SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “REVIEWS”
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.
Structure-property relationships in flexible and rigid lignin-derived polyurethane foams: A review
Not provided.
Mechanical stimulation of gasless reaction in inorganic systems: A mini review
Not provided.
Solid-state NMR of plant and fungal cell walls: A critical review
Not provided.
Decoupled electrochemical water-splitting systems: a review and perspective
Decoupled electrochemical water splitting systems separate the hydrogen- and oxygen-evolution reactions spatially, temporally, or both, resulting in modular, flexible, and intrinsically safe electrolysis.
Beyond conventional batteries: a review on semi-solid and redox targeting flow batteries-LiFePO{sub 4} as a case study.
Clean and sustainable energy is becoming increasingly crucial to tackle the current energy crisis. However, the intermittent nature of renewable energy sources presents a challenge for their effective implementation. Redox flow batteries (RFBs) have emerged as a promising solution to this problem, as they can help enhance the stability of grid networks and promote the use of renewable energy sources. RFBs are highly modular and scalable systems that can be customized to meet the power and energy requirements of different renewable energy plants. Moreover, they offer several advantages over conventional battery technologies, including cost and safety concerns. However, conventional RFBs have limited energy densities due to the low solubility of their active species in electrolyte. To overcome this limitation, semi-solid (SSRFBs) and redox targeting (RTFBs) flow batteries have been proposed. These systems feature high concentrations of active species and impressive energy densities, making them highly attractive for renewable energy applications. LiFePO4 (LFP) is a highly promising active material for semi-solid and targeting flow batteries. One of the key advantages of LFP is its low raw materials cost, as it is composed of Earth-abundant elements such as iron and phosphorus. This makes it an attractive option for large-scale battery production. The recent developments in SSRFBs and RTFBs using LFP as catholyte hold great promise for the future of sustainable energy storage. The combination of LFP's low cost, safety, durability, and high energy density with the modularity and scalability of flow battery systems make for a compelling solution to the challenges of intermittent renewable energy sources. Ongoing research and development in this area will likely yield even further improvements in the performance and efficiency of LFP-based flow batteries, opening exciting new possibilities for sustainable energy storage.
Review—Materials Science Predictions of Thermal Runaway in Layered Metal-Oxide Cathodes: A Review of Thermodynamics
Not Available
Erratum: Review—Materials Science Predictions of Thermal Runaway in Layered Metal-Oxide Cathodes: A Review of Thermodynamics [ J. Electrochem. Soc. , 167, 090543 (2020)]
It was found that corrections are required for the published article cited in the title of this document. A revised Table VII is shown below, in which the values for S (entropy of the liquid solvents) have been corrected for consistency with the original sources. No corrections were required for the enthalpies, but they are included for completeness. The cited references and table footnotes found in the originally published version of Table VII remain applicable.
RHIC Recovery Review Report [See also: RHIC Recovery Review - Hybrid Meeting (11/28/2023) - Indico.bnl.gov]
Just after 12:30 PM on August 1, 2023, the RHIC superconducting magnet quench system triggered and consequently the energy dump resistors were switched into the blue ring quad and dipole circuits and the interaction region DX dipole heaters were switched on. This was a spurious trip (there was no actual quench) and was not unusual as the outdoor summer temperature often caused the quench detectors to cause such trips. The collider control room notified the on-duty cryogenics technical staff of the quench trip. A short time later building 1004B cryogenic low-helium and valve box insulation vacuum failure alarms were observed. The cryogenics technical staff observed the cryo-relief line from the blue ring valve box was exhausting helium outside the building.
Summary of Technical Peer Review on the Risk Assessment Framework proposed in Report INL/RPT-22-68656 for Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems
This report summarizes the peer review activities initiated by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) during fiscal year (FY) 2023 for the evaluation and improvement of the methodology developed under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program, Risk Informed Systems Analysis (RISA) Pathway, digital instrumentation and control (DI&C) risk assessment project. In FY 2019, the RISA Pathway initiated a project to develop a risk assessment strategy for delivering a technical basis to support effective and secure DI&C technologies for digital upgrades/designs. A framework was proposed for this strategy, which aims to (1) provide a best-estimate, risk-informed capability to quantitatively and accurately estimate the risk impact of plant modernization, considering the introduction of high safety-significant safety-related (HSSSR) DI&C systems, (2) support and supplement existing risk-informed DI&C design guides by providing quantitative risk information and evidence, (3) offer a capability of design architecture evaluation of various DI&C systems, (4) assure the long-term safety and reliability of HSSSR DI&C systems, and (5) reduce uncertainty in costs and support integration of DI&C systems in the plant. The R&D efforts of this project from FY 2019 through FY 2022 were focused on methodology improvement and demonstration of the proposed framework for the risk assessment and design optimization of safety-critical DI&C systems. Collaborations with the nuclear industry have been initiated to support the reliability and risk assessment of their DI&C systems by using the proposed framework. In FY 2023, the framework has reached to a point for a technical peer review and obtain stakeholder feedback. This peer review activity includes coordination of the reviews performed by a group of industry stakeholders, documentation of the peer review suggestions, providing resolutions and responses to the peer review comments. The objective of this technical peer review is to obtain representative feedback on the proposed framework to improve the technical qualities of its methodology and readiness for deployment to the industry. Feedback may identify potential areas for improvement and further development. The Subject Matter experts were invited to review the latest project report documenting the methodology developed in the project and provide evaluations of the technical qualities of the proposed framework and relevant methods. The reviewed project report is “An Integrated Framework for Risk Assessment of High Safety-significant Safety-related Digital Instrumentation and Control Systems in Nuclear Power Plants: Methodology and Demonstration” INL/RPT-22-68656 (short as “INL/RPT-22-68656” in this report). This peer review report documents the technical questions provided for technical peer review and introduces the technical peer reviewers from the stakeholders including nuclear utilities, regulators, and universities. Comments from technical peer reviewers and the resolutions and responses to these comments are outlined. Insights and lessons learned from the technical peer review are summarized in conclusions and future work. The primary audience of this report are DI&C designers, engineers, and probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) practitioners. This includes stakeholders, such as the nuclear utilities and regulators who consider the deployment and upgrade of DI&C systems, DI&C software developers and reviewers, and cybersecurity specialists.
Proposed guidance for preparing and reviewing a molten salt non-power production or utilization facility application
Development of non-power molten salt reactors (MSRs) are under consideration to further establish an MSR experience base, support the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.43(e), and provide any additional analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. Guidance provided in this report is based on MSRs operating with liquid fuel (i.e., fuel dissolved within a molten salt). These reactors, unless owned by the DOE or DOD, will require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Standard review plan (SRP) guidance for large light water reactors (LWRs) is available in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; Light Water Reactor (LWR) Edition. However, NRC staff observed that NUREG-0800 is very cumbersome to apply to non-power reactors “because of the great differences in complexity and hazards between non-power reactors and nuclear power plants.” Therefore, a program to develop performance-based guidance applicable to non-power reactors was initiated. In 1996, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, was published. Part 1, the format and content guide, suggests a uniform format for presenting information in non-power reactor applications that is acceptable to the NRC staff, but conformance with the format and content is not required. Part 2, the SRP, ensures the quality and uniformity of the staff review of an application. Unfortunately, the application guidelines and SRP do not provide adequate guidance for all advanced non-LWR technologies and applications. This discrepancy eventually led to the 2012 development of interim staff guidance (ISG) for NUREG-1537, which includes criteria for describing and reviewing aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs). Specifically, NUREG-1537 ISG, 2012 expanded the original document to address three areas: 1. updated criteria for heterogeneous non-power reactors, 2. criteria for licensing AHRs, and 3. criteria for licensing a Part 50-licensed isotope production facility. In 2015, the US Department of Energy (DOE) opted to build on the AHR NUREG-1537 ISG experience by performing a gap analysis of the guidance that would be used to license a non-power MSR. MSRs represent one of the advanced non-LWR technologies selected by DOE for development through a multiyear cost share award with Southern Company Services. Under this Advanced Reactor Concepts 2015 (DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts [ARC] 15) award program, the DOE tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate the guidance changes that the NRC may need to consider when licensing an MSR non-power reactor. ORNL staff, with support from Boston Government Services, LLC, focused on five system-related chapters in NUREG-1537 that were considered most relevant to inform the effort that would be required for a non-power MSR applicant. ORNL documented this review in a technical report, ORNL/TM-2018/834, Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Non-Power Reactor License Applications (NUREG-1537). The report was subsequently shared with industry and the NRC. The 2018 review was limited in scope, focusing on key system chapters based on the expected significance of each chapter relative to expected differences in addressing advanced non-LWR technologies, specifically non-power MSRs, compared with heterogeneously fueled non-power reactors. In the ORNL report, proposed generic adaptations were suggested for the following NUREG-1537 chapters: Chapter 4, “Reactor Description”; Chapter 5, “Reactor Coolant Systems”; Chapter 6, “Engineered Safety Features”; Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems”; Chapter 11, “Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management” The inclusion of Chapter 11 in the previous review effort was intended to provide guidance for categorizing the waste-handling process for an MSR operating with homogenous fuel. The introductions from Parts 1 and 2 of the 2012 NUREG-1537 ISG provide guidance for the application and review of production facilities. After a period of operation, non-power MSRs with homogenous fuel will include gaseous and soluble fission products. The gaseous fission products will be collected and held for decay in an off-gas system. There might also be an initiative to polish or filter the soluble fission products in the fuel salt by some mechanical or chemical means. The treatment and handling of fission products in the non-power MSR fuel salt and the description of this process in the safety analysis report (SAR) must be very precise to avoid the waste treatment facility being construed as a co-located special nuclear material (SNM) fuel cycle facility (see Section 2.3 of this report). Subsequent to the release of ORNL/TM-2018/834, NRC staff expressed a desire to continue the regulatory gap analysis that was begun in that report. This would provide additional clarity and information addressed in certain sections of the original report, while also providing new guidance on certain topics not addressed in the original report. This revision would benefit the NRC staff reviewing applications involving non-power MSR designs and would help developers understand how the NRC staff might approach the review of such applications. The focus of this report is to provide infrastructure support to the NRC staff for the regulatory review of non-power MSRs.
Human-System Interface Design Review Guidelines
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff reviews the human factors engineering (HFE) aspects of nuclear power plants in accordance with the Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants: LWR Edition). The Human Factors Engineering Program Review Model (NUREG-0711, Revision 3, issued November 2012) contains detailed design review procedures. As part of the review process, the interfaces between plant personnel and the plant's systems and components are evaluated for conformance with HFE guidelines. This document, Human-System Interface Design Review Guidelines (NUREG-0700, Revision 3), provides the guidelines necessary to perform this evaluation. The review guidelines address the physical and functional characteristics of human-system interfaces (HSIs). Because these guidelines only address the HFE aspects of design and not other related considerations, such as instrumentation and control and structural design, they are referred to as HFE guidelines. In addition to the review of actual HSIs, the NRC staff can use the NUREG-0700 guidelines to evaluate a design-specific HFE guidelines document or style guide. The HFE guidelines are organized into four basic parts, which are divided into sections. Part I contains guidelines for the basic HSI elements: information displays, user-interface interaction and management, and analog displays and controls. These elements are used as building blocks to develop HSI systems to serve specific functions. Part II contains the guidelines for reviewing the following HSI systems: alarm system, safety parameter display system, group-view display system, soft control system, computer-based procedure system, automation system, and communication system. Part III provides guidelines for the review of workstations and workplaces. Part IV provides guidelines for the review of HSI support (i.e., maintainability of digital systems and degraded HSI and instrumentation and control conditions).
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Technical Input for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Review of the 2017 Edition of ASME Section III, Division 5, ‘High Temperature Reactors’
To assist the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in its decision making on endorsement of the American Society for Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section III, Division 5 (2017 Edition) for development of advanced non-light water reactors, the following Division 5 portions were reviewed: Article HBB-2000 Material; Article HCB-2000 Material; Article HGB-2000 Material; Mandatory Appendix HBB-I-14 Tables and Figures; and, Nonmandatory Appendix HBB-U Guidelines for Restricted Material Specifications to Improve Performance in Certain Service Applications. In addition to the 2017 Edition, the same parts of the 2019 Edition have also been reviewed as indicated in various sections of the report. This review was conducted by a collaboration of national laboratory and private sector participants with significant industrial experience, including some heavy lifting and deep diving from Clarus Consulting, LLC., all intended to achieve an objective, independent, and practical perspective. The report provides recommendations, descriptions of the evaluation methods, and the source references for the data used. To build confidence required for endorsement of the Code, this review was conducted as a verification and validation of the above Code contents. The objective of verification is to ensure that the Code is free of error – direct or implied; contains the information needed for its use, including proper coverage of the Code-specified materials for the intended application, and completeness and adequacy of references to other portions of the Code. The objective of validation is to authenticate that the Code tabulations and graphs represent design inputs consistent with what are determined using rules and methods specified by the Code. The authentication process used data that were assembled and/or generated independent of Code development, while the methods of analysis followed Code-specified methods where appropriate. The designated portions for this review cover the five alloys codified for high temperature reactor applications in Division 5, i.e. 316 SS, 304 SS, 800H, 2¼Cr-1Mo, and 9Cr-1Mo-V, regarding their general requirements, permitted specifications and design stress intensity values for pressure-retaining applications, deterioration in service, fatigue acceptance test, permissible weld materials, tensile and yield strength, expected minimum stress-to-rupture values (including for Alloy 718), weld stress rupture factors, permissible materials for bolting use, and restricted specifications in certain service applications. Additionally, stress intensity values for bolting materials including 316 SS, 304 SS and alloy 718 were reviewed. Analysis and discussion are also provided on contents outside of these designated Code portions where it was deemed relevant and necessary to develop a technically sound understanding of issues relating to the designated portions. Due to unavailability of sufficient test data on welds during the review period, the weld stress rupture factors in Tables HBB-I-10.14A to E, which cover a total of ten tables for the five alloys welded with twenty-eight different weld metals (some with similar properties), have been deferred to a future review effort. The review identified mainly two types of issues. The first type includes instances where the Code is found factually incomplete or incorrect, such as obsolete materials specifications listings, missing tabulation of stresses for bolting. Changes to the Code are recommended in these cases. The second type of issue includes instances where the Code tabulations and graphs are found to be less conservative than the review analysis results. In these cases, recommendations are made for further review and consideration where the difference in conservatism exceeds 10%, which is our threshold for questioning technical adequacy, meriting a risk assessment by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and/or reactor designers. It is noted that this effort has been executed using all available data and established methods of analysis, including methods and criteria specified and used by the Code. As such, the findings that are presented in quantitative detail, in a format for convenient comparison with the Code, and with identification of where further review is recommended, should provide a sound technical basis for decisions about quantifying the implications of the reduced design margins and technical adequacy/inadequacy to form a basis for conditioning specific Code tabulation values on endorsement. Recommendations for specific changes to the Code, however, entail design conservatism considerations beyond the scope of this review effort, and are not made in this report.
The role of peer review and science for advancing public understanding
We live in a time of rapid change. The Covid-19 pandemic has united the world to understand and develop solutions to protect the health and wellbeing of society. At the same time, access to information on the internet and social media has exploded. People are exposed to information with many claims. Some of the information is relevant and accurate. A significant fraction may be inaccurate, biased, and potentially dangerous. With Covid-19, the information might point to cures that are toxic or risks that are not relevant. The scientific community has developed a process to develop and convey knowledge. The validation of results and their interpretation is critical to advancing knowledge. The core of the scientific process is based on developing a hypothesis-driven concept, designing and executing an experimental approach to prove or disprove the hypothesis, conducting a statistical analysis of the results to confirm their validity, and interpreting their meaning and impact. When their work is completed the scientist prepares to publish the work. Publication requires peer review. Hypotheses, experimental approaches, results, and interpretation of results are independently and anonymously reviewed by a scientific peer. The reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the field. The peer review process is essential for the integrity of the scientific process. Without a robust scientific process, society cannot discriminate between validated results and interpretations and biased, inaccurate, and potentially dangerous conjecture. With inaccurate science society and policy makers may make poor decisions that could hurt people and the world around them. While scientists should not censor information available to the public, scientists have a responsibility to inform the public. We must articulate what the scientific process is and why it is essential when considering the validity of information. Scientist are responsible for pointing out when public information has not been vetted through a scientific process and therefore cannot be considered conclusive. Scientists are responsible for highlighting information that has been generated and vetted with the scientific process. Over time, our goal is for the public to value the scientific process based on peer review. The public could become enlightened to the necessity for peer review to support decisions and action. Scientists need to contribute to advancing public knowledge. When invited to serve as a peer reviewer, scientists have a responsibility to contribute to the process. We all are extremely busy making peer review a distraction. While peer review does not directly benefit our own work and career, it benefits our chosen field of science. This is very important for the research area that our journal, Water-Energy Nexus, is focusing on. We cover the convergence of science and technology integrating across large spatial ranges (micro to global) in environmental pollution and the balance of remediation issues with energy use. Water-Energy Nexus wants to provide scientists with a platform for scientific debate and discussion on this rich and complicated topic. With the manuscripts submitted to WEN cover integrated research topics across a broad range of subjects from environment sciences through energy engineering, the role of peer review is essential. Peer review on a new submission to WEN should not be biased towards a specific science field. It should be done considering the complex nature of issues in the water-energy nexus. Scientists need to contribute to the public dialog. To accomplish these goals, we need to be honest, accurate, articulate, and use understandable language. The impact of WEN is very diverse affecting society in many ways. The scientific audience for WEN is diverse and readers may not fully understand the content of the papers outside their research expertise. Therefore, scientists, especially those who want to contribute to WEN, should work with communications specialists to convey message to benefit society. The audience includes the general public and researchers outside the author’s core specialty. While the peer-reviewed journal article is the cornerstone of our careers and critical for advancing scientific knowledge, a general interest story could benefit society even more. The author cannot lose sight that our work has two audiences, the science community, and more importantly, our family, friends, neighbors, and policy makers.
2024 Annual Merit Review - Vehicle Technologies Office: Results Report
The 2024 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO) Annual Merit Review (AMR) was held June 3-6, 2024, in Arlington, Virginia. The review encompassed work done by VTO: 226 individual activities were reviewed by 218 reviewers. Exactly 888 individual review responses were received for the VTO technical reviews. Each project was reviewed by 2–7 independent reviewers, with a majority of projects having 4–5 reviewers. The objective of the meeting was to review the accomplishments and plans for VTO over the previous 12 months, and provide an opportunity for industry, government, and academia to give inputs to DOE with a structured and formal methodology. The meeting also provided attendees with a forum for interaction and technology information transfer.
Deep Learning Systems for Increased Safeguards Surveillance Review Productivity
Nuclear safeguards inspectors expend significant time and maintain intense focus in reviewing video surveillance for safeguards relevant events. To increase efficiency and reduce the time burden of safeguards inspectors performing surveillance data review, this paper presents a novel deep learning (DL) systems concept to integrate generalized DL models into the safeguards surveillance review workflow. The Agency is investigating several DL algorithms for object recognition, localization, tracking, and flagging relevant activities. The project team is working closely with nuclear safeguards inspectors to identify review use cases (based on specific safeguards objectives) and collect their associated requirements. We focused on CANDU and LWR Nuclear Power Plants (NPPs) and their associated dry storage areas as these present a particularly heavy burden on the inspector surveillance review process due to the number of these facilities under safeguards worldwide. Initial DL algorithm results on safeguards data are promising. Using a convolutional neural network, the team attained a mean average precision (mAP) of 92.9% identifying and localizing spent fuel (SF) casks from a 475 surveillance image dataset. Further, the team had initial success in training a recurrent neural network to identify reactor area activities in video clips, successfully indicating when SF casks enter or exit a pool. We discuss how such DL algorithms would be integrated into the Next Generation Surveillance Review (NGSR) software application. Another issue impacting review productivity is the long time inspectors may have to wait when running these algorithms in NGSR. We present a concept to pre-process remotely collected surveillance data with DL models as the data arrives to IAEA headquarters so that results are already available when starting a new review in NGSR. The proposed DL system concept shows a pathway and workflow for increasing an inspector’s surveillance review productivity by quickly and accurately identifying declared and undeclared safeguards relevant objects and activities in large quantities of surveillance imagery data.
Review of Particle Physics
The Review summarizes much of particle physics and cosmology. Using data from previous editions, plus 3,324 new measurements from 878 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons and the recently discovered Higgs boson, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as supersymmetric particles, heavy bosons, axions, dark photons, etc. Particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as Higgs Boson Physics, Supersymmetry, Grand Unified Theories, Neutrino Mixing, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Cosmology, Particle Detectors, Colliders, Probability and Statistics. Among the 120 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised, including a new review on High Energy Soft QCD and Diffraction and one on the Determination of CKM Angles from B Hadrons. The Review is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 includes the Summary Tables and 98 review articles. Volume 2 consists of the Particle Listings and contains also 22 reviews that address specific aspects of the data presented in the Listings. The complete Review (both volumes) is published online on the website of the Particle Data Group (pdg.lbl.gov) and in a journal. Volume 1 is available in print as the PDG Book. A Pariicle Physics Booklet with the Summary Tables and essential tables, figures, and equations from selected review articles is available in print and as a web version optimized for use on phones as well as an Android app.
Review of Particle Physics
Abstract The Review summarizes much of particle physics and cosmology. Using data from previous editions, plus 2,143 new measurements from 709 papers, we list, evaluate, and average measured properties of gauge bosons and the recently discovered Higgs boson, leptons, quarks, mesons, and baryons. We summarize searches for hypothetical particles such as supersymmetric particles, heavy bosons, axions, dark photons, etc. Particle properties and search limits are listed in Summary Tables. We give numerous tables, figures, formulae, and reviews of topics such as Higgs Boson Physics, Supersymmetry, Grand Unified Theories, Neutrino Mixing, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Cosmology, Particle Detectors, Colliders, Probability and Statistics. Among the 120 reviews are many that are new or heavily revised, including a new review on Machine Learning, and one on Spectroscopy of Light Meson Resonances. The Review is divided into two volumes. Volume 1 includes the Summary Tables and 97 review articles. Volume 2 consists of the Particle Listings and contains also 23 reviews that address specific aspects of the data presented in the Listings. The complete Review (both volumes) is published online on the website of the Particle Data Group (pdg.lbl.gov) and in a journal. Volume 1 is available in print as the PDG Book. A Particle Physics Booklet with the Summary Tables and essential tables, figures, and equations from selected review articles is available in print, as a web version optimized for use on phones, and as an Android app.