Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Building Energy Codes Program”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Development of Plant Reload Optimization Framework Capabilities for Core Design and Fuel Performance Analysis

The United States (U.S.) nuclear industry faces a challenge in maintaining required levels of safety while ensuring economic competitiveness to stay in business. Safety remains a key parameter for all aspects of light water reactor (LWR) nuclear power plant (NPP) operations. Safety can become more economical by using a risk-informed ecosystem, such as the one being developed by the Risk-Informed Systems Analysis (RISA) Pathway under the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Light Water Reactor Sustainability (LWRS) Program. The LWRS Program promotes a wide range of research and development activities with the goal of maximizing both the safety and economic efficiency of NPPs through improved scientific understanding, especially given many plants are now considering second license renewals. The RISA Pathway has two main goals: (1) deploy methodologies and technologies that better represent safety margins and cost and safety factors and (2) develop advanced applications that enable cost-effective plant operation. The Plant Reload Optimization Platform development project aims to build a reactor core design tool that includes reactor safety and fuel performance analyses, and also uses artificial intelligence to support optimization of core design solutions. This report summarizes Fiscal Year 2022 (FY-22) activity in platform capability developments in RAVEN. This platform performs simulations using industry codes for core design (i.e., PARCS) and fuel performance (i.e., TRANSURANUS) which will allow expansion of the capabilities to include advanced fuel designs such as accident-tolerant fuel (ATF)s with high burnup.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Simplified Building Modeling Approach for Identifying Whole Building Retrofits

Building Energy Modeling (BEM) is an effective strategy for optimizing new and retrofit building design, evaluating its energy savings potential and rating its energy performance. However, because of the complexity and expense of modeling, only a small percentage of buildings are simulated. Over 80% of buildings are <25,000 ft2, and the cost associated with BEM can be a big deterrent for reaching this subsector, which usually ends up complying with energy codes and qualifying for incentives using prescriptive measures or generalized design guides. Similarly, efficiency considerations for small building retrofits are often identified through deemed measures or Technical Reference Manuals, which though a scalable and convenient approach, can limit innovation in design and optimization of measures. Simplification of the modeling process, where appropriate, can lead to increased energy savings and more informed decision making. This paper will discuss the development of a ruleset for a simplified approach based on the Performance Rating Method (PRM) contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. The approach aims to simplify and lower the cost of the energy modeling process in a controlled and documented manner. An anticipated outcome is an increased use of BEM and its effectiveness in the design, retrofit and operation of commercial buildings. In addition, simplification of the modeling process will result in fewer errors from misinterpretations of both program requirements and program intent in simulation software. The paper will discuss the need and advantages of a simplified modeling approach for whole building retrofits and the technical process for achieving the same.

Goel, Supriya↗
DOE OSTI2025

MOOSE-based Tritium Migration Analysis Program, Version 8 (TMAP8) for advanced open-source tritium transport and fuel cycle modeling

Tritium management is critical for the safety, sustainability, and economics of fusion energy systems, and advanced and reliable modeling tools help accelerate the development of tritium technologies. This paper presents the Tritium Migration Analysis Program, Version 8 (TMAP8), an open-source, MOOSE-based application developed to provide state-of-the-art tritium transport and fuel cycle modeling capabilities. TMAP8 aims to expand the capabilities of previous versions (i.e., TMAP4 and TMAP7) by leveraging modern computational techniques, ensuring high software quality assurance standards (key to building trust), and enabling multispecies, multiscale, and multiphysics simulations for integrated tritium transport modeling in complex geometries. This paper outlines TMAP8’s scope and rigorous development practices, emphasizing its transparency, accessibility, modularity, and reliability. We present the current suite of verification and validation cases based on those from TMAP4, demonstrating TMAP8’s accuracy and reliability against analytical solutions and experimental data. Additionally, the paper showcases TMAP8’s integrated fuel cycle modeling capabilities, highlighting its applicability at various scales and levels. The TMAP8 code and documentation are openly available, promoting collaborative development and widespread adoption within the fusion community. Future work will soon expand TMAP8’s verification and validation suite to include those from TMAP7 and other recent experimental studies for validation.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Energy Master Planning for Resilient Public Communities—Best Practices from U.S. Military Installations

Until recently, most planners at military installations addressed energy systems for new facilities on an individual facility basis without consideration of community-wide goals relevant to energy sources, renewables, storage, or future energy generation needs. Building retrofits of public buildings typically do not address energy needs beyond the minimum code requirements making it difficult, if not impossible, to achieve community-level targets on a building-by-building basis. Planning on the basis of cost and general reliability may also fail to deliver community-level resilience. For example, many building code requirements focus on hardening to specific threats, but in a multi-building community, only a few of these buildings may be mission-critical. Over the past two decades, the frequency and duration of regional power outages and water utility disruptions from weather, man-made events, and aging infrastructure have increased. Major disruptions of electric and thermal energy have degraded critical mission capabilities and caused significant economic impacts. In 2016, the U.S. Department of Defense issued guidance that each Service (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines) complete comprehensive energy plans for the installations that consumed 75% of total building energy. Guidance was updated in 2017 to include metrics for energy resilience, and in some cases, water. This paper describes how community level quantitative and qualitative resilience analysis and metrics have been incorporated into community energy and water planning best practices for military installations in three geographically diverse locations. It is based on research performed under the International Energy Agency’s “Energy in Buildings and Communities Program Annex 73,” focusing on development of guidelines and tools that support the planning of Net Zero Energy Resilient Public Communities as well as research performed under the Department of Defense Environmental Security Technology Certification Program project EW18-D1- 5281, “Technologies Integration to Achieve Resilient, Low- Energy Military Installations.” The first case study reviews progress made on an energy and water planning study conducted at Fort Bliss, Texas. The second and third describes planning conducted at Fort Bragg, North Carolina and the Joint Region Marianas, Guam, respectively, under the updated guidance from 2017 regarding energy and water resilience. Analysis methods, key metrics, and key infrastructure and operational constraints are described, as well as technical, economic and business concepts used during the planning process.

Urban, Angela B.↗
NASA NTRS2015

SLS-SPEC-159 Cross-Program Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE) Revision D

This document is derived from the former National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Constellation Program (CxP) document CxP 70023, titled "The Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE), Revision C." The original document has been modified to represent updated Design Reference Missions (DRMs) for the NASA Exploration Systems Development (ESD) Programs. The DSNE completes environment-related specifications for architecture, system-level, and lower-tier documents by specifying the ranges of environmental conditions that must be accounted for by NASA ESD Programs. To assure clarity and consistency, and to prevent requirements documents from becoming cluttered with extensive amounts of technical material, natural environment specifications have been compiled into this document. The intent is to keep a unified specification for natural environments that each Program calls out for appropriate application. This document defines the natural environments parameter limits (maximum and minimum values, energy spectra, or precise model inputs, assumptions, model options, etc.), for all ESD Programs. These environments are developed by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Natural Environments Branch (MSFC organization code: EV44). Many of the parameter limits are based on experience with previous programs, such as the Space Shuttle Program. The parameter limits contain no margin and are meant to be evaluated individually to ensure they are reasonable (i.e., do not apply unrealistic extreme-on-extreme conditions). The natural environments specifications in this document should be accounted for by robust design of the flight vehicle and support systems. However, it is understood that in some cases the Programs will find it more effective to account for portions of the environment ranges by operational mitigation or acceptance of risk in accordance with an appropriate program risk management plan and/or hazard analysis process. The DSNE is not intended as a definition of operational models or operational constraints, nor is it adequate, alone, for ground facilities which may have additional requirements (for example, building codes and local environmental constraints). "Natural environments," as the term is used here, refers to the environments that are not the result of intended human activity or intervention. It consists of a variety of external environmental factors (most of natural origin and a few of human origin) which impose restrictions or otherwise impact the development or operation of flight vehicles and destination surface systems. These natural environments include the following types of environments: Terrestrial environments at launch, abort, and normal landing sites (winds, temperatures, pressures, surface roughness, sea conditions, etc.); Space environments (ionizing radiation, orbital debris, meteoroids, thermosphere density, plasma, solar, Earth, and lunar-emitted thermal radiation, etc.); Destination environments (Lunar surface and orbital, Mars atmosphere and surface, near Earth asteroids, etc.). Many of the environmental specifications in this document are based on models, data, and environment descriptions contained in the CxP 70044, Constellation Program Natural Environment Definition for Design (NEDD). The NEDD provides additional detailed environment data and model descriptions to support analytical studies for ESD Programs. For background information on specific environments and their effects on spacecraft design and operations, the environment models, and the data used to generate the specifications contained in the DSNE, the reader is referred to the NEDD paragraphs listed in each section of the DSNE. Also, most of the environmental specifications in this document are tied specifically to the ESD DRMs in ESD-10012, Revision B, Exploration Systems Development Concept of Operations (ConOps). Coordination between these environment specifications and the DRMs must be maintained. This document should be compatible with the current ESD DRMs, but updates to the mission definitions and variations in interpretation may require adjustments to the environment specifications.

Roberts, Barry C.↗
NASA NTRS2017

SLS-SPEC-159 Cross-Program Design Specification for Natural Environments (DSNE) Revision E

The DSNE completes environment-related specifications for architecture, system-level, and lower-tier documents by specifying the ranges of environmental conditions that must be accounted for by NASA ESD Programs. To assure clarity and consistency, and to prevent requirements documents from becoming cluttered with extensive amounts of technical material, natural environment specifications have been compiled into this document. The intent is to keep a unified specification for natural environments that each Program calls out for appropriate application. This document defines the natural environments parameter limits (maximum and minimum values, energy spectra, or precise model inputs, assumptions, model options, etc.), for all ESD Programs. These environments are developed by the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Natural Environments Branch (MSFC organization code: EV44). Many of the parameter limits are based on experience with previous programs, such as the Space Shuttle Program. The parameter limits contain no margin and are meant to be evaluated individually to ensure they are reasonable (i.e., do not apply unrealistic extreme-on-extreme conditions). The natural environments specifications in this document should be accounted for by robust design of the flight vehicle and support systems. However, it is understood that in some cases the Programs will find it more effective to account for portions of the environment ranges by operational mitigation or acceptance of risk in accordance with an appropriate program risk management plan and/or hazard analysis process. The DSNE is not intended as a definition of operational models or operational constraints, nor is it adequate, alone, for ground facilities which may have additional requirements (for example, building codes and local environmental constraints). "Natural environments," as the term is used here, refers to the environments that are not the result of intended human activity or intervention. It consists of a variety of external environmental factors (most of natural origin and a few of human origin) which impose restrictions or otherwise impact the development or operation of flight vehicles and destination surface systems.

Roberts, Barry C.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Numerical Codes for the DESC-LSST Analysis Pipeline: Core Cosmology Library Standard Modules and Beyond wCDM Modules (Final Technical Report)

The overall objective of the project is to investigate and develop specific software modules and analysis components for the software pipeline of LSST Dark Energy Science Collaboration (DESC). Following the key projects of DESC Science Roadmap (SRM), we will write and test computer codes for the Core Cosmology Library (CCL) in order to complete its modules, functionalities, and interface to work with the analysis pipelines from the five science probes of DESC (parts of SRM deliverables CX4.2TJP, CX6.2CS). We will also code modules for CCL to test models beyond w-Cold-Dark-Matter (wCDM) and modification to gravity (MG). Interfaces for MG models will also be developed for the TJPCOSMO software which is the main pipeline of the Theory and Joint Probe (TJP) working group (deliverable TJP2.3). In order to use the full power of LSST data to constrain MG models, we will also work on constraints from nonlinear regime by running and analyzing MG N-Body simulations using a Parameterized-Post-Friedmann framework into the Gadget-2 simulation package (deliverable TJP2.2). Preliminary results for the simulations were obtained in the past. In collaboration with other DESC groups, we plan to make these simulations feedable to cosmic emulators that are practical for likelihood analyzes (deliverable TJP2.2, parts of CX6.2CS). We will also modify and integrate our current codes for consistency tests between data sets and probes into the pipeline (parts of deliverables CX8.2TJP, TJP2.3). We understand that other groups will contribute to some of these objectives but our team will focus and collaborate with others on the particular part of testing MG and models beyond wCDM and refine the DESC pipeline for this purpose. PI has been coordinating his work with the TJP and CS working groups and the DESC management team. PI is a full member of DESC since June 2013. He and his students have been contributing to LSST-DESC activities and work including TJP telecons, collaboration meetings, hack-weeks, and workshops. PI chaired or co-chaired sessions at collaboration meetings and hack-weeks about testing gravity and models beyond wCDM using LSST. He is coordinating the TJP2 projects for testing models beyond wCDM including the writing of DESC-research-note, development of code for pipeline, and N-Body simulations for MG and beyond wCDM models testable with LSST analyses. As stressed in the DESC white paper, SRM, and P5 report, one of the important questions in understanding cosmic acceleration and dark energy is to be able to distinguish whether the acceleration is due to a dark energy component in the universe or a modification to gravity. Answering these questions will have a significant impact on the question of cosmic acceleration and dark energy. The methods that we will use include analytical work, numerical code, and N-Body simulations. A first approach that that we will use consists of using growth rate parameters that enter the perturbed dynamics equations. These parameters take distinctive values for distinct gravity theories and have potential to distinguish between Dark Energy and Modified Gravity. The second method is to look for inconsistencies in Dark Energy parameter spaces using specific combinations of cosmological data sets. Our investigation addresses the Dark Energy problem that is relevant to the mission of the HEP program to understand how our universe works at its most fundamental level. It will allow us to make progress on the HEP mission to explore the nature of Dark Energy and the basic nature of space and time using future surveys such as LSST. The investigation supports the DOE HEP program Cosmic Frontier as it will contribute to the study and understanding of dark energy and fundamental properties of the universe. The investigation contributes directly to LSST-DESC key projects and their deliverables as described in the Science Road-map document to build analysis pipeline and to test dark energy and beyond wCDM models using LSST.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
NASA NTRS2011

Experimental and Analytical Evaluation of a Composite Honeycomb Deployable Energy Absorber

In 2006, the NASA Subsonic Rotary Wing Aeronautics Program sponsored the experimental and analytical evaluation of an externally deployable composite honeycomb structure that is designed to attenuate impact energy during helicopter crashes. The concept, which is designated the Deployable Energy Absorber (DEA), utilizes an expandable Kevlar honeycomb structure to dissipate kinetic energy through crushing. The DEA incorporates a unique flexible hinge design that allows the honeycomb to be packaged and stowed flat until needed for deployment. A variety of deployment options such as linear, radial, and/or hybrid methods can be used. Experimental evaluation of the DEA utilized a building block approach that included material characterization testing of its constituent, Kevlar -129 fabric/epoxy, and flexural testing of single hexagonal cells. In addition, the energy attenuation capabilities of the DEA were demonstrated through multi-cell component dynamic crush tests, and vertical drop tests of a composite fuselage section, retrofitted with DEA blocks, onto concrete, water, and soft soil. During each stage of the DEA evaluation process, finite element models of the test articles were developed and simulations were performed using the explicit, nonlinear transient dynamic finite element code, LS-DYNA. This report documents the results of the experimental evaluation that was conducted to assess the energy absorption capabilities of the DEA.

Jackson, Karen E.↗
DOE OSTI2024

Evaluation of In-Situ AM Process Monitoring Techniques and Potential for Detecting Process Anomalies and Undesirable Microstructures

The US Department of Energy’s Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies (AMMT) program is pursuing rapid qualification of new materials for fabrication of nuclear relevant components using advanced manufacturing techniques. Particular interest is placed on code-qualifying stainless steel (SS) 316H processed by laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) additive manufacturing. A paradigm that incorporates data from in-situ sensing during the printing, ex-situ characterization, and advanced artificial intelligence–based models was established under the Transformation Challenge Reactor (TCR) program to develop a pedigree for each fabricated component that could be tracked from the feedstock to the component’s release for application. Under the TCR program, the Peregrine software was developed as a tool for incorporating the vast amounts of in-situ and ex-situ characterization data collected; all data stored on a rapidly growing digital platform. The digital platform allows for users to link site-specific process anomalies to the macro- and microstructure. The platform will eventually be able to predict component performance, which will be crucial to qualifying materials and components in risk-averse industries such as those supporting and building nuclear reactors. Current in-situ process monitoring techniques that are already integrated with software like Peregrine are advantageous for identifying process anomalies including powder spatter, component edge swelling, recoating-build interactions, and so on. However, additional data are required to fully predict the resulting microstructures needed for identifying relationships to component performance. The rapid cooling rates observed in LPBF are some of the highest of any bulk manufacturing process, resulting in heterogenous microstructures and typically causing anisotropy in mechanical properties. Moreover, evolved residual thermal stresses are high, which can cause severe defects such as delamination or cracking. Therefore, other in-situ monitoring methods are warranted for exploration to measure and map the thermal history, and potentially the stress state, of each build. This report summarizes different in-situ monitoring strategies proposed for LPBF with a focus on the more developed sensor systems. Novel capabilities for measuring melt pool temperatures are also addressed to better inform modeling efforts.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
NASA NTRS2019

InSight's Reconstructed Aerothermal Environments

The InSight Mars Lander successfully landed on the surface on November 26, 2018. This poster will describe the methodologies and margins used in developing the aerothermal environments for design of the thermal protection systems (TPS), as well as a prediction of as-flown environments based on the best estimated trajectory. The InSight mission spacecraft design approach included the effects of radiant heat flux to the aft body from the wake for the first time on a US Mars Mission, due to overwhelming evidence in ground testing for the European ExoMars mission (2009/2010) [1] and 2010 tests in the Electric Arc Shock Tube (EAST) facility [2]. The radiant energy on an aftbody was also recently confirmed via measurement on the Schiaparelli mission [3]. In addition, the InSight mission expected to enter the Mars atmosphere during the dust storm season, so the heatshield TPS was designed to accommodate the extra recession due to the potential dust impact. This poster will compare the predicted aerothermal environments using the reconstructed best estimated trajectory to the design environments. Design Approach: The InSight spacecraft was planned to be a near-design-to-print copy of the Phoenix spacecraft. The determination of the heatshield TPS requirements was approached as if it was a new design due to the new requirement of flying through a dust storm. The baseline for aftbody was build-to-print, and all analyses focused on ensuring adequate margin. This proved to be a challenge because the Phoenix aftbody was designed to withstand only convective heating and the InSight aftbody was evaluated for both convective and radiative heating. Aerothermal environments were predicted using the Langley Aerothermodynamic Upwind Relaxation Algorithm (LAURA) and the Data Parallel Line Relaxation (DPLR) CFD codes, and the Nonequilibrium Radiative Transport and Spectra Program (NEQAIR) utilizing bounding design trajectories derived from Monte Carlo analyses from the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories II (POST2). In all cases, super-catalytic flowfields were assigned to ensure the most conservative heating results. Two trajectories were evaluated: 1) the trajectory with the maximum heat flux was utilized to determine the flowfield characteristics and the viability of the selection of TPS materials; and 2) the trajectory with the maximum heat load was used to determine the required thicknesses of the TPS materials. Evaluation of the MEDLI data [4], along with ground test data [5] led to the determination of whether or not the flow would transition from laminar to turbulent on the heatshield, which also determined the TPS sizing location for the heatshield. Aerothermal margins were added for the convective heating and developed for the radiative heating. TPS material sizing was determined with the Reaction Kinetic Ablation Program (REKAP) and the Fully Implicit Ablation and Thermal Analysis program (FIAT) using a three-branched approach to account for aerothermal, material response, and material properties uncertainties. In addition, the heatshield recession was augmented by an analysis of the effect of entry through a potential dusty atmosphere using a methodology developed in References [6] and [7]. These analyses resulted in an increase to the Phoenix heatshield TPS thickness. Reconstruction Efforts: Once the best estimated trajectory is reconstructed by the team, the LAURA/HARA (High-Temperature Aerothermo-dynamic Radiation model) and DPLR/NEQAIR code pairs will be used to predict the as-flown aerothermal conditions. In these runs, fully-catalytic flowfields will be assigned because it is a more physically accurate description of the chemistry in the flow. Once again, determination of the onset of turbulence on the heatshield will be evaluated. The as-flown aerothermal environments will then be compared to the design environments.

Beck, R. A.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Facility Radionuclide Emission Points and Sampling Systems

Battelle–Pacific Northwest Division operates numerous research and development laboratories in Washington State. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contracts to Battelle at Richland facilities on both the DOE Hanford Site and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) Richland campus. These facilities have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. The PNNL contract with DOE also includes operations at the PNNL-Sequim campus in Sequim, where there is also the potential for radionuclide air emissions. This document is a periodic update that describes current PNNL facility emission units and sampling systems. The National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP [40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart H]) requires an assessment of all emission units that have the potential for radionuclide air emissions. Emission units are registered with the State of Washington. Potential emissions from emission units are assessed annually by PNNL staff. Sampling, monitoring, and other regulatory compliance requirements are designated based on the potential to-emit dose criteria, a graded approach to facility-identified potential impact categories, and regulatory requirements. The purpose of this document is to describe the facility radionuclide air emission sampling program and provide current and historical facility emission unit system performance, operation, and design information. For sampled emission units, the building, exhaust unit, control technologies, and sample extraction details are provided. Additionally, applicable configuration drawings, figures, and photographs are included. For non-sampled emission units, emission estimation and radionuclide source details are provided. Site-wide permits for the lowest potential impact category are described. Deregistered/transitioned emission unit details are also provided as necessary for at least 5 years post-closure/transition. Currently, five emission units are sampled continuously for particulate radionuclides at PNNL managed facilities on the PNNL-Richland campus (3 of the 5) and on the Hanford Site (2 of the 5). Four of these units have sampling systems that comply with the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1–2011 standard for sampling from stacks and ducts of nuclear facilities, and the fifth is grandfathered and compliant with the older ANSI N13.1–1969 standard. In addition, the PNNL-managed Hanford Site 325 Building EP 325-01-S stack is sampled continuously for emissions of tritium. No emissions sampling is required for the single licensed emission unit on the PNNL-Sequim campus.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2003

[Development and Use of Hidrosig]

The NASA portion of this joint NSF-NASA grant consists of objective 2 and a part of objective 3. A major effort was made on objective 2, and it consisted of developing a numerical GIs environment called Hidrosig. This major research tool is being developed by the University of Colorado for conducting river-network-based scaling analyses of coupled water-energy-landform-vegetation interactions including water and energy balances, and floods and droughts, at multiple space-time scales.Objective 2: To analyze the relevant remotely sensed products from satellites, radars and ground measurements to compute the transported water mass for each complete Strahler stream using an 'assimilated water balance equation' at daily and other appropriate time scales. This objective requires analysis of concurrent data sets for Precipitation (PPT), Evapotranspiration (ET) and stream flows (Q) on river networks. To solve this major problem, our decision was to develop Hidrosig, a new Open-Source GIs software. A research group in Colombia, South America, developed the first version of Hidrosig, and Ricardo Mantilla was part of this effort as an undergraduate student before joining the graduate program at the University of Colorado in 2001. Hydrosig automatically extracts river networks from large DEMs and creates a "link-based" data structure, which is required to conduct a variety of analyses under objective 2. It is programmed in Java, which is a multi-platform programming language freely distributed by SUN under a GPL license. Some existent commercial tools like Arc-Info, RiverTools and others are not suitable for our purpose for two reasons. First, the source code is not available that is needed to build on the network data structure. Second, these tools use different programming languages that are not most versatile for our purposes. For example, RiverTools uses an IDL platform that is not very efficient for organizing diverse data sets on river networks. Hidrosig establishes a clear data organization framework that allows a simultaneous analysis of spatial fields along river network structures involving Horton- Strahler framework. Software tools for network extraction from DEMs and network-based analysis of geomorphologic and topologic variables were developed during the first year and a part of second year.

Gupta, Vijay K.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Emerging Pathways to Upgrade the US Housing Stock: A Review of the Home Energy Upgrade Literature

The residential buildings sector is responsible for about 20% of total US energy use. In order to achieve climate goals, we need ways to reduce carbon emissions and energy use in this sector. In addition, resiliency, electric grid stability, emergency survivability and other energy and building-related issues are becoming increasingly important challenges. New homes in most of the US meet various energy codes and are reasonably energy efficient. However, the vast majority of energy use is from existing homes that were not required to conform to energy performance requirements. It is becoming imperative to reach as many of these existing homes as possible and find ways to improve their energy-related performance. This must be done in such a way that it meets the needs and desires of homeowners and building occupants, as well as those of the contractors and design professionals engaged in doing the upgrades themselves. Energy retrofits of homes started in the 1970’s in response to the energy crisis, however, these retrofits were very limited in scope and relatively few homes were upgraded. Those homes that have been upgraded generally still have much scope for improvement. A huge effort is needed to get to scale to address the energy use in housing. The target population is effectively every home in the country, whether a large suburban single-family home, or a small downtown apartment. In order to provide a framework for analysis and the basis for plans to get to large-scale retrofits of homes, this literature review summarizes the state-of-the art in the US buildings industry. It identifies where more research, engineering, or technology is needed, as well as relevant industry trends, such as electrification, one-stop shop program design and others. It also examines other key topics, such as availability of financing, minimizing household disruption, and engaging home owners and occupants. This literature review builds on a similar review from several years ago (Less and Walker, 2014). The current review focuses on efforts in the intervening years. This literature review is part of a larger DOE study of deep energy upgrades that includes industry surveys and development of cost-stack analyses. For this review, we gathered data not just from the published literature, but also from practitioners in conjunction with other aspects of the larger DOE study. In some cases, we refer to comments from specific individuals or companies, or refer to specific products by name. This is not intended as an endorsement, but rather to provide clarity on sources of information and examples of relevant technologies.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Evaluation of Building 23-702, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory H-8 Foil Handling Building, Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to demolish Building 23-702, the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (LASL) H-8 Foil Handling Building (Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. B15278) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The NNSA/NFO is implementing a long-term project to modernize the town of Mercury for future mission needs. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. As part of the modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement Between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer Regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. Building 23-702 is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. The purpose of this report is to evaluate Building 23-702 as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that Building 23-702 is not individually eligible for listing in the NRHP. Although it retains aspects of integrity and continues to contribute to the MHD, it is not individually significant under any of the SOI Significance Criteria.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Report Series: Evaluation, Finding of Effect, and Mitigation Documentation for the Main Gate (23-GS100), Mercury, Area 23, Nevada National Security Site, Nye County, Nevada

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office (NNSA/NFO) plans to replace the existing guard shack at the Main Gate (23-GS100, Nevada State Historic Preservation Office [SHPO] Resource No. S1758) to the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS) in Nye County, Nevada. The purpose of the project is to improve security. The project is considered an undertaking subject to review under Title 54 of United States Code (USC) § 306108, commonly known as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Title 54 USC § 300101, et seq., and its implementing regulations, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR) Part 800. In 2018, Desert Research Institute (DRI) completed an architectural survey of the town of Mercury. This effort resulted in the identification, recordation, and evaluation of the Mercury Historic District (MHD, SHPO Resource No. D230), including the identification of its contributing elements (Reno et al. 2018). The MHD was recommended eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP, National Register) under the Secretary of the Interior’s (SOI) Significance Criteria A and C, as defined in 36 CFR Part 60.4, as a significant concentration of buildings and structures with a direct and important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1951 through 1992. It has not been evaluated under Criteria B and D to date. As part of a larger modernization program for Mercury, the NNSA/NFO and the SHPO executed the 2018 Programmatic Agreement between the National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Field Office and the Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer regarding Modernization and Operational Maintenance of the Nevada National Security Site, at Mercury in Nye County, Nevada (Mercury PA). The Mercury PA includes streamlined Section 106 procedures for undertakings in the MHD based on contributing element categories. The Main Gate is identified in Appendix C of the Mercury PA as a Category I contributing element, indicating that it might be individually eligible for the NRHP. It is a historic property for the purposes of Section 106 compliance and subject to the stipulations of the Mercury PA. Per Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA, when the Area of Potential Effect (APE) for an undertaking includes Category I elements, the NNSA/NFO must evaluate the Category I elements for individual NRHP eligibility under all of the SOI Significance Criteria, prior to initiating any activity that may affect the elements. Thus, the purpose of this report is to evaluate the Main Gate as a potential individually eligible historic property in fulfillment of Stipulation VI of the Mercury PA. The evaluation detailed herein concludes that the Main Gate is individually eligible for listing in the NRHP under SOI Significance Criterion A at the national level of significance for its direct, important association with Cold War-era nuclear testing from 1965 (the date the current Main Gate was constructed) through 1992 (when critical nuclear testing on the NNSS ceased).

23-GS100↗
DOE OSTI2022

Materials for Advanced Ultra-Supercritical (A-USC) Steam Turbines --- A-USC Component Demonstration

The U.S. Advanced Ultra-Supercritical (A-USC) Consortium was formed in 2001 as a government/industry program, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and the Ohio Coal Development Office (OCDO) and cost shared by industrial and not-for-profit partners. The purpose of the consortium was to advance the state of the art for power generation by evaluating and developing materials that allow the use of advanced steam cycles in coal-based power plants. These advanced cycles, with steam temperatures up to 1400°F (760°C), can increase the efficiency of coal-fired boilers from an average of 35% (current U.S. fleet) to more than 45% higher heating value (HHV) (>49% lower heating value [LHV]). The increase in a plant’s efficiency is limited unless new materials able to withstand these higher operating temperatures and pressures are identified and approved for use. The A-USC Consortium identified these needed materials during earlier phases of the program. It developed the welding and joining techniques along with manufacturing processes for casting and wrought products made from these new high-nickel alloys. It subjected these materials to extensive laboratory and steam loop testing. It then obtained ASME code approval for their use in U.S. boiler systems. The program’s successes leave this last remaining activity (ComTest Phase 2) that the U.S. utility industry has recommended to be accomplished prior to commercialization. The focus of the activity is the evaluation and demonstration of commercial readiness for “full scale” components to be made from these nickel-based alloy materials and provided by a U.S. domestic supply chain that is new to working with these alloys. According to studies completed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), the cost of an A-USC plant is approximately 20% higher than a non-A-USC plant because of its use of nickel-based alloys needed for the high temperature operating conditions. However, CO 2 reductions of approximately 30% from the current fleet average provide a strong incentive for its consideration. The actual costs and perceived value for CO 2 abatement will determine whether new or retrofitted plants are undertaken, although decisions to build A-USC plants in India would indicate its economic feasibility while also being part of a global carbon emissions strategy. The work by the A-USC Consortium, prior to the start of the ComTest project, has included lab scale and pilot scale materials testing, both in air and oxy-combustion. This testing has included air-cooled and steam-cooled “loops” that were installed into existing operating utility boilers to gain exposure of these materials to realistic conditions of high temperature and corrosion caused by the constituents in the coal ash. The A-USC Consortium also gained ASME Code approval of the Inconel 740 material, has cast and extruded the largest high nickel precipitation hardened alloys, and developed unique welding techniques to avoid problems identified by the competing European program. However, as valuable as these material test loops and accomplishments have been for obtaining information, their scale is below that required to minimize the risk associated for a U.S. utility to build a multibillion-dollar A-USC power plant. To reduce the final identified risk barrier to full-scale commercialization of these advanced materials and systems, the A-USC Consortium (guided by a utility industry advisory committee) has identified the key areas of the technology they desire to see as being capable of full-scale manufacturing and/or fabrication from an identified, capable U.S. domestic supplier base. A significant amount of work was accomplished during Phase 1 to identity the components, as well as the component size, that would be manufactured from advanced alloys such as Inconel 740H or Haynes 282 alloys. Pathways to supply these components for ComTest have been identified, as well as any further development that would be required. The Phase 2 effort used Phase 1 findings for designing these key full-scale components for A-USC boilers and turbines to include large castings; extrusions, forgings, fabrication of water walls and steam loops with headers from advanced materials, raw material (such as pipe extrusion billets) are at the commercial readiness level to permit advancement to a demonstration project. The Phase 2 work scope was addressed by a diverse team, including government, industry, and not-for-profit partners. The work scope under Phase 2 addressed fabrication of components identified as being outside of the proven capabilities of the existing supply chain, including the following: Steam turbine rotor forging and Haynes 282 nozzle carrier casting Superheater and reheater header and tube assemblies Large-diameter pipe extrusions and forgings Test valve articles to support ASME Code approval. In addition, key fabrication steps were completed, including boiler weld overlays and simulated field repairs. Throughout, extensive inspection and quality assurance testing of the components were performed. The team worked to advance ASME Code approval for key components and processes. Although much of the focus of ComTest Phase 2 was the high-temperature nickel-based alloy materials, a broader range of materials were incorporated, which would be representative of the materials used in full-scale A-USC power plant applications and have cross-cutting applicability on other high-temperature power generation options, such as advanced nuclear, supercritical CO 2 cycles, and central solar receivers. This report that has been submitted is organized in the following manner: Section 1 contains an Executive Summary. Section 2 discusses the ComTest project background and organization. Section 3 discusses project management and reporting. Section 4 discusses the procurement of nickel-based alloy and other A-USC materials and components. Section 5 discusses the fabrication of procurement of nickel-based alloy and other A-USC materials and components. Section 6 discusses the fabrication of cast nickel-based A-USC steam turbine components. Section 7 discusses the fabrication of forged nickel-based A-USC steam turbine piping and steam pipe components. Section 8 discusses the qualification of pressure relieve valves (PRVs) for A-USC power plants. Section 9 discusses proposed plans for future evaluation of A-USC components. Section 10 contains the summary and conclusion.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗