SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Software Safety”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,765 records · Page 98

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2020

Workshop on Improving Holdup Monitoring in the US

The characterization and quantification of nuclear deposits, or residual nuclear material retained in process equipment, generally referred to as holdup, continues to challenge nuclear processing facilities in DOE program areas such as nuclear criticality safety, material control and accountability, environmental management. The efficiency and effectiveness of nuclear operations in these facilities depends heavily on the results from nondestructive techniques designed to measure nuclear materials in situ. The traditional methods used to measure holdup were established more than 30 years ago and assume unrealistic conditions for most measurement cases. These blind, in situ measurements present unique challenges due to the following attributes: unique, non-ideal geometries; unknown deposit thicknesses; lack of representative calibration standards; large number of holdup deposit locations; and poor accessibility for many measurement locations. These difficulties and the poor assumptions made to handle them have resulted in measurement uncertainties that are often too large for many programs to effectively utilize. In an effort to address and identify solutions to the current holdup challenges facing the US nuclear industry, Oak Ridge National Laboratory hosted the Technical Workshop on Improving Holdup Monitoring in the US. The two-day workshop held August 21–22, 2019, was attended by 35 holdup measurement practitioners, program managers, stakeholders from US Department of Energy sites, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and representatives from commercial industry. The primary objectives were to identify critical elements of a successful and defensible holdup measurement program; identify technical challenges, needs, and potential improvements associated with measurement of holdup; and share best practices and lessons learned from recent accumulation events. Fourteen presentations were delivered on holdup topics including necessary elements for effective program management, measurement needs, emerging technologies and other measurement solutions, and lessons learned from recent events. These presentations highlighted best practices related to accumulation monitoring, considerations and proactive steps to facilitate holdup in new facility designs, imaging solutions to improve holdup assumptions, and new software developed in support of holdup measurements. Breakout sessions were also employed to determine additional needs and identify potential solutions to common holdup challenges. The primary discussions focused on causes and prevention of material accumulations, needs for uranium and plutonium measurements, and reduction of measurement uncertainty, all of which were explicitly identified as critical needs during the 2018 Workshop on Technical and Programmatic Needs for a Sustainable NDA Program for the US DOE.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Innovating the next generation of commercial smart building software

Nearly 30% of commercial building energy use is wasted due to equipment faults and HVAC controls problems. The result is increased emissions, compromised comfort and productivity, and less reliable coordination of building power needs with a clean grid. The energy impact alone represents $17 billion in potential savings. Today’s smart building software provides a robust solution to address these operational deficiencies. Energy management and information systems (EMIS) are saving up to 9% on average, with two-year paybacks. They are being incorporated into energy management processes, commissioning services, and utility programs. As effective as they are, two barriers prevent even deeper benefits; limited personnel to fix problems once they are identified, and the expense and time to manually implement changes in control systems. In partnership with the research community, the EMIS industry is developing new capabilities to overcome these barriers. Moving beyond siloed products for either fault detection and diagnostics, or optimal control, these new capabilities empower users to not only automatically identify faults, but also to push corrective action, and control improvements to their buildings. In this paper, several areas for enhancements are documented: ‘one-time’ correction of faults such as setpoints, schedules, and economizer lockouts; short-term active testing for automated proportional integral derivative (PID) loop tuning and functional testing; and continuous supervisory control for demand flexibility and year-round efficiency. Results are presented from a pair of partner implementations out of a dozen providers integrating these enhancements into their products, including field tests from across the country, and insights into operator acceptance and integration into operations and maintenance practices.

Casillas, Armando↗

DOE OSTI2015

MO-FG-213-04: Managing the Relationship

Academic-industrial collaborations are playing an increasingly prominent role in medical physics research. Successful partnerships have enabled truly translational, benchtop-to-bedside research that has significantly and positively impacted our field. Given the current flat or depleting trends in federal funding, and the increasing emphasis in the medical physics community on demonstrating translatability, efficacy, and safety prior to widespread clinical use, it is anticipated that such partnerships will become ever more important in advancing our field. In the future, it is likely that neither academia alone, nor industry alone, will be able to bring significant innovation to successfully impact patient care in radiotherapy. Such innovation will require partnership and symbiosis through the lifetime of the project. This symposium is aimed at professionals from academia and the industry who are interested in either initiating new collaborations or maintaining and improving existing partnerships. We will hear from four thought leaders from industry and academia on critical aspects of building and maintaining successful academic-industrial research partnerships. The following topics will be addressed: 1. Motivations: The industry perspective [Kevin Brown, Elekta] What goes into the development of a company’s R&D roadmap What are the motivations and expectations of the industry from academic partners How can academics make a successful pitch by identifying projects aligned with a company’s roadmap Why are some relationships successful and some not Milestones and progress reports - Why do we need them 2. Motivations: The academic perspective [T. Rock Mackie, Univ. of Madison, WI; Tomotherapy] What are the motivations and expectations of academic partners from the industry What are the cultural differences in academia vs industry on sharing information, exchanging ideas Partnership or entrepreneurship? When does each option make sense 3. Industrial Grants and Research Contracts – a Primer [Norbert Pelc; Stanford University] What topics are suited to industrial grants vs. academic grants How do resources (personnel effort, tuition) get allocated and charged in academia What are reasonable resource and timeline requests for small and big projects; from small and big companies “Fair market value” considerations Sections of a research agreement (IP including software confidential information, publications, data, exclusivity, support) 4. Managing the relationship [John Wong, Johns Hopkins University] How to effectively collaborate with each other How to adapt to changes in the relationship How to renew funding with the industry Moderated Panel Discussion [All speakers + moderators] Learning Objectives: 1. Understand the motivations of each partner 2. Elements that contribute to a successful partnership 3. Avoiding pitfalls - Challenges on either side that may derail a project 4. How to frame a research grant and agreement 5. How to sustain the collaborative relationship Amit Sawant: Funding from: NIH. Varian, Elekta and VisionRT; Michelle Svatos: Employee and shareholder: Varian, Board Member, TopasMC; Kevin Brown: Employee, Elekta; T. Rock Mackie: Consultant, Accuray; Norbert Pelc: Research support: Philips Healthcare, GE Healthcare; John Wong: Funding from NIH, Xstrahl and Elekta. Co-founder and advisor for JPLC Associates, LLC.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

DOE OSTI2018

Mapping Benthic Habitat Conditions and Seafloor Deposits using Sediment Profile Imaging and a Semiautomated Image Processing System

Objectives/Scope: Sediment profile imaging (SPI) technology characterizes in situ physical, geochemical, and biological seafloor features. SPI was required by Mexico’s Agency for Safety, Energy, and Environment in 2017 for environmental baseline surveys (EBS) of oil lease blocks in the southern Gulf of Mexico. Because of its ability to provide information on benthic community health and the distribution of very thin (down to the centimeter scale) layers of deposited materials, SPI technology is highly effective for mapping drill cuttings or drilling muds released around wellheads during exploration or production and documenting their ecological impacts. SPI technology has not been widely used in the oil and gas industry for EBS or other monitoring activities. A primary objective of this work is to improve the transparency and consistency of the SPI data generation and data management process. Methods, Procedures, Process: The SPI camera works like an inverted periscope and obtains an undisturbed 21x15-cm cross-sectional image of the upper sediment column. The camera is internally powered and can be deployed rapidly from a standard winch in depths to 4,000 m. Many stations can be sampled in a single day by “pogo-sticking” across a survey area. Sediment grain size, penetration depth, surface boundary roughness, natural and anthropogenic depositional layers, depth of the oxidized surface sediment layer, maximum biogenic mixing depth, and infaunal successional stage can be directly measured at sea or immediately following the cruise. Final SPI data sets can be provided within a few weeks of the survey. Results, Observations, Conclusions: Details on the features measured in SPI images and the underlying interpretive paradigms are presented. To standardize the SPI data generation process, Integral Consulting Inc. has developed 1) a semiautomated image analysis platform, and 2) a SPI data-specific database architecture that allows both numerical and non-numerical metrics to be incorporated into a standard database structure. An integrated, software-based SPI analysis platform has been developed that imports image files and metadata and provides a graphical user interface. The software automatically stores the data, which can then be reviewed for quality assurance, plotted, statistically analyzed, and mapped or exported to other platforms (e.g., Esri ArcGIS©) for further evaluation. Image processing algorithms have been developed using a combination of open-source and commercially available software packages (e.g., MATLAB® and OpenCV) to automatically quantify key parameters. Novel/Additive Information: SPI technology’s underutilization in the oil and gas industry may be in part due to a lack of standardization in the measurement of basic features in SPI images. A primary objective of this work is to develop a streamlined, standardized, and transparent process for generating and managing SPI data.

02 PETROLEUM↗

NASA NTRS2002

Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS): An Award Winning Propulsion System Simulation Tool

The Numerical Propulsion System Simulation (NPSS) is a full propulsion system simulation tool used by aerospace engineers to predict and analyze the aerothermodynamic behavior of commercial jet aircraft, military applications, and space transportation. The NPSS framework was developed to support aerospace, but other applications are already leveraging the initial capabilities, such as aviation safety, ground-based power, and alternative energy conversion devices such as fuel cells. By using the framework and developing the necessary components, future applications that NPSS could support include nuclear power, water treatment, biomedicine, chemical processing, and marine propulsion. NPSS will dramatically reduce the time, effort, and expense necessary to design and test jet engines. It accomplishes that by generating sophisticated computer simulations of an aerospace object or system, thus enabling engineers to "test" various design options without having to conduct costly, time-consuming real-life tests. The ultimate goal of NPSS is to create a numerical "test cell" that enables engineers to create complete engine simulations overnight on cost-effective computing platforms. Using NPSS, engine designers will be able to analyze different parts of the engine simultaneously, perform different types of analysis simultaneously (e.g., aerodynamic and structural), and perform analysis in a more efficient and less costly manner. NPSS will cut the development time of a new engine in half, from 10 years to 5 years. And NPSS will have a similar effect on the cost of development: new jet engines will cost about a billion dollars to develop rather than two billion. NPSS is also being applied to the development of space transportation technologies, and it is expected that similar efficiencies and cost savings will result. Advancements of NPSS in fiscal year 2001 included enhancing the NPSS Developer's Kit to easily integrate external components of varying fidelities, providing the initial Visual-Based Syntax (VBS) capability, and developing additional capabilities to support space transportation. NPSS was supported under NASA's High Performance Computing and Communications Program. Through the NASA/Industry Cooperative Effort agreement, NASA Glenn and its industry and Government partners are developing NPSS. The NPSS team consists of propulsion experts and software engineers from GE Aircraft Engines, Pratt & Whitney, The Boeing Company, Honeywell, Rolls-Royce Corporation, Williams International, Teledyne Continental Motors, Arnold Engineering Development Center, Wright Patterson Air Force Base, and the NASA Glenn Research Center. Glenn is leading the way in developing NPSS--a method for solving complex design problems that's faster, better, and cheaper.

Stauber, Laurel J.↗

NASA NTRS1996

Evaluation of an Anthropometric Human Body Model for Simulated EVA Task Assessment

One of the more mission-critical tasks performed in space is extravehicular activity (EVA) which requires the astronaut to be external to the station or spacecraft, and subsequently at risk from the many threats posed by space. These threats include, but are not limited to: no significant atmosphere, harmful electromagnetic radiation, micrometeoroids, and space debris. To protect the astronaut from this environment, a special EVA suit is worn which is designed to maintain a sustainable atmosphere (at 1/3 atmosphere) and provide protection against the hazards of space. While the EVA suit serves these functions well, it does impose limitations on the astronaut as a consequence of the safety it provides. Since the astronaut is in a virtual vacuum, any atmospheric pressure inside the suit serves to pressurize the suit and restricts mobility of flexible joints (such as fabric). Although some of the EVA suit joints are fixed, rotary-style joints, most of the mobility is achieved by the simple flexibility of the fabric. There are multiple layers of fabric, each of which serves a special purpose in the safety of the astronaut. These multiple layers add to the restriction of motion the astronaut experiences in the space environment. Ground-based testing is implemented to evaluate the capability of EVA-suited astronauts to perform the various tasks in space. In addition to the restriction of motion imposed by the EVA suit, most EVA activity is performed in a micro-gravity (weight less) environment. To simulate weightlessness EVA-suited testing is performed in a neutral buoyancy simulator (NBS). The NBS is composed of a large container of water (pool) in which a weightless environment can be simulated. A subject is normally buoyant in the pressurized suit; however he/she can be made neutrally buoyant with the addition of weights. In addition, most objects the astronaut must interface with in the NBS sink in water and flotation must be added to render them "weightless". The implementation of NBS testing has proven to invaluable in the assessment of EVA activities performed with the Orbiter and is considered to be a key step in the construction of the International Space Station (ISS). While the NBS testing is extremely valuable, it does require considerable overhead to maintain and operate. It has been estimated that the cost of utilizing the facility is approximately $10,000 per day. Therefore it is important to maximize the utility of NBS testing for optimal results. One important aspect to consider in any human/worksite interface is the considerable wealth of anthropometric and ergonomic data available. A subset of this information specific to EVA activity is available in NASA standard 3000. The difficulty in implementing this data is that most of the anthropometric information is represented in a two-dimensional format. This poses some limitations in complete evaluation of the astronaut's capabilities in a three-dimensional environment. Advances in computer hardware and software have provided for three-dimensional design and implementation of hardware with the advance of computer aided design (CAD) software. There are a number of CAD products available and most companies and agencies have adopted CAD as a fundamental aspect of the design process. Another factor which supports the use of CAD is the implementation of computer aided manufacturing (CAM) software and hardware which provides for rapid prototyping and decreases the time to product in the design process. It is probable that most hardware to be accessed by astronauts in EVA or IVA (intravehicular activity) has been designed by a CAD system, and is therefore represented in three-dimensional space for evaluation. Because of the implementation of CAD systems and the movement towards early prototyping, a need has arisen in industry and government for tools which facilitate the evaluation of ergonomic consideration in a three-dimensional environment where the hardware has been designed by the CAD tools. One such product is Jack which was developed by the University of Pennsylvania with funding from several government agencies, including NASA. While the primary purpose of Jack is to model human figures in a ground-based (gravity) environment, it can be utilized to evaluate EVA-suited activities as well. The effects of simulated gravity must be turned off by turning off "behaviors". Although Jack provides human figures for manipulation, the primary instrument to be evaluated for EVA mobility is the work envelope provided by the EVA suit. An EVA Jack suit model has been developed by NASA-JSC and was utilized in this study. This suit model provided a more restrictive motion environment as expected for an EVA suited subject. As part of this study, the anthropometric dimensions for a 50th percentile male were compared with basic anthropometric data and were found to be representative for the population group expected in the NASA flight program. The joints for the suit were created in a manner which provided consistent performance with EVA reach envelopes published in NASA standard #3000.

Etter, Brad↗

NASA NTRS1995

Formal methods in the design of Ada 1995

Formal, mathematical methods are most useful when applied early in the design and implementation of a software system--that, at least, is the familiar refrain. I will report on a modest effort to apply formal methods at the earliest possible stage, namely, in the design of the Ada 95 programming language itself. This talk is an 'experience report' that provides brief case studies illustrating the kinds of problems we worked on, how we approached them, and the extent (if any) to which the results proved useful. It also derives some lessons and suggestions for those undertaking future projects of this kind. Ada 95 is the first revision of the standard for the Ada programming language. The revision began in 1988, when the Ada Joint Programming Office first asked the Ada Board to recommend a plan for revising the Ada standard. The first step in the revision was to solicit criticisms of Ada 83. A set of requirements for the new language standard, based on those criticisms, was published in 1990. A small design team, the Mapping Revision Team (MRT), became exclusively responsible for revising the language standard to satisfy those requirements. The MRT, from Intermetrics, is led by S. Tucker Taft. The work of the MRT was regularly subject to independent review and criticism by a committee of distinguished Reviewers and by several advisory teams--for example, the two User/Implementor teams, each consisting of an industrial user (attempting to make significant use of the new language on a realistic application) and a compiler vendor (undertaking, experimentally, to modify its current implementation in order to provide the necessary new features). One novel decision established the Language Precision Team (LPT), which investigated language proposals from a mathematical point of view. The LPT applied formal mathematical analysis to help improve the design of Ada 95 (e.g., by clarifying the language proposals) and to help promote its acceptance (e.g., by identifying a verifiable subset that would meet the needs of safety-critical applications). The first LPT project, which ran from the fall of 1990 unti the end of 1992, produced studies of several language issues: optimization, sharing and storage, tasking and protected records, overload resolution, the floating point model, distribution, program erros, and object-oriented programming. The second LPT project, in 1994, formally modeled the dynamic semantics of a large part of the (almost) final language definition, looking especially for interactions between language features.

Guaspari, David↗

DOE OSTI2023

Generating MCNP Input Files for Unstructured Mesh Geometries

The Los Alamos National Laboratory’s (LANL) Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP)1 transport code version 6.3 (also known as MCNP6.3) has the capability for tracking particles on unstructured mesh (UM) geometry models embedded into constructive solid geometry (CSG) cells. This feature has been developed for performing calculations of complex geometry models because manually creating CSG models is time-consuming and error-prone as the complexities of geometries increase. A UM geometry model is a collection of finite elements representing a solid geometry. The first step of the MCNP UM calculation is using other software packages to create a finite element mesh representation of a solid 3D geometry because the MCNP code cannot be used to generate a UM model. Computer-aided design (CAD) software is typically used to create a solid geometry model, which is later imported into mesh generation software to create a UM model. Some mesh generation software packages may also be used to create solid geometries and thus CAD files are not needed. The MCNP UM feature was originally designed for models generated by the Abaqus/CAE software suite. The MCNP code version 6.0 and later can process UM models formatted as Abaqus input files. Starting with a 6.3 version, the MCNP code can process HDF5 mesh input files. We only focus on the UM models formatted as Abaqus input files in this report since currently no external software can be used to generate HDF5 mesh input files for MCNP UM calculations. The MCNP code version 6.3 can be used to convert the Abaqus mesh input files into the HDF5 mesh input files, but this option is typically used by the MCNP code development team to test the HDF5 mesh input file feature. Several software packages (such as Abaqus, Attila4MC, or Cubit) can be used to create the Abaqus input files for MCNP UM calculations. An MCNP UM calculation using an Abaqus model requires two input file types: MCNP and Abaqus input files. The Abaqus input files needed for MCNP UM calcu lations must have the correct Abaqus syntax and meet the additional requirements by the MCNP code. The MCNP code can process only Abaqus input files that make use of part and assembly definitions, where elements in each part must be grouped into one or more element sets (i.e., elset) using *Elset keyword lines with specified naming formats. The MCNP and Abaqus input files required for MCNP UM simulations must be related; pseudo-cells in an MCNP input file must be constructed from mesh model data from an Abaqus input file. For large complex UM models, it is tedious to manually create MCNP UM input files. The um pre op (unstructured mesh pre operations) program with the -m option can be used to create a skeleton MCNP input file from an Abaqus input file [6]. Since the um pre op program was written in Fortran and was not written for optimized performance, this program is a deprecated feature in the MCNP code version 6.3 and may be removed in the next release of the code. To improve calculation flow of multiphysics calculations, a Python3 code called write mcnp um input has been developed to generate an MCNP input file instead of using the um_pre_op -m option. This Python code was initially released to the public in 2020. We have updated this Python code for MCNP6.3 and it was used to generate the MCNP input files used to verify the MCNP6.3 code. The write_mcnp_um_input code is included with the MCNP6.3 code package which will be released to the public through the Radiation Safety Information Computational Center (RSICC) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This report is a revision of LA-UR-20-27139 report.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 1: UV-C Towers and Whole-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Full Report)

This report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products used low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One non-portable GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product used an LED source. • Five non-portable GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five used LPM sources. Radiometric and electrical performance was evaluated for all 13 products. Photobiological safety was also assessed for two of the products because their documentation included testable claims. The test results were compared across products and to manufacturer or vendor claims. The testing identified many issues related to the accuracy of reported GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. And when claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. These product claim issues were more numerous with consumer-oriented tower products, but problems with accurate performance claims were found across all products. The UV-C radiant efficiency of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. Several testing challenges and limitations were identified. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. Only 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products could be tested in this sphere. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field are not reflective of UV and therefore could not be used to increase test distance. As a result, 7 of 13 products could not be tested far field. The implication is that electronic files of UV-C intensity data typically imported into design software for designing GUV applications may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances. It is currently unclear if these are industry-wide testing laboratory limitations, and what solutions may exist to address them. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products will need accurate performance claims and data to safely and effectively deploy GUV technology to reduce the transmission of diseases in buildings. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training that is needed for manufacturers and vendors to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further standards and guidelines are needed to improve test methods, address testing limitations, and improve reporting of product performance. Additionally, the wide range in UV-C radiant efficiency of GUV products means there is a large energy-savings opportunity for more energy efficient GUV products.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2023

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 1: UV-C Towers and Whole-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Summary Report)

This summary report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. A companion full report provides additional information and discussion of the tested products, test methods, and results. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products used low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One non-portable GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product used an LED source. • Five non-portable GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five used LPM sources. Radiometric and electrical performance was evaluated for all 13 products. Photobiological safety was also assessed for two of the products because their documentation included testable claims. The test results were compared across products and to manufacturer or vendor claims. The testing identified many issues related to the accuracy of reported GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. And when claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. These product claim issues were more numerous with consumer-oriented tower products, but problems with accurate performance claims were found across all products. The UV-C radiant efficiency of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. Several testing challenges and limitations were identified. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. Only 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products could be tested in this sphere. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field are not reflective of UV and therefore could not be used to increase test distance. As a result, 7 of 13 products could not be tested far field. The implication is that electronic files of UV-C intensity data typically imported into design software for designing GUV applications may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances. It is currently unclear if these are industry-wide testing laboratory limitations, and what solutions may exist to address them. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products will need accurate performance claims and data to safely and effectively deploy GUV technology to reduce the transmission of diseases in buildings. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training that is needed for manufacturers and vendors to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further standards and guidelines are needed to improve test methods, address testing limitations, and improve reporting of product performance. Additionally, the wide range in UV-C radiant efficiency of GUV products means there is a large energy-savings opportunity for more energy efficient GUV products.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

DOE OSTI2024

Comparing modelling approaches for a generic nuclear waste repository in salt

This paper contains a comparison of five modelling approaches for a simplified nuclear waste repository in a domal salt formation. It is the result of a four-year collaboration between five international teams on Task F of the DECOVALEX-2023 project on performance assessment modelling. The primary objectives of Task F are to build confidence in the models, methods, and software used for performance assessment (PA) of deep geologic nuclear waste repositories, and/or to bring to the fore additional research and development needed to improve PA methodologies. This work demonstrates how these objectives are accomplished through staged development and comparison of the models and methods used by participating teams in their PA frameworks. Participating teams made a wide range of model assumptions, ranging from compartmentalized networks to full 3D models of the salt formation and repository. Despite differences in the modelling strategies, all models indicate that salt compaction and diffusion of radionuclides in brine are key processes in the repository. For the isothermal spent nuclear fuel and vitrified waste scenario with multiple early failures considered, all models indicate little of the disposed radionuclides will migrate beyond the repository seal over the 100,000-year simulations. In general, the model output quantities have the largest differences over the short term and near the waste. Disparities between the models are believed to be due to differing simplifications from the conceptual model.

DECOVALEX↗

DOE OSTI2019

PTT System Performance Evaluation in 3-D Imaging of Calibrated Defects: Pulsed Thermal Tomography Nondestructive Examination of Additively Manufactured Reactor Materials and Components

Research activity in this project is aimed at developing pulsed thermal tomography (PTT) architecture and algorithms for in-service non-destructive examination (NDE) of additively manufactured (AM) reactor components and materials. Recent advances in AM technology could allow cost-efficient fabrication of parts for operating reactors. However, because of stringent safety requirements, long-term performance of AM reactor components needs to be investigated before AM is widely accepted. Because of the complex shapes and significant surface roughness of components due to layer-by-layer welding process in AM, conventional methods might not be useful for in-service NDE of AM components. PTT is ideally suited for in-service NDE of AM metallic components because the method is non-contact, and offers high resolution #-D imaging of material flaws. The objective of this report is to provide initial evaluate of PTT performance sin detecting calibrated flaws in reactor structural materials. Preliminary COMSOL models were developed to conduct super computing simulations of PTT. In the experimental studies, high strength Stainless Steel 316 and Inconel 718 alloys were considered, as well as lower grade Stainless Steel 304, Nickel 200, and Hastelloy C276. Specimens investigated in this report consisted of approximately 1/4in-thick plates made out of these alloys using conventional manufacturing methods. The calibrated defects were created in the form of flat bottom holes (FBH) drilled in metallic plates. The diameters of FBH's varied from 1mm to 8mm, and their depths below the plate flat surface varied between 1mm and 6mm. The size of the smallest FBH was limited to 1mm because conventional mechanic drills were used for creating the holes. PTT imaging results have shown that 1mm-diameter FBH located 1mm and 2mm below the surface were detectable. Larger size FBH were detectable at greater depth. For example, 6mm-diameter FBH could be detected at 8mm depth. Image contrast varied slightly between the specimens, with the best reconstructions obtained in SS316 and C276 plates. In addition, a 2/3in-thick Inconel 718 nozzle plate produced with additive manufacturing method was imaged with PTT. It was shown that PTT can scan through the plate in approximately 20s. Several modes of 3-D data visualization were explored, including using ImageJ and MATLAB software packages.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

NASA NTRS2004

The Wallops Flight Facility Rapid Response Range Operations Initiative

While the dominant focus on short response missions has appropriately centered on the launch vehicle and spacecraft, often overlooked or afterthought phases of these missions have been launch site operations and the activities of launch range organizations. Throughout the history of organized spaceflight, launch ranges have been the bane of flight programs as the source of expense, schedule delays, and seemingly endless requirements. Launch Ranges provide three basic functions: (1) provide an appropriate geographical location to meet orbital other mission trajectory requirements, (2) provide project services such as processing facilities, launch complexes, tracking and data services, and expendable products, and (3) assure safety and property protection to participating personnel and third-parties. The challenge with which launch site authorities continuously struggle, is the inherent conflict arising from projects whose singular concern is execution of their mission, and the range s need to support numerous simultaneous customers. So, while tasks carried out by a launch range committed to a single mission pale in comparison to efforts of a launch vehicle or spacecraft provider and could normally be carried out in a matter of weeks, major launch sites have dozens of active projects separate sponsoring organizations. Accommodating the numerous tasks associated with each mission, when hardware failures, weather, maintenance requirements, and other factors constantly conspire against the range resource schedulers, make the launch range as significant an impediment to responsive missions as launch vehicles and their cargo. The obvious solution to the launch site challenge was implemented years ago when the Department of Defense simply established dedicated infrastructure and personnel to dedicated missions, namely an Inter Continental Ballistic Missile. This however proves to be prohibitively expensive for all but the most urgent of applications. So the challenge becomes how can a launch site provide acceptably responsive mission services to a particular customer without dedicating extensive resources and while continuing to serve other projects? NASA's Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) is pursuing solutions to exactly this challenge. NASA, in partnership with the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority, has initiated the Rapid Response Range Operations Initiative (R3Ops). R3Ops is a multi-phased effort to incrementally establish and demonstrate increasingly responsive launch operations, with an ultimate goal of providing ELV-class services in a maximum of 7-10 days from initial notification routinely, and shorter schedules possible with committed resources. This target will be pursued within the reality of simultaneous concurrent programs, and ideally, largely independent of specialized flight system configurations. WFF has recently completed Phase 1 of R3Ops, an in-depth collection (through extensive expert interviews) and software modeling of individual steps by various range disciplines. This modeling is now being used to identify existing inefficiencies in current procedures, to identify bottlenecks, and show interdependencies. Existing practices are being tracked to provide a baseline to benchmark against as new procedures are implemented. This paper will describe in detail the philosophies behind WFF's R3Ops, the data collected and modeled in Phase 1, and strategies for meeting responsive launch requirements in a multi-user range environment planned for subsequent phases of this initiative.

Underwood, Bruce E.↗

DOE OSTI2018

Direct Current Arc-Flash Hazards of Solar Photovoltaic Systems

An arc-flash is a rapid release of thermal energy, pressure waves, and electromagnetic interference from a high-power electrical system, caused by such events as unintentional shorting or equipment malfunction. Arc-flashes are hazardous to people and equipment. Incident energy (IE) is a means of quantifying the degree of thermal hazard posed by an arc-flash event. The calculated IE value dictates what level of personal protective equipment (PPE) workers are required to wear when servicing equipment. Overly burdensome PPE may increase a worker’s discomfort and decrease dexterity, which could lead to unintentional shorting, while inadequate PPE also comes with increased safety risks. The majority of arc-flash research to date has focused on alternating current (ac) systems. For example, IE calculations and PPE for ac systems are relatively well understood and have been applied across many equipment types and voltages. IE calculation methodologies in ac systems are backed by a wide range of industry tests and are included in Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. However, very little is known about direct current (dc) arc-flash and its hazards. This is a significant knowledge gap, as an increasing number of dc systems are being deployed: solar photovoltaic (PV) plants, battery storage, and electric vehicles and their charging infrastructure. The dc arc-flash hazard publications are rooted primarily in theory, and their IE calculation methods contradict each other. Insufficient knowledge and data are preventing the formation of industry consensus and standards around dc arc-flash hazard assessment. Here, this white paper highlights the current status and research opportunities for assessing arc-flash hazards in dc systems, with a focus on PV plants. The nonlinear current-voltage characteristics of PV modules make them unique in comparison to other linear dc sources, such as batteries. Also, PV equipment has rapidly evolved from 600 Vdc to 1,500 Vdc (in the United States), increasing potential arc-flash hazards. The operating regime of a PV-array within its I-V characteristic curve during an arc-flash event and the sustainability of arc-flash events in a utility-scale PV plant need to be investigated. Arc-flash experiments on a 1-MWdc nameplate capacity utility-owned ground-mount photovoltaic plant suggest that the PV array acts as a constant-current supply with currents near the short-circuit portion of the I-V characteristic curve of the array, with median arc voltage as 1/3 of the rated voltage. Various engineering software packages (CYME7 by EATON, PTW by SKM, ArcFlash™ by EasyPower, ETAP, and so on) have started offering dc arc-flash calculation features to estimate the risk of arc-flash in dc and PV systems. However, they are reliant on the same simplified arc-flash models, which contradict each other due to differences in assumptions such as characteristics of the power source, arc current, voltage and impedance, arc-operating regime, and so on. Physical arc-flash testing and improved physics-based modeling with correct assumptions representing practical scenarios are two methods to improve understanding and quantify the risks associated with dc arc-flash hazards. The results would inform development of a more accurate calculation procedure for IE and proper PPE levels.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

NASA NTRS2015

Abort Trigger False Positive and False Negative Analysis Methodology for Threshold-Based Abort Detection

This paper describes a quantitative methodology for bounding the false positive (FP) and false negative (FN) probabilities associated with a human-rated launch vehicle abort trigger (AT) that includes sensor data qualification (SDQ). In this context, an AT is a hardware and software mechanism designed to detect the existence of a specific abort condition. Also, SDQ is an algorithmic approach used to identify sensor data suspected of being corrupt so that suspect data does not adversely affect an AT's detection capability. The FP and FN methodologies presented here were developed to support estimation of the probabilities of loss of crew and loss of mission for the Space Launch System (SLS) which is being developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The paper provides a brief overview of system health management as being an extension of control theory; and describes how ATs and the calculation of FP and FN probabilities relate to this theory. The discussion leads to a detailed presentation of the FP and FN methodology and an example showing how the FP and FN calculations are performed. This detailed presentation includes a methodology for calculating the change in FP and FN probabilities that result from including SDQ in the AT architecture. To avoid proprietary and sensitive data issues, the example incorporates a mixture of open literature and fictitious reliability data. Results presented in the paper demonstrate the effectiveness of the approach in providing quantitative estimates that bound the probability of a FP or FN abort determination.

risk assessment↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-F-304-05: Cranial TCP/NTCP Modeling Insights and Caveats

Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) was introduced clinically more than twenty years ago, and many subsequent publications have reported safety and efficacy data. The AAPM Working Group on Biological Effects of Hypofractionated Radiotherapy/SBRT (WGSBRT) extracted published treatment outcomes data from extensive literature searches to summarize and construct tumor control probability (TCP) and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models for six anatomical regions: Cranial, Head and Neck, Thoracic, Abdominal, Pelvic, and Spinal. In this session, we present the WGSBRT’s work for cranial sites, and recurrent head and neck cancer. From literature-based data and associated models, guidelines to aid with safe and effective hypofractionated radiotherapy treatment are being determined. Further, the ability of existing and proposed radiobiological models to fit these data is considered as to the ability to distinguish between the linear-quadratic and alternative radiobiological models such as secondary cell death from vascular damage, immunogenic, or bystander effects. Where appropriate, specific model parameters are estimated. As described in “The lessons of QUANTEC,” (1), lack of adequate reporting standards continues to limit the amount of useful quantitative information that can be extracted from peer-reviewed publications. Recommendations regarding reporting standards are considered, to enable such reviews to achieve more complete characterization of clinical outcomes. 1 Jackson A, Marks LB, Bentzen SM, Eisbruch A, Yorke ED, Ten Haken RK, Constine LS, Deasy JO. The lessons of QUANTEC: recommendations for reporting and gathering data on dose-volume dependencies of treatment outcome. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2010 Mar 1;76(3 Suppl):S155–60. Learning Objectives: Describe the techniques, types of cancer and dose schedules used in treating recurrent H&N cancers with SBRT List the radiobiological models that compete with the linear-quadratic model in explaining the results of hypofractionated RT Describe the dose/volume metrics that are considered safe in SBRT treatment of tumors near the optic structures. Discuss the efficacy of hypofractionation and dosing schedules used in treating vestibular schwannomas Identify some difficulties in modeling TCP and NTCP for cranial tumors treated with hypofractionation. One moderator, Dr. Grimm, designed and holds intellectual property rights to the DVH Evaluator software tool which is an FDA-cleared product in commercial use, and can analyze some of this data. No others have relevant conflicts of interest.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-F-304-00: Outcomes of Hypofractionated Treatments - Results of the WGSBRT

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

WE-F-304-01: Overview of the Working Group On Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (WGSBRT)

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗