certain limitations were noted, such as occasional discrepancies in handling complex or nuanced cases that required a more contextual understanding. Additionally, the tool scored higher on the diagnostic portion of the rubric, with lower scores in the therapeutic recommendations. These findings highlight the importance of continuous refinement and validation of AI tools through rigorous evaluation frameworks like the OSCE. The adaptation of OSCEs for AI tools presents several advantages, including a structured and reproducible approach to evaluation, the ability to test AI systems in diverse clinical scenarios, and the opportunity to benchmark AI performance against established clinical standards to permit charting of future progress as aerospace medicine evolves as a discipline. Remaining challenges include ensuring that these evaluations capture the full spectrum of clinical decision-making scenarios that will be confronted by CMOs during missions and adequately reflecting real-world variability of the austere spaceflight environment. CONCLUSION Employing OSCEs to evaluate AI clinical decision support tools offers a promising approach to validating their clinical utility and efficacy. This methodology not only provides insights into the tool's performance but also fosters ongoing improvement and alignment with standard of care practices. Future research should focus on refining these evaluation processes and addressing limitations to enhance the integration of AI tools in clinical spaceflight settings. REFERENCES Scott S, Hearns V, Barker MA. Testing Clinical Skills: A Look at the OSCE and USMLE Clinical Skills Exams. S D Med. 2019 Oct;72(10):451-453. Majumder MAA, Kumar A, Krishnamurthy K, Ojeh N, Adams OP, Sa B. An evaluative study of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE): students and examiners perspectives. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2019 Jun 5;10:387-397. Karam VY, Park YS, Tekian A, Youssef N. Evaluating the validity evidence of an OSCE: results from a new medical school. BMC Med Educ. 2018 Dec 20;18(1):313.

Ariana M Nelson↗
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↗
NASA NTRS1993

Evaluation of image quality

This presentation outlines in viewgraph format a general approach to the evaluation of display system quality for aviation applications. This approach is based on the assumption that it is possible to develop a model of the display which captures most of the significant properties of the display. The display characteristics should include spatial and temporal resolution, intensity quantizing effects, spatial sampling, delays, etc. The model must be sufficiently well specified to permit generation of stimuli that simulate the output of the display system. The first step in the evaluation of display quality is an analysis of the tasks to be performed using the display. Thus, for example, if a display is used by a pilot during a final approach, the aesthetic aspects of the display may be less relevant than its dynamic characteristics. The opposite task requirements may apply to imaging systems used for displaying navigation charts. Thus, display quality is defined with regard to one or more tasks. Given a set of relevant tasks, there are many ways to approach display evaluation. The range of evaluation approaches includes visual inspection, rapid evaluation, part-task simulation, and full mission simulation. The work described is focused on two complementary approaches to rapid evaluation. The first approach is based on a model of the human visual system. A model of the human visual system is used to predict the performance of the selected tasks. The model-based evaluation approach permits very rapid and inexpensive evaluation of various design decisions. The second rapid evaluation approach employs specifically designed critical tests that embody many important characteristics of actual tasks. These are used in situations where a validated model is not available. These rapid evaluation tests are being implemented in a workstation environment.

Pavel, M.↗
NASA NTRS2023

A Framework for Evaluating Distributed Electric Propulsion on the SUSAN Electrofan Aircraft

This work presents a framework for evaluating models and algorithms for Distributed Electric Propulsion (DEP) on the SUSAN Electrofan Aircraft. Throughout the development of the SUSAN aircraft, the performance of various configurations of the aircraft will need to be analyzed. However, the static behavior alone is not sufficient to describe the performance of these configurations. Therefore, simulation with fully integrated subsystem models is required. The proposed framework considers the vehicle aerodynamic, propulsion, and control subsystems. The presented framework automatically generates control laws for any vehicle configuration in response to changes in these subsystems. To compare these different vehicle configurations, various time and frequency domain performance metrics are compared. Three different system modifications are used as cases to evaluate this framework. The first modification integrates the propulsion control system with the flight controller to enable differential thrust without stalling the main engine. This evaluation case is used to validate the framework for aircraft configurations with coupled subsystems. The second modification compares the effect of the vertical tail size on open and closed loop performance. This evaluation case is used to validate the framework for controlling different configurations and tuning towards comparable closed loop performance despite changes to the aircraft's aerodynamic model. The third modification implements two different control allocation schemes. This evaluation case demonstrates the framework's ability to evaluate allocation modifications needed to take advantage of DEP. The first evaluation case is used to show that controller integration enables differential thrust, improving realized wingfan bandwidth by up to 40\% in simulation. The second evaluation case demonstrates that the framework can stabilize the reduced tail size aircraft with closed loop control. The third evaluation case demonstrates that a pseudoinverse control allocation scheme improves lateral velocity settling time by approximately 17~seconds over a symmetric-thrust allocation. These cases show that the framework is useful for evaluating the performance of integrated system designs, enabling analyses of new models and algorithms for the SUSAN distributed electric propulsion vehicle.

Nicholas C Ogden↗