SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Technology Development Office”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 469 records · Page 26

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2012

Roadmap for In-Space Propulsion Technology

NASA has created a roadmap for the development of advanced in-space propulsion technologies for the NASA Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT). This roadmap was drafted by a team of subject matter experts from within the Agency and then independently evaluated, integrated and prioritized by a National Research Council (NRC) panel. The roadmap describes a portfolio of in-space propulsion technologies that could meet future space science and exploration needs, and shows their traceability to potential future missions. Mission applications range from small satellites and robotic deep space exploration to space stations and human missions to Mars. Development of technologies within the area of in-space propulsion will result in technical solutions with improvements in thrust, specific impulse (Isp), power, specific mass (or specific power), volume, system mass, system complexity, operational complexity, commonality with other spacecraft systems, manufacturability, durability, and of course, cost. These types of improvements will yield decreased transit times, increased payload mass, safer spacecraft, and decreased costs. In some instances, development of technologies within this area will result in mission-enabling breakthroughs that will revolutionize space exploration. There is no single propulsion technology that will benefit all missions or mission types. The requirements for in-space propulsion vary widely according to their intended application. This paper provides an updated summary of the In-Space Propulsion Systems technology area roadmap incorporating the recommendations of the NRC.

Meyer, Michael↗

DOE OSTI2016

The Future of Air Conditioning for Buildings - Executive Summary

The Building Technologies Office (BTO), within the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, works with researchers and industry to develop and deploy technologies that can substantially reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in residential and commercial buildings. Air conditioning (A/C) systems in buildings contribute to GHG emissions both directly through refrigerant emissions, as well as indirectly through fossil fuel combustion for power generation. BTO promotes pre-competitive research and development (R&D) on next-generation HVAC technologies that support the phase down of hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) production and consumption, as well as cost-effective energy efficiency improvements. Over the past several decades, product costs and lifecycle cooling costs have declined substantially in many global markets due to improved, higher-volume manufacturing and higher energy efficiency driven by R&D investments and efficiency policies including minimum efficiency standards and labeling programs.1 This report characterizes the current landscape and trends in the global A/C market, including discussion of both direct and indirect climate impacts, and potential global warming impacts from growing global A/C usage. The report also documents solutions that can help achieve international goals for energy efficiency and GHG emissions reductions. The solutions include pathways related to low-global warming potential2 (GWP) refrigerants, energy efficiency innovations, long-term R&D initiatives, and regulatory actions. DOE provides, with this report, a fact-based vision for the future of A/C use around the world. DOE intends for this vision to reflect a broad and balanced aggregation of perspectives. DOE brings together this content in an effort to support dialogue within the international community and help keep key facts and objectives at the forefront among the many important discussions.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2022

The False Dilemma: Rethinking AF Science and Technology Officer Talent Management

In 2019, Secretary of the Air Force (SECAF) Heather Wilson launched the 2030 Science and Technology (S&T) Strategy by stating, “The advantage will go to those who create the best technologies and who integrate and field them in creative operational ways that provide military advantages.” In 2021, 15% of Air Force general officers responsible for creating and integrating this technological edge had a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) graduate degree, and less than 1% of generals had a STEM doctorate. As one point of comparison, at least 32% and 13% of founding CEOs of Fortune 500 technology companies had a master’s and doctoral STEM degree, respectively. The gulf is larger when you consider that these CEOs used their technical degrees throughout their careers whereas most general officers do not. In large organizations, if the leader does not possess technical knowledge, it is difficult to drive innovation systems and connect ideas to reality. The evidence for this disconnect is abundant in acquisition challenges for high-tech systems, significant pushback to the “revolution in military affairs”, and failure of the “Third Offset” to take hold and deliver capabilities to offset Chinese and Russian capabilities. Indeed, when the former Air Force and Space Force Chief Software Officer, Nicolas M. Chaillan, offered his resignation, one of the main reasons for leaving was “the failure of OSD and the Joint Staff to deliver on their own alleged top ‘priority’, JADC2 – they couldn’t ‘walk the walk.’” Senior leaders have recognized this disconnect, and several inquiries and studies regarding STEM competency have been conducted. Many have posed a false dilemma: a large, STEM-cognizant or small, STEM-expert force. However, current and future STEM human capital needs are managed at the unit and functional area level. This leads to “silos” and the tactical “needs of the present” dominating the strategic “needs of the future”, highlighted by only two functional areas systematically tracking future STEM needs. Therefore, the decision on force structure appears to have been historically made by default through these and other perceived structural realities, and a vast majority of recommendations have focused on the small STEM community – an exercise in diminishing returns. In essence, the solution often boils down to finding unicorns – officers that have chartered the unforgiving pathway through the traditional “gates” to general officer while obtaining sufficient STEM proficiency along the way. Fortunately for the Air Force, these officers exist, albeit at a rate below what the evidence would suggest is necessary. However, this approach fundamentally limits the ability to develop a deep pool of officers with the ability to create and integrate technologies and ensures the Dunning-Kruger effect is prevalent. The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias where those with limited knowledge in an area lack the expertise necessary to recognize their lack of expertise and consequently are prone to overestimate their knowledge and performance. In short, we need less leaders overestimating their STEM knowledge and more with hard-earned STEM competency required to “walk the walk” to create and integrate technologies for military advantage. This will not be accomplished by restricting the emphasis to the traditional scientists and engineering (S&E) career fields – the pool, only 10% of line officers, and general officer progression is just too small. Fortunately, the recent SECAF’s Management Initiatives and Chief of Staff’s (CSAF) Action Orders, both containing emphasis on organic expertise to “accrue advantage in military-technological competition,” present an opportunity to truly develop a framework for the force of the future.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

NASA NTRS1993

Electrical Actuation Technology Bridging

This document contains the proceedings of the NASA Electrical Actuation Technology Bridging (ELA-TB) Workshop held in Huntsville, Alabama, September 29-October 1, 1992. The workshop was sponsored by the NASA Office of Space Systems Development and Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC). The workshop addressed key technologies bridging the entire field of electrical actuation including systems methodology, control electronics, power source systems, reliability, maintainability, and vehicle health management with special emphasis on thrust vector control (TVC) applications on NASA launch vehicles. Speakers were drawn primarily from industry with participation from universities and government. In addition, prototype hardware demonstrations were held at the MSFC Propulsion Laboratory each afternoon. Splinter sessions held on the final day afforded the opportunity to discuss key issues and to provide overall recommendations. Presentations are included in this document.

Hammond, Monica↗

DOE OSTI2017

GeoVision Analysis: Reservoir Maintenance and Development Task Force Report (GeoVision Analysis Supporting Task Force Report : Reservoir Maintenance and Development)

This report documents the key findings from the Reservoir Maintenance and Development (RM&D) Task of the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE), Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) Geothermal Vision Study (GeoVision Study). The GeoVision Study had the objective of conduc ting analyses of future geothermal growth based on sets of current and future geothermal technology developments. The RM&D Task is one of seven tasks within the GeoVision Study with the others being, Exploration and Confirmation, Potential to Penetration, Institutional Market Barriers, Environmental and Social Impacts, Thermal Applications, and Hybrid Systems. The full set of findings and the details of the GeoVision Study can be found in the final GeoVision Study report on the DOE-GTO website. As applied here, RM&D refers to the activities associated with developing, exploiting, and maintaining a known geothermal resource. It assumes that the site has already been vetted and that the resource has been evaluated to be of sufficient quality to move towards full-scale development. It also assumes that the resource is to be developed for power generation, as opposed to low-temperature or direct use applications. This document presents the key factors influencing RM&D from both a technological and operational standpoint and provides a baseline of its current state. It also looks forward to describe areas of research and development that must be pursued if the development geothermal energy is to reach its full potential.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2018

Wave Energy Prize -- Carderock Test Design and Rigging to Accommodate Diversity of Device Types

Wave Energy Prize Carderock Test Design and Rigging to Accommodate Diversity of Device Types presentation from the Water Power Technologies Office Peer Review, FY14-FY16. The challenge was to determine testing conditions, develop processing algorithms, and execute tests for equitable and consistent evaluation of different wave energy converter (WEC) technologies.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Model America - data and models of every U.S. building

The 5-year goal of the 'Model America' concept was to generate a model of every building in the United States. This data repository delivers on that goal. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) software suite to process multiple types of data, extract building-specific descriptors, generate building energy models, and simulate them on High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. For more information, see AutoBEM-related publications (bit.ly/AutoBEM). There were 125,714,640 buildings detected in the United States and this dataset contains 122,930,327 (97.8%) buildings which resulted in a successful simulation. Future, annual updates have been proposed that may include additional buildings, data improvements, or other algorithmic enhancements. This dataset of 122.9 million buildings includes: Models (state_county.zip) - OpenStudio (v3.1.0) and EnergyPlus (v9.4) building energy models. Please note that the download requires the free Globus Connect Personal (https://www.globus.org/globus-connect-personal); Each model has approximately 3,000 building input descriptors that can be extracted. Please see the EnergyPlus(v9.4) 2,784-page Input/Output Reference Guide (https://energyplus.net/sites/all/modules/custom/nrel_custom/pdfs/pdfs_v9.4.0/InputOutputReference.pdf) for everything that can be retrieved or simulated from these models. These models were derived from the following metadata, which is not included in this dataset: 1. ID - unique building ID 2. County - county name 3. State - state name 4. CZ - ASHRAE Climate Zone designation 5. Clim_Zone - text label of climate zone 6. est_year - estimated year of construction 7. est_commercial - estimated building type (0=residential, 1=commercial) 8. Centroid - building center location in latitude/longitude (from Footprint2D) 9. Footprint2D - building polygon of 2D footprint (lat1/lon1_lat2/lon2_...) 10. Height - building height (meters) 11. Area2D - footprint area (ft2) 12. BuildingType - DOE prototype building designation (IECC=residential) as implemented by OpenStudio-standards 13. WWR_surfaces - percent of each facade (pair of points from Footprint2D) covered by fenestration/windows (average 14.5% for residential, 40% for commercial buildings) 14. NumFloors - number of floors (above-grade) 15. Area - estimate of total conditioned floor area (ft2) 16. Standard - building vintage. These models are made free and openly available in hopes of stimulating any simulation-informed use case. Data is provided as-is with no warranties, express or implied, regarding fitness for a particular purpose. We wish to thank our sponsors which include Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), U.S. Dept. of Energy's (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO), Office of Electricity (OE), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). This research used resources of the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility, which is a DOE Office of Science User Facility supported under Contract DE-AC02-06CH11357. Please cite as: New, Joshua R., Adams, Mark, Bass, Brett, Berres, Anne, and Clinton, Nicholas (2021). 'Model America - data and models of every U.S. building. [Data set].' Constellation, doi.ccs.ornl.gov/ui/doi/339, April 14, 2021

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2021

Model America: Data and Models for every U.S. Building

The 5-year goal of the “Model America” concept was to generate a model of every building in the United States. This data repository delivers on that goal with "Model America v1". Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed the Automatic Building Energy Modeling (AutoBEM) software suite to process multiple types of data, extract building-specific descriptors, generate building energy models, and simulate them on High Performance Computing (HPC) resources. For more information, see AutoBEM-related publications (bit.ly/AutoBEM). There were 125,715,609 buildings detected in the United States. Of this number, 122,146,671 (97.2%) buildings resulted in a successful generation and simulation of a building energy model. This dataset includes the full 125 million buildings. Future updates may include additional buildings, data improvements, or other algorithmic model enhancements in "Model America v2". This dataset contains OSM and IDF zip files for every U.S. county. Each zip file contains the generated buildings from that county. The .csv input data contains the following data fields: 1. ID - the Unique Building Identifier (UBID), generated using the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) BuildingID framework 2. Centroid - building center location in latitude/longitude (from Footprint2D) 3. Footprint2D - building polygon of 2D footprint (lat1/lon1_lat2/lon2_...) 4. State_abbr - state name 5. Area - estimate of total conditioned floor area (ft2) 6. Area2D - footprint area (ft2) 7. Height - building height (ft) 8. NumFloors - number of floors (above-grade) 9. WWR_surfaces - percent of each facade (pair of points from Footprint2D) covered by fenestration/windows (average 14.5% for residential, 40% for commercial buildings) 10. CZ - ASHRAE Climate Zone designation 11. BuildingType - DOE prototype building designation (IECC=residential) as implemented by OpenStudio-standards 12. Standard - building vintage This data is made free and openly available in hopes of stimulating any simulation-informed use case. Data is provided as-is with no warranties, express or implied, regarding fitness for a particular purpose. We wish to thank our sponsors which include Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD), U.S. Dept. of Energy’s (DOE) Building Technologies Office (BTO), Office of Electricity (OE), Biological and Environmental Research (BER), and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Update (September 23, 2025): We corrected the ID field in all state-level.csv input files to ensure one-to-one consistency with the corresponding .osm and .idf output files. The schema and file structure are unchanged; only the values in the ID column were modified. No files were added or removed, and the .zip bundles (containing .osm / .idf) are unchanged. The corrected .csv inputs were re-extracted in March 2025 from the original data generated ~ 2021 (Theta supercomputer runs), and published here to align input IDs with model outputs. Update (September 6, 2026): The Model America dataset was updated to replace the previous building ID field with the Unique Building Identifier (UBID), using the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) BuildingID framework. UBIDs provide standardized, location-based identifiers for individual building footprints and improve interoperability with other building and geospatial datasets. The data files containing the previous building identifiers were updated to include UBIDs. This update standardizes building identification; the underlying Model America building characteristics and energy simulation results were not recomputed as part of this update.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2015

Investigations into the Effect of Current Velocity on Amidoxime-Based Polymeric Uranium Adsorbent Performance

The Fuel Resources Program at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE), Office of Nuclear Energy (DOE-NE) is developing adsorbent technology to extract uranium from seawater. This technology is being developed to provide a sustainable and economically viable supply of uranium fuel for nuclear reactors (DOE, 2010). Among the key environmental variables to understand for adsorbent deployment in the coastal ocean is what effect flow-rates or linear velocity has on uranium adsorption capacity. The goal is to find a flow conditions that optimize uranium adsorption capacity in the shortest exposure time. Understanding these criteria will be critical in choosing a location for deployment of a marine adsorbent farm. The objective of this study was to identify at what linear velocity the adsorption kinetics for uranium extraction starts to drop off due to limitations in mass transport of uranium to the surface of the adsorbent fibers. Two independent laboratory-based experimental approaches using flow-through columns and recirculating flumes for adsorbent exposure were used to assess the effect of flow-rate (linear velocity) on the kinetic uptake of uranium on amidoxime-based polymeric adsorbent material. Time series observations over a 56 day period were conducted with flow-through columns over a 35-fold range in linear velocity from 0.29 to 10.2 cm/s, while the flume study was conducted over a narrower 11-fold range, from 0.48 to 5.52 cm/s. These ranges were specifically chosen to focus on the lower end of oceanic currents and expand above and below the linear velocity of ~ 2.5 cm/s adopted for marine testing of adsorbent material at PNNL.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2016

Advances in Geologic Disposal System Modeling and Application to Crystalline Rock

The Used Fuel Disposition Campaign (UFDC) of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Office of Fuel Cycle Technology (OFCT) is conducting research and development (R&D) on geologic disposal of used nuclear fuel (UNF) and high-level nuclear waste (HLW). Two of the high priorities for UFDC disposal R&D are design concept development and disposal system modeling (DOE 2011). These priorities are directly addressed in the UFDC Generic Disposal Systems Analysis (GDSA) work package, which is charged with developing a disposal system modeling and analysis capability for evaluating disposal system performance for nuclear waste in geologic media (e.g., salt, granite, clay, and deep borehole disposal). This report describes specific GDSA activities in fiscal year 2016 (FY 2016) toward the development of the enhanced disposal system modeling and analysis capability for geologic disposal of nuclear waste. The GDSA framework employs the PFLOTRAN thermal-hydrologic-chemical multi-physics code and the Dakota uncertainty sampling and propagation code. Each code is designed for massively-parallel processing in a high-performance computing (HPC) environment. Multi-physics representations in PFLOTRAN are used to simulate various coupled processes including heat flow, fluid flow, waste dissolution, radionuclide release, radionuclide decay and ingrowth, precipitation and dissolution of secondary phases, and radionuclide transport through engineered barriers and natural geologic barriers to the biosphere. Dakota is used to generate sets of representative realizations and to analyze parameter sensitivity.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2017

Irradiation of Wrought FeCrAl Tubes in the High Flux Isotope Reactor

The Advanced Fuels Campaign within the Nuclear Technology Research and Development program of the Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy is seeking to improve the accident tolerance of light water reactors. Alumina-forming ferritic alloys (e.g., FeCrAl) are one of the leading candidate materials for fuel cladding to replace traditional zirconium alloys because of the superior oxidation resistance of FeCrAl. However, there are still some unresolved questions regarding irradiation effects on the microstructure and mechanical properties of FeCrAl at end-of-life dose levels. In particular, there are concerns related to irradiation-induced embrittlement of FeCrAl alloys due to secondary phase formation. To address this issue, Oak Ridge National Laboratory has developed a new experimental design to irradiate shortened cladding tube specimens with representative 17×17 array pressurized water reactor diameter and thickness in the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) under relevant temperatures (300–350°C). Post-irradiation examination will include studies of dimensional change, microstructural changes, and mechanical performance. This report briefly summarizes the capsule design concept and the irradiation test matrix for six rabbit capsules. Each rabbit contains two FeCrAl alloy tube specimens. The specimens include Generation I and Generation II FeCrAl alloys with varying processing conditions, Cr concentrations, and minor alloying elements. The rabbits were successfully assembled, welded, evaluated, and delivered to the HFIR along with a complete quality assurance fabrication package. Pictures of the rabbit assembly process and detailed dimensional inspection of select specimens are included in this report. The rabbits were inserted into HFIR starting in cycle 472 (May 2017).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2017

Advances in Geologic Disposal System Modeling and Shale Reference Cases

The Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Campaign of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Office of Fuel Cycle Technology (OFCT) is conducting research and development (R&D) on geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high level nuclear waste (HLW). Two high priorities for SFWST disposal R&D are design concept development and disposal system modeling (DOE 2011, Table 6). These priorities are directly addressed in the SFWST Generic Disposal Systems Analysis (GDSA) work package, which is charged with developing a disposal system modeling and analysis capability for evaluating disposal system performance for nuclear waste in geologic media (e.g., salt, granite, shale, and deep borehole disposal).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2018

Advances in Geologic Disposal Safety Assessment and an Unsaturated Alluvium Reference Case

The Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Campaign of the U.S. Depat ment of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Office of Fuel Cycle Technology (OFCT) is conducting research and development (R&D) on geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high level nuclear waste (HLW). Two high priorities for SFWST disposal R&D are design concept development and disposal system modeling (DOE 2011, Table 6). These priorities are directly addressed in the SFWST Geologic Disposal Safety Assessment (GDSA) work package, which is charged with developing a disposal system modeling and analysis capability for evaluating disposal system performance for nuclear waste in geologic media. This report describes specific GDSA activities in fiscal year 2018 (FY 2018) toward the development of GDSA Framework, an enhanced disposal system modeling and analysis capability for geologic disposal of nuclear waste. GDSA Framework employs the PFLOTRAN thermal-hydrologic-chemical multiphysics code (Hammond et al. 2011a; Lichtner and Hammond 2012) and the Dakota uncertainty sampling and propagation code (Adams et al. 2012; Adams et al. 2013). Each code is designed for massivelyparallel processing in a high-performance computing (HPC) environment. Multi-physics representations in PFLOTRAN are used to simulate various coupled processes including heat flow, fluid flow, waste dissolution, radionuclide release, radionuclide decay and ingrowth, precipitation and dissolution of secondary phases, and radionuclide transport through engineered barriers and natural geologic barriers to the biosphere. Dakota is used to generate sets of representative realizations and to analyze parameter sensitivity.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2019

Status Report on Uncertainty Quantification and Sensitivity Analysis Tools in the Geologic Disposal Safety Assessment (GDSA) Framework

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Performance Assessments of Demand Flexibility from Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings: Issues and Considerations

This SEE Action Network report explains basic concepts and fundamental considerations for assessing the actual demand flexibility performance of buildings participating in demand flexibility programs and responding to time-varying retail rates. Demand flexibility is the capability of distributed energy resources (DERs) to adjust a building’s load profile across different timescales. Assessments determine the timing, location, quantity, and quality of grid services provided. The results can be used for financial settlements and to improve performance of demand flexibility, support its consideration in resource potential studies and electricity system planning, and contribute to cost-effectiveness evaluations. While practitioners and regulators regularly find opportunities to improve performance assessments of demand-related services, to a large degree current best practices are sufficient for basic service offerings as demand flexibility is implemented today. However, advances in assessment practices will be required in a future with grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) that provide continuous demand flexibility by integrating multiple DERs and flexibility modes (load shed, load shift, modulate, and generate). Example practices include using new baseline constructs—including whether baselines are even required for certain building flexibility modes or configurations, deploying more advanced metering and analytics, further developing cybersecurity standards, improving communication standards for increased interoperability, and establishing performance metrics and assessment procedures for load modulation as it is more fully defined and implemented. This report provides information on prioritizing and designing performance assessment elements for demand flexibility programs and time-varying retail rates, assessment protocols, and research and development needs. Additional research sponsored by DOE’s Building Technologies Office offers more detailed technical information on assessing performance of demand flexibility, including definition of performance metrics.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2020

Advances in Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Methods and Applications in GDSA Framework.

The Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Campaign of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Office of Fuel Cycle Technology (FCT) is conducting research and development (R&D) on geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level nuclear waste (HLW). Two high priorities for SFWST disposal R&D are design concept development and disposal system modeling. These priorities are directly addressed in the SFWST ''Geologic Disposal Safety Assessment'' (GDSA) control account, which is charged with developing a geologic repository system modeling and analysis capability, and the associated software, ''GDSA Framework'', for evaluating disposal system performance for nuclear waste in geologic media. ''GDSA Framework'' is supported by SFWST Campaign and its predecessor the Used Fuel Disposition (UFD) campaign. This report fulfills the GDSA Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Methods work package (SF-20SN01030403) level 3 milestone — ''Advances in Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Methods and Applications in GDSA Framework'' (M3SF-20SN010304032). It presents high level objectives and strategy for development of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis tools, demonstrates uncertainty quantification (UQ) and sensitivity analysis (SA) tools in GDSA Framework in FY20, and describes additional UQ/SA tools whose future implementation would enhance the UQ/SA capability of ''GDSA Framework''. This work was closely coordinated with the other Sandia National Laboratory GDSA work packages: the GDSA Framework Development work package (SF- 2051\101030404), the GDSA Repository Systems Analysis work package (SF-2051\101030405), and the GDSA PFLOTRAN Development work package (SF-20SN01030406). This report builds on developments reported in previous ''GDSA Framework'' milestones, particularly M2SF- 19SNO1030403.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Report on Year-3 of Water NSTF Matrix Testing: Two-Phase Parametric Test Series

The Natural convection Shutdown heat removal Test Facility (NSTF) is large scale test facility constructed at Argonne National Laboratory to generate NQA-1 qualified validation data for passive decay heat removal systems in advanced reactor concepts. With support from the Department of Energy (DOE) offices of Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) and Advanced Reactors Regulatory Development (RD), this facility reflects key features of a ½ scale, water-based, Reactor Cavity Cooling System (RCCS) and is intended to study the behavior, bound performance, and ultimately guide design decisions for passive decay heat removal systems. Since the facility also retains all aspects common to a fundamental boiling water thermosiphon, the generated experimental data sets are well poised to advance the understanding of fundamental natural circulation boiling and two-phase flow phenomena.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Methods and Applications in the GDSA Framework (FY2021)

The Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Campaign of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), Office of Fuel Cycle Technology (FCT) is conducting research and development (R&D) on geologic disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level nuclear waste (HLW). Two high priorities for SFWST disposal R&D are design concept development and disposal system modeling. These priorities are directly addressed in the SFWST Geologic Disposal Safety Assessment (GDSA) control account, which is charged with developing a geologic repository system modeling and analysis capability, and the associated software, GDSA Framework, for evaluating disposal system performance for nuclear waste in geologic media. GDSA Framework is supported by SFWST Campaign and its predecessor the Used Fuel Disposition (UFD) campaign. This report fulfills the GDSA Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Methods work package (SF-21SN01030404) level 3 milestone, Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis Methods and Applications in GDSA Framework (FY2021) (M3SF-21SN010304042). It presents high level objectives and strategy for development of uncertainty and sensitivity analysis tools, demonstrates uncertainty quantification (UQ) and sensitivity analysis (SA) tools in GDSA Framework in FY21, and describes additional UQ/SA tools whose future implementation would enhance the UQ/SA capability of GDSA Framework. This work was closely coordinated with the other Sandia National Laboratory GDSA work packages: the GDSA Framework Development work package (SF-21SN01030405), the GDSA Repository Systems Analysis work package (SF-21SN01030406), and the GDSA PFLOTRAN Development work package (SF-21SN01030407). This report builds on developments reported in previous GDSA Framework milestones, particularly M3SF 20SN010304032.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗