Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Verification & Validation”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
NASA NTRS2007

Survey of Product-line Verification and Validation Techniques

This report presents the results from the first task of the SARP Center Initiative, 'Product Line Verification of Safety-Critical Software.' Task 1 is a literature survey of available techniques for product line verification and validation. Section 1 of the report provides an introduction to product lines and motivates the survey of verification techniques. It describes what is reused in product-line engineering and explains the goal of verifiable conformance of the developed system to its product-line specifications. Section 2 of the report describes six lifecycle steps in product-line verification and validation. This description is based on, and refers to, the best practices extracted from the readings. It ends with a list of verification challenges for NASA product lines (2.7) and verification enablers for NASA product lines (2.8) derived from the survey. Section 3 provides resource lists of related conferences, workshops, industrial and defense industry experiences and case studies of product lines, and academic/industrial consortiums. Section 4 is a bibliography of papers and tutorials with annotated entries for relevant papers not previously discussed in sections 2 or 3.

testing↗
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 OSTI2025

Verification and Validation of Open-Source Computational Fluid Dynamics Capabilities in MOOSE

The Multiphysics Object Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) advances predictive modeling in nuclear research by simplifying the application design process and making modeling more efficient and accessible to researchers and the broader community. Because of MOOSE’s critical role in the scientific computation field, verification and validation are important to evaluate the reliability and credibility of MOOSE’s code, simulations, and models. To assess MOOSE’s Navier Stokes module and turbulence models, the following verification and validation University of Manchester ERCOFTAC cases were simulated in MOOSE, and the results were compared: Case 032 Turbulent Flow in a 2D Channel Case 079 Natural Convection in an Enclosed Cavity

46 - INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AN↗
NASA NTRS2018

Methodologies for Verification and Validation of Space Launch System (SLS) Structural Dynamic Models: Appendices

Verification and validation (V&V) is a highly challenging undertaking for SLS structural dynamics models due to the magnitude and complexity of SLS subassemblies and subassemblies. Responses to challenges associated with V&V of Space Launch System (SLS) structural dynamics models are presented in Volume I of this paper. Four methodologies addressing specific requirements for V&V are discussed. (1) Residual Mode Augmentation (RMA). (2) Modified Guyan Reduction (MGR) and Harmonic Reduction (HR, introduced in 1976). (3) Mode Consolidation (MC). Finally, (4) Experimental Mode Verification (EMV). This document contains the appendices to Volume I.

Coppolino, Robert N.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Autonomy software verification and validation might not be as hard as it seems

The verification and validation of autonomy software is widely believed to be a challenging unsolved problem. To a certain extent this is true, but in this paper I argue that the problem is not nearly as severe as seems to be widely perceived. many of the perceived hard problems in autonomy software V&V also exist for traditional software, and can be solved using many of the same methods and techniques used for traditional spacecraft software. In particular, the problem of intractably large state spaces exists for any non-trivial software system.

Gat, Erann↗
NASA NTRS2022

NASA Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM) 3.1: Model Verification and Validation

The NASA Orbital Debris Engineering Model (ORDEM) 3.1 Model Verification and Validation (V&V) document accompanies the delivery of the latest ORDEM 3.1 model (Vavrin & Manis, 2019) and provides a detailed description of the V&V activities used to verify that the model was built correctly and validate the model against independent, real world sources of data obtained from sampling the orbital debris environment. This ORDEM 3.1 Model V&V document, along with the related ORDEM 3.1 Model Process document – which covers details of the mathematical, statistical, and physical basis of the model – are intended to inform credibility assessments, risk analyses, uncertainty characterizations, and other applications derived from use of the model by the ORDEM 3.1 user community.

Timothy Kennedy↗
DOE OSTI2021

Verification and validation of developed short-term forecasting models

Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) technologies provide an opportunity for leveraging data-driven algorithms to predict future nuclear power plant (NPP) operating conditions by using recorded plant process data. Successfully implementing these models can lead to cost-reducing, conditioned-based predictive maintenance through optimized maintenance schedules and a reduction of unnecessary maintenance activities. This report discusses the verification and validation of short-term forecasting processes (i.e., data cleaning, feature selection, model optimization, and forecasting) developed in previous reports. The verification and validation (V&V) process demonstrates the expected precision and accuracy when the ML model encounters new datasets from different systems. Shapley additive explanations were used as the primary means of feature selection across these different data set. Individual models were trained for each data set, then validated through a cross-validation procedure. In this report, two different ML models were tasked to predict variables from three different plant process data sets with varying prediction horizons. The results indicate that support vector regression (SVR) outperformed long short-term memory (LSTM) neural networks in regard to each data set and each prediction horizon in this study, but further tuning and optimization could improve long short-term memory results. However, each forecasting model showed reduced performance as the prediction horizon was extended from 1 hour to 1 day ahead. Research is ongoing to evaluate the optimal input variable space, which is based on a given set of process parameters, to further improve forecasting accuracy.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
NASA NTRS2000

The NPARC Alliance Verification and Validation Archive

The NPARC Alliance (National Project for Applications oriented Research in CFD) maintains a publicly-available, web-based verification and validation archive as part of the development and support of the WIND CFD code. The verification and validation methods used for the cases attempt to follow the policies and guidelines of the ASME and AIAA. The emphasis is on air-breathing propulsion flow fields with Mach numbers ranging from low-subsonic to hypersonic.

Slater, John W.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Turbulence Modeling Verification and Validation

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software that solves the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations has been in routine use for more than a quarter of a century. It is currently employed not only for basic research in fluid dynamics, but also for the analysis and design processes in many industries worldwide, including aerospace, automotive, power generation, chemical manufacturing, polymer processing, and petroleum exploration. A key feature of RANS CFD is the turbulence model. Because the RANS equations are unclosed, a model is necessary to describe the effects of the turbulence on the mean flow, through the Reynolds stress terms. The turbulence model is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in RANS CFD, and most models are known to be flawed in one way or another. Alternative methods such as direct numerical simulations (DNS) and large eddy simulations (LES) rely less on modeling and hence include more physics than RANS. In DNS all turbulent scales are resolved, and in LES the large scales are resolved and the effects of the smallest turbulence scales are modeled. However, both DNS and LES are too expensive for most routine industrial usage on today's computers. Hybrid RANS-LES, which blends RANS near walls with LES away from walls, helps to moderate the cost while still retaining some of the scale-resolving capability of LES, but for some applications it can still be too expensive. Even considering its associated uncertainties, RANS turbulence modeling has proved to be very useful for a wide variety of applications. For example, in the aerospace field, many RANS models are considered to be reliable for computing attached flows. However, existing turbulence models are known to be inaccurate for many flows involving separation. Research has been ongoing for decades in an attempt to improve turbulence models for separated and other nonequilibrium flows. When developing or improving turbulence models, both verification and validation are important steps in the process. Verification insures that the CFD code is solving the equations as intended (no errors in the implementation). This is typically done either through the method of manufactured solutions (MMS) or through careful step-by-step comparisons with other verified codes. After the verification step is concluded, validation is performed to document the ability of the turbulence model to represent different types of flow physics. Validation can involve a large number of test case comparisons with experiments, theory, or DNS. Organized workshops have proved to be valuable resources for the turbulence modeling community in its pursuit of turbulence modeling verification and validation. Workshop contributors using different CFD codes run the same cases, often according to strict guidelines, and compare results. Through these comparisons, it is often possible to (1) identify codes that have likely implementation errors, and (2) gain insight into the capabilities and shortcomings of different turbulence models to predict the flow physics associated with particular types of flows. These are valuable lessons because they help bring consistency to CFD codes by encouraging the correction of faulty programming and facilitating the adoption of better models. They also sometimes point to specific areas needed for improvement in the models. In this paper, several recent workshops are summarized primarily from the point of view of turbulence modeling verification and validation. Furthermore, the NASA Langley Turbulence Modeling Resource website is described. The purpose of this site is to provide a central location where RANS turbulence models are documented, and test cases, grids, and data are provided. The goal of this paper is to provide an abbreviated survey of turbulence modeling verification and validation efforts, summarize some of the outcomes, and give some ideas for future endeavors in this area.

Rumsey, Christopher L.↗
NASA NTRS2012

Cognitive Bias in the Verification and Validation of Space Flight Systems

Cognitive bias is generally recognized as playing a significant role in virtually all domains of human decision making. Insight into this role is informally built into many of the system engineering practices employed in the aerospace industry. The review process, for example, typically has features that help to counteract the effect of bias. This paper presents a discussion of how commonly recognized biases may affect the verification and validation process. Verifying and validating a system is arguably more challenging than development, both technically and cognitively. Whereas there may be a relatively limited number of options available for the design of a particular aspect of a system, there is a virtually unlimited number of potential verification scenarios that may be explored. The probability of any particular scenario occurring in operations is typically very difficult to estimate, which increases reliance on judgment that may be affected by bias. Implementing a verification activity often presents technical challenges that, if they can be overcome at all, often result in a departure from actual flight conditions (e.g., 1-g testing, simulation, time compression, artificial fault injection) that may raise additional questions about the meaningfulness of the results, and create opportunities for the introduction of additional biases. In addition to mitigating the biases it can introduce directly, the verification and validation process must also overcome the cumulative effect of biases introduced during all previous stages of development. A variety of cognitive biases will be described, with research results for illustration. A handful of case studies will be presented that show how cognitive bias may have affected the verification and validation process on recent JPL flight projects, identify areas of strength and weakness, and identify potential changes or additions to commonly used techniques that could provide a more robust verification and validation of future systems.

Larson, Steve↗
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↗
NASA NTRS2005

Development of Advanced Verification and Validation Procedures and Tools for the Certification of Learning Systems in Aerospace Applications

Adaptive control technologies that incorporate learning algorithms have been proposed to enable automatic flight control and vehicle recovery, autonomous flight, and to maintain vehicle performance in the face of unknown, changing, or poorly defined operating environments. In order for adaptive control systems to be used in safety-critical aerospace applications, they must be proven to be highly safe and reliable. Rigorous methods for adaptive software verification and validation must be developed to ensure that control system software failures will not occur. Of central importance in this regard is the need to establish reliable methods that guarantee convergent learning, rapid convergence (learning) rate, and algorithm stability. This paper presents the major problems of adaptive control systems that use learning to improve performance. The paper then presents the major procedures and tools presently developed or currently being developed to enable the verification, validation, and ultimate certification of these adaptive control systems. These technologies include the application of automated program analysis methods, techniques to improve the learning process, analytical methods to verify stability, methods to automatically synthesize code, simulation and test methods, and tools to provide on-line software assurance.

Jacklin, Stephen↗
DOE OSTI2020

Verification and Validation of High Explosive Reactive Burn Models Implemented in LANL's EAP and LAP Code Base

Reactive burn models represent a significant leap in high explosive (HE) modeling capability. The first generation of engineering models of HE detonation are called programmed burn models and they are largely based on the distance between a prescribed detonation point and each zone in a simulation. There have been many advancements to programmed burn models over the years and when the assumptions upon which they are based are met, a properly tuned programmed burn model can be highly accurate but if any of their assumptions is not met, as is the case for corner turning or weakly initiated HE burn, they will give the wrong answer. Reactive burn models represent an entirely new way of modeling HE burn. They use the local conditions of a zone – e.g. temperature, pressure or density – as calculated by a hydrocode to determine if and when the zone is going to detonate and if so, how rapidly. This difference opens up an entirely new set of capabilities for HE modeling. It makes it possible to accurately and predictively model phenomena like the effect of confinement and the formation of dead zones. Reactive burn models have seen sustained development effort at LANL for at least the last decade but several recent developments make it timely to transition reactive burn models from a research topic to a production tool. The main goal of this milestone is to facilitate and accelerate the adoption of reactive burn as a commonly available modeling option, with recommendations on the resolution that will be required and uncertainties associated with their modeling choices. To achieve this, we have performed verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification (UQ) assessments of AWSD and SURF/SURFplus in xRage and FLAG on a variety of different problems.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
NASA NTRS2005

Remote Sensing Product Verification and Validation at the NASA Stennis Space Center

Remote sensing data product verification and validation (V&V) is critical to successful science research and applications development. People who use remote sensing products to make policy, economic, or scientific decisions require confidence in and an understanding of the products' characteristics to make informed decisions about the products' use. NASA data products of coarse to moderate spatial resolution are validated by NASA science teams. NASA's Stennis Space Center (SSC) serves as the science validation team lead for validating commercial data products of moderate to high spatial resolution. At SSC, the Applications Research Toolbox simulates sensors and targets, and the Instrument Validation Laboratory validates critical sensors. The SSC V&V Site consists of radiometric tarps, a network of ground control points, a water surface temperature sensor, an atmospheric measurement system, painted concrete radial target and edge targets, and other instrumentation. NASA's Applied Sciences Directorate participates in the Joint Agency Commercial Imagery Evaluation (JACIE) team formed by NASA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency to characterize commercial systems and imagery.

Stanley, Thomas M.↗
DOE OSTI2024

ECAR-7300 Rev 1 Verification and Validation of MCNP6.2 for MARVEL Neutronic Analysis

This report documents the verification and validation (V&V) efforts of the Monte Carlo N-Particle transport code (MCNP) version 6.2 on the Sawtooth supercomputer for the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation (MARVEL) microreactor required for the preliminary documented safety analysis. This document records V&V for a safety, hazards, analysis, and design software used for design and analysis of safety class structures, system and components (SSC)s.

21 - SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLAN↗
DOE OSTI2025

Partnership Center for High-Fidelity Boundary Plasma Simulation (Final Report)

Within the Partnership Center for High-Fidelity Boundary Plasma Simulation (HBPS), work at UT-Austin was aimed at improved verification, validation, and uncertainty quantification (VVUQ) for edge plasma simulations and on performing gyrokinetics simulations of pedestal instabilities and turbulence in order to expand foundational understanding of pedestal transport. Regarding VVUQ, the accomplishments can be summarized as follows. First, it was shown that the Moment Preserving Constrained Resampling technique, when applied periodically in particle-in-cell simulations in the XGC code, can dramatically improve the accuracy of the simulation at essentially equivalent computational cost. Second, a technique for estimating model correlations, which are required to solve the model selection and sample allocation problem in multifidelity UQ techniques, without sampling the highest fidelity, most computationally expensive model, was developed and demonstrated. Third, previously developed methods for estimating statistical and discretization errors were applied to numerical methods relevant to edge plasma simulations, namely in particle-in-cell-based approaches, and shown to work. Finally, benchmark studies for comparing gyrokinetic codes were developed and performed, leading to reasonable agreement between four commonly used codes. Regarding physics studies, gyrokinetic simulations to investigate microtearing modes in the DIII-D pedestal were performed using the GENE code.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

HYBRID Modeling Validation and Verification Status Matrix

The HYBRID modeling repository is a premier resource for integrated energy systems modeling. HYBRID models have been developed since 2015 to describe the physical operation of tightly coupled thermal systems including power generators, thermal transport systems, thermal storage, thermal-to-electric conversion systems, and other thermal applications. Due to the increased size of the repository, a concise summary matrix of available models is desired. This matrix will consolidate not only the list of available models but also indicate original information sources, publications that have model examples, and level of validation and verification that exists for the models. Validation and verification (V&V) levels begin from simplified algebraic relationship and advance to dynamic data validation. Moving forward, as new models are contributed to HYBRID, their V&V level will be included, updating this matrix.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗