Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

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 37 records · Page 2

Verification and Validation of the PLTEMP/ANL Code for Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Experimental and Test Reactors (Code Version 4.3)

The document compiles in a single volume the verification and validation works done for the PLTEMP/ANL code during the years of its development and improvement. The verification of sixteen capabilities of the PLTEMP/ANL Version 4.3 code that were identified by research reactor analysts as frequently used in their thermal-hydraulic analysis are described and documented. Each chapter of the document deals with the verification or validation of a specific part of the software that calculates a specific phenomenon, e.g., channel flow calculation, coolant property calculation, heat transfer calculation, and flow instability calculation. The software verification work is usually done by comparing the code with hand calculation, Microsoft spreadsheet calculation, or Mathematica calculation. The software validation is done by comparing the code with experimental data or a widely tested code like the RELAP5 code. In addition, some PLTEMP/ANL verification works that are available in the open literature are simply referenced and not included in the document. PLTEMP/ANL has been used in conversion safety analysis reports of several US and foreign research reactors that have been licensed and converted. A list of such reactors is given.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Program Verification for Extreme-Scale Applications (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The project seeks to develop tools and techniques to help software developers verify the correctness and accuracy of their code. The target domain is scientific software of the kind widely used and developed in the Department of Energy research community, with a particular focus on "extreme scale" programs - those that are expected to involve possibly millions of parallel threads of execution. The report covers the University of Delaware contribution to the collaborative project. The project had a number of successful outcomes, especially regarding the development and extension of the CIVL software verification framework. CIVL is a verification tool for C or Fortran programs that use MPI, OpenMP, CUDA, and/or Pthreads for parallelization. CIVL went through vast improvements and extensions, and was successfully applied to a number of challenging codes. It found a subtle bug in the Devito PDE framework. It was able to verify the functional correctness of a conjugate gradient solver using a novel probabilistic technique with vanishingly small chance of error. CIVL was used very successfully in verification competitions, and the CIVL solutions to the competition challenges were presented and published. CIVL was also used successfully by other researchers on a computational chemistry kernel.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Comparative Assessment of Experimental Testing of Instrument with an Embedded Digital Device Using Model-Based and Conventional Methods

The use of digital equipment has not been widespread in U.S. nuclear facilities. A major contributing factor to this situation arises from regulatory concerns about common cause failures (CCFs) stemming from the use of identical software in redundant systems, questions as to how to quantify the reliability of software-based products, validity of tools that are used for software verification and validation (V&V), and the effectiveness of software QA procedures. Compounding the concerns are sporadic incidents of digital equipment malfunctions in nuclear power plants, including lockups resulting from software memory leaks, feedwater control malfunctions due to excessive traffic on Ethernet networks, software logic errors, and other problems leading to plant trips. Additionally, the limited amount of demonstrated research and a lack of industry consensus on quantitative software reliability methodologies has hindered the widespread adoption of digital I&C in the nuclear industry. In a recent Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) identified concerns about the impact of greater use of instrumentation and control (I&C) equipment with an embedded digital device (EDD) [1]. Specifically, the NRC staff states that increased use of such devices “may increase a facility’s vulnerability to a CCF” (i.e., common-cause failure). The prevailing NRC guidance regarding software CCF (SCCF) identifies two design attributes that are acceptable for eliminating CCF concerns: (1) diversity or (2) testability (specifically, 100% testability). Either solution can result in high costs and remaining licensing uncertainty (i.e., how much diversity is enough? how to ensure test coverage of every possible sequence of device states?). Consequently, many utilities and reactor designers have limited or avoided more extensive use of digital technology to minimize licensing, scheduling, and financial risk. Without development of cost effective qualification methods to satisfy regulatory requirements and address the potential for CCF vulnerability associated with EDDs, the nuclear power industry may not be able to realize the benefits of digital technology achieved by other industries. In order to address these challenges, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is sponsoring this research to assess the prospect of CCF in digital I&C equipment. The purpose of the current research is to develop an effective approach employing science-based methods to resolve concerns about CCF vulnerability that serve to inhibit deployment of advanced instrumentation (e.g., sensors, actuators, microcontrollers) with EDDs in nuclear power applications. The research objectives address the challenge of establishing high levels of safety and reliability assurance needed for the qualification of EDDs (e.g., microprocessors, programmable logic devices) that are subject to software design faults, complex failure modes, and CCF vulnerability. Specific objectives are: (1) assess the regulatory context for treatment of CCF vulnerability a graded approach to their qualification, (3) develop and extend model-based testing methods to enable effective demonstration of whether devices are subject to CCF, which may arise from vulnerabilities introduced at any stage of the design lifecycle, (4) establish a cost-effective testing framework that incorporates automation and test scenario prioritization, and (5) demonstrate the qualification approach through selection and testing of candidate digital device(s). This report documents an assessment of the results from experimental testing of a representative instrument with an embedded digital device. The experiment serves as a proof-of-concept demonstration of a model-based testing (MBT) framework. The objective of MBT is to ensure that an EDD undergoes suitably comprehensive testing to establish that it is not subject to SCCF. The approach by which MBT accomplishes this objective is through development and application of an effective test suite that provides the appropriate coverage to detect the full range of postulated faults that may arise at the requirements, design, and code (implementation) level of the EDD software. The findings of the experiment involve the application of the MBT framework by Ohio State University (OSU) through testing of the selected demonstration instrument (i.e., the prototype smart pressure sensor developed by Virginia Commonwealth University, VCU). In addition, the experiment findings also involve application of a more conventional black-box testing approach that serves as a baseline against which the MBT methodology can be compared. The primary outcome documented in this report is the comparative analysis of the capabilities demonstrated for each method. The results of the analysis demonstrate clear benefits that arise from the MBT methodology. The comparison indicates greater effectiveness from the more comprehensive evidence available through MBT and enhanced efficiency achieved through automation within the MBT framework. The structure of the report addresses the approach and application of each test method as well as the comparative analysis of the experimental results. Chapter 2 gives a summary overview of the demonstration approach. Chapter 3 covers the baseline testing and Chapter 4 documents the model-based testing. Chapter 5 describes the findings of the comparative analysis and presents the conclusions that can be drawn about the effectiveness and efficiency of the MBT methodology.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

Uncertainty Propagation from Flux to α and from Time to α in Reaction History

This report documents measurement uncertainty propagation from flux to α and from time to α in gamma reaction history. Analytical formulas are derived, and on the basis of them, their discrete versions are provided to serve for current reaction history software verification, and for development of the future versions of the software. The discrete version is provided for the general case: sparse data with varying time intervals between the data points.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

Verification of the REBUS Software

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. REBUS is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the Triangular-Z and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of REBUS to be verified. Previous work identified the REBUS features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying REBUS’s ability to correctly intepret the user input model, verifying that the features identified yield the intended results, and verifying the correctness of the REBUS output tables. The REBUS software verification relies heavily upon the accuracy of the embedded DIF3D software, the verification of which was completed and documented elsewhere. Given that DIF3D produces an accurate solution, the primary focus of the verification in the REBUS software is to ensure that it properly uses the DIF3D solution and that the depletion system (Bateman equations) are correctly implemented. This manuscript reiterates the verification tasks and displays results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Analytic solutions of the Batemen equations are displayed and the results calculated with REBUS are displayed demonstrating the accuracy. Since coupled Bateman and neutron diffusion/transport solutions are extremely difficult to obtain, much of the focus is placed on how REBUS uses a given DIF3D solution assuming the accuracy of the DIF3D solution. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to the design usage of REBUS, and thus REBUS version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. It is important to note that several outputs of REBUS are identified to be inaccurate, such as burnup in MWD/MT. Most of the relevant ones for VTR are generally accurate with 10-20% errors which is not impactful as all regular REBUS users are aware of this issue and know how to hand calculate the results. The REBUS manual further makes it clear that these values are consistent with the methodology being used by REBUS and thus the “errors” are more of an inconsistent definition with respect to what a user would expect given a definition in literature. Other issues that were identified included unclear documentation and software bugs all of which were inconsequential to the final results.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

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↗

2021 Small Turbine Certification Awardee: Intergrid LLC

Currently, there are no U.S., fully certified inverters for wind turbines in the 10-15-kilowatt (kW) range. The federal government's Competitiveness Improvement Project (CIP) and Small Business Innovation Research programs present the most viable paths for manufacturers in the distributed wind energy industry to conduct research, develop their products, and, ultimately, commercialize them. Through CIP, Intergrid LLC is reducing the cost, size, and weight of its legacy inverter for distributed wind turbines while increasing efficiency, reliability, and serviceability. To accomplish this, Intergrid will address three areas related to power electronics for distributed wind turbines: (1) Software verification and functional safety certification; (2) Simulation for grid-interconnecting testing; (3) Component alternatives that reduce cost and improve reliability and serviceability. The first two areas relate to long-term management of inverter software, which, for grid-connected inverters, must comply with three standards - one issued by Underwriters Laboratories (UL) and two issued by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.

CIP↗

Verification and Validation of the PLTEMP/ANL Code for Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Experimental and Test Reactors, Volume 1

This is Volume 1 of a two-volume document that collects the verification and validation (V&V) works done for the PLTEMP/ANL code during the years of its development and improvement. Volume 1 describes the V&V of sixteen capabilities of the PLTEMP/ANL code that were identified by research reactor analysts as frequently used in their thermal-hydraulic analysis. Volume 2 describes the V&V of developments and improvements since the release of PLTEMP/ANL Version 4.3. Each chapter of the document focuses on verifying or validating a specific part of the software that calculates a specific phenomenon, e.g., channel flow calculation, coolant property calculation, heat transfer calculation, and flow instability calculation. Software verification is performed by comparing the code with hand calculation, Microsoft spreadsheet calculation, Mathematica calculation, or MATLAB calculation. The software validation is done by comparing the code with experimental data or a widely tested code like the RELAP5 code. In addition, some PLTEMP/ANL V&V works that are available in the open literature are simply cited in Volume 1 of the document. PLTEMP/ANL has been used in the safety analysis reports of several US and foreign research reactors licensed and converted from highly enriched uranium fuel to low-enriched uranium fuel. A list of such reactors is given in Volume 1 of the document.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Verification and Validation of the PLTEMP/ANL Code for Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Experimental and Test Reactors, Volume 2

This is Volume 2 of a two-volume document that collects the verification and validation (V&V) works done for the PLTEMP/ANL code during the years of its development and improvement. Volume 1 describes the V&V of sixteen capabilities of the PLTEMP/ANL code that were identified by research reactor analysts as frequently used in their thermal-hydraulic analysis. Volume 2 describes the V&V of developments and improvements since the release of PLTEMP/ANL Version 4.3. Each chapter of the document focuses on verifying or validating a specific part of the software that calculates a particular phenomenon, e.g., channel flow calculation, coolant property calculation, heat transfer calculation, and flow instability calculation. Software verification is performed by comparing the code with a hand calculation, Microsoft spreadsheet calculation, Mathematica calculation, or MATLAB calculation. The software validation is achieved by comparing the code with experimental data or a widely tested code like the RELAP5 code. In addition, some PLTEMP/ANL V&V works that are available in the open literature are simply referenced in Volume 1 of the document. PLTEMP/ANL has been used in safety analysis reports of several US and foreign research reactors licensed and converted from highly enriched uranium fuel to low-enriched uranium fuel. A list of such reactors is given in Volume 1 of the document.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Code Coverage Status of ARC Code-DIF3D

The Argonne Reactor Code (ARC) software system supports users in their fast reactor design goals by providing neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, and structural analysis capabilities. DIF3D plays a pivotal role in the ARC system as the primary homogenized assembly neutronic calculation methodology for fast reactor problems. Over its 40 years history, ARC software usage with DIF3D has been applied to numerous fast and thermal spectrum reactor analysis projects with good to excellent comparison against experiments. With continued improvement of computation resources, many of the geometry modeling capabilities in DIF3D that were primarily used in low order schemes are not really needed anymore. Today, the diffusion and transport capabilities of DIF3D-VARIANT are primarily used in the reactor design process with some scattered usage of DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-Nodal. In recent work, the DIF3D software verification was completed for DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT on the geometry options used in the Versatile Test Reactor project. While we can be confident that these capabilities of DIF3D are well used and thus trusted, it does not demonstrate that all possible input options of DIF3D are actually working, but just those that were tested as part of VTR are and that they are correct. Thus, the purpose of the present work is to identify a set of test problems for DIF3D and assess the code coverage of DIF3D for those test problems. The goal is to document what parts of the existing DIF3D code are touched by the set of test problems and which are not. Because the verification work done on DIF3D-VARIANT and DIF3D-FD was focused on the most common uses of DIF3D for fast reactor analysis, the code coverage assessment of those capabilities is the highest priority. This will ensure that nothing is being missed by the existing verification test problems that DIF3D relies upon. The DIF3D-Nodal capability will also be inspected for code coverage as part of this work to further ensure that regular regression testing of DIF3D will trap any likely errors the end user might experience with the DIF3D software. The code coverage analysis of DIF3D was performed with the Code Coverage Tool of the Intel Fortran compiler which requires modifications to the compilation of DIF3D. The detailed coverage tables are given for each submodule of DIF3D separately, and for the submodules which are primarily developed for DIF3D, most of the source files could be at least partially touched. Most of the uncovered parts/files could be easily ignored, because they are either for error message and debugging output or obviously not needed by DIF3D. Out of the entire source codes of DIF3D, only a few uncovered modules deserve further investigation.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Code Coverage Status of the ARC Code DIF3D

The Argonne Reactor Code (ARC) software system supports users in their fast reactor design goals by providing neutronic, thermal-hydraulic, and structural analysis capabilities. DIF3D plays a pivotal role in the ARC system as the primary homogenized assembly neutronic calculation methodology for fast reactor problems. Over its 40 years history, ARC software usage with DIF3D has been applied to numerous fast and thermal spectrum reactor analysis projects with good to excellent comparison against experiments. With continued improvement of computation resources, many of the geometry modeling capabilities in DIF3D that were primarily used in low order schemes are not really needed anymore. Today, the diffusion and transport capabilities of DIF3D-VARIANT are primarily used in the reactor design process with some scattered usage of DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-Nodal. In recent work, the DIF3D software verification was completed for DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT on the geometry options used in the Versatile Test Reactor project. While we can be confident that these capabilities of DIF3D are well used and thus trusted, it does not demonstrate that all possible input options of DIF3D are actually working, but just those that were tested as part of VTR are and that they are correct. Thus, the purpose of the present work is to identify a set of test problems for DIF3D and assess the code coverage of DIF3D for those test problems. The goal is to document what parts of the existing DIF3D code are touched by the set of test problems and which are not. Because the verification work done on DIF3D-VARIANT and DIF3D-FD was focused on the most common uses of DIF3D for fast reactor analysis, the code coverage assessment of those capabilities is the highest priority. This will ensure that nothing is being missed by the existing verification test problems that DIF3D relies upon. The DIF3D-Nodal capability will also be inspected for code coverage as part of this work to further ensure that regular regression testing of DIF3D will trap any likely errors the end user might experience with the DIF3D software. The code coverage analysis of DIF3D was performed with the Code Coverage Tool of the Intel Fortran compiler which requires modifications to the compilation of DIF3D. The detailed coverage tables are given for each submodule of DIF3D separately, and for the submodules which are primarily developed for DIF3D, most of the source files could be at least partially touched. Most of the uncovered parts/files could be easily ignored, because they are either for error message and debugging output or obviously not needed by DIF3D. Out of the entire source codes of DIF3D, only a few uncovered modules deserve further investigation.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

An operation verification strategy against network attack of DCS in nuclear power plant - 323

Digital Instrumentation and control (I and C) system serves as the 'senses and nervous system' of a nuclear power plant (NPP). It plays an important role in the safe and economic operation in the NPPs. Digital I and C system has a series of advantages compared with analogue ones, but the introduction of the operation system platform, the application software, and the network communication structure are causing security risk to the power plant. Different kinds of procedures have already been adopted against these risks such as the communication isolation, but the security attacks still occur from time to time in the industrial fields around the world. This paper presents two computer security methods based on the thought of software verification and validation with step-by-step operation identification. First, three scenarios of security attack are proposed according to the structure of a distributed control system (DCS). Then a method with two network bypasses and a security computer are adopted to obtain the operation commands, the actuation signal, and the operation feedback in case of the first two scenarios by identifying the consistency of the obtained data. Furthermore, the method is optimized by combining the operation procedure and the camera shot to identify the anomaly of the information flow, thus to improve the effectiveness against the computer security issues. In the end, the influence and feasibility of this method is discussed. (authors)

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Gamma Source Verification for GAMSRC and GAMSOR

Nuclear reactors that rely upon the fission reaction have two modes of thermal energy deposition in the reactor system: neutron absorption and gamma absorption. The gamma rays are typically generated by neutron capture reactions or during the fission process which means the primary driver of energy production is of course the neutron interactions. The GAMSOR program was first built in the mid 1980s to properly account for the gamma heating in an operating reactor core on core internals. The GAMSOR code is sequence of DIF3D calculations to compute the neutron and gamma flux and combine them to define both the neutron and gamma heating throughout the modeled domain. The goal of this manuscript is to present the software verification of GAMSOR. The first step of the GAMSOR sequence of calculations involves of a modified version of DIF3D (called DIF3D-GAMSOR) which generates a gamma source distribution for the follow-on DIF3D gamma transport calculation (step 2). This modified version of DIF3D increases the burden of maintenance and verification work on GAMSOR as one must reverify the DIF3D capabilities which is undesirable. Because the calculation of the gamma source is the only unique aspect of GAMSOR beyond the regular DIF3D capabilities, that part was put in a standalone code called GAMSRC such that one can use the verified DIF3D code in step 1 followed by GAMSRC to carry out the same GAMSOR calculation step. As a consequence, this manuscript is focused on verification of the gamma source files generated by GAMSRC. The verification of the modified version of DIF3D (DIF3D-GAMSOR) will be done less rigorously in that it will be verified that it produces the same output that GAMSRC does and thus GAMSRC is equivalent to GAMSOR on the problems studied here. Hand calculations and independent numerical calculations of the gamma source generation are used for the verification work. This work follows the same methodology of GAMSRC. As expected, the results agree well with those calculated by GAMSRC as will be shown.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Gamma Source Verification for GAMSRC and GAMSOR

Nuclear reactors that rely upon the fission reaction have two modes of thermal energy deposition in the reactor system: neutron absorption and gamma absorption. The gamma rays are typically generated by neutron capture reactions or during the fission process which means the primary driver of energy production is of course the neutron interactions. The GAMSOR program was first built in the mid 1980s to properly account for the gamma heating in an operating reactor core on core internals. The GAMSOR code is sequence of DIF3D calculations to compute the neutron and gamma flux and combine them to define both the neutron and gamma heating throughout the modeled domain. The goal of this manuscript is to present the software verification of GAMSOR. The first step of the GAMSOR sequence of calculations involves of a modified version of DIF3D (called DIF3D-GAMSOR) which generates a gamma source distribution for the follow-on DIF3D gamma transport calculation (step 2). This modified version of DIF3D increases the burden of maintenance and verification work on GAMSOR as one must reverify the DIF3D capabilities which is undesirable. Because the calculation of the gamma source is the only unique aspect of GAMSOR beyond the regular DIF3D capabilities, that part was put in a standalone code called GAMSRC such that one can use the verified DIF3D code in step 1 followed by GAMSRC to carry out the same GAMSOR calculation step. As a consequence, this manuscript is focused on verification of the gamma source files generated by GAMSRC. The verification of the modified version of DIF3D (DIF3D-GAMSOR) will be done less rigorously in that it will be verified that it produces the same output that GAMSRC does and thus GAMSRC is equivalent to GAMSOR on the problems studied here. Hand calculations and independent numerical calculations of the gamma source generation are used for the verification work. This work follows the same methodology of GAMSRC. As expected, the results agree well with those calculated by GAMSRC as will be shown.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Verification of EvaluateFLux Utility Program

The EvaluateFlux program is a post-processing utility program for DIF3D, specifically DIF3D-VARIANT which handles Cartesian and hexagonal geometries. The EvaluateFlux program was developed to allow users to obtain flux and power traverses through the geometry domain, and its initial purpose was to facilitate foil analysis by evaluating the flux solution from DIF3D-VARIANT and combining it with foil cross section data. The EvaluateFlux program can calculate the neutron flux, as well as the reaction rates, at any user provided evaluation point. It does this by identifying the spatial mesh associated with the evaluation point and then evaluates the polynomial based neutron flux moments stored in the NHFLUX file at that point. The output of EvaluateFlux varies depending on the input setup. The maximum output includes the neutron flux and microscopic and macroscopic reaction rates at each evaluation point. The purpose of this work is to verify the outputs of EvaluateFlux. Simple models that have hand calculatable results are first defined and used to verify the EvaluateFlux outputs. More complex cases are then added where a duplicate program of EvaluateFlux that uses PrintTables outputs of the binary files is used to verify the EvaluateFlux outputs. In those complex cases, hand calculations of selected evaluation points were also displayed to confirm the software verification. For all the tests done, the hand calculations agreed well with those calculated by EvaluateFlux. For the larger complex problems, the duplicate program that can process hundreds of evaluation points was able to identify that zero points within some meshes have large errors. This aspect was attributed to the truncation error on the input provided to the duplicate program and is not a concern for the accuracy of the EvaluateFlux software.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Verification of the EvaluateFlux Utility Program

The EvaluateFlux program is a post-processing utility program for DIF3D, specifically DIF3D-VARIANT which handles Cartesian and hexagonal geometries. The EvaluateFlux program was developed to allow users to obtain flux and power traverses through the geometry domain, and its initial purpose was to facilitate foil analysis by evaluating the flux solution from DIF3D-VARIANT and combining it with foil cross section data. The EvaluateFlux program can calculate the neutron flux, as well as the reaction rates, at any user provided evaluation point. It does this by identifying the spatial mesh associated with the evaluation point and then evaluates the polynomial based neutron flux moments stored in the NHFLUX file at that point. The output of EvaluateFlux varies depending on the input setup. The maximum output includes the neutron flux and microscopic and macroscopic reaction rates at each evaluation point. The purpose of this work is to verify the outputs of EvaluateFlux. Simple models that have hand calculatable results are first defined and used to verify the EvaluateFlux outputs. More complex cases are then added where a duplicate program of EvaluateFlux that uses PrintTables outputs of the binary files is used to verify the EvaluateFlux outputs. In those complex cases, hand calculations of selected evaluation points were also displayed to confirm the software verification. For all the tests done, the hand calculations agreed well with those calculated by EvaluateFlux. For the larger complex problems, the duplicate program that can process hundreds of evaluation points was able to identify that zero points within some meshes have large errors. This aspect was attributed to the truncation error on the input provided to the duplicate program and is not a concern for the accuracy of the EvaluateFlux software.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

From Sim to Real: A Pipeline for Training and Deploying Traffic Smoothing Cruise Controllers

Designing and validating controllers for connected and automated vehicles to enhance traffic flow presents significant challenges, from the complexity of replicating real-world stop-and-go traffic dynamics in simulation, to the intricacies involved in transitioning from simulation to actual deployment. In this work, we present a full pipeline from data collection to controller deployment. Specifically, we collect 772 km of driving data from the I-24 in Tennessee, and use it to build a one-lane simulator, placing simulated vehicles behind real-world trajectories. Using policy-gradient methods with an asymmetric critic, we improve fuel efficiency by over 10% when simulating congested scenarios. Our comprehensive approach includes reinforcement learning for controller training, software verification, hardware validation and setup, and navigating various sim-to-real challenges. Furthermore, we analyze the controller's behavior and wave-smoothing properties, and deploy it on four Toyota Rav4’s in a real-world validation experiment on the I-24. Lastly, we release the driving dataset, the simulator and the trained controller, to enable future benchmarking and controller design.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Tardigrade-examples V0.1.0

Tardigrade-examples is a repository of computational workflows that exercise the Tardigrade software package. The Tardigrade software package is an implementation of Eringen’s micromorphic continuum theory with capabilities to support multiscale material modeling. These capabilities include homogenization through the Micromorphic Filter, calibration of micromorphic material models, and macroscale simulation in Tardigrade-MOOSE. This repository investigates continuum upscaling of various direct numerical simulations (DNS) conducted in Abaqus finite element (FE), Ratel FE, and GEOS material point method (MPM) software. Verification of the upscaling workflow is first investigated by considering DNS of trivial stress states for homogeneous materials, results of which indicate that classical continuum behavior is recovered as expected. DNS of heterogeneous materials are then considered.

Allard, Thomas↗