Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Software Verification”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Software Verification Toolkit (SVT): Survey on Available Software Verification Tools and Future Direction

Writing software is difficult. However, writing complex, well tested and designed, and functionally correct software is incredibly difficult. An entire field of study is devoted to the validation and verification of software to address this problem, and in this paper we analyze the landscape of currently available third party software. We have divided our analyses into three separate subsections with regards to software validation: formal methods, static analysis, and test generation. Formal verification is the most complex method in which to validate software correctness, but also the most thorough as it truly validates the mathematical validity of the source code. Static analysis generally is relegated to abstract syntax tree traversal techniques to find errors related to faulty software such as memory leaks or stack overflow issues. Automatic test generation is similar in implementation to static analysis, but pushes a bit further in verifying the boundedness of function inputs and outputs with regards to annotated or parsed criteria. The crux of this report is to analyze and describe the software tools that implement these techniques to validate and verify software. Pros and cons related to installation, utilization, and capabilities of the frameworks are described, and reproducible examples are provided with a focus on usability. The initial survey concluded that the most interesting tools of note are Z3, Isabelle/HOL, and TLA+ with regards to formal verification; and Infer, Frama-C, and SonarQube with regards to static analysis. With these tools in mind, a final conjecture is provided that describes future avenues of utilizing these tools for developing a verification framework to assist in validating existing software at Sandia National Laboratories.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2014

RELAP-7 Software Verification and Validation Plan

This INL plan comprehensively describes the software for RELAP-7 and documents the software, interface, and software design requirements for the application. The plan also describes the testing-based software verification and validation (SV&V) process—a set of specially designed software models used to test RELAP-7. The RELAP-7 (Reactor Excursion and Leak Analysis Program) code is a nuclear reactor system safety analysis code being developed at Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The code is based on the INL’s modern scientific software development framework – MOOSE (Multi-Physics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment). The overall design goal of RELAP-7 is to take advantage of the previous thirty years of advancements in computer architecture, software design, numerical integration methods, and physical models. The end result will be a reactor systems analysis capability that retains and improves upon RELAP5’s capability and extends the analysis capability for all reactor system simulation scenarios.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2017

RELAP-7 Software Verification and Validation Plan: Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) Update and Code Verification Strategy

This document describes the recent progress of the RELAP-7 Software Verification and Validation Plan (SVVP). The RELAP-7 RTM has been updated by adding the validation requirement items, rearranging the requirement items, and introducing the classifier to better describe the RELAP-7 V&V status at a specified point in time. Also, from the perspective of nuclear system code validation, six items from the list of LWR safety-relevant phenomena were identified as validation data gaps. Lastly, motivated by the needs revealed from the previous RELAP-7 IV&V activities, the independent verification plan for RELAP-7 has been established. The verification method, procedure, and verification test coverage suite discussed in this document will be applied to the future work for the RELAP-7 independent verification.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2016

RELAP-7 Software Verification and Validation Plan - Requirements Traceability Matrix (RTM) Part 2: Code Assessment Strategy, Procedure, and RTM Update

This document addresses two subjects involved with the RELAP-7 Software Verification and Validation Plan (SVVP): (i) the principles and plan to assure the independence of RELAP-7 assessment through the code development process, and (ii) the work performed to establish the RELAP-7 assessment plan, i.e., the assessment strategy, literature review, and identification of RELAP-7 requirements. Then, the Requirements Traceability Matrices (RTMs) proposed in previous document (INL-EXT-15-36684) are updated. These RTMs provide an efficient way to evaluate the RELAP-7 development status as well as the maturity of RELAP-7 assessment through the development process.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-50: A Multi-Institutional Study of Independent Dose Verification Software Program for Lung SBRT

Purpose: The accuracy of dose distribution depends on treatment planning system especially in heterogeneity-region. The tolerance level (TL) of the secondary check using the independent dose verification may be variable in lung SBRT plans. We conducted a multi-institutional study to evaluate the tolerance level of lung SBRT plans shown in the AAPM TG114. Methods: Five institutes in Japan participated in this study. All of the institutes used a same independent dose verification software program (Simple MU Analysis: SMU, Triangle Product, Ishikawa, JP), which is Clarkson-based and CT images were used to compute radiological path length. Analytical Anisotropic Algorithm (AAA), Pencil Beam Convolution with modified Batho-method (PBC-B) and Adaptive Convolve (AC) were used for lung SBRT planning. A measurement using an ion-chamber was performed in a heterogeneous phantom to compare doses from the three different algorithms and the SMU to the measured dose. In addition to it, a retrospective analysis using clinical lung SBRT plans (547 beams from 77 patients) was conducted to evaluate the confidence limit (CL, Average±2SD) in dose between the three algorithms and the SMU. Results: Compared to the measurement, the AAA showed the larger systematic dose error of 2.9±3.2% than PBC-B and AC. The Clarkson-based SMU showed larger error of 5.8±3.8%. The CLs for clinical plans were 7.7±6.0 % (AAA), 5.3±3.3 % (AC), 5.7±3.4 % (PBC -B), respectively. Conclusion: The TLs from the CLs were evaluated. A Clarkson-based system shows a large systematic variation because of inhomogeneous correction. The AAA showed a significant variation. Thus, we must consider the difference of inhomogeneous correction as well as the dependence of dose calculation engine.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2018

Argonne Reactor Code Software Verification and Validation Plan for the Versatile Test Reactor

This Argonne Reactor Code (ARC) software has taken a pivotal role in the design work of the Versatile Test Reactor. The ARC software itself consists of several independent or semiindependent pieces of software that are used in concert to carry out specific analysis and design objectives. In this report, we discuss the validation that is needed for the ARC software overall and discuss available, usable experimental data and how it relates to the VTR project. We also discuss the verification that is required for the ARC software with respect to its usage in the VTR project and give some concrete examples as to what it must accomplish. A list of goals for the verification and validation work are presented as the general procedure that will be implemented for every individual piece of software in ARC. The ARC software has been continuously developed for over 50 years and many of the features used for the VTR project have thus been rigorously tested for accuracy during that timeframe. The ARC software is presently under source code control and undergoes nightly regression testing of not only the individual pieces, but the interconnected aspects that are common to most analysis projects. Its greatest weakness, from a software verification and validation perspective, is both a lack of documentation and outdated documentation. As an example, much of the previous validation work will require contemporary effort to re-evaluate given the updated base data libraries and modifications to the software that have occurred since. This requires new documentation to be produced to support the usage of the software in the VTR project. The bulk of the ARC software is focused on steady state neutronics and TH behavior of a reactor system. In this regard, we have identified the ZPPR, FFTF, and EBR-II programs as the best candidates for sources of validation data for the VTR project. The ZPPR-15 series in the ZPPR program was chosen as it is the best representation of the VTR fuel form and reactor core layout of all of the ZPPR measurements. Additional support for it comes from the fact that most of the data has already been processed into usable ARC models for VTR validation. The FFTF and EBR-II reactors were both functional reactors that provide reactor scale measurements. FFTF is clearly a closer match to VTR and its startup measurements would be a very valuable validation basis. EBR-II has invaluable burnup related measurements that will play a key role in the ARC software validation work. Each piece of ARC software will require a report detailing the software verification. The validation work will be logically split into the results of modeling each identified experimental resource (ZPPR, EBR-II, FFTF). The intended timeline for the VTR project is to have the ARC software verified and validated by the end of fiscal year 2020. This is incumbent on sufficient funding allocated to V&V activities and no change in programmatic priorities.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Software Verification and Validation Guidelines for Non-Linear Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis

Seismic analysis of structures, systems, and components (SSCs), including the consideration of soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects, is an important and required step in the design and licensing of nuclear power plant SSCs important to safety. Historically, the SSI analysis of nuclear structures has been performed using equivalent linear methods. However, there has been considerable industry investment in alternative seismic design and analysis approaches to reduce the construction cost of new reactors. Toward that goal and in alignment with the Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) framework, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) has proposed a risk-informed, performance-based approach to seismic design that allows inelastic response in those nuclear plant structures not required for confinement. As a complementary effort, reactor designers are exploring nonlinear seismic analysis methods to optimize structural designs and reduce construction costs.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Assessment of Survey Results from Advanced Reactor Industry Domain Experts on Nonlinear Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis Software Verification and Validation

The seismic load case has a significant impact on the design and cost of nuclear power plants. Given the need to substantially reduce cost, advanced reactor designers are looking to leverage numerical tools that enable seismic analysis of an integrated vessel/support/structure/soil system. Modern nonlinear analysis tools provide a solution, capturing dynamic coupling between components (including soil-structure interaction (SSI)) concurrent with nonlinear behavior in one or more parts of the system. Although these methods have a rich history of technical development and implementation, software quality assurance (SQA) following nuclear industry standards remains a significant burden for those wishing to adopt such methods for advanced reactor design and licensing. To reduce the SQA burden, this project will develop the guidance for SQA verification and validation (V&V) of coupled nonlinear SSI analysis tools, to include a test matrix of software features and test problems to support commercial grade dedication (CGD). The guidance is intended to be technology-neutral: supporting designers of all advanced reactors. To maximize the value of the project to reactor designers, the project team performed focused surveys of and interviews with advanced reactor designers. Additionally, the project surveyed members of the broader industry involved in reactor design and licensing. The aggregated industry feedback consists of written survey responses, live polling responses, focused interviews, and informal feedback provided after outreach presentations, collectively referred to as “survey results”. Herein, the survey results are reported, reviewed, and assessed to inform follow-on project activities. The survey results confirmed the familiarity of the industry with the coupled nonlinear SSI analysis. They also affirm the project need based upon the expressed intent to (1) incorporate nonlinear features and (2) pursue the coupled nonlinear SSI analysis to reduce seismic demands and construction costs. All reactor designers indicated their intent to incorporate two or more nonlinear features, and all reactor designer respondents opined that the coupled nonlinear SSI analysis would allow for the optimization of the reactor design and construction. However, the programmatic challenges, whether real or perceived, present a significant barrier to reactor designers. The barrier most commonly identified by the reactor designer population was regulatory risk, with 70% citing this as a reason not to pursue the approach. The perceived regulatory risk identified by the reactor designers underscores the importance of regulator engagement and dialogue in this project. Additionally, half of the reactor designers identified cost and lack of guidance as a deterrent. The survey results also provide insights to tailor specific aspects of the guidance document and test matrix. The project plans to prepare both a formal referenceable guidance document and a collaborative, web-based test matrix and problem set. The project will focus on more complete test problem definitions for the prioritized nonlinear features over shallower problem descriptions for a larger set of features. The nonlinearities prioritized as high based upon survey feedback include fluid-structure interaction and seismic isolation and energy dissipation devices. The nonlinearities prioritized as intermediate include nonlinear geomaterials, nonlinear concrete, nonlinear steel, and interface/contact nonlinearity. Deep embedment and the associated nonlinear phenomena are assigned the lowest priority based upon survey feedback.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2018

HPC Software Verification in Action: A Case Study with Tensor Transposition

As HPC platforms get increasingly complex, the complexity of software optimized for these platforms has also increased. There is a pressing need to ensure correctness of scientific applications to enhance our confidence in the results they produce. In this paper, we focus on checking the correctness of libraries providing a small but important functionality— tensor transposition—used in computational chemistry applications. While several correctness tools have been developed and deployed, there are several practical challenges in using them to verify production HPC software. We present our experiences using two tools—CIVL and CodeThorn—in checking the correctness of two index permutation libraries.

Model checking, equivalence checking, index permut↗
DOE OSTI2015

SU-E-T-455: Impact of Different Independent Dose Verification Software Programs for Secondary Check

Purpose: There have been many reports for different dose calculation algorithms for treatment planning system (TPS). Independent dose verification program (IndpPro) is essential to verify clinical plans from the TPS. However, the accuracy of different independent dose verification programs was not evident. We conducted a multi-institutional study to reveal the impact of different IndpPros using different TPSs. Methods: Three institutes participated in this study. They used two different IndpPros (RADCALC and Simple MU Analysis (SMU), which implemented the Clarkson algorithm. RADCALC needed the input of radiological path length (RPL) computed by the TPSs (Eclipse or Pinnacle3). SMU used CT images to compute the RPL independently from TPS). An ion-chamber measurement in water-equivalent phantom was performed to evaluate the accuracy of two IndpPros and the TPS in each institute. Next, the accuracy of dose calculation using the two IndpPros compared to TPS was assessed in clinical plan. Results: The accuracy of IndpPros and the TPSs in the homogenous phantom was +/−1% variation to the measurement. 1543 treatment fields were collected from the patients treated in the institutes. The RADCALC showed better accuracy (0.9 ± 2.2 %) than the SMU (1.7 ± 2.1 %). However, the accuracy was dependent on the TPS (Eclipse: 0.5%, Pinnacle3: 1.0%). The accuracy of RADCALC with Eclipse was similar to that of SMU in one of the institute. Conclusion: Depending on independent dose verification program, the accuracy shows systematic dose accuracy variation even though the measurement comparison showed a similar variation. The variation was affected by radiological path length calculation. IndpPro with Pinnacle3 has different variation because Pinnacle3 computed the RPL using physical density. Eclipse and SMU uses electron density, though.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Uncertainty Analysis and Software Verification

Uncertainty analyses are an important part of calibrations and testing. They allow researchers insight on how to reduce and mitigate errors in testing. Each device used in testing introduces error in a system, as well as other sources such as environmental conditions, electronics, analog to digital, and random errors. Each source is carefully examined to identify how much error it introduces to a system. These sources are then combined using various methods of uncertainty calculations. To verify and validate software, a manual calculation is required to ensure the software is performing as intended. Using Excel to verify the calculations, we can identify discrepancies within the software. The root of the sum of the squares uncertainty (RSS) is used to find the combined uncertainty of a device at one and two standard deviations of the mean. Calibrations on accelerometers are performed using a vibration system along with a back-toback reference accelerometer. The vibration system takes a reference point at 100Hz frequency at 10g amplitude. The sensitivities are collected at each dialed in frequency. The sensitivity of the device represents the electrical output of the UUT (mV, pC, etc.) per unit of acceleration (g). The full history of sensitivities of selected accelerometers are used to find the averaged, standard deviation, and uncertainty of the device at each frequency tested. The uncertainty calculations from excel and the software are then compared.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Software Verification of VARPOW

The VARPOW program is a post-processing utility program for DIF3D, specifically DIF3DVARIANT, and it was developed to provide interface files for the thermal analysis program DASSH. The basic methodology of VARPOW is to take the neutron and gamma flux (moments) calculated by DIF3D (or GAMSOR) and combine them with the heating (coefficient) cross sections to calculate the spatial power distributions using the DIF3DVARIANT spatial basis. VARPOW can use the output from GAMSOR (both steady state neutron and gamma flux calculations) or standard DIF3D/REBUS calculations (neutron flux only). The correct approach for defining the power distribution is to use GAMSOR as its purpose was to properly compute the gamma heating throughout the modeled domain. The power densities calculated by VARPOW are broken into fuel, cladding and coolant terms for which isotope-wise categorization is needed. VARPOW has built in options the user can select for the isotope categorization or VARPOW can import a file that details the isotope categorization. VARPOW can export the solution in the polynomial basis of DIF3D-VARIANT or the monomial basis of DIF3D-VARIANT. The purpose of this work is to verify the power distribution results calculated by VARPOW from both the GAMSOR and DIF3D input options and verify that the input and output options are consistent with the manual. Hand calculation and independent numerical calculation are used for this verification work.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Software Verification of VARPOW

The VARPOW program is a post-processing utility program for DIF3D, specifically DIF3DVARIANT, and it was developed to provide interface files for the thermal analysis program DASSH. The basic methodology of VARPOW is to take the neutron and gamma flux (moments) calculated by DIF3D (or GAMSOR) and combine them with the heating (coefficient) cross sections to calculate the spatial power distributions using the DIF3DVARIANT spatial basis. VARPOW can use the output from GAMSOR (both steady state neutron and gamma flux calculations) or standard DIF3D/REBUS calculations (neutron flux only). The correct approach for defining the power distribution is to use GAMSOR as its purpose was to properly compute the gamma heating throughout the modeled domain. The power desnities calculated by VARPOW are broken into fuel, cladding and coolant terms for which isotope-wise categorization is needed. VARPOW has built in options the user can select for the isotope categorization or VARPOW can import a file that details the isotope categorization. VARPOW can export the solution in the polynomial basis of DIF3D-VARIANT or the monomial basis of DIF3D-VARIANT. The purpose of this work is to verify the power distribution results calculated by VARPOW from both the GAMSOR and DIF3D input options and verify that the input and output options are consistent with the manual. Hand calculation and independent numerical calculation are used for this verification work.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Software Verification of VARPOW

The VARPOW program is a post-processing utility program for DIF3D, specifically DIF3DVARIANT, and it was developed to provide interface files for the thermal analysis program DASSH. The basic methodology of VARPOW is to take the neutron and gamma flux (moments) calculated by DIF3D (or GAMSOR) and combine them with the heating (coefficient) cross sections to calculate the spatial power distributions using the DIF3DVARIANT spatial basis. VARPOW can use the output from GAMSOR (both steady state neutron and gamma flux calculations) or standard DIF3D/REBUS calculations (neutron flux only). The correct approach for defining the power distribution is to use GAMSOR as its purpose was to properly compute the gamma heating throughout the modeled domain. The power desnities calculated by VARPOW are broken into fuel, cladding and coolant terms for which isotope-wise categorization is needed. VARPOW has built in options the user can select for the isotope categorization or VARPOW can import a file that details the isotope categorization. VARPOW can export the solution in the polynomial basis of DIF3D-VARIANT or the monomial basis of DIF3D-VARIANT. Recently the clad neutron damage calculation capability was introduced into VARPOW, and it now allows a pathway to get distributions of clad DPA. The purpose of this work is to verify the power distribution, fast neutron flux and clad DPA results calculated by VARPOW from both the GAMSOR and DIF3D input options and verify that the input and output options are consistent with the manual. Hand calculation and independent numerical calculation are used for this verification work.

Zhong, Zhaopeng [Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)↗