SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “VERIFICATION”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 91 records · Page 5

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2018

Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) Structural Verification Unit (SVU) Vibration Test

This presentation describes the vibration test campaign of the Structural Verification Unit for the Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) mission The Structural Verification Unit test campaign served multiple purposes including the qualification of the instrument primary structure, verification of the structure's stiffness, Aperture Control Mechanism assembly level verification, and validation of the control approach for protoflight instrument vibration testing. Testing included three axes of sine burst, random, and sine vibration excitation. This test sequence required a high number of response instrumentation sensors that included tri-axial accelerometers and tri-axial force gauges. Multiple response limiting methods that included acceleration, force, and moment measurements were used to ensure the safety of the flight hardware. The lessons and specific test details learned on the structural verification unit test campaign will reduce test risks for the upcoming instrument-level vibration tests.

Structural Verification Unit↗

DOE OSTI2023

Bison Verification and Validation Activities for TRISO

Numerical modeling and simulation (M&S) tools play a key role in the research, development, and overall safety assessments of next-generation nuclear energy systems. One such tool, Bison, is a nuclear fuel performance code that is applicable to many fuel forms (e.g., light-water reactor fuel, oxide and metallic fuel for fast reactors, tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) fuel, and plate fuel), and it uses the finite element method to model the thermo- mechanical response of nuclear fuels. One fuel form widely utilized in Generation-IV high-temperature gas-cooled and fluoride- salt-cooled nuclear reactor concepts is TRISO fuel. Recently, Bison’s capabilities were significantly expanded to enable it to model the performance of TRISO particles and compacts. It is important that Bison’s computational results be reliable and predictive, since this code is used to inform high-consequence decisions. The various processes developed to address this issue generally entail two fundamental steps: verification and validation (V&V). Verification ensures that the code functions correctly and is reliable. Code/solution verification, code benchmark, and software quality assurance exercises are examples of verification activities. On the other hand, validation is the process of assessing a code’s capability to accurately model physical problems. Comparisons between code results and experiments quantify the validation level. Application of V&V procedures is crucial to the development of computational tools that are free of coding mistakes and can accurately represent reality. The current study presents an overview of Bison V&V activities relevant to the TRISO fuel concept, which include code/solution verification exercises, CRP-6 Benchmark—a Coordinated Research Program through the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—exercises, and validation exercises with the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR)- 1/2/3/4 experiment series.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Verification and Validation of the PLTEMP/ANL Code for Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Experimental and Test Reactors

The document compiles in a single volume the verification and validation works done for the PLTEMP/ANL code during the years of its development and improvement. The verification of sixteen capabilities of the PLTEMP/ANL Version 4.3 code that were identified by research reactor analysts as frequently used in their thermal-hydraulic analysis are described and documented. Each chapter of the document deals with the verification or validation of a specific model. The model verification is usually done by comparing the code with hand calculation, Microsoft spreadsheet calculation, or Mathematica calculation. The model validation is done by comparing the code with experimental data or a widely tested code like the RELAP5 code. In addition, some PLTEMP/ANL verification works that are available in the open literature are simply referenced and not included in the document. PLTEMP/ANL has been used in conversion safety analysis reports of several US and foreign research reactors that have been licensed and converted. A list of such reactors is given.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Improvements to CTF Code Verification and Unit Testing (FY2020)

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy created its first Energy Innovation Hub, which focuses on improving Light Water Reactors (LWRs) through Modeling and Simulation. This hub, named the Consortium for the Advanced Simulation of LWRs (CASL), attempts to characterize and understand LWR behavior under normal operating conditions and use any gained insights to improve their efficiency. In collaboration with North Carolina State University (NCSU), CASL has worked extensively on the thermal-hydraulic subchannel code Coolant Boiling in Rod Arrays—Three Field (COBRA-TF). The NCSU/CASL version of COBRA-TF has been rebranded as CTF. This document focuses on code verification test problems that ensure CTF converges to the correct answer for the intended application. The suite of code verification tests are mapped to the underlying conservation equations of CTF, and significant gaps are addressed. Convergence behavior and numerical errors are quantified for each of the tests. Tests that converge at the correct rate to the corresponding analytic solution are incorporated into the CTF automated regression suite. A new verification utility is created for this purpose, which enables code verification by generalizing the process. For problems that do not behave correctly, the results are reported but the problem is not included in the regression suite. In addition to verification studies, this document also quantifies the existing tests of constitutive models. A few existing gaps are addressed by adding new unit tests.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2021

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Lead Verification Test Suite

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 is a simulation tool used to perform deterministic analyses of anticipated events as well as design basis and beyond design basis accidents for advanced liquid-metal-cooled nuclear reactors. With its origin as SAS1A in the late 1960s, the SAS series of codes has been under continuous use and development for over forty-five years and represents a critical investment in safety analysis capabilities for the U.S. Department of Energy. Although SAS4A/SASSYS-1 was developed to support the analysis of any liquid-metal-cooled nuclear reactor, it has primarily been utilized to design and analyze Sodium Fast Reactors (SFRs). As a result, most of the verification basis for SAS4A/SASSYS-1 utilizes sodium as a coolant and geometry descriptions that are typical of a SFR facility. In this work, new verification problems are defined to extend the applicability of the SAS4A/SASSYS-1 verification basis into Lead Fast Reactor (LFR) design space. A review of the existing SAS4A/SASSYS-1 SFR verification test suite is performed to determine the number of test cases that are SFR specific. SFR specific test cases are replicated using lead as a coolant and system layouts that are representative of LFRs. This report provides definitions and reference solutions for seven new test cases that scope lead-specific features and capabilities of the software. For a verification test to be considered acceptable, comparisons of analytical solutions to SAS4A/SASSYS-1 predictions must produce negligible or justifiable errors. All LFR specific test cases are found to be acceptable.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

An Overview of Gemma FY20 Verification Activities

Gemma verification activities for FY20 can be divided into three categories: the development of specialized quadrature rules, initial progress towards the development of manufactured solutions for code verification, and automated code-verification testing. In the method-of-moments implementation of the electric-field integral equation, the presence of a Green’s function in the four-dimensional integrals yields singularities in the integrand when two elements are nearby. To address these challenges, we have developed quadrature rules to integrate the functions through which the singularities can be characterized. Code verification is necessary to develop confidence in the implementation of the numerical methods in Gemma. Therefore, we have begun investigating the use of manufactured solutions to more thoroughly verify Gemma. Manufactured solutions provide greater flexibility for testing aspects of the code; however, the aforementioned singularities provide challenges, and existing work is limited in rigor and quantity. Finally, we have implemented automated code-verification testing using the VVTest framework to automate the mesh refinement and execution of a Gemma simulation to generate mesh convergence data. This infrastructure computes the observed order of accuracy from these data and compares it with the theoretical order of accuracy to either develop confidence in the implementation of the numerical methods or detect coding errors.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2021

Code and Solution Verification Assessment of the CTF Thermal Hydraulic Subchannel Code

CTF is a thermal-hydraulics subchannel code jointly developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and North Carolina State University. Over the past seven years, the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL) has made a significant investment in developing CTF so it can be used to model light water reactors, including nominal operating conditions, departure from nucleate boiling analysis, and transients ranging from loss of flow to reactivity insertion accidents. In addition to implementing new modeling capabilities and developing the user input and output interface, extensive work has been performed to improve the code’s quality assurance program, resulting in a development process that conforms with NQA-1 requirements. The CASL program follows the Predictive Capability Maturity Model (PCMM) approach for assessing code quality, which emphasizes performing code verification(ensuring the code converges to the correct answer) and solution verification (ensuring the code converges for the intended application). Code and solution verification are used to identify uncertainty errors introduced by numerical approximations in the code and are important for demonstrating that the model is coded without error, which is an important aspect of the Best Estimate plus Uncertainty method. This paper presents a comprehensive overview of the code and solution verification testing that has been performed on CTF. A top-down approach is taken in which the intended CTF applications are presented, followed by the code features required for their modeling. These features are then linked to the applicable code and solution verification tests that demonstrate proper functioning. Past testing efforts are summarized, and new tests are added to help close gaps in the presented test matrix. Rather than performing “one-off” exercises, these tests are added to the automated CTF regression test suite to ensure continual code quality.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Verification and Validation of the PLTEMP/ANL Code for Thermal-Hydraulic Analysis of Experimental and Test Reactors (Code Version 4.3)

The document compiles in a single volume the verification and validation works done for the PLTEMP/ANL code during the years of its development and improvement. The verification of sixteen capabilities of the PLTEMP/ANL Version 4.3 code that were identified by research reactor analysts as frequently used in their thermal-hydraulic analysis are described and documented. Each chapter of the document deals with the verification or validation of a specific part of the software that calculates a specific phenomenon, e.g., channel flow calculation, coolant property calculation, heat transfer calculation, and flow instability calculation. The software verification work is usually done by comparing the code with hand calculation, Microsoft spreadsheet calculation, or Mathematica calculation. The software validation is done by comparing the code with experimental data or a widely tested code like the RELAP5 code. In addition, some PLTEMP/ANL verification works that are available in the open literature are simply referenced and not included in the document. PLTEMP/ANL has been used in conversion safety analysis reports of several US and foreign research reactors that have been licensed and converted. A list of such reactors is given.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Verification Testing For Solid-Element Material Models 11-19 in DYNA3D/ParaDyn

This technical report documents the creation and implementation of verification tests for solid-element material models 11 through 19 available in DYNA3D/ParaDyn. The verification tests covered all aspects of each material model, except for the Weibull distribution functionality in material models 15 and 19. General test cases were created to verify the elastic and plastic behavior of the material models. Other additional tests were developed to examine the intricacies of each material model. Each test involved the use a kinematic load case and specification of material parameters necessary to activate corresponding features of the material model. The load cases prescribed the full time history of the kinematic motion for the solid elements, and these loads are independent of the material model or element formulation. When possible, closed form solutions were then derived for each verification test in a continuum setting. The DYNA3D simulations for each test were carried out over a unit time interval, t ϵ [0, 1], and the as implemented DYNA3D response was compared to the closed form solutions evaluated at discrete points in time. A relative error measure was determined for each test to justify the proper implementation of the material model. The relative errors comparing the DYNA3D solution to the analytical solution were, in general, on the order of machine precision except where noted. This signifies the proper implementation of solid-element material models 11-19. In the development of these verification tests, six bugs were found and fixed in the source code. Additionally, this work generated eighteen DYNA3D input decks and answer extraction scripts in the DYNA3D/ParaDyn Software Quality Assurance test suite, which are comprised of a total of 285 solid-element tests. Testing for each material model utilizes two input decks and answer extraction scripts, where one focuses on the linear elastic response and the other examines the inelastic and remaining functionalities of the material model. In total, this work added 285 individual verification test problems in the DYNA3D/ParaDyn test suite.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Verification Testing of OLI Systems Mixed Solvent Electrolyte Model for the Na-K-Mg-Ca-H-Cl-SO 4 -OH-HCO 3 -CO 3 -CO 2 -H 2 ) System to High Ionic Strength at 25°C

This technical report summarizes model verification results and summary statistics for 41 evaporite mineral solubility cases evaluated by Savannah River National Laboratory using OLI Systems’ aqueous electrolyte thermodynamic modeling software. The 41 verification cases containing a total of 60 solubility curves comprise mineral solubility data from low to high ionic strength at 25°C for the eight-component system Na-K-Mg-Ca-H-Cl-SO 4 -OH-HCO 3 -CO 3 -CO 2 -H 2 O as reported by Harvie et al. (1984). Thermodynamic calculations were executed using OLI Systems’ Stream Analyzer computation module within the OLI Studio software platform (Ver. 11.0, Rev. 11.0.1.9). The Mixed Solvent Electrolyte (MSE) thermodynamic framework was chosen for this investigation because of its superiority in modeling high ionic-strength inorganic salt solutions and actinide redox chemistry and solubility, both of which are relevant to the geological repository conditions at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. Mineral solubility data in various inorganic salt solutions were digitized and extracted from figures generated by Harvie et al. (1984). For each of the 60 solubility curves, a case-specific chemistry model and input file were generated in OLI Studio using OLI Stream Analyzer and the MSE (H 3 O + ion) public databank provided by OLI Systems. Model simulation results were exported to Microsoft Excel to calculate summary statistics and to generate graphs comparing the OLI model predictions to the solubility data. Summary statistics include residuals (model – data) and concordance (accuracy × precision, where precision is indicated by the Pearson correlation coefficient and accuracy accounts for bias and scale differential). Private databanks were not developed, and activity coefficient model regressions were not performed to improve OLI model fits to the data. Of the 41 model verification plots, 83% have a mean of the percent residuals less than or equal to 25%. Similarly, 75% display a concordance greater than or equal to 0.75. Only seven of the 41 verification plots fail to show good agreement between the model and data. Of these seven, three are relevant to the WIPP repository because they involve the Mg-OH-Cl-SO 4 -CO 3 aqueous system. The remaining four address salt solubilities at the pH extremes (strong acid and strong base). It should be noted that in two of the three Mg-OH-Cl-SO 4 -CO 3 system cases, the regressed Harvie et al. (1984) solubility curve also deviated from the data. Lack of agreement between the OLI model-predicted solubility curves and the data is attributable to one or more of the following: specific solid species are not included in the OLI MSE databank; there is significant variation among the different solubility datasets chosen by Harvie et al. (1984); the OLI MSE model’s thermodynamic parameters were determined using different solubility datasets; and the activity coefficient parameters for certain relevant ion-ion and ion-molecule pairs have not been optimized via data regression. Two recommendations for future work are to (1) evaluate solubility data for the Mg-OH-Cl-SO 4 -CO 3 system at high ionic strength and, if necessary, develop a private OLI MSE database that includes missing species and, where necessary, regressed standard state properties and interaction parameters; (2) perform similar verification testing of the OLI model for actinide solubility data.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2024

Gamma Source Verification for GAMSRC and GAMSOR

Nuclear reactors that rely upon the fission reaction have two modes of thermal energy deposition in the reactor system: neutron absorption and gamma absorption. The gamma rays are typically generated by neutron capture reactions or during the fission process which means the primary driver of energy production is of course the neutron interactions. The GAMSOR program was first built in the mid 1980s to properly account for the gamma heating in an operating reactor core on core internals. The GAMSOR code is sequence of DIF3D calculations to compute the neutron and gamma flux and combine them to define both the neutron and gamma heating throughout the modeled domain. The goal of this manuscript is to present the software verification of GAMSOR. The first step of the GAMSOR sequence of calculations involves of a modified version of DIF3D (called DIF3D-GAMSOR) which generates a gamma source distribution for the follow-on DIF3D gamma transport calculation (step 2). This modified version of DIF3D increases the burden of maintenance and verification work on GAMSOR as one must reverify the DIF3D capabilities which is undesirable. Because the calculation of the gamma source is the only unique aspect of GAMSOR beyond the regular DIF3D capabilities, that part was put in a standalone code called GAMSRC such that one can use the verified DIF3D code in step 1 followed by GAMSRC to carry out the same GAMSOR calculation step. As a consequence, this manuscript is focused on verification of the gamma source files generated by GAMSRC. The verification of the modified version of DIF3D (DIF3D-GAMSOR) will be done less rigorously in that it will be verified that it produces the same output that GAMSRC does and thus GAMSRC is equivalent to GAMSOR on the problems studied here. Hand calculations and independent numerical calculations of the gamma source generation are used for the verification work. This work follows the same methodology of GAMSRC. As expected, the results agree well with those calculated by GAMSRC as will be shown.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Verification and Benchmarking of High Fidelity Physics Peat Smoldering Model

Peat fires are a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The estimates of these emissions currently contain major uncertainties, due to the difficulty of determining the mass of peat burned in a fire. To address these uncertainties, we develop a computational physics-based peat smoldering model, which will be leveraged for high-fidelity quantitative estimates of peat fire emissions relevant to climate change. We present the verification of the 2-D axisymmetric model, a first step towards developing a full 3-D model. Verification includes the solution verification against a literature model for the 0-D smoldering case and verification of the heat transfer problem in 1-D and 2-D. Also presented is the effect of reaction mechanism on the smoldering model, for which we found a relatively simple three-step reaction mechanism is able to capture key behavior. These verification results provide the foundation for moving forward with validation against experimental data of the 2-D model.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗

DOE OSTI2024

Multi-Rigor Agile Verification and Rapid Prototyping for Formally Verified Software

We propose a novel approach to developing formally verified systems through Multi-rigor Agile Verification. Multi-rigor Agile Verification is rooted in the hypothesis of Rigor Independence, that a system’s specification and verification architecture depend primarily on the system requirements to be verified, and they depend very little on the rigor level of the methods used to verify those requirements. Due to its iterative nature, Multi-rigor Agile Verification promises to mitigate many of the high upfront design costs experienced by formally verified systems and to deliver a better-architected, and thus better-trusted, system in the end. We then discuss the tooling needed to perform Multi-rigor Agile Verification and go in depth to build one of those tools, which directly generates executable prototype code from declarative formal specifications using the Maude rewrite-logic framework.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2024

Gamma Source Verification for GAMSRC and GAMSOR

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

FY20 Improvements to CTF Code Verification and Unit Testing

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Energy created its first Energy Innovation Hub, which focuses on improving Light Water Reactors (LWRs) through Modeling and Simulation. This hub, named the Consortium for the Advanced Simulation of LWRs (CASL), attempts to characterize and understand LWR behavior under normal operating conditions and use any gained insights to improve their efficiency. In collaboration with North Carolina State University (NCSU), CASL has worked extensively on the thermal-hydraulic subchannel code Coolant Boiling in Rod Arrays–Three Field (COBRA-TF). The NCSU/CASL version of COBRA-TF has been rebranded as CTF. This document focuses on code verification test problems that ensure CTF converges to the correct answer for the intended application. The suite of code verification tests are mapped to the underlying conservation equations of CTF, and significant gaps are addressed. Convergence behavior and numerical errors are quantified for each of the tests. Tests that converge at the correct rate to the corresponding analytic solution are incorporated into the CTF automated regression suite. A new verification utility is created for this purpose, which enables code verification by generalizing the process. For problems that do not behave correctly, the results are reported but the problem is not included in the regression suite. In addition to verification studies, this document also quantifies the existing tests of constitutive models. A few existing gaps are addressed by adding new unit tests.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

NASA NTRS1977

Space transportation system payload interface verification

The paper considers STS payload-interface verification requirements and the capability provided by STS to support verification. The intent is to standardize as many interfaces as possible, not only through the design, development, test and evaluation (DDT and E) phase of the major payload carriers but also into the operational phase. The verification process is discussed in terms of its various elements, such as the Space Shuttle DDT and E (including the orbital flight test program) and the major payload carriers DDT and E (including the first flights). Five tools derived from the Space Shuttle DDT and E are available to support the verification process: mathematical (structural and thermal) models, the Shuttle Avionics Integration Laboratory, the Shuttle Manipulator Development Facility, and interface-verification equipment (cargo-integration test equipment).

Everline, R. T.↗

NASA NTRS1983

Hierarchical Design and Verification for VLSI

The specification and verification work is described in detail, and some of the problems and issues to be resolved in their application to Very Large Scale Integration VLSI systems are examined. The hierarchical design methodologies enable a system architect or design team to decompose a complex design into a formal hierarchy of levels of abstraction. The first step inprogram verification is tree formation. The next step after tree formation is the generation from the trees of the verification conditions themselves. The approach taken here is similar in spirit to the corresponding step in program verification but requires modeling of the semantics of circuit elements rather than program statements. The last step is that of proving the verification conditions using a mechanical theorem-prover.

Shostak, R. E.↗

NASA NTRS1989

Multibody modeling and verification

A summary of a ten week project on flexible multibody modeling, verification and control is presented. Emphasis was on the need for experimental verification. A literature survey was conducted for gathering information on the existence of experimental work related to flexible multibody systems. The first portion of the assigned task encompassed the modeling aspects of flexible multibodies that can undergo large angular displacements. Research in the area of modeling aspects were also surveyed, with special attention given to the component mode approach. Resulting from this is a research plan on various modeling aspects to be investigated over the next year. The relationship between the large angular displacements, boundary conditions, mode selection, and system modes is of particular interest. The other portion of the assigned task was the generation of a test plan for experimental verification of analytical and/or computer analysis techniques used for flexible multibody systems. Based on current and expected frequency ranges of flexible multibody systems to be used in space applications, an initial test article was selected and designed. A preliminary TREETOPS computer analysis was run to ensure frequency content in the low frequency range, 0.1 to 50 Hz. The initial specifications of experimental measurement and instrumentation components were also generated. Resulting from this effort is the initial multi-phase plan for a Ground Test Facility of Flexible Multibody Systems for Modeling Verification and Control. The plan focusses on the Multibody Modeling and Verification (MMV) Laboratory. General requirements of the Unobtrusive Sensor and Effector (USE) and the Robot Enhancement (RE) laboratories were considered during the laboratory development.

Wiens, Gloria J.↗