Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “bug reports”

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
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2017

RAZORBACK - A Research Reactor Transient Analysis Code Version 1.0 - Volume 1: User's Manual

Razorback is a research reactor transient analysis computer code designed to simulate the operation of a research reactor (such as Sandia National Laboratories Annular Core Research Reactor (ACRR)). The code provides a coupled numerical solution of the point reactor kinetics equations, the energy conservation equation for fuel element heat transfer, the equation of motion for fuel element thermal expansion, and the mass, momentum, and energy conservation equations for the water cooling of the fuel elements. This input manual describes how an input file is composed, and facilitates an understanding of the various code input parameters. The makeup of the various code output files is also described. This manual also provides instructions for the installation and setup of the code, and how to report bugs and/or errors.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

DRiFT - Release 1.0.0 Organic Scintillators

DRiFT (a Detector Response Function Toolkit) is LANL-developed software that postprocesses output from the extensively validated radiation transport code, MCNP [1], and generates realistic nuclear instrumentation response. DRiFT is designed to be flexible, enabling users to specify detector type and many experimental settings, as well as accommodating the addition of their own desired features. Although DRiFT development has included scintillator [2], gas [3], and semiconductor features [4], the focus of this release is on organic scintillator and associated capabilities. Organic scintillators are widely used in the areas of nuclear safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation efforts [5, 6]. DRiFT has several diagnostic and detector physics features relevant to detailed scintillator simulations including: tracking source particle information, scintillation light production, the effects of PMT quantum efficiency and gain, and digitizer settings. Users can select responses from many scintillator and PMT types supported natively by DRiFT, or add their own by following the instructions in this document. We acknowledge that DRiFT is under active development, bug reports and general questions and comments should be directed to Madison Andrews, madison@lanl.gov. This manual is divided into four parts: I) An overview of DRiFT, including how to obtain and install the executable, II) A description of the detector physics related to scintillators available, III) a description of more general DRiFT features the user may find useful, and IV) a description of the test suite and examples made available with the code release.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2023

DRiFT - Release 1.1.1: Organic Scintillators

DRiFT (a Detector Response Function Toolkit) is LANL-developed software that postprocesses output from the extensively validated radiation transport code, MCNP, and generates realistic nuclear instrumentation response. DRiFT is designed to be flexible, enabling users to specify detector type and many experimental settings, as well as accommodating the addition of their own desired features. Although DRiFT development has included scintillator, gas, and semiconductor features, the focus of this release is on organic scintillator and associated capabilities. Organic scintillators are widely used in the areas of nuclear safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. DRiFT has several diagnostic and detector physics features relevant to detailed scintillator simulations including: tracking source particle information, scintillation light production, the effects of PMT quantum efficiency and gain, and digitizer settings. Users can select responses from many scintillator and PMT types supported natively by DRiFT, or add their own by following the instructions in this document. We acknowledge that DRiFT is under active development, bug reports and general questions and comments should be directed to Madison Andrews, madison@lanl.gov. This manual is divided into four parts: I) An overview of DRiFT, including how to obtain and install the executable, II) A description of the detector physics related to scintillators available, III) a description of more general DRiFT features the user may find useful, and IV) a description of the test suite and examples made available with the code release.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2023

DRiFT - Release 2.1.0: Organic Scintillators and Gas Detectors

DRiFT (a Detector Response Function Toolkit) is LANL-developed software that post-processes output from the extensively validated radiation transport code, MCNP, and generates realistic nuclear instrumentation response. DRiFT is designed to be flexible, enabling users to specify detector type and many experimental settings, as well as accommodating the addition of their own desired features. The focus of this release is on organic scintillator, gas detector, and associated capabilities, while semiconductor features are still under development. Organic scintillators are widely used in the areas of nuclear safeguards and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. DRiFT has several diagnostic and detector physics features relevant to detailed scintillator simulations including: tracking source particle information, scintillation light production, the effects of PMT quantum efficiency and gain, and digitizer settings. Users can select responses from many scintillator and PMT types supported natively by DRiFT, or add their own by following the instructions in this document. DRiFT also has several diagnostic and detector physics features relevant to neutron gas detector simulations including: gas detector wall effects, inactive areas at the end of detector tubes, and effects of a preamplifier. We acknowledge that DRiFT is under active development, bug reports and general questions and comments should be directed to Madison Andrews, madison@lanl.gov. This manual is divided into four parts: I) An overview of DRiFT, including how to obtain and install the executable, II) A description of the detector physics related to scintillators available, III) a description of more general DRiFT features the user may find useful, and IV) a description of the test suite and examples made available with the code release.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
NASA NTRS2019

Command and Control System Software Development

With the first launch of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Space Launch System heavy-lift expendable launch vehicle and Lockheed Martin's Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle scheduled for the year 2020, there exists a need to complete development of a new command and control system that will provide systems monitoring and launch control for NASA's Exploration Missions. One remaining task necessary for completion of this command and control system is to create and maintain comprehensive unit tests of the control system software packages. These tests should verify that the implementation of all required and desired functionality works as intended. This testing infrastructure is mostly in place, but the control system's open source automation server still reports software "bugs" (possible flaws or failures which may lead to unintended behavior) and intermittently failing unit tests. Since code correctness is of critical importance for human rated software systems, I was assigned to diagnose the root cause of failing unit tests, eliminate non-determinism in these tests, and fix bugs as reported by the automation server.

GUI↗
NASA NTRS2018

Web-Based Surface Metering Display (SMD) User Manual

This document serves as a user manual for the ATD-2 Web-Based Surface Metering Display (SMD). It describes the elements of the full SMD interface and provides explanations for how to interact with SMD. The document provides instructions for selecting the type of metering, entering specific metering parameters, and setting excess queue time variables. There are instructions for submitting system feedback and bug reports, as well.This document also includes information to guide a user in how to check the current metering state on other components of the ATD-2 system, via either the STBO Client or the RTC/RMTC.

Ruszkowski, Louise Morgan↗
NASA NTRS2019

Web-Based Surface Metering Display (SMD) User Manual

This document serves as a manual for the ATD-2 Web-Based Surface Metering Display (SMD) Version 4.6.0. It describes the elements of the full SMD interface and provides explanations for how to interact with the SMD. The document provides instructions for selecting the type of metering, entering specific metering parameters, and setting excess queue time variables. There are instructions for submitting system feedback and bug reports as well.

Surface Metering↗
DOE OSTI2020

Financial Analysis of the 2019 Glen Canyon Dam Bug Flow Experiment

This report was prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) in support of a financial analysis of the Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) flow experiment that was intended to support downstream macroinvertebrate production that are a primary food supply for fishes in the Colorado River. Also known as “bug flow” experiments, these experimental water releases were conducted on the weekends and holidays from the beginnings of May 2019 through the end of August 2019. This analysis was funded by the Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Office of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). CRSP markets electricity produced by hydroelectric facilities collectively known as the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects including dams equipped for power generation on the Colorado, Green, Gunnison, and Rio Grande Rivers and on Plateau Creek in the states of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Staff members in Argonne’s Energy Systems Division prepared this technical memorandum with assistance from WAPA’s CRSP and Energy Marketing and Management Offices (EMMO).

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Financial Analysis of the High Flow Experiment conducted at the Glen Canyon Dam during Water Year 2023

The Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) is a Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) power resource that is a component of the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP). The 2016 record of decision (ROD) for the GCD long-term experimental and management plan (LTEMP) final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) specified criteria for GCD monthly water releases, daily and hourly operating limits, and experimental releases. This report examines the financial implications of the high flow experiment (HFE) conducted at GCD during the spring of Water Year (WY) 2023 as required by the LTEMP HFE Protocol. This report is part of a series of reports that describe the financial costs of LTEMP experimental releases since the 2016 ROD was adopted in January 2017. Previous reports analyzed the impact of several past HFEs and Bug Flow Experiments. This report focuses on the HFE conducted in April 2023. For this experimental release, financial costs of approximately $1.33 million were incurred because the HFE required sustained water releases exceeding the power plant’s maximum turbine flow rate. In addition, during the experiment, operators were not allowed to shape GCD power production, either to follow Firm Electric Service (FES) customer day-ahead energy deliveries or to respond to market prices. This study identifies the main factors contributing to the HFE costs and examines the interdependencies among these factors. It applies an integrated set of tools to estimate Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) financial impacts by simulating GCD under two types of cases; namely, (1) a “With Experiment” case that mimics the operations that actually occurred and (2) a “Without Experiment” case that simulates operations under the assumption that the HFE did not occur. The “With Experiment” case mimics operations during the HFE and the entire month the HFE occurred. It complies with LTEMP hourly and daily operating criteria. The “Without Experiment” case assumes that the HFE did not occur. The monthly water release volume is assumed to be identical under both cases. The Colorado River Storage Project Python-based model (CRiSPPy) model was the main modeling tool used to simulate the dispatch of the GCD hydropower plant and associated water releases from Lake Powell. In the modeling process, the research team used extensive data sets and historical information on SLCA/IP power plant characteristics, hydrologic conditions, and WAPA’s power purchases and sales prices. In addition to estimating the financial impact of the HFE, the team used the CRiSPPy model to gain insights into the interplay among ROD operating criteria, exceptions made to criteria to accommodate the HFE, and WAPA operating practices.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Financial Analysis of the 2018 Glen Canyon Dam Bug Flow Experiment

This report examines the financial implications of the macroinvertebrate production flows (MPF) experiment conducted at the Glen Canyon Dam (GCD) from May 1, through August 31, 2018. It is the first report examining the financial implications of a MPF experiment since the 2016 Record of Decision (ROD) was adopted in December 2016 (Reclamation 2016). The 2016 ROD implemented the Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan (LTEMP) regime. Experimental releases may have either a positive or a negative impact on the financial value of energy production. For these experimental releases, financial costs of approximately $165,000 were incurred because this experiment maintained flat releases on the weekends and holidays. This study identifies the main factors that contribute to MPF costs and examines the interdependencies among these factors. It applies an integrated set of tools to estimate financial impacts by simulating GCD operations under two scenarios: (1) a Baseline scenario that mimics MPF operations during the period of the experiment when it complies with the 2016 ROD operating criteria, and (2) a counterfactual Without Experiments scenario that is identical to the baseline except it assumes that the MPF experiment did not occur. The Generation and Transmission Maximization Superlite (GTMax SL) model was the main simulation tool used to simulate the dispatch of the GCD hydropower plant and associated water releases from Lake Powell. GCD is a Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) power resource that is a component of the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP). The research team used extensive data sets and historical information on SLCA/IP power plant characteristics, hydrologic conditions, and Western Area Power Administration’s (WAPA’s) power sale prices in the modeling process. In addition to estimating the financial impact of MPFs, the team used the GTMax SL model to gain insights into the interplay among ROD operating criteria, exceptions made to criteria to accommodate the experimental releases, and WAPA operating practices.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D 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 DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the polynomial order used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D 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 DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis (Rev. 3)

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D 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 DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
NASA NTRS1994

A measurement of the energy spectra of cosmic rays from 20 to 1000 GeV per AMU

During the report period the BUGS-4 instrument was completed, and the maiden voyage took place on 29 September from Fort Sumner, New Mexico. The successful flight of a large spherical drift chamber is a unique first for the sub-orbital balloon program. Unfortunately the instrument was consumed by fire after striking a power line during landing. However, while at float altitude, circa 24 hours of data were telemetered. The pre-flight preparations, and flight operations are described.

Gregory, John C.↗
NASA NTRS1993

NASA Electronic Library System (NELS) optimization

This is a compilation of NELS (NASA Electronic Library System) Optimization progress/problem, interim, and final reports for all phases. The NELS database was examined, particularly in the memory, disk contention, and CPU, to discover bottlenecks. Methods to increase the speed of NELS code were investigated. The tasks included restructuring the existing code to interact with others more effectively. An error reporting code to help detect and remove bugs in the NELS was added. Report writing tools were recommended to integrate with the ASV3 system. The Oracle database management system and tools were to be installed on a Sun workstation, intended for demonstration purposes.

Pribyl, William L.↗
DOE OSTI2013

Modeling Interfacial Fracture in Sierra

This report summarizes computational efforts to model interfacial fracture using cohesive zone models in the SIERRA/SolidMechanics (SIERRA/SM) finite element code. Cohesive surface elements were used to model crack initiation and propagation along predefined paths. Mesh convergence was observed with SIERRA/SM for numerous geometries. As the funding for this project came from the Advanced Simulation and Computing Verification and Validation (ASC V&V) focus area, considerable effort was spent performing verification and validation. Code verification was performed to compare code predictions to analytical solutions for simple three-element simulations as well as a higher-fidelity simulation of a double-cantilever beam. Parameter identification was conducted with Dakota using experimental results on asymmetric double-cantilever beam (ADCB) and end-notched-flexure (ENF) experiments conducted under Campaign-6 funding. Discretization convergence studies were also performed with respect to mesh size and time step and an optimization study was completed for mode II delamination using the ENF geometry. Throughout this verification process, numerous SIERRA/SM bugs were found and reported, all of which have been fixed, leading to over a 10-fold increase in convergence rates. Finally, mixed-mode flexure experiments were performed for validation. One of the unexplained issues encountered was material property variability for ostensibly the same composite material. Since the variability is not fully understood, it is difficult to accurately assess uncertainty when performing predictions.

Brown, Arthur A.↗