Results for “Class B Code Case” — Page 2

DOE OSTI2016

High Energy Physics Exascale Requirements Review. An Office of Science review sponsored jointly by Advanced Scientific Computing Research and High Energy Physics, June 10-12, 2015, Bethesda, Maryland

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science (SC) Offices of High Energy Physics (HEP) and Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) convened a programmatic Exascale Requirements Review on June 10–12, 2015, in Bethesda, Maryland. This report summarizes the findings, results, and recommendations derived from that meeting. The high-level findings and observations are as follows. Larger, more capable computing and data facilities are needed to support HEP science goals in all three frontiers: Energy, Intensity, and Cosmic. The expected scale of the demand at the 2025 timescale is at least two orders of magnitude — and in some cases greater — than that available currently. The growth rate of data produced by simulations is overwhelming the current ability of both facilities and researchers to store and analyze it. Additional resources and new techniques for data analysis are urgently needed. Data rates and volumes from experimental facilities are also straining the current HEP infrastructure in its ability to store and analyze large and complex data volumes. Appropriately configured leadership-class facilities can play a transformational role in enabling scientific discovery from these datasets. A close integration of high-performance computing (HPC) simulation and data analysis will greatly aid in interpreting the results of HEP experiments. Such an integration will minimize data movement and facilitate interdependent workflows. Long-range planning between HEP and ASCR will be required to meet HEP’s research needs. To best use ASCR HPC resources, the experimental HEP program needs (1) an established, long-term plan for access to ASCR computational and data resources, (2) the ability to map workflows to HPC resources, (3) the ability for ASCR facilities to accommodate workflows run by collaborations potentially comprising thousands of individual members, (4) to transition codes to the next-generation HPC platforms that will be available at ASCR facilities, (5) to build up and train a workforce capable of developing and using simulations and analysis to support HEP scientific research on next-generation systems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2017

Characterizing the Benefits of Seismic Isolation of Nuclear Structures in Terms of Reduced Risk and Cost

Seismic isolation is a mature technology that has been implemented in many civil structures, including buildings, bridges, liquid natural gas tanks, and off shore oil platforms, both in the United States and other countries, to mitigate the damaging effects of earthquakes. Seismic isolation has also been used in nuclear structures in France and South Africa, but not yet in the United States: neither in the Department of Energy facilities nor in commercial nuclear power plants (NPPs). This is primarily due to a lack of guidelines, codes and standards for the analysis, design and construction specific to seismically isolated nuclear structures. However, seismic isolation of nuclear structures has seen increased research interest in the recent years and the recently published national consensus standard, America Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Standard 4-16 'Seismic analysis of safety related nuclear structures', now incorporates language and commentary (Chapter 12) for seismically isolating surface or near-surface-mounted nuclear facilities, including NPPs. Seismic isolation substantially reduces horizontal seismic loads (demands) on structures, systems, and components. Reduction in demand results in four potential benefits: (1) economic: reduction in capital cost, (2) increased safety: reduction in the mean annual frequency of unacceptable performance, (3) insurance: protection against increases in the known seismic hazard after construction by minimizing the effort to re-qualify and re-certify structures, systems and components, and (4) recertification: the opportunity to certify an existing NPP design for a region of higher seismic hazard. Item (2) above, an increase in safety (reduction of seismic risk), was explored in Huang et al., wherein it was demonstrated that the implementation of seismic isolation reduced seismic risk in nuclear power plant structures. Studies that assess item (1) have not been performed although the use of isolation may lead to large reductions in the capital cost of safety-related nuclear facilities. Funding provided by Nuclear Safety Research and Development in the Department of Energy (DOE) allowed the authors to develop a framework for assessing the economic benefits and reductions in seismic risk afforded by the use of seismic (base) isolation. The framework includes probabilistic risk assessment and estimation of overnight capital costs (OCC's) of a sample generic DOE nuclear facility (GDNF). The project is documented in detail in Bolisetti et al. and Yu et al., and key results are presented here. The GDNF considered in this study is based on a facility constructed at the Idaho National Laboratory. The GDNF is a two-story reinforced concrete building with an embedded basemat and is founded on soft rock at the boundary of Site Class B and Site Class C (B/C boundary) as characterized by ASCE/SEI Standard 7. The GDNF is assumed to handle radiological materials, and its structure, systems and components (SSC's) are designed to effectively confine these materials in the event of an internal failure. The GDNF is populated with components that are generic to safety-related nuclear structures. A single system, which is intended to confine a loss of materials-at-risk (MAR) to the interior of the structure, is chosen for this study. Accordingly, a hypothetical event tree and fault tree are assumed for risk assessment. The isolation system for the GDNF is designed per Chapter 12 of ASCE/SEI 4-16 but is not optimized. The isolation system consists of 38 lead rubber bearings installed in one horizontal plane below the basemat. Details of the GDNF, including the SSC's, event tree and fault tree, and isolation system, are presented in the project report and Yu et al.. This study includes seismic risk assessment and cost estimation for four cases: (1) the GDNF is located at a site of low to moderate seismic hazard and is constructed on a conventional (non-isolated) foundation; (2) the GDNF is located at the same site as case 1, but is seismically isolated; (3) the GDNF is located at a site of high seismic hazard and is constructed on a conventional foundation; and (4) the GDNF is located at the same site of high seismic hazard as case 3, but is seismically isolated. In this study, the DOE site at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) is chosen as the low to moderate seismic hazard site for cases 1 and 2, and the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) is chosen as the high seismic hazard site for cases 3 and 4.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗