Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “and testing”

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 1,729 records · Page 96
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2017

An automatic input/output test experience of FPGA-based logic controller with I/O stimulator - 282

This paper describes an automatic testing approach instead of a traditional manual test for an FPGA-based Logic Controller (FLC). It mainly describes an automatic testing of FLC using an I/O stimulator with the initiated manual action. The FLC was developed by Doosan Heavy Industry and KAERI in S. Korea. We also developed a test-bed like I/O stimulator for a burning test based on the operational scenario. Signal sources from the I/O stimulator contain an analog input, an analog output, a digital input and a digital output, a programmable power supply, an RS232C serial interface, and a dual port Ethernet interface. LabVIEW Programming was used for the automatic testing. The FLC consists of a general processor module (FPM-01), a complex processor module (FPM-02), analog input modules (FAI-01), analog output modules (FAO-01), digital input modules (FDI-01), digital output modules (FDO-01), a data link module (FDL-01), and a network module (FNW-01). Among these, in this paper, automatic digital I/O testing and automatic analog I/O testing are described. In addition, for the accuracy of the automatic testing, two graphic recorders are used. One is the output results of general processor based testing, and the other is the output results of complex processor based testing. These are different company products. Redundancy recording was found in the test results. The test results were synchronized internally with the existing I/O stimulator and externally with two graphic recorders. Calibrations of all of the equipment were made before the system testing. Before the testing started, a test plan and the test procedure were set up in advance, and we performed test scenario-based automatic functional testing for the FLC as the qualification process. It can be several executed depending on the scenario and conditional parameters of the test. For validation of the accuracy and reliability in our automated test, manual testing was also performed. Manual tests were conducted in two ways. The first one was a manual test using Fluke 754 and Fluke 715. The other one was using embedded manual features of the I/O stimulator. By performing the automatic input and output testing using the I/O stimulator, the time and expense of FLC testing can be reduced significantly compared with a conventional manual test. We rechecked the automatic test results using Fluke754 manually. (authors)

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2012

Performance Test on Polymer Waste Form - 12137

Polymer solidification was attempted to produce stable waste form for the boric acid concentrates and the dewatered spent resins. The polymer mixture was directly injected into the mold or drum which was packed with the boric acid concentrates and the dewatered spent resins, respectively. The waste form was produced by entirely curing the polymer mixture. A series of performance tests was conducted including compressive strength test, water immersion test, leach test, thermal stability test, irradiation stability test and biodegradation stability test for the polymer waste forms. From the results of the performance tests for the polymer waste forms, it is believed that the polymer waste form is very stable and can satisfy the acceptance criteria for permanent disposal. At present, performance tests with full scale polymer waste forms are being carried out in order to obtain qualification certificate by the regulatory institute in Korea. Polymer waste forms were prepared with the surrogate of boric acid concentrates and the surrogate of spent ion exchange resins respectively. Waste forms were also made in lab scale and in full scale. Lab. scale waste forms were directly subjected to a series of the performance tests. In the case of full scale waste form, the test specimens for the performance test were taken from a part of waste form by coring. A series of performance tests was conducted including compressive strength test, thermal stability test, irradiation stability test and biodegradation stability test, water immersion test, leach test, and free standing water for the polymer waste forms. In addition, a fire resistance test was performed on the waste forms by the requirement of the regulatory institute in Korea. Every polymer waste forms containing the boric acid concentrates and the spent ion exchange resins had exhibited excellent structural integrity of more than 27.58 MPa (4,000 psi) of compressive strength. On thermal stability testing, biodegradation testing and water immersion testing, no degradation was observed in the waste forms. Also, by measuring the compressive strength after these tests, it was confirmed that the structural integrity was still retained. A leach test was performed by using non radioactive cobalt, cesium and strontium. The leaching of cobalt, cesium and strontium from the polymer waste forms was very low. Also, the polymer waste forms were found to possess adequate fire resistance. From the results of the performance tests, it is believed that the polymer waste form is very stable and can satisfy the acceptance criteria for permanent disposal. At present, Performance tests with full scale polymer waste forms are on-going in order to obtain qualification certificate by the regulatory institute in Korea. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Creep Testing of Vectran Yarn

NASA and industry are developing inflatable space structures to provide deployable habitable volumes for future exploration missions in space and on the surface of the Moon and Mars. These structures must withstand the constant pressure loading of multi-year missions. These missions therefore require excellent creep resistance in the constituent cordage and webbings that provide the primary structure of the vessel, which is typically constructed using high-strength synthetic materials such as Vectran. Real-time and accelerated creep testing of Vectran webbings has been performed at NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC), however, acceptable correlation between the results of the two approaches has not yet been achieved. Given the additional complexity of the webbing architecture, creep testing at the yarn level is being studied to reduce the number of interacting properties and focus on the core creep behavior to see if better correlation can be achieved between real-time and accelerated tests. To achieve this objective a creep test stand that is able to support simultaneous testing of five Vectran yarns had been previously designed and built. The test stand utilizes two clamp-wrap grips to mount the yarn and has a 10:1 load ratio, via a lever-arm, henceforth, known as the lever-arm test stand. Real-time creep testing (without measuring the strain of the yarn) in this fixture produces yarn ruptures in the gauge section. However, a large scatter in the times to failure was seen in the results across multiple loading conditions. For example, a test at 70% of the ultimate tensile strength (UTS) was found to have specimens that failed within a matter of hours and others that took over 6 weeks to fail. Prior test data on Vectran webbings had indicated high variability in the material strength, leading to higher than average scatter in the creep testing of webbings, which could translate to the scatter in creep behavior at the yarn level as well. However, there was still the possibility that the lever-arm test stand was causing the high scatter in data; specifically, due to potential variability in the loading of each specimen. Therefore, an additional creep test setup was designed and built to attempt to determine if the large scatter in the results was due to inherent material properties, the lever-arm test stand, or both. The newly designed creep test stand, henceforth known as the conventional test stand, utilized the more typical method for creep testing which involved hanging a weight from the yarn with no additional load amplification. The conventional test stand was designed and fabricated in-house at LaRC. High speed cameras were used to validate that the specimens in the conventional test stand failed in the gauge section. Once it was determined that the conventional test stand would provide valid failures in the gauge section, creep tests on the Vectran yarns were run to compare to the lever-arm test stand results. Preliminary results for a 70% UTS creep test have some specimens failing within a number of hours and some failing in excess of 6 weeks. These results are similar to those seen on the lever-arm test stand, pointing towards a large variability inherent in the material. The poster/presentation will focus on the design, fabrication, and validation of the conventional test stand as well as present preliminary results comparing the creep data from the conventional and lever-arm test stands

creep testing↗
NASA NTRS2005

Introduction to Flight Test Engineering [Introduction Aux Techniques Des Essais En Vol]

Flight test is at the core of what organizations must do in order to validate the operation and systems on an aircraft. While the AGARDograph series 300 and 160 series deal with aspects of this testing, this volume pulls it all together as an introduction to the process required to do effective flight test engineering. This volume was originally published in 1995. Its utility has been proven in that many flight test organizations and universities have requested copies for their engineers and students. It was felt that re-issuing it in a new format designed for electronic publication would be valuable to the community. This second printing changes none of the text, but rather reformats it. All the original references to AGARD (instead of RTO) are left in place so that none of the flavor of the original publication is lost. This is the Introductory Volume to the Flight Test Techniques Series. It is a general introduction to the various activities and aspects of Flight Test Engineering that must be considered when planning, conducting, and reporting a flight test program. Its main intent is to provide a broad overview to the novice engineer or to other people who have a need to interface with specialists within the flight test community. The first two Sections provide some insight into the question of why flight test and give a short history of flight test engineering. Sections 3 through 10 deal with the preparation for flight testing. They provide guidance on the preliminary factors that must be considered; the composition of the test team; the logistic support requirements; the instrumentation and data processing requirements; the flight test plan; the associated preliminary ground tests; and last, but by no means least, discuss safety aspects. Sections 11 through 27 describe the various types of flight tests that are usually conducted during the development and certification of a new or modified aircraft type. Each Section offers a brief introduction to the topic under consideration, and the nature and the objectives of the tests to be conducted. It lists the test instrumentation (and, where appropriate, other test equipment and facilities) required, describes the test maneuvers to be executed, and indicates the way in which the test data is selected, analyzed, and presented. The various activities that should take place between test flights are presented next. Items that are covered are: who to debrief; what type of reports to send where: types of data analysis required for next flight; review of test data to make a comparison to predicted data and some courses of action if there is not good agreement; and comments on selecting the next test flight. The activities that must take place upon completion of the test program are presented. The types of reports and briefings that should take place and a discussion of some of the uses of the flight test data are covered. A brief forecast is presented of where present trends may be leading.

Test facilities↗
NASA NTRS2015

Orion Launch Abort System Performance on Exploration Flight Test 1

This paper will present an overview of the flight test objectives and performance of the Orion Launch Abort System during Exploration Flight Test-1. Exploration Flight Test-1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was managed and led by the Orion prime contractor, Lockheed Martin, and launched atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket. This flight test was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety. This test included the first flight test of the Launch Abort System preforming Orion nominal flight mission critical objectives. NASA is currently designing and testing the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV). Orion will serve as NASA's new exploration vehicle to carry astronauts to deep space destinations and safely return them to earth. The Orion spacecraft is composed of four main elements: the Launch Abort System, the Crew Module, the Service Module, and the Spacecraft Adapter (Fig. 1). The Launch Abort System (LAS) provides two functions; during nominal launches, the LAS provides protection for the Crew Module from atmospheric loads and heating during first stage flight and during emergencies provides a reliable abort capability for aborts that occur within the atmosphere. The Orion Launch Abort System (LAS) consists of an Abort Motor to provide the abort separation from the Launch Vehicle, an Attitude Control Motor to provide attitude and rate control, and a Jettison Motor for crew module to LAS separation (Fig. 2). The jettison motor is used during a nominal launch to separate the LAS from the Launch Vehicle (LV) early in the flight of the second stage when it is no longer needed for aborts and at the end of an LAS abort sequence to enable deployment of the crew module's Landing Recovery System. The LAS also provides a Boost Protective Cover fairing that shields the crew module from debris and the aero-thermal environment during ascent. Although the Orion Program has tested a number of the critical systems of the Orion spacecraft on the ground, the launch environment cannot be replicated completely on Earth. A number of flight tests have been conducted and are planned to demonstrate the performance and enable certification of the Orion Spacecraft. Exploration Flight Test 1, the first flight test of the Orion spacecraft, was successfully flown on December 5, 2014 from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station's Space Launch Complex 37. Orion's first flight was a two-orbit, high-apogee, high-energy entry, low-inclination test mission used to validate and test systems critical to crew safety, such as heat shield performance, separation events, avionics and software performance, attitude control and guidance, parachute deployment and recovery operations. One of the key separation events tested during this flight was the nominal jettison of the LAS. Data from this flight will be used to verify the function of the jettison motor to separate the Launch Abort System from the crew module so it can continue on with the mission. The LAS nominal jettison event on Exploration Flight Test 1 occurred at six minutes and twenty seconds after liftoff (See Fig. 3). The abort motor and attitude control motors were inert for Exploration Flight Test 1, since the mission did not require abort capabilities. A suite of developmental flight instrumentation was included on the flight test to provide data on spacecraft subsystems and separation events. This paper will focus on the flight test objectives and performance of the LAS during ascent and nominal jettison. Selected LAS subsystem flight test data will be presented and discussed in the paper. Exploration Flight Test -1 will provide critical data that will enable engineering to improve Orion's design and reduce risk for the astronauts it will protect as NASA continues to move forward on its human journey to Mars. The lessons learned from Exploration Flight Test 1 and the other Flight Test Vehicles will certainly contribute to the vehicle architecture of a human-rated space launch vehicle.

McCauley, R.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Gripper Test Assembly Status Report (FY2020)

Refueling systems for fast reactors are designed to handle fresh and used core assemblies (fuel, reflector, and shield core assemblies) within the reactor vessel in an opaque coolant environment without visual reference. These refueling machines are designed to work in a sodium (or other fast reactor coolant) and argon vapor space environment and are engineered with the rotatable plug system to allow for the movement of fresh and spent fuel into and out of the reactor core. The refueling machines are a critical component in any reactor and thus need to undergo extensive testing in a prototypic environment to ensure that they will meet all of the system functions and requirements. Argonne has developed an innovative compact refueling system design for the Advanced Fast Reactor-100 that is based upon some mechanisms used in previous reactor designs, such as the U.K.’s Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) and some mechanisms that have not been used in sodium. This compact refueling machine supports the reduction in size of the AFR-100’s reactor vessel, and if fully developed, would support and inform the development of the in-vessel refueling machines for such commercial reactors as the GEH PRISM reactor plant, the ARC Clean Energy’s ARC-100 reactor, and the Natrium reactor, among others. This refueling system is a vital component of a fast reactor that supports reducing the cost of the reactor and increasing its reliability. During the development of the compact fuel handling machine conceptual design for the AFR-100, a lack of testing data for many mechanical components in sodium under typical in-reactor loads and conditions was discovered. The reduction in lifetime of the various mechanical components in the liquid sodium environment needs to be quantified versus the calculated component lifetimes under normal conditions in the testing while they are subjected to typical loading profiles experienced in the past. The Gripper Test Assembly discussed here includes a full-size gripper device with appropriate mechanical features that will be tested in sodium to provide this testing data. The Gripper Test Assembly is used to test various mechanical fuel handling components submerged in high temperature liquid sodium. These mechanisms are gears, bearings, gripper jaws and head, universal joints and shafts, ball screws, among others. These components will be tested under the typical sodium environmental conditions experienced during refueling operations with appropriate loading conditions that simulate the removal and insertion of core assemblies into a fast reactor grid plate structure. This Gripper Test Assembly is the second in a series of refueling system mechanisms developed for testing in sodium. The first test assembly is the Gear Test Assembly (GTA) which was used to test the performance of gears and bearings operating in sodium. Because of the successful testing conducted with the GTA, it was decided to continue with the development of the Gripper Test Assembly which uses the same gears and bearings tested in GTA. Using the data collected during operation of this gripper test assembly, lifetime reduction factors of the various mechanical components can be calculated for the material combinations selected. These lifetime reduction factors can be used in the design of future mechanical systems which operate in these environments to accurately predict component end of life. In addition, an understanding of the ability of these components and mechanisms to operate under-sodium with the chosen materials will be accomplished. Again, this Gripper Test Assembly is the follow-on test article to the Gear Test Assembly which was testing the ability of gears and bearings operating in a sodium environment. Once fabricated and qualified, it will be tested in the Mechanism Engineering Test Loop (METL) facility located in Building 308 at Argonne National Laboratory.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
NASA NTRS2004

A Method for Calculating the Probability of Successfully Completing a Rocket Propulsion Ground Test

Propulsion ground test facilities face the daily challenges of scheduling multiple customers into limited facility space and successfully completing their propulsion test projects. Due to budgetary and schedule constraints, NASA and industry customers are pushing to test more components, for less money, in a shorter period of time. As these new rocket engine component test programs are undertaken, the lack of technology maturity in the test articles, combined with pushing the test facilities capabilities to their limits, tends to lead to an increase in facility breakdowns and unsuccessful tests. Over the last five years Stennis Space Center's propulsion test facilities have performed hundreds of tests, collected thousands of seconds of test data, and broken numerous test facility and test article parts. While various initiatives have been implemented to provide better propulsion test techniques and improve the quality, reliability, and maintainability of goods and parts used in the propulsion test facilities, unexpected failures during testing still occur quite regularly due to the harsh environment in which the propulsion test facilities operate. Previous attempts at modeling the lifecycle of a propulsion component test project have met with little success. Each of the attempts suffered form incomplete or inconsistent data on which to base the models. By focusing on the actual test phase of the tests project rather than the formulation, design or construction phases of the test project, the quality and quantity of available data increases dramatically. A logistic regression model has been developed form the data collected over the last five years, allowing the probability of successfully completing a rocket propulsion component test to be calculated. A logistic regression model is a mathematical modeling approach that can be used to describe the relationship of several independent predictor variables X(sub 1), X(sub 2),..,X(sub k) to a binary or dichotomous dependent variable Y, where Y can only be one of two possible outcomes, in this case Success or Failure. Logistic regression has primarily been used in the fields of epidemiology and biomedical research, but lends itself to many other applications. As indicated the use of logistic regression is not new, however, modeling propulsion ground test facilities using logistic regression is both a new and unique application of the statistical technique. Results from the models provide project managers with insight and confidence into the affectivity of rocket engine component ground test projects. The initial success in modeling rocket propulsion ground test projects clears the way for more complex models to be developed in this area.

Messer, Bradley P.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Chapter 9 - Pre-Flight Tests

Pre-flight testing is critical to the success of any flight test program. Pre-flight tests are performed to measure and evaluate the characteristics of an aircraft in a non-flying environment and to verify that these characteristics are as desired. Since aircraft systems are becoming more and more complex, conducting proper pre-flight testing to help identify system characteristics and deficiencies prior to flight is more important now than ever before. Much flight test time has been lost fixing problems that should have been found and corrected prior to flight. Accidents have occurred because pre-flight tests and verification procedures were not conducted thoroughly enough to identify the aircraft's characteristics properly or to find system discrepancies. Proper pre-flight testing helps ensure that the aircraft is ready to fly and contributes toward an efficient, productive, and safe flight test program. The reader should be aware that this Section is dedicated to the testing that should take place prior to the first flight. There are other "pre-flight" tests that take place prior to each individual flight. These latter tests are not discussed in this Section. The following paragraphs of this Section describe significant tests that are usually accomplished prior to flying a new or highly modified aircraft. Test objectives, descriptions, products, and requirements are provided in the following subsections: 9.1 Wind tunnel tests 9.2 Simulation tests 9.3 Propulsion tests 9.4 Weight and balance tests 9.5 Ground vibration tests 9.6 Structural loads tests 9.7 Gain margin tests 9.8 Verification and calibration tests 9.9 Taxi tests The specific examples given and the test facilities mentioned in this Section will illustrate the approach taken and the techniques used by the US Air Force; however, they are typical of those used by other test organizations.

Paul W Kirsten↗
NASA NTRS2007

Test Analysis Guidelines

Development of analysis guidelines for Exploration Life Support (ELS) technology tests was completed. The guidelines were developed based on analysis experiences gained from supporting Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) technology development in air revitalization systems and water recovery systems. Analyses are vital during all three phases of the ELS technology test: pre-test, during test and post test. Pre-test analyses of a test system help define hardware components, predict system and component performances, required test duration, sampling frequencies of operation parameters, etc. Analyses conducted during tests could verify the consistency of all the measurements and the performance of the test system. Post test analyses are an essential part of the test task. Results of post test analyses are an important factor in judging whether the technology development is a successful one. In addition, development of a rigorous model for a test system is an important objective of any new technology development. Test data analyses, especially post test data analyses, serve to verify the model. Test analyses have supported development of many ECLSS technologies. Some test analysis tasks in ECLSS technology development are listed in the Appendix. To have effective analysis support for ECLSS technology tests, analysis guidelines would be a useful tool. These test guidelines were developed based on experiences gained through previous analysis support of various ECLSS technology tests. A comment on analysis from an experienced NASA ECLSS manager (1) follows: "Bad analysis was one that bent the test to prove that the analysis was right to begin with. Good analysis was one that directed where the testing should go and also bridged the gap between the reality of the test facility and what was expected on orbit."

Jeng, Frank F.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Pressure-Fed LOX/LCH4 Reaction Control System for Spacecraft: Transient Modeling and Thermal Vacuum Hotfire Test Results

An integrated cryogenic liquid oxygen, liquid methane (LOX/LCH4) reaction control system (RCS) was tested at NASA Glenn Research Center's Plum Brook Station in the Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B-2) under vacuum and thermal vacuum conditions. The RCS is a subsystem of the Integrated Cryogenic Propulsion Test Article (ICPTA), a pressure-fed LOX/LCH4 propulsion system composed of a single 2,800 lbf main engine, two 28 lbf RCS engines, and two 7 lbf RCS engines. Propellants are stored in four 48 inch diameter 5083 aluminum tanks that feed both the main engine and RCS engines in parallel. Helium stored cryogenically in a composite overwrapped pressure vessel (COPV) flows through a heat exchanger on the main engine before being used to pressurize the propellant tanks to a design operating pressure of 325 psi. The ICPTA is capable of simultaneous main engine and RCS operation. The RCS engines utilize a coil-on-plug (COP) ignition system designed for operation in a vacuum environment, eliminating corona discharge issues associated with a high voltage lead. There are two RCS pods on the ICPTA, with two engines on each pod. One of these two engines is a heritage flight engine from Project Morpheus. Its sea level nozzle was removed and replaced by an 85:1 nozzle machined using Inconel 718, resulting in a maximum thrust of 28 lbf under altitude conditions. The other engine is a scaled down version of the 28 lbf engine, designed to match the core and overall mixture ratios as well as other injector characteristics. This engine can produce a maximum thrust of 7 lbf with an 85:1 nozzle that was additively manufactured using Inconel 718. Both engines are film-cooled and capable of limited duration gas-gas and gas-liquid operation, as well as steady-state liquid-liquid operation. Each pod contains one of each version, such that two engines of the same thrust level can be fired as a couple on opposite pods. The RCS feed system is composed of symmetrical 3/8 inch lines that tap off of the main propellant manifold to send LOX and LCH4 outboard to the RCS pods. A Thermodynamic Vent System (TVS) is used to condition propellants at each pod by venting through an orifice and then routing the cold expansion products back through tubing that is welded along a large portion of the main RCS feed lines. Prior to final installation on the ICPTA, the RCS engines were tested in a small vacuum chamber at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) Energy Systems Test Area (ESTA) to verify functionality of the new COP ignition system and check out operation of the vacuum nozzles. After engine-level testing, the RCS engines were installed on the vehicle and a series of integrated hot-fire tests were performed at JSC consisting of various pulsing and steady-state firings as well as integrated main engine/RCS operation. The ICPTA was then integrated into the Plum Brook B-2 facility for vacuum and thermal/vacuum testing. Testing in the B-2 facility was composed of multiple thermal and pressure environments. The first set of tests were performed under ambient temperature and altitude pressure conditions. These tests consisted of a range of minimum impulse bit (MIB) pulsing sequences with low duty cycle, analogous to a coast phase in which the RCS is primarily used for station keeping. The primary goal of this sequence is to understand how propellant conditions were effected without an active TVS. In this scenario, consistent gas-gas operation is desirable since it results in a smaller MIB and more efficient propellant consumption. Multiple skin thermocouples are mounted on the feedlines, in addition to a submerged thermocouple on each commodity, in order to gather thermal data on the system. Higher duty cycle pulsing tests were then performed, analogous to an ascent or landing mission phase. The primary goal of this sequence was to examine how well the engines self-conditioned without active TVS when starting from a quiescent state. The TVS was then activated during some tests to demonstrate the capability to quickly condition the engines for higher pulsing demand scenarios. A thermocouple at the TVS outlet allows for the calculation of energy absorbed by the vented propellant. Lastly, tests with longer pulses and multiple engines firing either in sequence or simultaneously were run in order to gather transient system response data on waterhammer. Six total high-speed pressure transducers are installed on the RCS system, one sensor at the end of each propellant manifold line on the pods, and one at the tap-off location for each commodity. This will allow for the accurate characterization of waterhammer in the system under various propellant conditions and firing sequences. Other instrumentation for this test series includes nozzle throat thermocouples, chamber pressure measurement, heat soakback measurement, and tank wall plume impingement temperature measurement. The next set of tests were performed to demonstrate simultaneous main engine and RCS operation. Data from this test will be used to examine if there is any change to nominal operation of the RCS as a result of feed system interaction or other phenomenon. Some of these tests began under high vacuum conditions (target ambient pressure less than 1x10(exp -3) torr) and others began at altitude conditions. The last set of tests were performed with the B-2 cold wall active. Under these tests, many of the same low duty cycle MIB tests were repeated in order to characterize how propellant conditions changed with the lower heat leak. In this scenario the RCS manifold experiences much less heat leak, resulting in a change to how well the engines self-condition. As a result, an increase in maximum waterhammer pressures and a change in natural frequency of the system was expected due to higher density propellants. The lower heat leak should also result in a change to the MIB pulse profile, and data will be examined to understand how MIB repeatability is affected in the different operating environments. Parallel to the test efforts, a set of transient model development efforts were made to predict RCS performance. The primary effort was aimed at producing a SINDA/FLUINT model to predict propellant conditioning up to the engine inlet as a function of different environmental and operating parameters, with the goal of predicting chamber pressure, TVS performance, and propellant consumption over time. Preliminary results for this effort will be presented in comparison with test data. Additional modeling efforts were made using SINDA/FLUINT to predict waterhammer in the system since the software is capable of handling multiphase transient fluid dynamics. These results will be compared with the high-speed pressure transducer test data for validation purposes.

Atwell, Matthew J.↗
NASA NTRS2014

System Testing of Ground Cooling System Components

This internship focused primarily upon software unit testing of Ground Cooling System (GCS) components, one of the three types of tests (unit, integrated, and COTS/regression) utilized in software verification. Unit tests are used to test the software of necessary components before it is implemented into the hardware. A unit test determines that the control data, usage procedures, and operating procedures of a particular component are tested to determine if the program is fit for use. Three different files are used to make and complete an efficient unit test. These files include the following: Model Test file (.mdl), Simulink SystemTest (.test), and autotest (.m). The Model Test file includes the component that is being tested with the appropriate Discrete Physical Interface (DPI) for testing. The Simulink SystemTest is a program used to test all of the requirements of the component. The autotest tests that the component passes Model Advisor and System Testing, and puts the results into proper files. Once unit testing is completed on the GCS components they can then be implemented into the GCS Schematic and the software of the GCS model as a whole can be tested using integrated testing. Unit testing is a critical part of software verification; it allows for the testing of more basic components before a model of higher fidelity is tested, making the process of testing flow in an orderly manner.

Unit Test↗
DOE OSTI2015

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↗
DOE OSTI2017

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↗
NASA NTRS2010

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.↗
NASA NTRS2007

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↗
NASA NTRS2016

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.↗
DOE OSTI2014

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 ↗
DOE OSTI2012

Full-Scale Cask Testing and Public Acceptance of Spent Nuclear Fuel Shipments - 12254

Full-scale physical testing of spent fuel shipping casks has been proposed by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 2006 report on spent nuclear fuel transportation, and by the Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission (BRC) on America's Nuclear Future 2011 draft report. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2005 proposed full-scale testing of a rail cask, and considered 'regulatory limits' testing of both rail and truck casks (SRM SECY-05-0051). The recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) cancellation of the Yucca Mountain project, NRC evaluation of extended spent fuel storage (possibly beyond 60-120 years) before transportation, nuclear industry adoption of very large dual-purpose canisters for spent fuel storage and transport, and the deliberations of the BRC, will fundamentally change assumptions about the future spent fuel transportation system, and reopen the debate over shipping cask performance in severe accidents and acts of sabotage. This paper examines possible approaches to full-scale testing for enhancing public confidence in risk analyses, perception of risk, and acceptance of spent fuel shipments. The paper reviews the literature on public perception of spent nuclear fuel and nuclear waste transportation risks. We review and summarize opinion surveys sponsored by the State of Nevada over the past two decades, which show consistent patterns of concern among Nevada residents about health and safety impacts, and socioeconomic impacts such as reduced property values along likely transportation routes. We also review and summarize the large body of public opinion survey research on transportation concerns at regional and national levels. The paper reviews three past cask testing programs, the way in which these cask testing program results were portrayed in films and videos, and examines public and official responses to these three programs: the 1970's impact and fire testing of spent fuel truck casks at Sandia National Laboratories, the 1980's regulatory and demonstration testing of MAGNOX fuel flasks in the United Kingdom (the CEGB 'Operation Smash Hit' tests), and the 1980's regulatory drop and fire tests conducted on the TRUPACT II containers used for transuranic waste shipments to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. The primary focus of the paper is a detailed evaluation of the cask testing programs proposed by the NRC in its decision implementing staff recommendations based on the Package Performance Study, and by the State of Nevada recommendations based on previous work by Audin, Resnikoff, Dilger, Halstead, and Greiner. The NRC approach is based on demonstration impact testing (locomotive strike) of a large rail cask, either the TAD cask proposed by DOE for spent fuel shipments to Yucca Mountain, or a similar currently licensed dual-purpose cask. The NRC program might also be expanded to include fire testing of a legal-weight truck cask. The Nevada approach calls for a minimum of two tests: regulatory testing (impact, fire, puncture, immersion) of a rail cask, and extra-regulatory fire testing of a legal-weight truck cask, based on the cask performance modeling work by Greiner. The paper concludes with a discussion of key procedural elements - test costs and funding sources, development of testing protocols, selection of testing facilities, and test peer review - and various methods of communicating the test results to a broad range of stakeholder audiences. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗