SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Parts Assurance”

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.

132 records · Page 8

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2020

2020 Exascale Computing Project Annual Meeting (Executive Summary Report)

The Exascale Computing Project (ECP) delivers specific applications, software products, and outcomes on DOE computing facilities. Integration across these elements for specific hardware technologies for exascale system instantiations is fundamental to ECP success. The outcome of the ECP is the delivery of a capable exascale computing ecosystem to provide breakthrough solutions addressing our most critical challenges in scientific discovery, energy assurance, economic competitiveness, and national security. This outcome is not a matter of ensuring more powerful computing systems. The ECP is designed to create more valuable and rapid insights from a wide variety of applications (“capable”), which requires a much higher level of inherent efficacy in all methods, software tools, and ECP-enabled computing technologies to be acquired by DOE laboratories (“ecosystem”). The ECP annual meeting provides a unique opportunity for the core technical expertise in the United States focused on achieving this next plateau of computational science and computing performance to engage in direct discussions on project execution. Face-to-face gatherings in technical communities like this are common and needed for the exchange of scientific ideas and technical performance. The ECP annual meeting stands apart from other technical conferences and meetings in the computing community as it is uniquely and solely focused on the execution of the ECP and the integration of technical activities leading to the creation of the exascale computing ecosystem for the future. The direct interaction of key critical technical staff, who are leaders in their respective fields, and the resulting give-and-take between software, applications, and hardware and the technical co-design therein, is unique and essential to the effective execution of the ECP. The first annual meeting was held in Knoxville, Tennessee, January 31 – February 2, 2017 and brought together, for the first time, a diverse collection of researchers from 16 DOE national laboratories as well as university computer and computational science researchers to discuss shared problems and joint solutions for the development of a capable exascale computing ecosystem. These interactions resulted in focused technical plans and an energized community centered on advances for ECP. The second annual meeting was held in Knoxville, Tennessee, February 5–9, 2018. It included 643 individual thought leaders and performers in application development, software research and deployment, and hardware research and integrators, all of whom are part of the multifaceted, billion dollar HPC community. This meeting provided a platform to discuss and disseminate numerous examples where researchers with common goals and synergistic solutions came together for the first time to deliver tangible results. Additionally, at the 2018 meeting, ECP researchers had the opportunity to digest all US HPC vendor R&D product roadmaps pointing to exascale – not only to learn how their research can play a role, but, more importantly, to influence those roadmaps to ensure successful delivery on DOE applications that will contribute to (if not solve) problems of national interest in national security, science, energy, and health, as well as growing security threats. The third annual meeting was held in Houston, Texas, January 14–17, 2019. With a 19% increase in the number of registrations (768 people), and the change in location, the third annual meeting was considered the most impactful of the three at the time. The new website provided a better platform for the dissemination of the content, the new venue as a meeting hotel instead of a conference center facilitated interactions and discussions after event hours, and the addition of an award-winning mobile event conference app (Whova) transformed dramatically the attendee experience at the event. This fourth annual meeting was held in Houston, Texas, February 3-7, 2020. This meeting had an increase in the number of attendees for a total of 824 people registered (782 attendees) and included numerous enhancements based on feedback and lessons learned from previous meetings, some of which are listed here: Improved quality of the sessions, their material and the whole program.; Had more industry participation and addition of external collaborators from overseas.; Published the full agenda earlier to better accommodate attendance and travel plans based on schedule.; Centralized all sessions in one venue.; Provided additional hotels and room blocks for the attendees.; Improved communication with the audience (links, material, directions, notifications, etc.) to go paperless.; Enhanced side meeting scheduling, management and user experience.; Made available additional space and tables for impromptu meetings and side discussions.; Improved IT and A/V solutions for speakers. In addition, our final survey captured the following points as opportunities for improvement in future meetings: consider a different meeting location that is more pedestrian friendly, reduce talks during working meals to allow more collaboration and informal time, adapt the agenda to acknowledge attendees from different timezones, consider recording some of the tutorials and/or sessions to share broadly with the HPC community, have a larger poster room, provide additional power strips, and improve the WiFi.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2026

Cation Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2014-2025)

This data package contains mean values for cation concentration for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) has been used to measure the concentrations of elements of interest simultaneously for the East River Watershed, Colorado groundwater and surface water samples to inform insights on the biogeochemistry processes within the watershed. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. For samples collected prior to 06-16-2021, the instrumentation, Elan DRC II, PerkinElmer SCIEX, automatically switches among the three models necessary to analyze all 37 elements. These 37 elements include: (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be), Boron (B), Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al), Silicon (Si), Phosphorus (P), Titanium (Ti), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Caesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th), Uranium (U) using standard model, argon Ar as reaction gas, (2) Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca), Vanadium (V), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe) using dynamic reaction cell (DRC) model, ammonia NH3 as reaction gas, and (3) Phosphorus (P) and Selenium (Se) using DRC model, oxygen O2 as reaction gas. Note for the samples with higher concentrations of chloride (Cl-), asenic (As) concentrations were analysed with DRC model (oxygen O2 as reaction gas) to avoid the interference of chloride. For samples collected on and after 06-16-2021, an advanced Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry system (Agilent 8900 QQQ ICP-MS, Agilent Technologies) has been used to measure the concentrations of interested 36 elements simultaneously for environmental samples, including (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be) and Boron (B) using standard no gas mode, (2) Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al) Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Cesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th) and Uranium (U) using standard helium (He) collision mode, (3) Titanium (Ti) and Vanadium (V) using high Energy (HEHe) helium (He) collision mode, and (4) Silicon (Si), Calcium (Ca) and Selenium (Se) using standard H2 reaction mode. All samples were prepared/diluted with 2% (v/v) ultrapure nitric acid in Milli-Q water (18.2 mega ohm-cm), and analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process. This data package contains (1) a zip file (cation_data_2014_2025.zip) containing a total of 5,849 files: 5.848 data files of cation data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v6_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; (4) PDF and docx files for the detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS PerkinElmer DRC II instrumentation (Detemination_of_Method_Detection_Limits__MDLs__for_ICP_MS__PerkinElmer_Elan_DRC_II__LBL_Bldg74_Lab214D) for samples before November 2021; (5) PDF and docx files for the determination of MDLs for ICP-MS Agilent 8900 QQQ instrumentation (ICP_MS_Analysis_detection_limits_and_QA_QC_WenmingDong_updated_2026-08-06) for samples November 2021 and onward. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 113 locations containing cation data. Update on 2021-04-11: Added Detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS document, which can be accessed as a PDF or with Microsoft Word. Update on 2022-06-10: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated cation data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) removed suffix and prefix on two variables (“aqberylliumion_asberyllium” and “aqlithiumion_aslithium”), (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-10-16. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Updated versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-06, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

QA/QC-ed Groundwater Level Time Series in PLM-1 and PLM-6 Monitoring Wells, East River, Colorado (2016-2022)

This data set contains QA/QC-ed (Quality Assurance and Quality Control) water level data for the PLM1 and PLM6 wells. PLM1 and PLM6 are location identifiers used by the Watershed Function SFA project for two groundwater monitoring wells along an elevation gradient located along the lower montane life zone of a hillslope near the Pumphouse location at the East River Watershed, Colorado, USA. These wells are used to monitor subsurface water and carbon inventories and fluxes, and to determine the seasonally dependent flow of groundwater under the PLM hillslope. The downslope flow of groundwater in combination with data on groundwater chemistry (see related references) can be used to estimate rates of solute export from the hillslope to the floodplain and river. QA/QC analysis of measured groundwater levels in monitoring wells PLM-1 and PLM-6 included identification and flagging of duplicated values of timestamps, gap filling of missing timestamps and water levels, removal of abnormal/bad and outliers of measured water levels. The QA/QC analysis also tested the application of different QA/QC methods and the development of regular (5-minute, 1-hour, and 1-day) time series datasets, which can serve as a benchmark for testing other QA/QC techniques, and will be applicable for ecohydrological modeling. The package includes a Readme file, one R code file used to perform QA/QC, a series of 8 data csv files (six QA/QC-ed regular time series datasets of varying intervals (5-min, 1-hr, 1-day) and two files with QA/QC flagging of original data), and three files for the reporting format adoption of this dataset (InstallationMethods, file level metadata (flmd), and data dictionary (dd) files).QA/QC-ed data herein were derived from the original/raw data publication available at Williams et al., 2020 (DOI: 10.15485/1818367). For more information about running R code file (10.15485_1866836_QAQC_PLM1_PLM6.R) to reproduce QA/QC output files, see README (QAQC_PLM_readme.docx). This dataset replaces the previously published raw data time series, and is the final groundwater data product for the PLM wells in the East River. Complete metadata information on the PLM1 and PLM6 wells are available in a related dataset on ESS-DIVE: Varadharajan C, et al (2022). https://doi.org/10.15485/1660962. These data products are part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area collection effort to further scientific understanding of biogeochemical dynamics from genome to watershed scales. 2022/09/09 Update: Converted data files using ESS-DIVE’s Hydrological Monitoring Reporting Format. With the adoption of this reporting format, the addition of three new files (v1_20220909_flmd.csv, V1_20220909_dd.csv, and InstallationMethods.csv) were added. The file-level metadata file (v1_20220909_flmd.csv) contains information specific to the files contained within the dataset. The data dictionary file (v1_20220909_dd.csv) contains definitions of column headers and other terms across the dataset. The installation methods file (InstallationMethods.csv) contains a description of methods associated with installation and deployment at PLM1 and PLM6 wells. Additionally, eight data files were re-formatted to follow the reporting format guidance (er_plm1_waterlevel_2016-2020.csv, er_plm1_waterlevel_1-hour_2016-2020.csv, er_plm1_waterlevel_daily_2016-2020.csv, QA_PLM1_Flagging.csv, er_plm6_waterlevel_2016-2020.csv, er_plm6_waterlevel_1-hour_2016-2020.csv, er_plm6_waterlevel_daily_2016-2020.csv, QA_PLM6_Flagging.csv). The major changes to the data files include the addition of header_rows above the data containing metadata about the particular well, units, and sensor description. 2023/01/18 Update: Dataset updated to include additional QA/QC-ed water level data up until 2022-10-12 for ER-PLM1 and 2022-10-13 for ER-PLM6. Reporting format specific files (v2_20230118_flmd.csv, v2_20230118_dd.csv, v2_20230118_InstallationMethods.csv) were updated to reflect the additional data. R code file (QAQC_PLM1_PLM6.R) was added to replace the previously uploaded HTML files to enable execution of the associated code. R code file (QAQC_PLM1_PLM6.R) and ReadMe file (QAQC_PLM_readme.docx) were revised to clarify where original data was retrieved from and to remove local file paths.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Residential Building Energy Efficiency Field Studies: Low-Rise Multifamily

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has conducted a series of research studies to validate energy efficient building technologies in the field. Much of the work has focused on single-family construction, and some has also addressed commercial energy codes. The work detailed in this DOE-funded study (EE0007616) focuses on low-rise multifamily buildings (three stories or fewer above grade) in various regions of the United States, and reports on how state-level building codes are being implemented, both in terms of observed characteristics and also in terms of estimated energy impacts. Nearly 100 buildings across four states—Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington—were sampled, which represent a range of climate types from mild temperature to very cold continental. Both common entry and outdoor entry buildings were included, and a parallel research project evaluated envelope air tightness and current still-evolving air tightness testing methods. Finally, a set of structured interviews of building designers and other relevant professionals was carried to out to gain more insight into this market. To the greatest extent possible, the methodology developed under the project for low-rise multifamily buildings mirrored the approach established by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for single-family residential buildings (https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/residential-building-energy-code-field-study). This included the general approach to sampling, recruitment, and data collection, as well as data analysis and presentation. The range of permitting dates for the sites encompassed two energy code cycles in most regions. All states in the study had adopted a variation of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for the structure of their state code. The low-rise multifamily occupancy presents a hybrid building type: most of the building’s conditioned floor area was covered by the residential chapter of the code while portions of the building (such as corridors and common spaces) fell under the commercial code chapter. The key items assessed in this work were: Building Shell—exterior wall insulation, ceiling insulation, foundation insulation, windows. Common Areas—HVAC and lighting. Living Units—lighting, ventilation. A few items were not assessed in detail, given their relative paucity in this occupancy type; these included duct leakage, pipe insulation, and hot water circulation controls. Building characteristics were collected via a combination of architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plan reviews and field inspections, and entered into a spreadsheet-based tool that was later queried to build a database. Data went through quality control both upon arrival and via a later semi-automated review and assurance process. Most of the data are presented graphically so that the reader can quickly assess compliance with the applicable energy codes (both by state and by code year). As a final step, EnergyPlus™ simulations were created for all buildings in the study to estimate both the as-found energy use intensity (EUI) and the energy and CO 2 that could be saved if features that were found to not meet code minimums were brought up to code. The savings estimates were tabulated for each of the four states in the study. The research team found that the single-family approach was largely applicable to low-rise multifamily buildings. This applies to both the data collection and the prototype EUI analysis. Most of the occupied space is living units and falls under residential energy codes, and many characteristics use similar envelope construction and relatively straightforward mechanical systems and lighting. One of the most challenging aspects of this work was to build an effective spreadsheet-based data collection instrument that could allow efficient collection of both building plan and field data. The research team is of the view that other methods could be equally effective if the work is done carefully with diligent quality control. The primary findings for the work center around the thermal envelope and mechanical systems and lighting at the sites: For thermal envelope components, the majority of buildings met or were better than the prescriptive code.This suggests that building designers and builders are aware of code requirements. In some cases, surveyed buildings were designed to qualify for energy efficiency certification programs. These buildings made up at least 20% of sampled buildings in each state. Almost all buildings met mechanical system efficiency requirements (for both living units and common areas). In some cases, sites employed systems that were considerably more efficient than required by the applicable energy code. Dwelling units had a majority of high-efficacy lighting, often in excess of the state’s residential code requirements. While high-efficacy fixtures were also typical in common areas (corridors and stairwells), lighting power densities (LPDs) in these areas were sometimes higher than levels dictated by the applicable part of the state commercial energy code. The simulation models run on a series of low-rise multifamily prototypes, informed by a composite of the field data collected, calculated annual EUIs of between 20 and 50 kBtu/ft2-yr, with the range representing the effects of both building characteristics and building location (climate zone). A detailed process (based on simulations of prototype buildings) was used to estimate the amount of avoided energy use that would occur if 100% adherence to energy codes were attained. The results indicated modest savings are attainable for items such as window thermal performance and common area lighting. The result is overall only a modest potential for additional energy savings, averaging about 10% of EUI.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

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↗

DOE OSTI2021

Global Trends of ASME "N-Stamp" Certifications for Nuclear Component Vendors

Historically, nuclear component manufacturing vendors, from small businesses through large conglomerates, have felt compelled to obtain an American Society for Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Nuclear Certification, known colloquially as an "N-stamp", to assure supply chain quality standards that will be acceptable to regulators and safety concerns. Since the N-stamp quality standard is a U.S.-origin code, combined with the apparent decline in the U.S. nuclear industry alongside the growth of the Asian nuclear industry, there is the question of whether the rest of the world, including new entrants to the nuclear industry, also regard N-stamp as a needed certification. This study addresses this question through analysis of the entire N-stamp database of holders, and former holders, of N-stamp certificates of all types and for all regions worldwide from 1989-2020 (the dates available in the database). From this 30 years of data, we find that actually U.S.-based vendors still consistently obtain the largest number of N-stamps worldwide over all time periods, but also find that the countries participating in the N-stamp certification process has broadly expanded beyond just North America, Japan, S. Korea and Western Europe (the primary N-stamp recipients before the mid-2000's). We produced global heats maps and bar charts to illustrate our findings, as well as further investigation into why the data shows changes over time and region. We note that nuclear entities involved with Soviet-type reactors do not participate in the N-stamp process, but instead pursue the Russian version PNAE, which is substantially similar to the ASME code. We conclude that at least from the N-stamp database, the United States nuclear component manufacturing industry is alive and well, although there have been some consolidations, and that the ASME N-stamp appears to still be a valued certificate worldwide, including in China which now ranks second only to the United States in obtaining N-stamp certificates in recent years. We further note that the vendors of new reactor types, in particular High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors (HTGRs) and Small Modular Reactors (SMRs), are actively engaged with ASME (and other U.S.-based nuclear standards bodies such as the American Nuclear Society and Nuclear Energy Institute) to coordinate updates to the ASME N-Stamp criteria to ensure applicability of the code for these new designs. Implications of these findings include the following: The global use of the U.S.-origin N-stamp certification supports the view that, despite the decline of the U.S. nuclear industry, the United States remains an esteemed global leader in the area of nuclear safety. As the U.S. Government works to revitalize the U.S. nuclear industry, especially in the area of exports, it may be beneficial to leverage the global standing of the N-stamp certification. The findings indicate that the N-stamp database would be a useful tool for the U.S. Government to use to track the growth of the civil nuclear industry in foreign countries, under certain circumstances. The Excel-format N-stamp database produced as part of this study may be a useful tool for this purpose. N-stamp data may be a useful tool for foreign governments to use to identify nuclear manufacturers within their own country, especially to identify "targets" for outreach on nuclear export control compliance. The U.S. Government could carry this message to foreign partners during bilateral engagements or as part of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) discussions on industry outreach.

42 ENGINEERING↗