Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “performance 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 253 records · Page 14
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Final Report on Predictive Analyses of PRD as Function of Anomalies

This report summarizes the work completed in FY-2024 to analyze the power reactivity decrement (PRD) concepts of the ARC-100 core. The PRD has been traditionally defined by the reactivity change from a hot zero power (HZP) to a particular power. Consequently, the PRD accounts for the core reactivity changes due to increase coolant temperature gradient axially and radially across the core, and increased fuel temperature. The coolant temperature gradient leads to sodium and structure density changes, to radial core expansion from assembly flowering and bowing (due to axial and radial temperature gradients within the assemblies), and to control rod driveline thermal expansion. The fuel temperature increase associated with coolant temperature and power increases leads to Doppler effect and axial thermal expansion. In this work, the normal operating Hot Full Power (HFP) state is the only power level of interest, so analyses focus on the PRD calculated from HZP to HFP. The PRD has been used to assess the reactor safety features asymptotically in unprotected accident scenarios, including the loss of heat sink (LOHS), loss of flow (LOF), and transient overpower (TOP) without scram. The PRD concept relies on the “global” reactivity coefficients A, B, and C that are estimated based on “individual” reactivity effects (Doppler, sodium density, etc.). The objectives of this work are: 1) to improve and verify the methodology used to calculate the ABC coefficients used in the PRD, 2) to assess if the PRD can be used to reliably identify abnormal events. This report fulfills the FY-2024 scope of WBS#1.15.8.3 activity, “ANL0120 – Predictive Analyses of PRD as function of deformation”. The PRD concept is described in Sections 2. Additional effort in refining the methodology for core bowing modeling is performed in Sections 3. Then, two verification exercises are proposed in Section 4 to benchmark these coefficients based on direct neutronic-only calculations and on dynamic core transient simulations. Finally, the PRD approach is assessed for the detection of several unexpected events, such as primary flow perturbation or improper fuel loading, in Section 5.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Software Quality Assurance Plan ANSYS LSDYNA Version 2023R1

ANSYS Inc. develops and markets engineering simulation software and services used in the aerospace, automotive, manufacturing, electronics, biomedical, energy, defense, and many other industries. ANSYS is dedicated to engineering simulation and is the world’s leading software provider. ANSYS was founded in 1970 and is headquartered in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. ANSYS provides an engineering analysis tool combining structural, thermal, computational fluid dynamics, acoustic and electromagnetic simulation capabilities. ANSYS LS-DYNA is the most used explicit simulation program capable of simulating the response of materials to short periods of severe loading. Its many elements, contact formulations, material models, and other controls can be used to simulate complex models with control over all the details of the problem. ANSYS LS-DYNA has a vast array of capabilities to simulate extreme deformation problems using its explicit solver. Engineers can tackle simulations involving material failure and look at how the failure progresses through a part or through a system. Models with large amounts of parts or surfaces interacting with each other are also easily handled, and the interactions and load passing between complex behaviors are modeled accurately. Using computers with higher numbers of CPU cores can drastically reduce solution times. In addition, many consulting firms and hundreds of universities use ANSYS for analysis, research, and educational purposes. ANSYS is recognized worldwide as one of the most widely used and capable programs of its type. ANSYS has successfully passed over 100 customer quality system audits against American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) NQA-1 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, since the company was founded, over 60 of which have been since 1997. ANSYS has successfully passed over 100 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 assessments. ANSYS design analysis software is the first created within a quality system with ISO 9001 certification, which is the internationally accepted quality standard. Product development, testing, maintenance, and support processes also meet the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) quality requirements, as they have for nearly four decades. ANSYS staff perform more than 60,000 software verification tests before releasing each new product. ASME NQA-1-2012 (Subpart 2.7 is specific to software) is the industry- and NRC-accepted approach (consensus standard) for meeting 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, requirements.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAB stacks are 625 to 47,237 scfm for LB-C2, 1,704 to 103,131 scfm for LB-S1, and 467 to 18,088 scfm for LB-S2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10 degrees, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 17.6 degrees; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 3.5% COV, which were all within the range of the target %COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring - Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant low activity waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAW stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAW stacks are 815–55,758 scfm for LV-S1, 980–112,078 scfm for LV-S2, 264–22,901 scfm for LV-S3, and 981–79,832 scfm for LV-C2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAW facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for one LV-S2 Fan A result, which was 13.2°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 1.5 COV and 9.2% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the four LAW filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan operating conditions for LV-S1 and LV-S2, dual-fan operations for LV-S3 at both the continuous air monitor and record sampler locations, and both the single-fan as well as the dual-fan operations for LV-C2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAB facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 13.7°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 4.1% COV, which were all within the range of the target percent coefficient of variation values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management Facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using a combination of scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that the sampling location does not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. The LV-S1 scale model stack was used as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. The LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV-S2 scale model stack tests have met the criteria of the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard to demonstrate the stack sampling locations are well mixed. Verification tests of the EMF stack were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value and the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determine the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated while remaining in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rate along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rate based on the LV-S1 scale model DV values. The operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were <5°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, all of which were within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all planned fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fans with DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using the LV-S1 scale model stack as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale models and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the EMF stack was performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on the LV-S1 scale model test DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for the EMF stack are as listed in Table S1. Table S1. Effluent Management Facility Stack Qualified Flow Range. Stack Parameter EM-1 Minimum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 781 Maximum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 53,432 The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were less than 5°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fan with the DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Low Activity Waste Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation (Rev.1)

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Low Activity Waste (LAW) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of discovering that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stacks. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAW stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. For this analysis, the range of qualified flow rates listed is conservatively based on the average DV through 6 DV for LV-S1, LV-S2, and LV-C2, and 1/3 DV to 3 DV for LV-S3. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the conservative lower and upper qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAW facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the upper qualified stack.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Verification of the PERSENT Software

Ongoing commercial design activities require a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system and substantial work has been done to verify its accuracy on several identified commercial needs. This manuscript details the verification work done on PERSENT which relies upon the DIF3D code for its forward and adjoint flux solution. Previous work identified the PERSENT features required to be verified to support commercial design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying PERSENT’s ability to correctly calculate four key quantities: perturbation worth distributions, kinetics parameters, sensitivity coefficients, and cross section uncertainty quantification. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to these quantities needed for commercial design activities. For the perturbation worth distributions, hand calculations are deployed to verify the PERSENT calculated results. Similarly, hand calculation of the PERSENT computed kinetics parameters is also used to verify the PERSENT results. In both of these, the input to PERSENT is manipulated to ensure the hand calculation exactly matches the equations PERSENT is calculating. The sensitivity coefficients involve calculating the derivatives of a parameter (such as reactivity worth), with respect to the cross section data. Direct finite difference calculations with DIF3D are used to verify the PERSENT calculated results. For the uncertainty quantification, manufactured input to PERSENT is used to allow an exact hand calculation to reproduce the PERSENT calculated results. The work detailed in this report verified that significant issues were identified for earlier versions of PERSENT for sensitivity coefficients which were corrected in this work and thus version 12.1.0 of PERSENT must be used to reproduce all of the verified work in this report.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Shell Element Material Model Verification Problems for DYNA3D: Part II

A suite of supplementary shell element material model verification tests were developed for the explicit finite element program DYNA3D, in continuation of the work performed in LLNL-TR-792469 (Shell Element Material Model Verification Problems for DYNA3D). The testing procedure developed in the preceding report is extended, and used to verify all remaining untested shell model features and inputs. A collection of 78 feature-specific verification tests are proposed, some of which are applicable to multiple material models, though many are specialized to a particular model. The collective suite of tests cover all 27 currently available material models in DYNA3D. In the course of developing the proposed test suite, 24 separate shell model-related issues were identified and have subsequently been resolved.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

A New Era of Nuclear Criticality Experiments: The First 10 Years of Comet Operations at NCERC

Comet is a general-purpose, heavy-duty, vertical-lift assembly designed for flexibility in conducting a variety of critical experiments. It is currently located at the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC) in Nevada. In the past, Comet resided at Technical Area-18 in Los Alamos, New Mexico, as part of the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility (LACEF). The Comet assembly was relocated to NCERC in 2008 and became fully operational in June of 2011. The first critical experiment performed on Comet at NCERC was a verification of one of the previous configurations of the Zeus experiment series. Over the next 10 years, many additional experiments followed including other Zeus configurations as well as completely new designs. This paper discusses the Comet vertical-lift assembly, the transition from LACEF to NCERC, and a selection of experiments that have been performed on Comet during its first 10 years of operation at NCERC.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2021

QAOAKit: A Toolkit for Reproducible Study, Application, and Verification of the QAOA

Understanding the best known parameters, performance, and systematic behavior of the Quantum Approximate Optimization Algorithm (QAOA) remain open research questions, even as the algorithm gains popularity. We introduce QAOAKit, a Python toolkit for the QAOA built for exploratory research. QAOAKit is a unified repository of preoptimized QAOA parameters and circuit generators for common quantum simulation frameworks. We combine, standardize, and cross-validate previously known parameters for the MaxCut problem, and incorporate this into QAOAKit. We also build conversion tools to use these parameters as inputs in several quantum simulation frameworks that can be used to reproduce, compare, and extend known results from various sources in the literature. We describe QAOAKit and provide examples of how it can be used to reproduce research results and tackle open problems in quantum optimization.

Shaydulin, Ruslan↗
DOE OSTI2024

Demonstration of Model-Based Design for Digital Controller Using Formal Methods

This report describes work originally performed in FY19 that assembled a workflow enabling formal verification of high-consequence digital controllers. The approach builds on an engineering analysis strategy using multiple abstraction levels (Model-Based Design) and performs exhaustive formal analysis of appropriate levels – here, state machines and C code – to assure always/never properties of digital logic that cannot be verified by testing alone. The operation of the workflow is illustrated using example models and code, including expected failures of verification when properties are violated.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Experimental Evaluation of a High-Performance Cold-Climate Heat Pump Using Tandem Vapor-Injection Compressors

A high-performance cold-climate heat pump (CCHP) was developed and experimentally validated through comprehensive laboratory and field testing. The system utilized two equal-size tandem vapor-injection (VI) compressors with an inter-stage flash tank to improve efficiency and capacity retention under subfreezing conditions. Laboratory testing was conducted on a 3-ton prototype in a controlled environmental chamber equipped with calibrated thermocouples, refrigerant-side mass flow and pressure transducers, and precision airflow measurement for energy balance verification. The prototype achieved heating coefficients of performance (COPs) of 4.4 at 47 °F, 3.1 at 17 °F, and 2.0 at –13 °F, while maintaining 88% of its rated heating capacity at –13°F. These results confirm strong low-temperature performance and indicate the potential for significant reductions in electric resistance backup use. A field prototype was installed and monitored in a residential building in Fairbanks, Alaska, during a heating season. Instrumentation included real-time power, temperature, and refrigerant state measurements to evaluate performance under dynamic outdoor conditions. The heat pump operated reliably down to –30 °F, delivering 75% of its rated heating capacity with a COP of 1.8, while maintaining stable operation, effective defrost control, and indoor comfort without auxiliary heating. The combined laboratory and field results demonstrate that the tandem VI compressor configuration provides a practical and energy-efficient approach for residential heat pumps designed for cold and very cold climate regions.

Hu, Yifeng [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000242875185)↗
DOE OSTI2022

Giallar: push-button verification for the qiskit Quantum compiler

This paper presents Giallar, a fully-automated verification toolkit for quantum compilers. Giallar requires no manual specifications, invariants, or proofs, and can automatically verify that a compiler pass preserves the semantics of quantum circuits. To deal with unbounded loops in quantum compilers, Giallar abstracts three loop templates, whose loop invariants can be automatically inferred. To efficiently check the equivalence of arbitrary input and output circuits that have complicated matrix semantics representation, Giallar introduces a symbolic representation for quantum circuits and a set of rewrite rules for showing the equivalence of symbolic quantum circuits. With Giallar, we implemented and verified 44 (out of 56) compiler passes in 13 versions of the Qiskit compiler, the open-source quantum compiler standard, during which three bugs were detected in and confirmed by Qiskit. Furthermore, our evaluation shows that most of Qiskit compiler passes can be automatically verified in seconds and verification imposes only a modest overhead to compilation performance.

automated verification↗
DOE OSTI2025

HARD: A performance portable radiation hydrodynamics code based on FleCSI framework

Hydrodynamics And Radiation Diffusion (HARD) is an open-source application for high-performance simulations of compressible hydrodynamics with radiation-diffusion coupling. Built on the FleCSI (Bergen et al., 2021 [1]) (Flexible Computational Science Infrastructure) framework, HARD expresses its computational units as tasks whose execution can be orchestrated by multiple back-end runtimes, including Legion (Bauer et al., 2012 [2]), MPI (Forum, 1994 [3]), and HPX (Kaiser et al., 2020 [4]). Node-level parallelism is handled through Kokkos (Edwards et al., 2014 [5]), providing a single-source, portable code base that runs efficiently on laptops, small homogeneous clusters, and the largest heterogeneous supercomputers currently available. To ensure scientific reliability, HARD includes a regression test suite that automatically reproduces canonical verification problems such as the Sod and LeBlanc shock tubes, and the Sedov blast wave, comparing numerical solutions against known analytical results. The project is distributed under an OSI-approved license, hosted on GitHub, and accompanied by reproducible build scripts and continuous integration workflows. This combination of performance portability, verification infrastructure, and community-focused development makes HARD a sustainable platform for advancing radiation hydrodynamics research across multiple domains.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

VERIFICATION MEASUREMENTS OF THE MASS AND ENRICHMENT OF URANIUM OXIDE CARD SOURCES

Measurements were performed to determine the mass and enrichment of 10 uranium oxide (U3O8) card sources. The measurements and analysis were completed as a verification of the card sources in support of Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s nuclear material control and accountability program. Although these cards are not nationally accredited as a nuclear standard, they are used as a working reference for measurements, such as holdup. The uranium card source measurements were taken with a broad energy germanium detector and the Genie 2000 Gamma Acquisition and Analysis software. A complete characterization of each of the 10 uranium card sources was performed using the 4 characteristic full energy peaks of 235U. Using the In Situ Object Counting System software to determine the mathematical efficiency of the measurement, the mass of 235U in each card was determined. The 235U mass in each card ranged from 10.42 to 12.63 g with a systematic error between 0.76 and 0.95 g and a random error of 0.01 g for each card source. The Multi-Group Analysis for Uranium (MGAU) software and the Fixed-Energy, Response Function Analysis with Multiple Efficiency (FRAM) isotopic analysis software were used to determine the isotopic composition of the uranium cards. The measured enrichment was compared to the declared enrichment for each card, with uncertainties ranging from 2.7% to 4.3% for the MGAU analysis and 2.3% to 4.1% for the FRAM analysis. This is a good example of how a well-benchmarked mathematical calibration method can be useful in characterizing uranium sources.

Hunneke, Rachel↗
DOE OSTI2024

Verification of the PERSENT Software

Ongoing commercial design activities require a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes to be performed. DIF3D is central to this system and substantial work has been done to verify its accuracy on several identified commercial needs. This manuscript details the verification work done on PERSENT which relies upon the DIF3D for its forward and adjoint flux solution.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗