Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “DOCUMENTATION”

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 847 records · Page 47
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2014

Generation IV benchmarking of TRISO fuel performance models under accident conditions: Modeling input data

This document presents the benchmark plan for the calculation of particle fuel performance on safety testing experiments that are representative of operational accidental transients. The benchmark is dedicated to the modeling of fission product release under accident conditions by fuel performance codes from around the world, and the subsequent comparison to post-irradiation experiment (PIE) data from the modeled heating tests. The accident condition benchmark is divided into three parts: the modeling of a simplified benchmark problem to assess potential numerical calculation issues at low fission product release; the modeling of the AGR-1 and HFR-EU1bis safety testing experiments; and, the comparison of the AGR-1 and HFR-EU1bis modeling results with PIE data. The simplified benchmark case, thereafter named NCC (Numerical Calculation Case), is derived from ''Case 5'' of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Coordinated Research Program (CRP) on coated particle fuel technology [IAEA 2012]. It is included so participants can evaluate their codes at low fission product release. ''Case 5'' of the IAEA CRP-6 showed large code-to-code discrepancies in the release of fission products, which were attributed to ''effects of the numerical calculation method rather than the physical model''[IAEA 2012]. The NCC is therefore intended to check if these numerical effects subsist. The first two steps imply the involvement of the benchmark participants with a modeling effort following the guidelines and recommendations provided by this document. The third step involves the collection of the modeling results by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and the comparison of these results with the available PIE data. The objective of this document is to provide all necessary input data to model the benchmark cases, and to give some methodology guidelines and recommendations in order to make all results suitable for comparison with each other. The participants should read this document thoroughly to make sure all the data needed for their calculations is provided in the document. Missing data will be added to a revision of the document if necessary.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Proposed Risk-Informed Seismic Hazard Periodic Reevaluation Methodology for Complying with DOE Order 420.1C

Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities must comply with DOE Order 420.1C Facility Safety, which requires that all such facilities review their natural phenomena hazards (NPH) assessments no less frequently than every ten years. The Order points the reader to Standard DOE-STD-1020-2012. In addition to providing a discussion of the applicable evaluation criteria, the Standard references other documents, including ANSI/ANS-2.29-2008 and NUREG-2117. These documents provide supporting criteria and approaches for evaluating the need to update an existing probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). All of the documents are consistent at a high level regarding the general conceptual criteria that should be considered. However, none of the documents provides step-by-step detailed guidance on the required or recommended approach for evaluating the significance of new information and determining whether or not an existing PSHA should be updated. Further, all of the conceptual approaches and criteria given in these documents deal with changes that may have occurred in the knowledge base that might impact the inputs to the PSHA, the calculated hazard itself, or the technical basis for the hazard inputs. Given that the DOE Order is aimed at achieving and assuring the safety of nuclear facilities—which is a function not only of the level of the seismic hazard but also the capacity of the facility to withstand vibratory ground motions—the inclusion of risk information in the evaluation process would appear to be both prudent and in line with the objectives of the Order. The purpose of this white paper is to describe a risk-informed methodology for evaluating the need for an update of an existing PSHA consistent with the DOE Order. While the development of the proposed methodology was undertaken as a result of assessments for specific SDC-3 facilities at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and it is expected that the application at INL will provide a demonstration of the methodology, there is potential for general applicability to other facilities across the DOE complex. As such, both a general methodology and a specific approach intended for INL are described in this document. The general methodology proposed in this white paper is referred to as the “seismic hazard periodic review methodology,” or SHPRM. It presents a graded approach for SDC-3, SDC-4 and SDC-5 facilities that can be applied in any risk-informed regulatory environment by once risk-objectives appropriate for the framework are developed. While the methodology was developed for seismic hazard considerations, it can also be directly applied to other types of natural hazards.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

Proposed Risk-Informed Seismic Hazard Periodic Reevaluation Methodology for Complying with DOE Order 420.1C

Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear facilities must comply with DOE Order 420.1C Facility Safety, which requires that all such facilities review their natural phenomena hazards (NPH) assessments no less frequently than every ten years. The Order points the reader to Standard DOE-STD-1020-2012. In addition to providing a discussion of the applicable evaluation criteria, the Standard references other documents, including ANSI/ANS-2.29-2008 and NUREG-2117. These documents provide supporting criteria and approaches for evaluating the need to update an existing probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA). All of the documents are consistent at a high level regarding the general conceptual criteria that should be considered. However, none of the documents provides step-by-step detailed guidance on the required or recommended approach for evaluating the significance of new information and determining whether or not an existing PSHA should be updated. Further, all of the conceptual approaches and criteria given in these documents deal with changes that may have occurred in the knowledge base that might impact the inputs to the PSHA, the calculated hazard itself, or the technical basis for the hazard inputs. Given that the DOE Order is aimed at achieving and assuring the safety of nuclear facilities—which is a function not only of the level of the seismic hazard but also the capacity of the facility to withstand vibratory ground motions—the inclusion of risk information in the evaluation process would appear to be both prudent and in line with the objectives of the Order. The purpose of this white paper is to describe a risk-informed methodology for evaluating the need for an update of an existing PSHA consistent with the DOE Order. While the development of the proposed methodology was undertaken as a result of assessments for specific SDC-3 facilities at Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and it is expected that the application at INL will provide a demonstration of the methodology, there is potential for general applicability to other facilities across the DOE complex. As such, both a general methodology and a specific approach intended for INL are described in this document. The general methodology proposed in this white paper is referred to as the “seismic hazard periodic review methodology,” or SHPRM. It presents a graded approach for SDC-3, SDC-4 and SDC-5 facilities that can be applied in any risk-informed regulatory environment once risk-objectives appropriate for the framework are developed. While the methodology was developed for seismic hazard considerations, it can also be directly applied to other types of natural hazards.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2016

GEN-IV Benchmarking of Triso Fuel Performance Models under accident conditions modeling input data

This document presents the benchmark plan for the calculation of particle fuel performance on safety testing experiments that are representative of operational accidental transients. The benchmark is dedicated to the modeling of fission product release under accident conditions by fuel performance codes from around the world, and the subsequent comparison to post-irradiation experiment (PIE) data from the modeled heating tests. The accident condition benchmark is divided into three parts: • The modeling of a simplified benchmark problem to assess potential numerical calculation issues at low fission product release. • The modeling of the AGR-1 and HFR-EU1bis safety testing experiments. • The comparison of the AGR-1 and HFR-EU1bis modeling results with PIE data. The simplified benchmark case, thereafter named NCC (Numerical Calculation Case), is derived from “Case 5” of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Coordinated Research Program (CRP) on coated particle fuel technology [IAEA 2012]. It is included so participants can evaluate their codes at low fission product release. “Case 5” of the IAEA CRP-6 showed large code-to-code discrepancies in the release of fission products, which were attributed to “effects of the numerical calculation method rather than the physical model” [IAEA 2012]. The NCC is therefore intended to check if these numerical effects subsist. The first two steps imply the involvement of the benchmark participants with a modeling effort following the guidelines and recommendations provided by this document. The third step involves the collection of the modeling results by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) and the comparison of these results with the available PIE data. The objective of this document is to provide all necessary input data to model the benchmark cases, and to give some methodology guidelines and recommendations in order to make all results suitable for comparison with each other. The participants should read this document thoroughly to make sure all the data needed for their calculations is provided in the document. Missing data will be added to a revision of the document if necessary. 09/2016: Tables 6 and 8 updated. AGR-2 input data added

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2017

Comparison of the Three NIF Ablators

Indirect drive implosion experiments on NIF have now been performed using three different ablator materials: glow discharge polymer (GDP) or CH, high density carbon (HDC, which we also refer to as diamond), and sputtered beryllium (Be). It has been appreciated for some time that each of these materials has specific advantages and disadvantages as an ICF ablator.[1-4] In light of experiments conducted on NIF in the last few years, how do these ablators compare? Given current understanding, is any ablator more or less likely to reach ignition on NIF? Has the understanding of their respective strengths and weaknesses changed since NIF experiments began? How are those strengths and weaknesses highlighted by implosion designs currently being tested or planned for testing soon? This document aims to address these questions by combining modern simulation results with a survey of the current experimental data base. More particularly, this document is meant to fulfill an L2 Milestone for FY17 to “Document our understanding of the relative advantages and disadvantages of CH, HDC, and Be designs.” Note that this document does not aim to recommend a down-selection of the current three ablator choices. It is intended only to gather and document the current understanding of the differences between these ablators and thereby inform the choices made in planning future implosion experiments. This document has two themes: (i) We report on a reanalysis project in which post-shot simulations were done on a common basis for layered shots using each ablator. This included data from keyholes, 2D ConA, and so forth, from each campaign, leading up to the layered shots. (“Keyholes” are shots dedicated to measuring the shock timing in a NIF target, as described in Ref. 5. “2DConAs” are backlit implosions in which the symmetry of the implosion is measured between about half and full convergence, as described in Ref. 6.) This set of common-basis postshot simulations is compared to the respective shots. Each was then scaled to a “full NIF” experiment that could be done using the respective ablators at full NIF power and/or energy, and these scaled-up designs were simulated in detail. (ii) The report also contains a general survey of experimental and simulated results as pertinent to comparing and evaluating the three ablators.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Engineering Analysis Baseline Model Requirements

The purpose of this document is to set requirements for the development, documentation, implementation, and maintenance of engineering analysis baseline models used by the Advanced Engineering and Analysis group to model and simulate systems. The intended audience of this document is the Engineering Technology and Design division Advanced Engineering and Analysis group—in particular the baseline model owners and users—and the Group Leaders and members of the Systems Engineering groups. Section 1 presents a discussion of general concepts related to engineering analysis models and baseline models, including definitions of common terms used in this requirements document. It also presents the purpose and intentions of creating and using baseline models and exposes some underlying assumptions about what baseline models are supposed to be. Section 2 presents requirements on the general categories of: the Advanced Engineering and Analysis Group Leader and the baseline model owner; parts, materials, and load cases; the process of generating and using the model; and how the baseline model will be stored, maintained, and documented. This document presents requirements on the baseline model as well as some aspects of the development process and the people responsible for the development; it does not address how the results of simulations utilizing these models will be used to make assessments

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2019

Improvements to Bison Validation Base for LWR Fuel

The Bison fuel performance code is being developed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to analyze a wide range of fuel forms and operating conditions with the flexibility to conduct simulations in 1D through 3D geometries. Bison plays an important role in the development of advanced fuel with improved accident tolerance for existing light water reactors (LWRs), the improved understanding of mechanisms in fuel designs in a wider range of operating conditions, and the facilitation of future development of fuel for advanced reactor designs. Additionally, industry interest in advanced fuels has also driven Bison development for advanced fuels in the last few years. All of these factors combine to create a potential increase of new Bison users. These new users will potentially be interested in the Bison LWR validation base for examples of Bison's capabilities and how to use Bison. Current users also rely on the Bison validation base as a demonstration of the best practices settings and material behavioral models. Bison, both through direct updates to the Bison source code and to the nearly daily changes and improvements in the underlying MOOSE framework source code, undergoes nearly continuous changes. It is necessary that these source code changes are reflected with updated input files in the Bison validation base. Periodic updates of the validation case input files should also be accompanied by a review and revision of the validation case documentation on which our users rely. Therefore our efforts under this milestone were guided by two objectives: (1) Update the Bison LWR validation input files to use current Bison simulation settings, and (2) Enhance the ease-of-use for Bison through improved documentation These objectives build on the goals identified FY18 CASL milestone reports. During FY18 we addressed issues with the robustness of Bison and identified a need to migrate the assessment suite to the more reliable tensor mechanics module system and set a goal of standardizing the Bison input files. The FY18 CASL milestone report on updates to the Bison documentation system listed continued development of user-focused guides and examples along with revisions to the validation case documentation as future development goals. During FY19 we have separated these two objectives into four different focus areas for our work on this milestone. Our first two focus areas target the existing Bison validation suite: update the existing LWR validation cases and the accompanying documentation. The second two focus areas center on adding new capabilities: a new Bison LWR validation case and expansion of user support documentation. In the following report each of these four focus areas are discussed as a separate section. We conclude the report with a summary of potential future work to build on the efforts of this year.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2019

Reporting Verification of BOP Shear Ram Capability: Requirements and Good Practices on Reporting Blowout Preventer (BOP) Shear Ram Capability for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Operations

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) Well Control Rule (Subpart G)1 became effective on July 28, 2016. This rule is part of the BSEE regulations pertaining to well control equipment used for oil and gas operations on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). More recently BSEE issue a proposed rule to amend portions of the 2016 well control rule. This proposed rule (now implemented) appeared in the Federal Register on May 18, 2018. This report was prepared late in the public comment period for the current rule and intended is a sample of desirable documentation of blind shear ram shear testing and associated regulatory requirements either in place or anticipated at the time of preparation. In accordance with this original rule and the proposed revisions, BSEE requests specific information regarding the capabilities of blind shear rams (BSR) in the Blowout Preventer (BOP). This information is required prior to beginning any operation involving the use of any BOP. More specifically, Title 30 CFR 250.732(b) of these regulations requires documentation of shear testing demonstrating the shearing and sealing capabilities of the BOP BSR. Such documentation is consistent with and complementary to other documentation verifying the designs of individual well control components and the overall BOP system. Verification demonstrates performance and reliability of the equipment based on a testing process that is repeatable and reproducible.2 This document, an annotated outline of verification documentation, arises from the combination of regulations and good practices concerning how to report BOP shear ram tests and third-party verification of BSR capability to support BSEE’s regulatory role.

03 NATURAL GAS↗
DOE OSTI2015

New Science Opportunities Enabled by LCLS-II X-Ray Lasers

This document attempts to capture the most compelling new science opportunities that are enabled by the unique capabilities of the new LCLS-II X-ray laser facility, namely: soft and tender X-rays (0.25 to 5 keV) at high repetition rates (up to 1 MHz) and hard X-rays (up to 25 keV) at 120 Hz. Many compelling areas of science have been identified by the scientific community, through a series of workshops over the past several years, where LCLS-II offers the potential to significantly advance our understanding. This document is not intended to be comprehensive of all the science to be pursued at the future LCLS facility. In particular, it does not capture important ongoing science that will continue to exploit the existing capabilities of the present LCLS facility. Nevertheless, this document will help to establish a scientific foundation for the new facility (encompassing present LCLS capabilities and new LCLS-II capabilities), and will inform LCLS strategic planning and investments over the next 5-10 years. The emphasis of this document is on identifying broad scientific opportunities, elucidating their potential impact, and providing a first-order link between these opportunities and LCLS-II capabilities. Brief descriptions are provided for various experimental approaches to be used, and novel new approaches to be developed, along with select examples of required optics and instruments. However, this document is not intended to capture all the optics and instrumentation requirements. Similarly it does not provide a detailed plan for instrumentation design or for any associated research and development that might be required. Balancing the scientific opportunities and impact, with instrumentation needs, available resources, and infrastructure, will be part of the LCLS planning process which this document will help to inform.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

MACCS (MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System) User Guide

The MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS) is used by Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and various national and international organizations for probabilistic consequence analysis of nuclear power accidents. This User Guide is intended to assist analysts in understanding the MACCS/WinMACCS model and to provide information regarding the code. This user guide version describes MACCS Version 3.10.0. Features that have been added to MACCS in subsequent versions are described in separate documentation. This User Guide provides a brief description of the model history, explains how to set up and execute a problem, and informs the user of the definition of various input parameters and any constraints placed on those parameters. This report is part of a series of reports documenting MACCS. Other reports include the MACCS Theory Manual, MACCS Verification Report, Technical Bases for Consequence Analyses Using MACCS, as well as documentation for preprocessor codes including SecPop, MelMACCS, and COMIDA2. PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT The NUREG does not contain information collection requirements and, therefore, is not subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 USC 3501, et seq.). PUBLIC PROTECTION NOTIFICATION The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request for information or an information collection requirement unless the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control number. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Contributions to this User Guide were received from NRC and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) project managers, technical experts, and code authors dedicated to the production of a valuable resource for the MACCS user community. Instructions and guidance included herein were developed over many years and include advancements in the code that provide users the ability to develop complex consequence modeling scenarios. WinMACCS and many of the early MACCS developments were due to vision of an earlier Project Manager, Jocelyn Mitchell. Jonathan Barr and AJ Nosek also contributed to the development of this report. The current NRC Project Manager, Salman Haq, provided the leadership to ensure this document was completed. Several other NRC and Sandia staff provided insights supporting development of the MACCS code and of this document.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Commercial Grade Dedication Example Report for a Generic Sodium Pool-Type Fast Reactor Application

In the U.S., a key component of the commercialization of advanced reactors is completion of a license application, which must ultimately be approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The approval of the license application by the NRC is contingent on satisfactory demonstration of the design basis and the response of the advanced reactor design to transient and accident scenarios using accepted codes and methods. This report describes the qualification and dedication requirements that the advanced reactor safety analysis system software SAS4A/SASSYS-1 are expected to need to fulfill to be used for sodium-cooled pool-type fast reactor licensing. The qualification and dedication requirements are identified through performance critical characteristics and evaluation model acceptance criteria representative of the advanced reactor design considered for licensing. This document captures, additionally, the verification process developed to demonstrate that the software fulfills the qualification and dedication requirements for a generic sodium-cooled pool-type fast reactor as part of the commercial grade dedication process. Like most software that has primarily existed in the research and development space, the most significant challenge facing SAS4A/SASSYS-1 for use in a licensing framework is the availability of a documentation basis describing the code pedigree. SAS4A/SASSYS-1 has been used for licensing of the fast flux test facility (FFTF) and the JOYO sodium-cooled fast reactor in Japan, as well as the design of the CRBR Plant. However, the historical verification and validation (V&V) activities supporting SAS4A/SASSYS-1 development do not align with modern software quality assurance (SQA) and V&V requirements. Two approaches to use of SAS4A/SASSYS-1 in a commercial licensing framework have been identified: commercial-grade dedication (CGD) and software qualification. The methods and requirements prescribed in the ASME NQA-1-2008/2009 Standard and Regulatory Guide 1.203 on the evaluation model development and assessment process (EMDAP) have been used as guidance to define the CGD and qualification processes, respectively. A qualification and dedication requirements matrix has been developed which utilizes fundamental software verification. In this process, software verification is defined as a software quality process aimed at defining software requirement specifications, developing software design documentation, and performing and documenting acceptance testing of the code against requirements. A key element of software qualification and dedication includes determination of software acceptance with respect to critical characteristics relevant to the functional requirements of the software. To assist with identification of cross-cutting transient phenomena and functional requirements, domestic SFR vendor designs have been reviewed to identify a reference SFR design. For this report, the reference design is defined as a pool-type reactor with metal alloy fuel, a liquid-metal intermediate heat transport system, and passive decay heat rejection systems. Given this reference, a series of high-level cross-cutting phenomena was identified for a general class of single-fault undercooling or reactivity insertion transients that scopes the design basis space, with the goal of assisting with prioritization of documentation development efforts for key transient models in SAS: 1) Reactivity feedback response prior to scram; 2) System-wide thermal inertia; 3) Transition in natural circulation flow regime in heat removal systems; 4) Decay heat generation; 5) Steady-state fuel characterization; 5) Clad/fuel behavior at elevated temperatures; 6) Point kinetics and decay heat; 7) Pump coastdown behavior; 8) Core flow redistribution in loss of forced convection; 9) Pool stratification. As a demonstration of CGD of SAS4A/SASSYS-1 for a sodium pool reactor, a software qualification and dedication gap analysis as it relates to code documentation has been performed. This effort leverages the framework established as part of the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 SQA Program. This CGD demonstration provides a framework that vendors can build upon to demonstrate the applicability of the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 software for licensing a sodium-cooled pool-type fast reactor.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

ICSBEP Benchmark Template

The purpose of this document is to demonstrate the ability of LATEX to create an ICSBEP benchmark evaluation. Creating a large document in LATEX offers many benefits, such as automatic numbering of items such as tables and figures, and easier placement of objects in the page. Additionally, it is easier to have multiple styles of pages in the same document, and in general the handling of large documents (which evaluations very commonly are) is not problematic. The formatting of this document is meant to conform to both the standards of the document and formatting guide and established practices in order to make the creation of new evaluations a more streamlined process. This will also help reduce the benchmark-to-benchmark variation in style.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Super-localisation of a point-like emitter in a resonant environment: Correction of the mirage effect

In this paper, we show that it is possible to overcome one of the fundamental limitations of super-resolution microscopy: the necessity to be in an optically homogeneous environment. Using recent modal approximation results from [ 10 , 7 ], we show, as a proof of concept, that it is possible to recover the position of a single point-like emitter in a known resonant environment from far-field measurements, with a precision two orders of magnitude below the classical Rayleigh limit. The procedure does not involve solving any partial differential equation, is computationally light (optimisation in \begin{document}$ \mathbb{R}^d $\end{document} with \begin{document}$ d $\end{document} of the order of \begin{document}$ 10 $\end{document} ) and is therefore suited for the recovery of a very large number of single emitters.

Mathematics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Pathways to IEC Standards for Heliostat Design Qualification and Site Acceptance in Central Receiver CSP Applications

This paper surveys the existing landscape of standards relevant to heliostats, identifies their gaps, and proposes a path forward to a comprehensive set of heliostat guidelines, technical specifications, and standards under the framework of International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) TC 117. Gaps in existing guidelines and standards are surveyed using a three-tiered taxonomy: component-level, heliostat-level, and field-level. At each level, the gap analysis is followed by a proposal for a coordinated path forward on the development of standards. At the component level, advances in the understanding of wind loading should inform a technical specification for drives and structures. Reflectors require consolidation of measurement guidelines into existing standards documents. Communications & controls require technical standards to inform their selection and secure implementation. At the heliostat level, IEC 62817 (solar trackers) adequately characterizes drive systems, structures, and electronics, but requires adaptation to heliostats' use patterns, operating modes, and expected life cycles. IEC 62817 does not address heliostat beam quality and pointing accuracy, but the process for determining both is elaborated in the SolarPACES Guideline for Heliostat Performance Testing. This SolarPACES document requires two main modifications: adaptation to IEC language and inclusion of testing after heliostats which have undergone accelerated weathering and mechanical cycling (to understand performance degradation). At the field level, IEC 62862-4-2 addresses the function and control of heliostat fields but does not cover the statistically rigorous testing of heliostat groups, or field performance factors like security and soiling. The addition of documents under IEC-62862-4 is proposed to address this gap.

beam↗
DOE OSTI2011

Raptor: An Enterprise Knowledge Discovery Engine Version 2.0

The Raptor Version 2.0 computer code uses a set of documents as seed documents to recommend documents of interest from a large, target set of documents. The computer code provides results that show the recommended documents with the highest similarity to the seed documents. Version 2.0 was specifically developed to work with SharePoint 2007 and MS SQL server.

Source record↗
DOE OSTI2017

Electronic Derivative Classifier/Reviewing Official

The electronic Derivative Classifier, Reviewing Official (eDC/RO) is a web based document management and routing system that reduces security risks and increases workflow efficiencies. The system automates the upload, notification review request, and document status tracking of documents for classification review on a secure server. It supports a variety of document formats (i.e., pdf, doc, docx, xls, xlsx, xlsm, ppt, pptx, vsd, vsdx and txt), and allows for the dynamic placement of classification markings such as the classification level, category and caveats on the document, in addition to a document footer and digital signature.

Harris, Joshua C↗
DOE OSTI2016

NDMAS implementation and data qualification for accident tolerant fuel experiments

In order to meet quality and regulatory requirements associated with the U.S. Department of Energy Accident Tolerant Fuels (ATF) experiments, all data and documentation associated with ATF component fabrication, characterization, traceability, testing and post irradiation examination are being managed using the Nuclear Data Management and Analysis System (NDMAS). NDMAS melds commercial off-the-shelf software to provide the full range of needed functionality. The core component of NDMAS is the SAS Enterprise Business Intelligence software, which provides data manipulation, statistical and graphical capabilities, and delivery of live content to web pages. Content delivery to both Idaho National Laboratory researchers and external users via a web interface is managed using SharePoint, which is access-controlled. Additionally, scripts, macros, and commercial wrappers may be used or written by the NDMAS team to control interfaces between SAS and the structured query language server, where much of the data reside. ATF experiment data and documentation stored in the NDMAS database may be utilized to support Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing of ATF concepts for commercial Light Water Reactor demonstration. Therefore, Data Qualification Plans are being developed to screen and tag all document and data input for ATR water loop testing, Transient Reactor Testing (TREAT), and post irradiation examination. A project-wide document library has been created in the ATF NDMAS SharePoint Site for general unrestricted document and information access. Restricted libraries have also been created to allow individual customer access to restricted documents. Data from ATR water loop instrumented lead experimentation, TREAT, and post-irradiation examination will be available to program participants on the SharePoint site as they are collected. This offers a unique capability for team collaboration while these tests are being conducted. (authors)

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Integrated Operations for Nuclear: Work Reduction Opportunity Demonstration

Integrated Operations for Nuclear: Work Reduction Opportunity Demonstration The DI BCA document also identifies specific, digitally enabled WRO categories for further study. These were selected as most relevant by Reference Plant personnel from a larger list of WRO areas identified across the nuclear industry as captured INL/RPT-21-64134, “Process for Significant Nuclear Work Function Innovation Based on Integrated Operations Concepts.” This ION WRO demonstration report was developed to provide illustrative, specific, and actionable direction for intertwined PTPG changes associated with digital modernization efforts. The coordinated changes in these areas are intended to maximize safe plant operational and economic performance. This includes enabling WROs associated with detailed configuration, implementation, and use of digital systems and how they are supported over their lifecycle. Illustrating this direction through a minimum set of advanced technology examples establishes a model PTPG framework that can be leveraged across the spectrum of nuclear plant digital modernization efforts going forward. This document addresses many related concepts. To promote an integrated understanding of the topics that make up this work, this document contains an extensive set of internal hyperlinks. This set includes hyperlinks to page numbers in the table of contents, section numbers, items in lists, figures, tables, and references to other documents within the report. When hovering the cursor above hyperlinked text in Adobe, the cursor will change from “ ” to “ .” When the “ ” appears, a left mouse click will take the reader to the referenced location in the document. To return to the original location in the document, the reader need only press and hold the “alt” button on the keyboard and then simultaneously press the “<” directional key on the keyboard.

42 ENGINEERING↗