Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “CDF calculator”

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.

Advancing Federal Infrastructure Through Innovation: Customer Damage Function Calculator

Provides an overview of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) Customer Damage Function (CDF) Calculator web tool, developed with funding and support from the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP). The CDF Calculator is a screening tool that provides justification to site and/or headquarters leadership for resilience investments. It generates monetary values to justify investments in resilience solutions to prevent or lessen the impact of a grid outage at a facility.

CDF calculator↗

Understand the Costs of an Energy or Water Outage with the Customer Damage Function Calculator

The Customer Damage Function (CDF) Calculator is a free, publicly available web tool that helps users estimate the costs incurred at their site due to an electric grid or water service outage. Developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) with support from the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP), the tool is designed to help federal facility owners, building energy managers, and resilience planners understand and quantify the value of resilience to justify investments that would prevent or lessen the impact of a disruption.

CDF Calculator↗

Initial demonstration of automated fuel performance modeling with 1977 EBR-II metallic fuel pins using BISON code with FIPD and IMIS databases

Using the BISON fuel performance code, simulations were conducted using an automated process to read initial and operating conditions from the Fuels Irradiation and Physics Database (FIPD) and Integral Fast Reactor materials information system (IMIS) database, which contains metallic fuel data from the Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II). This work demonstrates use of an integrated framework to access the vast majority of EBR-II experimental fuel pin data to support rapid development of fuel performance models for next-generation metallic fuel systems. With this capability, validation for fuel qualification can be performed rapidly. Between IMIS and FIPD, there is enough information to conduct 1977 unique EBR-II metallic fuel pin histories from 24 different experiments, at varying levels of detail between the two databases. Each of these histories includes a high-resolution power history, flux history, coolant channel flow rates, and coolant channel temperatures. Fission gas release (FGR), cumulative damage fraction (CDF), fuel axial swelling, cladding profilometry, and burnup were all simulated in BISON. The results were compared to post-irradiation examination (PIE) results for the initial demonstration of automated BISON modeling. BISON simulations conducted with IMIS and FIPD were in rough agreement with PIE measurements and calculations. Cladding profilometry, FGR, and fuel axial swelling were found to be in rough agreement with PIE measurements, depending on the physics used within the BISON input files. Here, the mechanical contact solver chosen was found to significantly impact axial fuel swelling and cladding strain predictions. CDF values were assessed to see whether pin failure may have been predicted (CDF ≥ 1). This work suggests that continued development of an automated tool for BISON should focus on inclusion of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) experimental data for a larger database for metallic fuel, improved physical models to better capture fuel performance, such as fuel-cladding interactions, and a more detailed comparison with available PIE data to further the BISON model development.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Searching for the Highest- z Dual Active Galactic Nuclei in the Deepest Chandra Surveys

We present an analysis searching for dual active galactic nuclei (AGN) among 62 high-redshift (2.5 < z < 3.5) X-ray sources selected from the X-UDS, AEGIS-XD, CDF-S, and COSMOS-Legacy Chandra surveys. We aim to quantify the frequency of dual AGN in the high-redshift Universe, which holds implications for black hole merger timescales and low-frequency gravitational wave detection rates. We analyze each X-ray source using BAYMAX, an analysis tool that calculates the Bayes factor for whether a given archival Chandra AGN is more likely a single or dual point source. We find no strong evidence for dual AGN in any individual source in our sample. We increase our sensitivity to search for dual AGN across the sample by comparing our measured distribution of Bayes factors to that expected from a sample composed entirely of single point sources and find no evidence for dual AGN in the sample distribution. Although our analysis utilizes one of the largest Chandra catalogs of high-z X-ray point sources available to study, the findings remain limited by the modest number of sources observed at the highest spatial resolution with Chandra and the typical count rates of the detected sources. Our nondetection allows us to place an upper limit on the X-ray dual AGN fraction at 2.5 < z < 3.5 of 4.8% at the 95% confidence level. Expanding substantially on these results at X-ray wavelengths will require future surveys spanning larger sky areas and extending to fainter fluxes than has been possible with Chandra. We illustrate the potential of the AXIS mission concept in this regard.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

Combined Mesonet and Tracker

Title: Combined Mesonet and Trackers (UNL Mobile Mesonets) Authors University of Nebraska PI: Adam Houston, UNL Professor (ahouston2@unl.edu) Mailing Address: 126 Bessey Hall P.O. Box 880340 Lincoln, NE 68588-0340 CoMeT Overview The University of Nebraska-Lincoln operates three Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeTs). CoMeTs are Ford Explorers (model years 2015, 2017, and 2019) with forward-mounted suites of meteorological sensors and dual moonroofs, combining the capability of a mobile mesonet to collect near-surface observations with the capability of an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) tracker vehicle, which enables an observer in the second row of seats to see the aircraft and maintain compliance with Federal Aviation Administration policies on UAS operation. The CoMeTs collect observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155A, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass (Barbieri et al. 2019). The HMP155A and 109SS-L thermistor are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). This list of sensors is also included in the CoMeT data file metadata. Manufacturer specifications for these instruments are given in Table 1 of Hanft and Houston (2018). The reported measured quantities are summarized below.CoMeT-3 was funded through an equipment allocation included in the NSF TORUS award (AGS-1824649). Instrument Description The specific sensors included on each CoMeT are summarized in the table at the end of this section. In general each CoMeT collects observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210 barometer with a Gill pressure port, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, position using a Garmin 19x HVS receiver, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass. The HMP155 and 109SS are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). Fast temperature and corrected RH measurements (using sensors housed within the U-tube) have a time constant of 10-12 s based on data collected across a temperature and RH shock during the CLOUD-MAP 2017 calibration/validation tests on June 26, 2017. Vehicle speed was < 10 kts for this test. CoMeT-1 CoMeT-2 CoMeT-3 Slow Temperature Slow RH Vaisala HMP155A-L20-PT Part #: 22280-7 Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Fast temperature Campbell Scientific 109SS-L20-PT Part #: 21448-3 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-109 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-150 Pressure Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Wind RM Young 05103-L20-PT Part #: 18435-310 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 GPS Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Compass KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 Logger Campbell Scientific CR6-NA-XT-SW Part #: 28385-9 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Data Collection and Real-Time Processing The reported measured quantities are summarized in the table below. Quantity Units Source Epoch time Seconds GPS Latitude and longitude Degrees GPS Altitude m GPS Pressure hPa PTB210 Temperature (fast) deg C 109SS-L Temperature (slow) deg C HMP155 RH (slow) % HMP155 Vehicle speed m/s GPS Vehicle heading deg C-100 and GPS In addition to the measured variables, several derived variables are calculated. Corrected/fast relative humidity (%) Relative humidity is adjusted to the fast temperature following Richardson et al. (1998) and Houston et al. (2016). Water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) Dew point temperature (&deg;C) Potential temperature (Kelvin) Virtual potential temperature (Kelvin) Equivalent potential temperature (Kelvin) Regular intercomparisons between all three CoMeTs were performed during TORUS 2019. Comparisons were also conducted between CoMeT-1 and CoMeT-2 during LAPSE-RATE (2018) on 14 July. In these intercomparisons, the vehicles were parked adjacent to each other aligned perpendicular to (and facing into) the wind. To minimize engine heating effects, intercomparisons were only conducted when the wind speed was >10 kts. Data Format Original data files for each deployment are saved as text files and then converted to NetCDF. NetCDF versions have units that are CF compliant and may not match the original units in the txt files. The naming convention for the NetCDF files is as follows: UNL.CoMeT3.{deployment date YYYYMMDD}.{start time of observation collection in UTC HHMM}.L2.{post-processing codes}.cdf example: UNL.CoMeT3.20190627.1931.L2.g1.f1.cdf Post-processing codes are included to track modifications to the raw data. These codes are closely connected to error flags associated with each record. Each letter corresponds to a particular instrument: g: GPS p: Barometer tf: Fast temperature ts: Slow temperature rh: Relative humidity f: Compass w: Wind monitor a: All instruments Each number corresponds to a particular post-processing action described more below. Measured and derived variables are included in the following table. Variable Heading Standard Name Units time Time seconds since 00:00:00, 01-01-1970 Alt Altitude meters lat Latitude degrees north lon Longitude degrees east fast_temp Air Temperature kelvin slow_temp Air Temperature kelvin pressure Air Pressure pascals logger_RH Relative Humidity percent calc_corr_RH Relative Humidity percent wind_speed Wind Speed meters per second wind_dir Wind From Direction degrees vehicle_dir Vehicle Direction degrees dewpoint Dew Point Temperature kelvin mixing_ratio Humidity Mixing Ratio g/g theta Air Potential Temperature kelvin theta_v Virtual Potential Temperature kelvin theta_e Equivalent Potential Temperature Kelvin error_flag The error_flag variable is a string that matches the post-processing codes listed above. All instruments will have an associated code, but will have a &ldquo;0&rdquo; if the datum is unchanged from the initial processed value. Error Codes The following table summarizes the error codes for data collected before 2020: Error Code Relevant CoMeT Description g1 1,2,3 Exact correction. GPS position and time reprocessed from raw data g2 1 As far as we can tell this is an exact correction to an error in the GPS time. During the correct time periods the time suddenly went backwards ~250s and stayed at this offset for 750s when it corrected itself. The offset was applied to the &ldquo;time warp&rdquo; period. p1 2 Approximate correction. Hole in the pressure tube connecting the pressure port to the barometer. Resulted in erroneously low air pressure measurements when the vehicle was in motion. Derived variables recalculated (dew point temperature [e depends on qv and p], water vapor mixing ratio, potential temperature, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) a1 3 Exact correction. Missing data reprocessed from raw data a2 1 Bug fix to bias correction for ts1, ts2, and rh1: water vapor mixing ratio was off by a factor of 10 and virtual potential temperature was wrong because of this. f1 3 No correction, missing data. Fluxgate compass inoperable. Wind speed and direction calculated using GPS-derived vehicle heading instead. rh1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.7% removed from relative humidity. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +0.6 K removed from slow temperature. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts2 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.0 K removed. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) References Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1046&ndash;1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1046:TCOEPT>2.0.CO;2. Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An Observational and Modeling Study of Mesoscale Air Masses with High Theta-E. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 2503&ndash;2524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.Wexler Houston, A. L., R. J. Laurence III, T. W. Nichols, S. Waugh, B. Argrow, and C. L. Ziegler, 2016: Intercomparison of unmanned aircraft-borne and mobile mesonet atmospheric sensors. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 33, 1569-1582, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0178.1. Lowe, P. R., 1977: An Approximating Polynomial for the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. J. Applied Meteorology, 16, 100&ndash;103. Richardson, S. J., S. E. Frederickson, F. V. Brock, and J. A. Brotzge, 1998: Combination temperature and relative humidity probes: Avoiding large air temperature errors and associated relative humidity errors. Preprints, 10th Symp. On Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 278&ndash;283. Waugh, S., and S. E. Frederickson, 2010: An improved aspirated temperature system for mobile meteorological observations, especially in severe weather. 25th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P5.2. [Available online at https://ams.confex.com/ams/25SLS/techprogram/paper_176205.htm.]

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

BISON fuel performance modeling optimization for experiment X447 and X447A using axial swelling and cladding strain measurements

With the recent need to qualify new reactor designs such as the Versatile Test Reactor (VTR), fuel performance calculations need to be performed to determine safety criteria of the proposed designs. In order to validate the fuel performance results obtained by a fuel performance code, BISON, for new reactor designs, legacy fuel from EBR-II and FFTF MFF with Post -Irradiation Examination (PIE) data need to be used as validation cases to benchmark models. Here in this work, BISON has been paired with the Fuels Irradiation & Physics Database (FIPD) and IFR Materials Information System (IMIS) to supply PIE data for comparison with simulations of EBR-II experiments X447/X447A. X447/X447A were assessed by implementing models for Fuel Cladding Chemical Interaction (FCCI) within BISON and optimizing the friction coefficient between the fuel surface and the cladding, the anisotropic swelling factor, and the HT9 first thermal creep scalar (which scales the first term in the HT9 creep equation) to best match the PIE axial fuel swelling height and cladding profilometry for all pins in X447/X447A. The optimal values were found using a generic algorithm developed to select different values for the three parameters until end criteria was met and error couldn’t be reduced further. The BISON-simulated cladding profilometry was evaluated using Standard Error of the Estimate (SEE) to account for the profile shape of the cladding profilometry. Optimal values for the friction coefficient, anisotropic fuel swelling factor, and HT9 first thermal creep scalar were found to best fit the BISON simulation results to the PIE measurements found in IMIS and FIPD. Improvements to current models are suggested to account for the underprediction of fuel swelling at low burnups and the overprediction of fuel swelling at higher burnups observed for the axial fuel swelling height. Although two pins in EBR-II X447/X447A (DP70 and DP75) were known to fail due to FCCI, none of the pins simulated in BISON reached a cumulative damage fraction (CDF) above 0.008 with FCCI correlations coupled in the BISON simulations. The error estimate generated for all pins in X447/X447A using optimal values was 209 µm, which is deemed acceptable.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗