Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “test”

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 1,657 records · Page 92

August 5, 1963-President Kennedy's Nuclear Test Ban Treaty signed in Moscow, Russia

On August 5, 1963, after more than eight years of negotiations, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union signed the Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by atomic bombs marked the end of World War II and the beginning of the nuclear age. As tensions between East and West settled into a Cold War, scientists in the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union conducted tests and developed more powerful nuclear weapons. In 1959, radioactive deposits were found in wheat and milk in the northern United States. As scientists and the public gradually became aware of the dangers of radioactive fallout, they began to raise their voices against nuclear testing. Leaders and diplomats of several countries sought to address the issue. In May 1955, the United Nations Disarmament Commission brought together the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, France, and the Soviet Union to begin negotiations on ending nuclear weapons testing. Conflict soon arose over inspections to verify underground testing. The Soviet Union feared that on-site inspections could lead to spying that might expose the Soviets' vastly exaggerated claims of the number of deliverable nuclear weapons. As negotiators struggled over differences, the Soviet Union and the United States suspended nuclear tests—a moratorium that lasted from November 1958 to September 1961. John F. Kennedy had supported ban on nuclear weapons testing since 1956. He believed a ban would prevent other countries from obtaining nuclear weapons, and took a strong stand on the issue in the 1960 presidential campaign. Once elected, President Kennedy pledged not to resume testing in the air and promised to pursue all diplomatic efforts for a test ban treaty before resuming underground testing. He envisioned the test ban as a first step to nuclear disarmament. President Kennedy met with Soviet Premier Khrushchev in Vienna in June 1961, just five weeks after the humiliating defeat of the US-sponsored invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. Khrushchev took a hard line at the summit. He announced his intention to cut off Western access to Berlin and threatened war if the United States or its allies tried to stop him. Many US diplomats felt that Kennedy had not stood up to the Soviet premier at the summit and left Khrushchev with the impression that he was a weak leader. President Kennedy's political and military advisers feared that the Soviet Union had continued secret underground testing and made gains in nuclear technology. They pressured Kennedy to resume testing. And, according to a Gallup poll in July 1961, the public approved of testing by a margin of two-to-one. In August 1961, the Soviet Union announced its intention to resume atmospheric testing, and over the next three months it conducted 31 nuclear tests. It exploded the largest nuclear bomb in history—58 megatons—4,000 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. In his commencement address at American University on June 10, 1963, Kennedy announced a new round of high-level arms negotiations with the Russians. He boldly called for an end to the Cold War. "If we cannot end our differences," he said, "at least we can help make the world a safe place for diversity." The Soviet government broadcast a translation of the entire speech, and allowed it to be reprinted in the controlled Soviet press. The Limited Nuclear Test Ban treaty was signed in Moscow on August 5, 1963, by US Secretary Dean Rusk, Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko, and British Foreign Secretary Lord Home—one day short of the 18th anniversary of the dropping of an atomic bomb on Hiroshima. Over the next two months, President Kennedy convinced a fearful public and a divided Senate to support the treaty. The Senate approved the treaty on September 23, 1963, by an 80-19 margin. Kennedy signed the ratified treaty on October 7, 1963. The treaty: prohibited nuclear weapons tests or other nuclear explosions under water, in the atmosphere, or in outer space allowed underground nuclear tests as long as no radioactive debris falls outside the boundaries of the nation conducting the test pledged signatories to work towards complete disarmament, an end to the armaments race, and an end to the contamination of the environment by radioactive substances. Thirty-three years later, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 71 nations, including those possessing nuclear weapons, the treaty prohibited all nuclear test explosions including those conducted underground. Though it was signed by President Bill Clinton, the Senate rejected the treaty by a vote of 51 to 48.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

Neutronics Analysis of TREAT Multi-SERTTA Calibration Test Vehicle (Multi-SERTTA CAL)

Transient testing is a necessary step in the performance evaluation of Accident Tolerant Fuels (ATF) developed as part of the Fuel Cycle Research and Development Advanced Fuels Campaign initiated and supported by the United States Department of Energy (DOE-NE). These advanced fuels are expected to be used in future reactors or replace the current fuel design used in existing power reactors for enhanced performance and safety. Upon completion of a process proscribed by the National Environmental Policy Act, the Transient Reactor Test (TREAT) facility, located at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), was chosen by DOE-NE to provide the desired specialized testing. TREAT has successfully operated from start-up in 1959 to 1994 when it was placed on operational stand-by. Careful preparations are being made for operational readiness and TREAT is projected to resume testing no later than 2018. Past TREAT testing primarily focused on sodium-cooled reactor fuels (SRF). Test vehicle designs varied to accommodate testing needs ranging from separate effects tests to integral tests approaching simulation of actual reactor environment conditions including forced convection cooling. The current focus on light water reactor (LWR) ATF requires design of new experiment vehicles to accommodate the water/steam environment and associated complexities regarding desired energy deposition into the specimen and proper containment. The first set of experiments in TREAT restart is expected to be conducted with the Multi-SERTTA (Static Environment Rodlet Transient Test Apparatuses). Difficult to quantify and calculate integral and time dependent effects inherent in transient testing limit predictive modeling capability; therefore, calibration testing in TREAT prior to the actual experiment is necessary to empirically determine the effectiveness of core-to-specimen power coupling in order to achieve the desired energy deposition into the test specimen during a nuclear power transient. This has been done in the past, in part, by evaluating the difference in energy deposition into dosimeter wires subjected to various TREAT time dependent power conditions. These calibration tests were typically conducted in a test vehicle neutronically similar to the actual test vehicle, but more simplistic in design in order to quickly retrieve and analyze dosimeter wires and minimize containment structure costs due to several trials. Prior calibration testing for SRF experiments could be conducted without coolant as sodium has no notable neutronic effect on the core-to-specimen power coupling factor (PCF). Such is not the case with LWR fuel where water serves as both moderator and coolant. This presents a design challenge as the calibration test vehicle must retain heated, high-pressure water to preserve neutronic equivalence representative of near prototypic reactor conditions while allowing for quick retrieval of dosimeters. The solution to this challenge comes in the form of a thin walled dry well positioned through the center of the basic Multi-SERTTA design. Test vehicle reactivity worth and PCF are two important factors with respect to ascertainment of neutronic equivalence. Similarity in test vehicle reactivity worth is desired to avoid the need to change operational core rod positions in TREAT which could significantly alter neutron flux distribution and consequently power distribution throughout the core and into the test specimen. The geometry and composition of various materials within the experiment containment structure can also significantly alter the quality of neutron signal delivery from the core to the test specimen. Introduction of an Inconel tube, albeit very thin, is expected to impact PCF. Simple modifications to the CAL design may compensate for the anticipated change. Evaluation of these factors and proposed modifications through neutronics analysis serves to inform experiment design and is a valuable tool towards achieving the optimal CAL design.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Planning for Plume Diagnostics for Ground Testing of J-2X Engines at the SSC

John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) is the premier test facility for liquid rocket engine development and certification for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Therefore, it is no surprise that the SSC will play the most prominent role in the engine development testing and certification for the J-2X engine. The Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne J-2X engine has been selected by the Constellation Program to power the Ares I Upper Stage Element and the Ares V Earth Departure Stage in NASA s strategy of risk mitigation for hardware development by building on the Apollo program and other lessons learned to deliver a human-rated engine that is on an aggressive development schedule, with first demonstration flight in 2010 and human test flights in 2012. Accordingly, J-2X engine design, development, test, and evaluation is to build upon heritage hardware and apply valuable experience gained from past development and testing efforts. In order to leverage SSC s successful and innovative expertise in the plume diagnostics for the space shuttle main engine (SSME) health monitoring,1-10 this paper will present a blueprint for plume diagnostics for various proposed ground testing activities for J-2X at SSC. Complete description of the SSC s test facilities, supporting infrastructure, and test facilities is available in Ref. 11. The A-1 Test Stand is currently being prepared for testing the J-2X engine at sea level conditions. The A-2 Test Stand is currently being used for testing the SSME and may also be used for testing the J-2X engine at sea level conditions in the future. Very recently, ground-breaking ceremony for the new A-3 rocket engine test stand took place at SSC on August 23, 2007. A-3 is the first large - scale test stand to be built at the SSC since the A and B stands were constructed in the 1960s. The A-3 Test Stand will be used for testing J-2X engines under vacuum conditions simulating high altitude operation at approximately 30,480 m (100,000 ft). To achieve the simulated altitude environment, chemical steam generators using isopropyl alcohol, LOX, and RELEASED - Printed documents may be obsolete; validate prior to use. water would run for the duration of the test and would generate approximately 2096 Kg/s of steam to reduce pressure in the test cell and downstream of the engine. The testing at the A-3 Test Stand is projected to begin in late 2010, meanwhile the J-2X component testing on A-1 is scheduled to begin later this year.

SaintCyr, William W.↗

Joint Test Report For Validation of Alternatives to Aliphatic Isocyanate Polyurethanes

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) have similar missions and therefore similar facilities and structures in similar environments. The standard practice for protecting metallic substrates in atmospheric environments is the application of an applied coating system. The most common topcoats used in coating systems are polyurethanes that contain isocyanates. Isocyanates are classified as potential human carcinogens and are known to cause cancer in animals. The primary objective of this effort was to demonstrate and validate alternatives to aliphatic isocyanate polyurethanes resulting in one or more isocyanate-free coatings qualified for use at AFSPC and NASA installations participating in this project. This joint Test Report (JTR) documents the results of the laboratory and field testing as well as any test modifications made during the execution of the testing. The technical stakeholders agreed upon test procedure modifications documented in this document. This JTR is made available as a reference for future pollution prevention endeavors by other NASA centers, the Department of Defense and commercial users to minimize duplication of effort. All coating system candidates were tested using approved NASA and AFSPC standard coating systems as experimental controls. This study looked at eight alternative coating systems and two control coating systems and was divided into Phase I Screening Tests, Phase II Tests, and Field Testing. The Phase I Screening Tests were preliminary tests performed on all the selected candidate coating systems. Candidate coating systems that did not meet the acceptance criteria of the screening tests were eliminated from further testing. Phase I Screening Tests included: Ease of Application, Surface Appearance, Dry-To-Touch (Sanding), Accelerated Storage Stability, Pot Life (Viscosity), Cure Time (Solvent Rubs), Cleanability, Knife Test, Tensile (pull-off) Adhesion, and X-Cut Adhesion by Wet Tape After a review of the Phase I test results, four of the alternative coating systems showed substandard performance in relation to the Control Systems and were eliminated from the Phase II testing. Due to the interest of stakeholders and time constraints, however, all eight alternatives were subjected to the following Phase II tests, along with field testing at Stennis Space Center (SSC), Mississippi: Hypergol Compatibility, Liquid Oxygen Compatibility, 18-Month Marine Exposure (Gloss Retention, Color Retention, Blistering, Visual Corrosion, Creepage from Scribe, Heat Adhesion), and Field Exposure (6- and 12-month Evaluation for Coating Condition, Color Retention, Gloss Retention). The remaining four alternative coating systems determined to be the best viable alternatives were carried on to Phase II testing that included: Removability, Repairability, Abrasion Resistance, Gravelometer, Fungus Resistance, Accelerated Weathering, Mandrel Bend Flexibility, and Cyclic Corrosion Resistance. Of the systems that continued to Phase II, three (3) alternative coating systems meet the performance requirements as identified by stakeholders. Two (2) other systems, that were not included in Phase II testing, performed well enough on the 18-Month Marine Exposure, the primary requirement for NASA technical standard NASA-STD-5008, Protective Coating of Carbon Steel, Stainless Steel, and Aluminum on Launch Structures, Facilities, and Ground Support Equipment, that they were also considered to be successful candidates. In total, five (5) alternative coating systems were approved for inclusion in the NASA-STD- 5008 Qualified Products List (QPL). The standard is intended to provide a common framework for consistent practices across NASA and is often used by other entities. The standard's QPL does not connote endorsement of the products by NASA, but lists those products that have been tested and meet the requirements as specified.

Lewis, Pattie↗

Forward Skirt Structural Testing on the Space Launch System (SLS) Program

Structural testing was performed to evaluate heritage forward skirts from the Space Shuttle program for use on the Space Launch System (SLS) program. One forward skirt is located in each solid rocket booster. Heritage forward skirts are aluminum 2219 welded structures. Loads are applied at the forward skirt thrust post and ball assembly. Testing was needed because SLS ascent loads are roughly 40% higher than Space Shuttle loads. Testing objectives were to determine margins of safety, demonstrate reliability, and validate analytical models. Two forward skirts were structurally tested using the test configuration. The test stand applied loads to the thrust post. Four hydraulic actuators were used to apply axial load and two hydraulic actuators were used to apply radial and tangential loads. The first test was referred to as FSTA-1 (Forward Skirt Structural Test Article) and was performed in April/May 2014. The purpose of FSTA-1 was to verify the ultimate capability of the forward skirt subjected to ascent ultimate loads. Testing consisted of two liftoff load cases taken to 100% limit load followed by an ascent load case taken to 110% limit load. The forward skirt was unloaded to no load after each test case. Lastly, the forward skirt was tested to 140% limit and then to failure using the ascent loads. The second test was referred to as FSTA-2 and performed in July/August of 2014. The purpose of FSTA-2 was to verify the ultimate capability of the forward skirt subjected to liftoff ultimate loads. Testing consisted of six liftoff load cases taken to 100% limit load followed by the six liftoff cases taken to 140% limit load. Two ascent load cases were then tested to 100% limit load. The forward skirt was unloaded to no load after each test case. Lastly, the forward skirt was tested to 140% limit and then to failure using the ascent loads. The forward skirts on FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 successfully carried all applied liftoff and ascent load cases. Both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 were tested to failure by increasing the ascent loads. Failure occurred in the forward skirt thrust post radius. The forward skirts on FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 had nearly identical failure modes. FSTA-1 failed at 1.72 times limit load and FSTA-2 failed at 1.62 times limit load. This difference is primarily attributed to variation in material properties in the thrust post region. Test data were obtained from strain gages, deflection gages, ARAMIS digital strain measurement, acoustic emissions, and high-speed video. Strain gage data and ARAMIS strain were compared to finite element (FE) analysis predictions. Both the forward skirt and tooling were modeled. This allows the analysis to simulate the loading as close as possible to actual test configuration. FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 were instrumented with over 200 strain gages to ensure all possible failure modes could be captured. However, it turned out that three gages provided critical strain data. One was located in the post bore and two on the post radius. More gages were not specified due to space limitations and the desire to not interfere with the use of the ARAMIS system on the post radius. Measured strains were compared to analysis results for the load cycle to failure. Note that FSTA-1 gages were lost before failure was reached. FSTA-2 gages made it to the failure load but one of the radius gages was lost before testing began. This gage was not replaced because of the time and cost associated with disassembly of the test structure. Correlation to analysis was excellent for FSTA-1. FSTA-2 was not quite as good because there was more residual strain from previous load cycles. FSTA-2 was loaded and unloaded with 12 liftoff cases and two ascent cases before taking the skirt to failure. FSTA-1 only had two liftoff cases and one ascent case before taking the skirt to failure. The ARAMIS system was used to determine strain at the post radius by processing digital images of a speckled paint pattern. Digital cameras recorded images of the speckled paint pattern. ARAMIS strain results for FSTA-2 just prior to failure. Note a high strain location develops near the left side. This high strain compares well to analysis prediction for both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2. The strain at this location was also plotted versus limit load. Both FSTA-1 and FSTA-2 had excellent correlation between ARAMIS and analysis strains. Acoustic emission (AE) sensors were used to monitor for damage formation that may occur during testing (e.g., crack formation and growth or propagation). AE was very important because after disassembly of FSTA-1, a crack was observed in the ball fitting radius. The ball fitting did not crack on FSTA-2. AE data was used to reconstruct when the crack occurred. The AE energy versus time plot for FSTA. The energy increased considerably at 850 seconds (152% limit load), indicating a crack could have formed at this point. The only visual evidence found that could have corresponded to this was the crack that initiated in the ball fitting. The cracks in the forward skirt aluminum structures would likely have been lower energy due to a lower modulus and all that were found after failure correlated to occurring after the initial crack in the post radius. This was verified by high-speed cameras used to record the failure.

Lohrer, J. D.↗

Definition of Capabilities Needed for a Single Event Effects Test Facility

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is contemplating new regulations mandating testing of the vulnerability of flight-critical avionics to single event effects (SEE). A limited number of high-energy neutron test facilities currently serve the SEE industrial and institutional research community. The FAA recognizes that existing facilities have insufficient test capacity to meet new demand from such mandates; it desires more flexible irradiation capabilities to test complete, large systems and would like capabilities to address greater concerns for thermal neutrons. For this reason, the FAA funded this study by Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) staff with the ultimate aim of developing options for SEE test facilities using high-energy neutrons at the SNS complex. After an investigation of current SEE test practices and assessment of future testing requirements, three concepts were identified covering a range of test functionality, neutron flux levels, and fidelity to the atmospheric neutron spectrum. The costs and times required to complete each facility were also estimated. SEE testing is generally performed by accelerating the event rate to a point where the effects are still dominated by single events and double event causes of failures are negligible. In practice, acceleration factors of as high as 10 6 are applicable for component testing, whereas for systems testing acceleration factors of 10 4 seem to be the upper limit. It is strongly desirable that the irradiation facility be tunable over a large range of high-energy neutron fluxes of 10 2 - 10 4 n/cm²/s for systems testing and from 10 4 - 10 7 n/cm²/s for components testing. The most capable, most flexible, and highest-test-capacity option is a new stand-alone target station named the High-Energy neutron Test Station (HETS). It is also the most expensive option, with a cost to complete of approximately $100 million. Dual test enclosures would allow for simultaneous testing activity effectively doubling overall test capacity per HETS operating hour. Using about 1 kilowatt (kW) of proton power extracted from the accelerator before injection in the accumulator ring, its operation would be unnoticeable by neutron scattering users at the SNS target station. The H beam laser stripping technique would allow for control of beam power on the HETS target independent from power delivered to the SNS. Large systems with frontal areas of up to 1 x 2 m² could be accommodated with integral high-energy flux values (above 10 megaelectron-volt, or MeV) to at most 10 4 n/cm²/s; components could also be tested with flux levels to at most 10 7 n/cm²/s on beam sizes of up to 0.2 x 0.2 m². Selectable moderating material and neutron filters would allow tailoring of the neutron spectrum to user demands; charged particle deflectors could be switched to allow or deflect protons, pions, and muons. It is estimated that HETS would take 5 years to complete after award of contract, including engineering design and construction. Commissioning would take at least another 6 months. Interference with SNS principal operations was not considered in the construction time estimate; connection of the proton transport line and tunnel from the accelerator high energy beam transport (HEBT) and construction around existing site utilities would require careful planning and coordination with beam operations at the SNS. A high-energy (HE) neutron test facility using an available beam line on the SNS target station is a technically and financially attractive option. Inspired by the new ChipIR instrument on the ISIS TS 2 spallation source in the UK, a similar facility could be placed on an unused beam line in the SNS instrument hall [e.g., on beam line 8 (both A and B channels would be needed) or on beam line 10]. The performance would approach that of an HETS (~80%), but it would be operationally more limited, with only a single user at a time. Space is more limited, so the maximum system size would be about half of that in an HETS. Flexibility to tailor the spectrum would be somewhat more limited. While this concept was not as fully developed and characterized, preliminary work indicates very high HE flux levels should be possible, with ample thermal neutrons as well. Flux control would be more difficult than at HETS because proton power on target be whatever the SNS was operating at for neutron scattering. Neutron attenuation devices would have to be employed with as-yet undetermined control resolution. However, no new buildings would be needed, and the necessary utilities are already present in the SNS Experiment Hall. The estimated cost for a beam line option is around $15 million; the time to complete would be 3 years after award of contract, plus at least 6 months for commissioning. Interference of construction activities with SNS operations should be negligible. This option would require negotiation with the Department of Energy Basic Energy Sciences (BES) office -- the primary stakeholder of SNS -- for an application outside the usual scope of neutron scattering sciences. Furthermore, these presently open beam lines are highly desirable locations for proposed neutron scattering instruments and obtaining one of them for an SEE test facility will come only with persuasive and timely arguments to SNS leadership and the DOE BES. The third option is a tunnel extension/target cave facility providing the most basic system-level irradiation capability with minimal flexibility. Again not as well developed a concept as HETS, it would use a laser-stripping technique like an HETS, redirecting protons to a tunnel similar to the initial HETS proton transport tunnel. Indeed, this concept is intended to be upgradable to a full HETS facility. Only a small fraction of a watt of proton power would be used in this basic configuration, though. An uncooled target and primitive shielding arrangement would provide beam on modestly sized systems that must be placed in close proximity to the target. The neutron fluence would be less uniform over the system than with the HETS or the beam line option. A data acquisition room and support area would be located on the ground level; access to the target cave would be via elevator and/or stairway. As a result of the required excavation, new tunnel construction, shielding, data acquisition building, utilities, and other items, the estimated cost is $30 million. The time to complete is expected be more than 3 years; here again construction interference with SNS operations has not been accounted for, but it could have a significant impact.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

Advanced Vehicle Testing and Evaluation Final Technical Report Encompassing Project Activities From October 1, 2011 to April 30, 2018

The Advanced Vehicle Testing and Evaluation (AVTE) project incorporated the conduct of advanced technology vehicle and infrastructure testing in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity (AVTA). It was the only activity tasked by DOE to conduct independent field evaluations of vehicle technologies that use advanced technology systems and subsystems in vehicles that reduce petroleum consumption. The results are available through reports published on the AVTA website at http://avt.inl.gov/. The AVTE project provided insight into advanced vehicle technology's long-term performance, durability, maintenance, and lifecycle costs that cannot be found elsewhere. The site is a resource for DOE stakeholders and the public to gain knowledge on advanced technology vehicle progress and innovation. Vehicles tested included light and heavy-duty vehicles with conventional, hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and all-electric propulsion systems. Vehicles were tested on closed tracks and chassis dynamometers, as well as operated on public roads, in fleet operations, and over prescribed routes. All testing was controlled by procedures developed specifically to support such testing. Testing and evaluations were conducted in the following phases: Development and refinement of test procedures, which established testing procedures; Baseline performance testing, which established a performance baseline; Accelerated reliability testing, which determined vehicle reliability; Fleet testing, used to evaluate vehicle economics in fleet operation, and End of test performance evaluation. Test results from all aspects of testing were posted by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to their website. This final report documents work conducted for the entirety of contract DE-EE0005501 by Intertek Testing Services NA, Inc. (Intertek). The contract was performed from October 1, 2011 through April 30, 2018, and includes 18 amendments to the original award with the most recent Amendment 18 dated March 28, 2018. The final budget for the AVTE project totaled 20,220,873 dollars. As a cooperative agreement, Intertek was obligated to provide cost share of 4,044,175 dollars, leaving 16,176,698 dollars as the Federal share of the agreement. Actual total expenditure for the AVTE project was 20,286,850 dollars. The full 16,176,698 dollars Federal share was expended and 4,110,152 dollars of cost share was provided by Intertek. This resulted in an over-share of 65,977 dollars. There were 106 light-duty on-road vehicles vehicles tested in both fleet and accelerated reliability testing. One additional vehicle was rented to obtain performance testing only. Three heavy-duty truck and trailer combinations were tested as part of the semi-autonomous driving with heavy-duty vehicles in a platoon. Overall project scope and direction was determined between Intertek, DOE, and technical teams from Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). The project was administered by the DOE’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Lightning testing at the subsystem level

Testing at the subsystem or black box level for lightning hardness is required if system hardness is to be assured at the system level. The often applied philosophy of lighting testing only at the system level leads to extensive end of the line design changes which result in excessive costs and time delays. In order to perform testing at the subsystem level two important factors must be defined to make the testing simulation meaningful. The first factor is the definition of the test stimulus appropriate to the subsystem level. Application of system level stimulations to the subsystem level usually leads to significant overdesign of the subsystem which is not necessary and may impair normal subsystem performance. The second factor is the availability of test equipment needed to provide the subsystem level lightning stimulation. Equipment for testing at this level should be portable or at least movable to enable efficient testing in a design laboratory environment. Large fixed test installations for system level tests are not readily available for use by the design engineers at the subsystem level and usually require special operating skills. The two factors, stimulation level and test equipment availability, must be evaluated together in order to produce a practical, workable test standard. The neglect or subordination of either factor will guarantee failure in generating the standard. It is not unusual to hear that test standards or specifications are waived because a specified stimulation level cannot be accomplished by in-house or independent test facilities. Determination of subsystem lightning simulation level requires a knowledge and evaluation of field coupling modes, peak and median levels of voltages and currents, bandwidths, and repetition rates. Practical limitations on test systems may require tradeoffs in lightning stimulation parameters in order to build practical test equipment. Peak power levels that can be generated at specified bandwidths with standard electrical components must be considered in the design and costing of the test system. Stimulation tests equipment and test methods are closely related and must be considered a test system for lightning simulation. A non-perfect specification that can be reliably and repeatedly applied at the subsystem test level is more desirable than a perfect specification that cannot be applied at all.

Luteran, Frank↗

Vibration and Acoustic Testing for Mars Micromission Spacecraft

The objective of the Mars Micromission program being managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for NASA is to develop a common spacecraft that can carry telecommunications equipment and a variety of science payloads for exploration of Mars. The spacecraft will be capable of carrying robot landers and rovers, cameras, probes, balloons, gliders or aircraft, and telecommunications equipment to Mars at much lower cost than recent NASA Mars missions. The lightweight spacecraft (about 220 Kg mass) will be launched in a cooperative venture with CNES as a TWIN auxiliary payload on the Ariane 5 launch vehicle. Two or more Mars Micromission launches are planned for each Mars launch opportunity, which occur every 26 months. The Mars launch window for the first mission is November 1, 2002 through April 2003, which is planned to be a Mars airplane technology demonstration mission to coincide with the 100 year anniversary of the Kittyhawk flight. Several subsequent launches will create a telecommunications network orbiting Mars, which will provide for continuous communication with lenders and rovers on the Martian surface. Dedicated science payload flights to Mars are slated to start in 2005. This new cheaper and faster approach to Mars exploration calls for innovative approaches to the qualification of the Mars Micromission spacecraft for the Ariane 5 launch vibration and acoustic environments. JPL has in recent years implemented new approaches to spacecraft testing that may be effectively applied to the Mars Micromission. These include 1) force limited vibration testing, 2) combined loads, vibration and modal testing, and 3) direct acoustic testing. JPL has performed nearly 200 force limited vibration tests in the past 9 years; several of the tests were on spacecraft and large instruments, including the Cassini and Deep Space One spacecraft. Force limiting, which measures and limits the spacecraft base reaction force using triaxial force gages sandwiched between the spacecraft and the test fixture, alleviates the severe overtest at spacecraft resonances inherent in rigid fixture vibration tests. It has the distinct advantage over response limiting that the method is not dependent on the accuracy of a detailed dynamic model of the spacecraft. Combined loads, vibration, and modal testing were recently performed on the QuikSCAT spacecraft. The combined tests were performed in a single test setup per axis on a vibration shaker, reducing test time by a factor of two or three. Force gages were employed to measure the true c.g. acceleration of the spacecraft for structural loads verification using a sine burst test, to automatically notch random vibration test input accelerations at spacecraft resonances based on predetermined force limits, and to directly measure modal masses in a base drive modal test. In addition to these combined tests on the shaker, the QuikSCAT spacecraft was subjected to a direct field acoustic test by surrounding the spacecraft, still on the vibration shaker, with rock concert type acoustic speakers. Since the spacecraft contractor does not have a reverberant field acoustic test facility, performing a direct field acoustic test -saved the program nearly two weeks schedule time that would have been required for packing / unpacking and shipping of the spacecraft. This paper discusses the rationale behind and advantages of the above test approaches and provides examples of their actual implementation and comparisons to flight data. The applicability of the test approaches to Mars Micromission spacecraft qualification is discussed.

Kern, Dennis L.↗

RELAP5-3D Restart and Backup Verification Testing

Existing testing methodology for RELAP5-3D employs a set of test cases collected over two decades to test a variety of code features and run on a Linux or Windows platform. However, this set has numerous deficiencies in terms of code coverage, detail of comparison, running time, and testing fidelity of RELAP5-3D restart and backup capabilities. The test suite covers less than three quarters of the lines of code in the relap directory and just over half those in the environmental library. Even in terms of code features, many are not covered. Moreover, the test set runs many problems long past the point necessary to test the relevant features. It requires standard problems to run to completion. This is unnecessary for features can be tested in a short-running problem. For example, many trips and controls can be tested in the first few time steps, as can a number of fluid flow options. The testing system is also inaccurate. For the past decade, the diffem script has been the primary tool for checking that printouts from two different RELAP5-3D executables agree. This tool compares two output files to verify that all characters are the same except for those relating to date, time and a few other excluded items. The variable values printed on the output file are accurate to no more than eight decimal places. Therefore, calculations with errors in decimal places beyond those printed remain undetected. Finally, fidelity of restart is not tested except in the PVM sub-suite and backup is not specifically tested at all. When a restart is made from any midway point of the base-case transient, the restart must produce the same values. When a backup condition occurs, the code repeats advancements with the same time step. A perfect backup can be tested by forcing RELAP5 to perform a backup by falsely setting a backup condition flag at a user-specified-time. Comparison of the calculations of that run and those produced by the same input w/o the spurious condition should be identical. Backup testing is more difficult the other kinds of testing described above because it requires additional coding to implement. The testing system constructed and described in this document resolves all of these issues. A matrix of test features and short-running cases that exercise them is presented. A small information file that contains sufficient data to verify calculations to the last decimal place and bit is produced. This testing system is used to test base cases (called null testing) as well as restart and backup cases. The programming that implements these new capabilities is presented.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Is the testing effect ready to be put to work? Evidence from the laboratory to the classroom.

The testing effect refers to the benefits to retention that result from structuring learning activities in the form of a test. As educators consider implementing test-enhanced learning paradigms in real classroom environments, we think it is critical to consider how an array of factors affecting test-enhanced learning in laboratory studies bear on test-enhanced learning in real-world classroom environments. As such, this review discusses the degree to which test feedback, test format (of formative tests), number of tests, level of the test questions, timing of tests (relative to initial learning), and retention duration have import for testing effects in ecologically valid contexts (e.g., classroom studies). Attention is also devoted to characteristics of much laboratory testing-effect research that may limit translation to classroom environments, such as the complexity of the material being learned, the value of the testing effect relative to other generative learning activities in classrooms, an educational orientation that favors criterial tests focused on transfer of learning, and online instructional modalities. We consider how student-centric variables present in the classroom (e.g., cognitive abilities, motivation) may have bearing on the effects of testing-effect techniques implemented in the classroom. We conclude that the testing effect is a robust phenomenon that benefits a wide variety of learners in a broad array of learning domains. Still, studies are needed to compare the benefit of testing to other learning strategies, to further characterize how individual differences relate to testing benefits, and to examine whether testing benefits learners at advanced levels.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

Component Testing Supporting SHINE Medical Technologies

SHINE is going to be implementing a tritium gas processing system to support their Mo-99 work. They have requested that the Hydrogen Process Group of SRNL does some required testing on the system components before startup. The lab plans on conducting both seismic and valve testing. Test Plan: - Testing 10 1C valves 750,000 cycles or until failure; - Testing intervals will be every couple thousand; - 1C valves will have metal stem tips instead of Polymer due to being in a tritium prone area; - Hope that the valves will still have enough force to create a sufficient seal with metal stem tips; - Goal is for a more cost and space efficient alternative to the 5C valves. Status: - Received half the parts, waiting on the other half due to long procurement times; - Waiting on the LabVIEW program which will perform the testing. Path Forward: - R and DE to change out the stem tips (July 2018); - Assemble Manifold (July 2018); - Perform Testing (August 2018); - Report (September 2018). Since SRNL does not own a shaker table, the test will be conducted at a facility like the NTS Facility in Huntsville, Alabama. Test Plans: - Leak Testing; - Use LabVIEW to monitor for leaks before, during and after seismic testing with an Electronic Pressure Transducer; - If leak is detected, sniff for location using Helium Leak Detector; - Connector Testing; - Use LabVIEW to test for electrical continuity before, during and after seismic testing; - If a connectors continuity is interrupted, further testing will be performed; - Each Pin in faulty connector will be testing to determine specific location of disruption. Path Forward: - Pick a Qualified Vender for testing (July 2018); - Procure the connector plugs (July 2018); - Send components and test plan to facility for testing (August 2018); - Perform Testing (August-September 2018); - Report Results (September 2018)

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

High-Mileage Courier Fleet Vehicle Laboratory Battery Pack Testing

For one of each of the AVTA's plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and some hybrid electric vehicles tested in high-mileage courier fleets, the high-voltage traction battery packs were removed from the vehicle and tested at the beginning and end of fleet testing. For some vehicles, batteries also were tested at periodic intervals during fleet testing. Standard reference performance tests were conducted to characterize battery degradation over time. This dataset contains results from two or more rounds of battery tests for 21 distinct year/make/model vehicles (see reference ["INL Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity: On-road Logger and Laboratory Battery Pack Testing Vehicle List"](https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/reports/DatasetVehicleList.pdf) for full list of vehicles). Each round of battery testing included the "Static Capacity Test" and the "Hybrid Pulse Power Characterization (HPPC) Test", conducted according to test procedures published in the United States Advanced Battery Consortium ["Battery Test Manual For Power-Assist Hybrid Electric Vehicles"](https://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=57), ["Battery Test Manual For Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles"](https://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=168), and ["Electric Vehicle Battery Test Procedures Manual"](https://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=5) prior to the time of testing. These tests were performed by Intertek Testing Services, North America. (This dataset will be shared by API; a small sample of the vehicle battery and test data has been extracted and is available for download while the API is being developed.)

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

High-Mileage Courier Fleet Vehicle Laboratory Battery Pack Testing

For one of each of the AVTA's plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and some hybrid electric vehicles tested in high-mileage courier fleets, the high-voltage traction battery packs were removed from the vehicle and tested at the beginning and end of fleet testing. For some vehicles, batteries also were tested at periodic intervals during fleet testing. Standard reference performance tests were conducted to characterize battery degradation over time. This dataset contains results from two or more rounds of battery tests for 21 distinct year/make/model vehicles (see reference ["INL Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity: On-road Logger and Laboratory Battery Pack Testing Vehicle List"](https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/reports/DatasetVehicleList.pdf) for full list of vehicles). Each round of battery testing included the "Static Capacity Test" and the "Hybrid Pulse Power Characterization (HPPC) Test", conducted according to test procedures published in the United States Advanced Battery Consortium ["Battery Test Manual For Power-Assist Hybrid Electric Vehicles"](https://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=57), ["Battery Test Manual For Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles"](https://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=168), and ["Electric Vehicle Battery Test Procedures Manual"](https://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=5) prior to the time of testing. These tests were performed by Intertek Testing Services, North America. This dataset is shared by API; a small sample of the vehicle battery and test data has been extracted and is also available for download.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

BOP-301 and BOP-302R: Test Definitions and Analyses

Following the conclusion of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) coordinated research project (CRP) on analysis of two EBR-II tests, Argonne has continued its EBR-II analysis with additional tests from the Shutdown Heat Removal Test (SHRT) series. The tests selected for this follow-up analysis are BOP-301 and BOP-302R, two unprotected loss of heat of sink tests in which the intermediate sodium pump tripped without scramming the control rods or tripping the primary pumps. The IAEA CRP focused on the SHRT-17 and SHRT-45R tests, the most severe protected and unprotected loss of flow tests performed during the SHRT series. With the primary pumps tripping, flow rates decreased to levels where flowmeter uncertainty was very high. Accurately capturing the progressions of the two tests despite this uncertainty was one of the key modeling and simulation challenges during the CRP. BOP-301 and BOP-302R were selected because the primary sodium pumps did not trip for those tests. Primary flow rate measurements are known with greater certainty. Power and temperature discrepancies can be explored without concern that flow predictions match test measurements but not the actual flow rates from the tests. These two tests were performed during the same test window as SHRT-45R and had the same core load configuration. Therefore, core models created for analysis of SHRT-45R were easily adapted for analysis of BOP-301 and BOP-302R. Another reason for analyzing BOP-301 and BOP-302R is to analyze tests in which the core inlet temperature changed significantly, which did not occur during the loss of flow tests. The transient progression of the unprotected SHRT-45R test was driven by a decreasing core flow rate while the core inlet temperature remained relatively constant. For the BOP tests, the transient progression was driven by an increasing core inlet temperature while the core flow rate was stable. This report defines the BOP-301 and BOP-302R tests and provides a selection of measured test data. Initial predictions from SAS4A/SASSYS-1 simulations of these tests are then presented. Following these simulations, additional analysis was performed with the Dakota uncertainty quantification and optimization toolkit to determine which parameters have the greater impact on the transient results and the optimal values of the most important parameters.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

In-Sodium Testing of a Prototype Thermoacoustic Power Sensor for Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors

The ultimate goal of this project is to develop and demonstrate a thermoacoustic power sensor (TAPS) for Sodium-Cooled Fast Reactors (SFRs), with potential application also envisioned to other nuclear technologies such as Lead-Cooled Fast Reactors (LFRs), Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), in addition to Light Water Reactors (LWRs). The project was led by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC (Westinghouse) and carried out in collaboration with Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) and the University of Pittsburgh. A TAPS is a passive (self-powered), non-invasive (wireless) sensor envisioned for measuring key parameters, such as local temperature and neutron flux, in a nuclear reactor core. The sensor generates pressure waves (i.e., sound waves) with a frequency and amplitude dependent upon nuclear operating conditions (coolant temperature or power changes). The acoustic waves are able to travel through the core and associated structures, and reach to the sensor network placed outside and/or inside of the reactor vessel. These sensors require a very small amount of power which, during loss of power events, can be provided, for example, by harvesting gamma radiation energy, thus resulting in a monitoring system that can function both during normal operation and during loss of power events. Westinghouse and the University of Pittsburgh designed and fabricated TAPS prototypes for Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) to carry out in-sodium testing to evaluate the effects of sodium on the TAPS and the performance of the TAPS technique in sodium. Argonne received a TAPS prototype from Westinghouse, and the prototype was modified such that it can be installed into a test vessel and function in sodium at elevated temperature without potentially leaking. A water mockup test apparatus was constructed to validate proper working of the prototype. An instrumentation and control (I&C) system, running on the National Instruments (NI) LabView platform, was developed to: 1) operate both the water mockup test and the in-sodium test facility; and 2) process and analyze the received acoustic signals from an array of accelerometers and the Argonne sodium-submersible high-temperature acoustic sensor. The prototype was successfully tested in a water bath at different temperatures. Water mockup tests demonstrated that the TAPS prototype is working properly and its resonance frequency changes linearly with the coolant (water) temperature. A TAPS test apparatus was constructed and integrated with the upgraded Under-Sodium Viewing (USV) sodium test facility. The integrated USV-TAPS sodium test facility has been operational. The TAPS prototype and a high-temperature sodium-submersible acoustic sensor (SSAS) developed by Argonne were both installed inside the TAPS test vessel. Being operated within argon cover gas under ambient conditions, the TAPS prototype demonstrated that it was functioning properly with a resonance frequency at 1407.2 Hz, which was successfully detected by the accelerometers mounted on the external wall of the vessel and the high-temperature SSAS installed inside the vessel. After successfully transferring sodium into the vessel, in-sodium tests of the prototype were conducted. Tests of the TAPS prototype demonstrated that the resonance frequency of the TAPS changes linearly with respect to the temperature difference between the interior of the TAPS and bulk sodium. The early tests showed that the TAPS prototype could not establish a continuous and consistent resonance in sodium. The resonance diminished before the prototype reached its operating temperature. A signal postprocessor was added to the DAQ module latterly to isolate interferences, enhance signal conditioning, improve peak detection, and generate resonance frequency versus temperature plots. After testing in molten sodium and immersion at higher temperature for several weeks, the TAPS prototype was able to establish a continuous resonance. Performance evaluation of the TAPS prototype was then conducted in sodium. The tests included the investigation of 1) the effects of the temperature difference between the TAPS and bulk sodium, 2) the effects of sodium flowrate; and 3) the performance of the different sensor-receiver systems positioned inside or outside the vessel. Results of a test demonstrated that, with limited sodium circulation, a continuous and consistent resonance of the TAPS prototype was established occasionally. The tests also demonstrated that, because of the nature of detection principles and mounting methods, the high temperature SSAS is more affected by acoustic noise, while accelerometers are more affected by vibrations, in the test environment. It is unknown why the TAPS prototype only occasionally established a continuous and consistent resonance when the TAPS temperature reached its operating temperature in molten sodium, and why it ultimately failed to resonate at all. A failure modes assessment was conducted and a few potential causes of failure were identified. Different post in-sodium tests were conducted to obtain additional information potentially relevant to the cause of the failure. Nondestructive evaluation techniques are suggested to examine the internal integrity as well as the gas mixture of the prototype. If they prove inconclusive, the prototype should be cut open to conduct a thorough inspection of its internal integrity and determine the state of the gas mixture.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

Spread Spectrum Receiver Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Test Guide

The objective of this test guide is to document appropriate unit level test methods and techniques for the performance of EMI testing of Direct Sequence (DS) spread spectrum receivers. Consideration of EMI test methods tailored for spread spectrum receivers utilizing frequency spreading, techniques other than direct sequence (such as frequency hopping, frequency chirping, and various hybrid methods) is beyond the scope of this test guide development program and is not addressed as part of this document EMI test requirements for NASA programs are primarily developed based on the requirements contained in MIL-STD-46 1 D (or earlier revisions of MIL-STD-46 1). The corresponding test method guidelines for the MIL-STD-461 D tests are provided in MIL-STD-462D. These test methods are well documented with the exception of the receiver antenna port susceptibility tests (intermodulation, cross modulation, and rejection of undesired signals) which must be tailored to the specific type of receiver that is being tested. Thus, test methods addressed in this guide consist only of antenna port tests designed to evaluate receiver susceptibility characteristics. MIL-STD-462D should be referred for guidance pertaining to test methods for EMI tests other than the antenna port tests. The scope of this test guide includes: (1) a discussion of generic DS receiver performance characteristics; (2) a summary of S-band TDRSS receiver operation; (3) a discussion of DS receiver EMI susceptibility mechanisms and characteristics; (4) a summary of military standard test guidelines; (5) recommended test approach and methods; and (6) general conclusions and recommendations for future studies in the area of spread spectrum receiver testing.

Wheeler, M. L.↗

Test Cases for the Benchmark Active Controls: Spoiler and Control Surface Oscillations and Flutter

As a portion of the Benchmark Models Program at NASA Langley, a simple generic model was developed for active controls research and was called BACT for Benchmark Active Controls Technology model. This model was based on the previously-tested Benchmark Models rectangular wing with the NACA 0012 airfoil section that was mounted on the Pitch and Plunge Apparatus (PAPA) for flutter testing. The BACT model had an upper surface spoiler, a lower surface spoiler, and a trailing edge control surface for use in flutter suppression and dynamic response excitation. Previous experience with flutter suppression indicated a need for measured control surface aerodynamics for accurate control law design. Three different types of flutter instability boundaries had also been determined for the NACA 0012/PAPA model, a classical flutter boundary, a transonic stall flutter boundary at angle of attack, and a plunge instability near M = 0.9. Therefore an extensive set of steady and control surface oscillation data was generated spanning the range of the three types of instabilities. This information was subsequently used to design control laws to suppress each flutter instability. There have been three tests of the BACT model. The objective of the first test, TDT Test 485, was to generate a data set of steady and unsteady control surface effectiveness data, and to determine the open loop dynamic characteristics of the control systems including the actuators. Unsteady pressures, loads, and transfer functions were measured. The other two tests, TDT Test 502 and TDT Test 5 18, were primarily oriented towards active controls research, but some data supplementary to the first test were obtained. Dynamic response of the flexible system to control surface excitation and open loop flutter characteristics were determined during Test 502. Loads were not measured during the last two tests. During these tests, a database of over 3000 data sets was obtained. A reasonably extensive subset of the data sets from the first two tests have been chosen for Test Cases for computational comparisons concentrating on static conditions and cases with harmonically oscillating control surfaces. Several flutter Test Cases from both tests have also been included. Some aerodynamic comparisons with the BACT data have been made using computational fluid dynamics codes at the Navier-Stokes level (and in the accompanying chapter SC). Some mechanical and active control studies have been presented. In this report several Test Cases are selected to illustrate trends for a variety of different conditions with emphasis on transonic flow effects. Cases for static angles of attack, static trailing-edge and upper-surface spoiler deflections are included for a range of conditions near those for the oscillation cases. Cases for trailing-edge control and upper-surface spoiler oscillations for a range of Mach numbers, angle of attack, and static control deflections are included. Cases for all three types of flutter instability are selected. In addition some cases are included for dynamic response measurements during forced oscillations of the controls on the flexible mount. An overview of the model and tests is given, and the standard formulary for these data is listed. Some sample data and sample results of calculations are presented. Only the static pressures and the first harmonic real and imaginary parts of the pressures are included in the data for the Test Cases, but digitized time histories have been archived. The data for the Test Cases are also available as separate electronic files.

Bennett, Robert M.↗