Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “qualification”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

DOE Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Program

Breakdown of the DOE Advanced Gas Reactor Fuel Development and Qualification Program. Including discussion topics on TRISO technology Status Circa 2000, New Production Reactor (NPR) Fuel Experience, Fuel Qualification, US DOE Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) Fuel Development and Qualification Program, Initial AGR Program Reference HTGR Design, Fuel Qualification Approach, Fuel Performance Modeling, Fuel Fabrication, Selected AGR-1, AGR-2, and AGR-5/6/7 Fuel Property Means, AGR Program TRISO Fuel Key Performance Data, Irradiation Performance: Fission Gas R/B, Irradiation Testing Results, Kernel and Coating Behavior During Irradiation, Locating and Studying Failed Particles Greatly Improves Understanding of Fuel Performance, Fission Product Release from UCO Fuel Compacts: AGR-1 and AGR-2 Examples, HTGR Accident Safety Testing of TRISO Fuel, Evaluating Behavior During D-LOFC Accidents, Safety Test Results for US UCO Fuel, Particle Failure Evaluation, Fuel Performance Summary, Ongoing Work and Outstanding Data Needs, Core Oxidation, Industry Engagement, and Coated-Particle-Fueled Reactor Concepts and Fuel Designs.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Integrating Advanced Modeling and Accelerated Testing for a Modernized Fuel Qualification Paradigm

With the increasing interest in sodium fast reactor technology, as seen by applications to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the OKLO Aurora plant, fuel testing for the TerraPower Traveling Wave Reactor, and the impending construction and startup of the versatile test reactor (VTR), a modernized, accelerated approach to fuel qualification is needed. To guide this effort, a Phenomena Identification Ranking Table–styled analysis was performed for a U-Pu-Zr sodium-free annular fuel system. This analysis evaluated a series of fuel design properties and parameters against their contributions to key fuel performance phenomena. The resulting priority parameters were then reviewed against existing modeling and experimental capabilities to support investigation of the highest-priority parameters. A pathway for qualification was then established using highthroughput, high-volume experiments from MiniFuel and FAST in parallel with advanced physics-based model development. This effort outlines how the first stages of qualification can be reduced from the typical 20+-year development cycle to 5 to 7 years by deploying accelerated irradiation testing platforms. As with any accelerated test, these methods are prototypic in some aspects and less so in others; however, by coupling with advanced fuel performance modeling and simulation capabilities, the larger space of irradiation parameters and material response provided offers advantages for the validation of physics-based models supporting the deployment of novel fuel designs. As a test case, this paper utilizes a proposed Mark II fuel system for the upcoming VTR. Thus, an accelerated qualification method can be tested for the development of MARK II driver fuel so that by the time of VTR startup, lead test assemblies for a Mark II fuel can be initiated.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Fuel Qualification for Molten Salt Reactors

This report supports the development and review of an efficient methodology or process for liquid salt fuel system qualification. The report describes the technical issues encountered when developing an adequate understanding of the fuel salt’s chemical and physical behavior under both normal and accident conditions. The concepts presented in this report align with the fundamental safety functions (FSFs) approach of the more general non-light water reactor (nonLWR) fuel qualification guidance provided in NUREG-2246. However, because liquid salt fuel has substantial technical differences from solid fuels, this report describes tailored approaches for achieving the common safety intents when using liquid salt. The purpose of this report is to illustrate how variations in fuel salt properties impact achievement of FSFs at liquid-salt fueled molten salt reactors (MSRs). The focus on FSFs supports methodology compatibility with both current and developing licensing processes. Customized fuel qualification guidance for liquid salt–fueled Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) are also provided in this report to supplement the generic non-LWR guidance recently developed by the NRC. As with the broader non-LWR fuel qualification, this report focuses on identification and understanding of fuel life-limiting failure and fuel salt property degradation mechanisms that occur as a result of irradiation during reactor operation.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

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

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

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

Accelerated Irradiation and Qualification of Ceramic Nuclear Fuels

Accelerated neutron irradiation testing is an component of accelerated qualification of new nuclear fuels for light water reactor (LWRs), microreactors, and other special purpose reactors. The qualification and licensing of nuclear fuel is a lengthy process that can take 20-25 years to bring a new fuel into service. Accelerated fuel qualification combines both experimental and modeling work to expedite the total qualification time to 5-10 years timeframe. The experimental aspect of this is accelerated irradiation aims to reduce the total time needed for neutron irradiation to achieve targeted burnup, which can take years using conventional irradiation profiles. The data that results from this irradiation testing can then be entered into BISON models to develop robust and reliable performance simulations to ensure safe operation under normal and off normal conditions. This milestone focused on the fabrication of test articles for accelerated irradiation testing at the Advance Test Reactor (ATR).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2023

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

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

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

Data Qualification Report: SRNL Glass Composition-Properties (ComPro) Database

The Savannah River National Laboratory Glass Composition-Properties (ComPro) database is an extensive database containing pertinent composition and durability data to support the accelerated clean-up mission at the Defense Waste Processing Facility. The activities described in this data qualification report were performed to support the information contained in the database. There were two objectives of the original data qualification process. The first objective was to review supporting documentation to determine if DOE/RW-0333P Quality Assurance Requirements and Description had been implemented during the original work. If the DOE/RW-0333P Quality Assurance Requirements and Description had not been directly implemented during the original work, the second objective was to determine if the controls that were used were adequate to meet the intent of the DOE/RW-0333P Quality Assurance Requirements and Description. The results of these two objectives and the activities performed to support these decisions are described in this document. An assessment of each dataset was made to determine if the data were RW-0333P Compliant, RW-0333P Equivalent or Non-RW-0333P Compliant. The original data qualification was performed in accordance with E7, Conduct of Engineering Manual, Procedure 3.70, Revision 4, Qualification of Data. The specific method that was used was Equivalent Controls as described in E7, 3.70. Revision 2 of this document adds supporting information for the RW-0333P Compliant datasets added to Revision 3 of the database.

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

Waste Glass Property Database and Data Qualification Plan

The U.S. Department of Energy vitrification facilities currently employ glass property-composition models to ensure processability of waste streams and acceptability of the final glass products. The efficiency (e.g., process flexibility, reduced down time, and reduced cost) of waste vitrification is directly tied to the size of the waste processing envelope. To increase the size of the processing envelope, a larger database was developed. The database will improve the prediction accuracy of glass properties, leading to higher waste loadings, higher waste throughput, broader process flexibility, and reduced mission life. Some of the data in this expanded database has insufficient quality assurance (QA) rigor for use in nuclear facility operation and glass qualification. A plan was developed to qualify high-value data under the appropriate QA rigor for use at the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant’s High-Level Waste (HLW) Facility. This qualification plan first compares the data coverage over the composition region of interest to Hanford HLW by property. Those studies that significantly improve the data coverage in the Hanford HLW glass composition region were prioritized for qualification activities. Qualification methods including QA equivalence, peer review, data corroboration, and confirmatory testing have been assigned to each high-priority study.

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

Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling to Facilitate Qualification of Stack Sampling Probe Location

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling was used to help evaluate modifications to a radiological effluent stack and assist with establishing a stack sampling location that met the mixing criteria for qualification. Requirements for stack sampling location are listed in the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-2021 standard. Modeling was performed to help develop a suitable design for increasing building ventilation for the radiological effluent stack. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-2021 criteria for the air monitoring probe location are that the coefficient of variation of velocity uniformity, gaseous tracer uniformity, and particulate tracer uniformity must be less than or equal to 20%. Furthermore, no point in the sampling location may have a gaseous tracer concentration that varies from the mean concentration by more than 30%. Additionally, the flow angle at the sampling location must not be more than 20 degrees. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-2021 standard allows for models (physical or computational) to be employed to perform the full suite of qualification tests, followed by a more limited set of verification tests on the actual stack to qualify the stack sampling location. Here, a series of computational model simulations were employed to evaluate the stack qualification criteria. Significant time and re-source savings are achieved using CFD modeling. CFD modeling demonstrated that the stack meets the criteria at the sample probe location. Verification tests were performed on the modified stack to measure the velocity uniformity and flow angle at the stack sampling location, and results demonstrated that the CFD model results may be used to support the qualification of the stack sampling location.

Air Monitoring↗
NASA NTRS1994

BSA Delta Qualification 2, volume 3, book 1

This report, presented in three volumes, provides the results of a two-motor Delta Qualification 2 program conducted in 1993 to certify the following enhancements for incorporation into booster separation motor (BSM) flight hardware: vulcanized-in-place nozzle aft closure insulation; new iso-static ATJ bulk graphite throat insert material; adhesive EA 9394 for bonding the nozzle throat, igniter grain rod/centering insert/igniter case; deletion of the igniter adapter insulator ring; deletion of the igniter adapter/igniter case interface RTV; and deletion of Loctite from igniter retainer plate threads. The enhancements above directly resulted from (1) the BSM total quality management (TQM) team initiatives to enhance the BSM producibility, and (2) the necessity to qualify new throat insert and adhesive systems to replace existing materials that will not be available. Testing was completed at both the component and motor levels. Component testing was accomplished to screen candidate materials (e.g., throat materials, adhesive systems) and to optimize processes (e.g., aft closure insulator vulcanization approach) prior to their incorporation into the test motors. Motor tests -- consisting of two motors, randomly selected by USBI's on-site quality personnel from production lot AAY, which were modified to accept the enhancements -- were completed to provide the final qualification of the enhancements for incorporation into flight hardware. Volume 3 book 1 provides supporting documentation to the analyses and plans of testing the two Delta Qualification units including thermal cycling planning/data acceptance records, environmental test procedures and pretest temperature conditioning history, Delta Qualification test plan, and specification SE0837 -- mix acceptance test specification.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

Options and Risk for Qualification of Electric Propulsion System

Electric propulsion vehicle systems envelop a wide range of propulsion alternatives including solar and nuclear, which present unique circumstances for qualification. This paper will address the alternatives for qualification of electric propulsion spacecraft systems. The approach taken will be to address the considerations for qualification at the various levels of systems definition. Additionally, for each level of qualification the system level risk implications will be developed. Also, the paper will explore the implications of analysis verses test for various levels of systems definition, while retaining the objectives of a verification program. The limitations of terrestrial testing will be explored along with the risk and implications of orbital demonstration testing. The paper will seek to develop a template for structuring of a verification program based on cost, risk and value return. A successful verification program should establish controls and define objectives of the verification compliance program. Finally the paper will seek to address the political and programmatic factors, which may impact options for system verification.

Bailey, Michelle↗
NASA NTRS2007

Space Flight Requirements for Fiber Optic Components; Qualification Testing and Lessons Learned

"Qualification" of fiber optic components holds a very different meaning than it did ten years ago. In the past, qualification meant extensive prolonged testing and screening that led to a programmatic method of reliability assurance. For space flight programs today, the combination of using higher performance commercial technology, with shorter development schedules and tighter mission budgets makes long term testing and reliability characterization unfeasible. In many cases space flight missions will be using technology within years of its development and an example of this is fiber laser technology. Although the technology itself is not a new product the components that comprise a fiber laser system change frequently as processes and packaging changes occur. Once a process or the materials for manufacturing a component change, even the data that existed on its predecessor can no longer provide assurance on the newer version. In order to assure reliability during a space flight mission, the component engineer must understand the requirements of the space flight environment as well as the physics of failure of the components themselves. This can be incorporated into an efficient and effective testing plan that "qualifies" a component to specific criteria defined by the program given the mission requirements and the component limitations. This requires interaction at the very initial stages of design between the system design engineer, mechanical engineer, subsystem engineer and the component hardware engineer. Although this is the desired interaction what typically occurs is that the subsystem engineer asks the components or development engineers to meet difficult requirements without knowledge of the current industry situation or the lack of qualification data. This is then passed on to the vendor who can provide little help with such a harsh set of requirements due to high cost of testing for space flight environments. This presentation is designed to guide the engineers of design, development and components, and vendors of commercial components with how to make an efficient and effective qualification test plan with some basic generic information about many space flight requirements. Issues related to the ~ physics of failure, acceptance criteria and lessons learned will also be discussed to assist with understanding how to approach a space flight mission in an ever changing commercial photonics industry.

Ott, Melanie N.↗
NASA NTRS2007

On the Use of 3dB Qualification Margin for Structural Parts on Expendable Launch Vehicles

The standard random vibration qualification test used for Expendable Launch Vehicle components is Maximum Predicted Environment (MPE) + 6dB for a duration of 4 times the service life of the part. This can be a severe qualification test for these fatigue-sensitive structures. This paper uses flight data from several launch vehicles to establish that reducing the qualification approach to MPE+3dB for the duration of the peak environment (1x life) is valid for fatigue-sensitive structural components. Items that can be classified as fatigue-sensitive are probes, ducts, tubing, bellows, hoses, and any non-functional structure. Non-functional structure may be flight critical or carry fluid, but it cannot include any moving parts or electronics. This reduced qualification approach does not include primary or secondary structure which would be exclusively designed by peak loads, either transient or quasi-static, that are so large and of so few cycles as to make fatigue a moot point.

Yunis, Isam↗
NASA NTRS2012

Qualification of Engineering Camera for Long-Duration Deep Space Missions

Qualification and verification of advanced electronic packaging and interconnect technologies, and various other types of hardware elements for the Mars Exploration Rover s Spirit and Opportunity (MER)/Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) flight projects, has been performed to enhance the mission assurance. The qualification of hardware (engineering camera) under extreme cold temperatures has been performed with reference to various Mars-related project requirements. The flight-like packages, sensors, and subassemblies have been selected for the study to survive three times the total number of expected diurnal temperature cycles resulting from all environmental and operational exposures occurring over the life of the flight hardware, including all relevant manufacturing, ground operations, and mission phases. Qualification has been performed by subjecting above flight-like hardware to the environmental temperature extremes, and assessing any structural failures or degradation in electrical performance due to either overstress or thermal cycle fatigue. Engineering camera packaging designs, charge-coupled devices (CCDs), and temperature sensors were successfully qualified for MER and MSL per JPL design principles. Package failures were observed during qualification processes and the package redesigns were then made to enhance the reliability and subsequent mission assurance. These results show the technology certainly is promising for MSL, and especially for longterm extreme temperature missions to the extreme temperature conditions. The engineering camera has been completely qualified for the MSL project, with the proven ability to survive on Mars for 2010 sols, or 670 sols times three. Finally, the camera continued to be functional, even after 2010 thermal cycles.

Ramesham, Rajeshuni↗
NASA NTRS2013

Discrete Data Qualification System and Method Comprising Noise Series Fault Detection

A Sensor Data Qualification (SDQ) function has been developed that allows the onboard flight computers on NASA s launch vehicles to determine the validity of sensor data to ensure that critical safety and operational decisions are not based on faulty sensor data. This SDQ function includes a novel noise series fault detection algorithm for qualification of the output data from LO2 and LH2 low-level liquid sensors. These sensors are positioned in a launch vehicle s propellant tanks in order to detect propellant depletion during a rocket engine s boost operating phase. This detection capability can prevent the catastrophic situation where the engine operates without propellant. The output from each LO2 and LH2 low-level liquid sensor is a discrete valued signal that is expected to be in either of two states, depending on whether the sensor is immersed (wet) or exposed (dry). Conventional methods for sensor data qualification, such as threshold limit checking, are not effective for this type of signal due to its discrete binary-state nature. To address this data qualification challenge, a noise computation and evaluation method, also known as a noise fault detector, was developed to detect unreasonable statistical characteristics in the discrete data stream. The method operates on a time series of discrete data observations over a moving window of data points and performs a continuous examination of the resulting observation stream to identify the presence of anomalous characteristics. If the method determines the existence of anomalous results, the data from the sensor is disqualified for use by other monitoring or control functions.

Fulton, Christopher↗
NASA NTRS2010

Reliability and Qualification of Hardware to Enhance the Mission Assurance of JPL/NASA Projects

Packaging Qualification and Verification (PQV) and life testing of advanced electronic packaging, mechanical assemblies (motors/actuators), and interconnect technologies (flip-chip), platinum temperature thermometer attachment processes, and various other types of hardware for Mars Exploration Rover (MER)/Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), and JUNO flight projects was performed to enhance the mission assurance. The qualification of hardware under extreme cold to hot temperatures was performed with reference to various project requirements. The flight like packages, assemblies, test coupons, and subassemblies were selected for the study to survive three times the total number of expected temperature cycles resulting from all environmental and operational exposures occurring over the life of the flight hardware including all relevant manufacturing, ground operations, and mission phases. Qualification/life testing was performed by subjecting flight-like qualification hardware to the environmental temperature extremes and assessing any structural failures, mechanical failures or degradation in electrical performance due to either overstress or thermal cycle fatigue. Experimental flight qualification test results will be described in this presentation.

PRTs↗
NASA NTRS2009

One NASA PEM qualification standard : comparison of JPL and GSFC standards

Although use of Plastic Encapsulated Microelectronics (PEMs) in space applications is discouraged, their use is mandatory for selected applications involving the need for advanced technology and small packages. Various space systems designers and manufacturers have developed methods to qualify and screen PEMs. In general, each procedure is different. The purpose of this fiscal year’s investigation is to initiate a process to coordinate the efforts at various NASA centers to eventually develop a One NASA method. Part of this activity includes sharing of test data and PEM qualification methodologies. Various experts in the NASA community were identified and contacted to support this effort. We were successful in finding such experts at GSFC, APL and the Constellation office (Orion and Ares). All these experts provided typical qualification program plans. Since funding was severely restricted, it was decided to concentrate on coordination activity with GSFC. GSFC is planning a new version of IEEE-INST-002 section applying to PEMs. The GSFC expert (Dr. Alexander Teverovsky) provided a detailed assessment of the differences between the planned new version of IEEE-INST-002 and the JPL-D-19426 (JPL guideline) as well as a summary rationale for the decisions within the IEEE-INST-002. It should be noted that GSFC’s assessment of IEEE-INST-002 in the area of PEMs is not finalized. JPL is also considering changes in PEM qualification methodologies based on test data from recent qualification testing for their newer Projects (MSL, Grail, Juno). A spreadsheet delineating the differences between the JPL standard and the GSFC standard is presented.

Cooper, Mark↗