Introduction to the Real Space Model Validation Approach and Its Advantages vs. the ASME VV10 and VV20 Validation Approaches.
Abstract not provided.
Romero, Vicente↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “Validation”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
HE Validation Suite (HEVS): An automated approach to verify and validate HE models.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Physics, Chemistry↗
Integrated behavior-based infrastructure command validation
A cybersecurity infrastructure command validation system is provided herein for validating asset commands issued within an infrastructure network. The cybersecurity infrastructure command validation system can be integrated into an infrastructure network to monitor and validate infrastructure asset commands in real-time or while the infrastructure network is active. The cybersecurity infrastructure command validation system can receive or intercept commands issued by asset controllers. The cybersecurity infrastructure command validation system can validate the commands based on a command validation model. The command validation model can represent normal operating behavior of the infrastructure network. The cybersecurity infrastructure command validation system can provide valid commands to the intended infrastructure asset, or can reject invalid commands. The cybersecurity infrastructure command validation system can store validation results for use in updating the command validation model. The cybersecurity infrastructure command validation system can flag or otherwise warn the infrastructure network or administrators of invalid commands.
Akyol, Bora A.↗
VADER: A Tool for Criticality Safety Validation
The purpose of criticality safety is to prevent any inadvertent criticality from occurring during the handling or storage of fissile material. Calculations are frequently used to demonstrate that a sufficient subcritical margin exists. Validation is a key aspect of the evaluation process, establishing the suitability, accuracy, and associated uncertainty of the computational method and data to be used for the intended application. The validation process is performed by comparing the results of critical experiments with the calculated results from models of the experiments using the computational method to be validated. Laboratory critical experiments are controlled systems that achieve a k eff of approximately 1 in order to investigate the parameters at which such a critical condition is achieved. The validation parameters that are traditionally applied to safety analysis calculations are the bias and the bias uncertainty . The bias is the deviation of the average k eff of the validation suite from unity. The bias uncertainty accounts for the statistical uncertainty in the bias based on the standard deviation, sample size, and distribution of k eff values of the validation suite. The values of bias and bias uncertainty ensure that the systems predicted to be subcritical by the computational method will indeed be subcritical. The bias and bias uncertainty are often combined to determine an upper subcritical limit (USL) or computational margin that can then be applied to safety analysis calculations. Many methods have been developed by different organizations to calculate the bias and bias uncertainty for various types of criticality analyses. Each of these methods typically requires that the validity of various underpinning statistical assumptions be confirmed to demonstrate that the method is appropriate for the analysis of a given validation suite. An example of the validation decision making flow is shown in Fig.1. As shown in Fig. 1, the analyst performing the validation fits a trend line to the data and performs a test to determine if the trend was a statistically better representation of the data than if it were treated as an uncorrelated sample. If the trend line is a better representation of the data, then the analyst uses any one of a number of trending techniques to determine the bias and bias uncertainty. If a trend is not an appropriate representation of the data, then the analyst proceeds to perform a normality assessment for the data. If the normal assumption can be shown to be acceptable, then the analyst calculates the bias and bias uncertainty with the parametric technique. If the assumption of normality cannot be justified, then the nonparametric technique is used. Once the decision flow has been followed and the appropriate technique has been selected, the bias and bias uncertainty is typically combined with an administrative margin to determine a USL below which calculated values of k eff for safety analysis models can be considered subcritical. The calculations used in each decision are often performed with spreadsheets or with small programs available at various sites performing criticality analyses. Expertise in understanding and interpreting the results must be maintained to perform these calculations. This can often be an error-prone process. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is currently developing the Validation and Data Evaluation Resource (VADER) to simplify and automate the criticality safety validation process and to provide a software quality assurance pedigree to the calculational methods used. This paper discusses the use of the Fulcrum user interface with VADER, the anticipated initial capabilities of VADER to perform validation analyses, and the output from the code.
73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
Soil Moisture Active Passive Mission L4_SM Data Product Assessment (Version 2 Validated Release)
During the post-launch SMAP calibration and validation (Cal/Val) phase there are two objectives for each science data product team: 1) calibrate, verify, and improve the performance of the science algorithm, and 2) validate the accuracy of the science data product as specified in the science requirements and according to the Cal/Val schedule. This report provides an assessment of the SMAP Level 4 Surface and Root Zone Soil Moisture Passive (L4_SM) product specifically for the product's public Version 2 validated release scheduled for 29 April 2016. The assessment of the Version 2 L4_SM data product includes comparisons of SMAP L4_SM soil moisture estimates with in situ soil moisture observations from core validation sites and sparse networks. The assessment further includes a global evaluation of the internal diagnostics from the ensemble-based data assimilation system that is used to generate the L4_SM product. This evaluation focuses on the statistics of the observation-minus-forecast (O-F) residuals and the analysis increments. Together, the core validation site comparisons and the statistics of the assimilation diagnostics are considered primary validation methodologies for the L4_SM product. Comparisons against in situ measurements from regional-scale sparse networks are considered a secondary validation methodology because such in situ measurements are subject to up-scaling errors from the point-scale to the grid cell scale of the data product. Based on the limited set of core validation sites, the wide geographic range of the sparse network sites, and the global assessment of the assimilation diagnostics, the assessment presented here meets the criteria established by the Committee on Earth Observing Satellites for Stage 2 validation and supports the validated release of the data. An analysis of the time average surface and root zone soil moisture shows that the global pattern of arid and humid regions are captured by the L4_SM estimates. Results from the core validation site comparisons indicate that "Version 2" of the L4_SM data product meets the self-imposed L4_SM accuracy requirement, which is formulated in terms of the ubRMSE: the RMSE (Root Mean Square Error) after removal of the long-term mean difference. The overall ubRMSE of the 3-hourly L4_SM surface soil moisture at the 9 km scale is 0.035 cubic meters per cubic meter requirement. The corresponding ubRMSE for L4_SM root zone soil moisture is 0.024 cubic meters per cubic meter requirement. Both of these metrics are comfortably below the 0.04 cubic meters per cubic meter requirement. The L4_SM estimates are an improvement over estimates from a model-only SMAP Nature Run version 4 (NRv4), which demonstrates the beneficial impact of the SMAP brightness temperature data. L4_SM surface soil moisture estimates are consistently more skillful than NRv4 estimates, although not by a statistically significant margin. The lack of statistical significance is not surprising given the limited data record available to date. Root zone soil moisture estimates from L4_SM and NRv4 have similar skill. Results from comparisons of the L4_SM product to in situ measurements from nearly 400 sparse network sites corroborate the core validation site results. The instantaneous soil moisture and soil temperature analysis increments are within a reasonable range and result in spatially smooth soil moisture analyses. The O-F residuals exhibit only small biases on the order of 1-3 degrees Kelvin between the (re-scaled) SMAP brightness temperature observations and the L4_SM model forecast, which indicates that the assimilation system is largely unbiased. The spatially averaged time series standard deviation of the O-F residuals is 5.9 degrees Kelvin, which reduces to 4.0 degrees Kelvin for the observation-minus-analysis (O-A) residuals, reflecting the impact of the SMAP observations on the L4_SM system. Averaged globally, the time series standard deviation of the normalized O-F residuals is close to unity, which would suggest that the magnitude of the modeled errors approximately reflects that of the actual errors. The assessment report also notes several limitations of the "Version 2" L4_SM data product and science algorithm calibration that will be addressed in future releases. Regionally, the time series standard deviation of the normalized O-F residuals deviates considerably from unity, which indicates that the L4_SM assimilation algorithm either over- or under-estimates the actual errors that are present in the system. Planned improvements include revised land model parameters, revised error parameters for the land model and the assimilated SMAP observations, and revised surface meteorological forcing data for the operational period and underlying climatological data. Moreover, a refined analysis of the impact of SMAP observations will be facilitated by the construction of additional variants of the model-only reference data. Nevertheless, the “Version 2” validated release of the L4_SM product is sufficiently mature and of adequate quality for distribution to and use by the larger science and application communities.
SMAP L4_SM↗
Impact of recent ENDF nuclear data update, high initial enrichment and high burnup fuel on critical experiments applicability determination via the integral index c k for burnup credit validation
In 2012, NUREG/CR-7109 reported on the validation of burnup credit calculations involving major and minor actinides and major fission products which was investigated for pressurized and boiling water reactor (PWR and BWR) fuel enrichments up to 5 wt% 235 U and assembly-average burnups up to 60 GWd/MTU. Recently, there has been interest in increasing the maximum enrichment used in PWR fuel as high as 8 wt% 235 U and correspondingly increasing the maximum assembly-average burnups to approximately 75 GWd/MTU. These proposed increases in enrichment and burnup necessitate reinvestigation of the validation basis for k eff calculations for this expanded application space. Additionally, the 2012 study was performed by using the Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF)/B-VII.0 nuclear data with the SCALE 6 covariance library, and the effects of using the newly released ENDF/B-VII.1 and ENDF/B-VIII.0 nuclear data and covariance libraries should be evaluated. In this work, published in NUREG/CR-7309 in 2025, the validation assessment was performed consistently with NUREG/CR-7109: modeling irradiated fuel assemblies in the Generic Burnup Credit (GBC)-32 cask defined in NUREG/CR-6747. The TSUNAMI-3D sequence was used to generate sensitivity data for the application model, and the data were compared with sensitivity data from select benchmark models. The integral parameter c k is the metric of similarity used in this study and is consistent with NUREG/CR-7109, where a c k value in excess of 0.8 indicates sufficient similarity for use in validation. A new set of benchmark experiments with sensitivity data has been assembled for this effort. The number of experiments with available sensitivity data is now 2,104, compared to 474 in NUREG/CR-7109. This increase was facilitated by the efforts of the Nuclear Energy Agency to generate sensitivity data for a majority of the experiments in the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) Handbook to supplement the data available in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Verified, Archived Library of Inputs and Data (VALID). The complete set of benchmarks considered here includes experiments for low-enriched uranium (LEU), intermediate enriched uranium (IEU), and a mixture of uranium and plutonium (MIX) from the ICSBEP Handbook and VALID, as well as ORNL models of the Haut Taux de Combustion (HTC) experiments and other potentially relevant models not included in VALID. The updated similarity study shows that none of the extended burnup and higher enrichment combinations considered show a significant decrease in the number of potentially applicable experiments, meaning sufficient critical experiments exist for the validation of BUC criticality safety calculations, with initial enrichments up to 8 wt% 235 U and burnups up to 80 GWd/MTU. Additionally, both the ENDF/B-VII.1 and ENDF/B-VIII.0 nuclear data libraries can be used for validation since the number of critical experiments applicable for validation increases for most cases with the most recent nuclear data compared to the previous one. As in previous BUC validation studies, the French HTC experiments are the most similar in a majority of the application cases studied, especially from representative discharge burnups ranging from 40 to 80 GWd/MTU. In conclusion, these results match the conclusions presented in NUREG/CR-7109 regarding validation of the primary actinides in BUC analyses.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Development of Criticality Safety Validation Guidance for NRC-Regulated Activities
Some guidance documents support validation of criticality safety evaluations for many system types, and some accommodate different regulators or regulatory requirements. While these reports address specific applications, no single document applies to all systems and incorporates both traditional and sensitivity/uncertainty-based validation techniques. Oak Ridge National Laboratory will develop a single reference report for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that provides modern examples and suggested recommendations for a uniform approach for performing and documenting k eff calculation validations applicable to any system containing fissile material. The project will include a literature review and development of a new, comprehensive NUREG/CR document on nuclear criticality safety validation. The NUREG will address the following experiences from recent reviews: 1. Inappropriate critical experiment selection 2. Insufficient trending analysis 3. Incorrectly calculated 95/95 uncertainties 4. Failure to address how validation applies to safety analysis 5. Lack of goodness-of-fit testing in trending analyses 6. Incorrect use of commercial reactor critical data 7. Failure to meet bias determination methodology prerequisites 8. Inappropriate extrapolation of bias and uncertainty 9. Failure to identify validation analysis gaps and weaknesses 10. Inadequate validation analysis documentation the final report will provide guidance on use of trending analysis results, acceptable confidence levels for normality testing and trending analysis, management of validation analysis gaps and weaknesses, use of sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in validation analysis, and potential impact of correlations among critical experiments used in validation. It will also consolidate existing guidance documents using both traditional and sensitivity/uncertainty-based approaches. This document will support NRC-regulated activities, as well as validation used in criticality safety within other regulatory frameworks.
96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
Development of criticality safety validation guidance for NRC-regulated activities
Some guidance documents support validation of criticality safety evaluations for many system types, and some accommodate different regulators or regulatory requirements. While these reports address specific applications, no single document applies to all systems and incorporates both traditional and sensitivity/uncertainty-based validation techniques. Oak Ridge National Laboratory will develop a single reference report for the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) that provides modern examples and suggested recommendations for a uniform approach for performing and documenting k{sub eff} calculation validations applicable to any system containing fissile material. The project will include a literature review and development of a new, comprehensive NUREG/CR document on nuclear criticality safety validation. The NUREG will address the following experiences from recent reviews: 1) Inappropriate critical experiment selection; 2) Insufficient trending analysis; 3) Incorrectly calculated 95/95 uncertainties; 4) Failure to address how validation applies to safety analysis; 5) Lack of goodness-of-fit testing in trending analyses; 6) Incorrect use of commercial reactor critical data; 7) Failure to meet bias determination methodology prerequisites; 8) Inappropriate extrapolation of bias and uncertainty; 9) Failure to identify validation analysis gaps and weaknesses; and 10) Inadequate validation analysis documentation. The final report will provide guidance on use of trending analysis results, acceptable confidence levels for normality testing and trending analysis, management of validation analysis gaps and weaknesses, use of sensitivity and uncertainty analysis in validation analysis, and potential impact of correlations among critical experiments used in validation. It will also consolidate existing guidance documents using both traditional and sensitivity/uncertainty-based approaches. This document will support NRC-regulated activities, as well as validation used in criticality safety within other regulatory frameworks. (authors)
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
OECD/NEA EGMPEBV Activities in Multi-Physics Verification and Validation
The Expert Group on Multi-Physics Experimental Data, Benchmarks and Validation (EGMPEBV) was established in 2014 by the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to establish processes for certification of experimental data and development of benchmark models for validation of Multi-Physics (MP) Modeling and Simulation (M and S) computational systems. The aim of the group is to provide member countries with guidelines and recommendations for validating and improving their novel multi-physics simulations, and with an access to key experimental data. To be used to their full potential, these novel tools will require a more complex suite of validation experiments due to the multiple energy, spatial and temporal scales, as well as the number of physical phenomena being simulated. They will also require accurate measurements of all terms, including coupling terms representing the feedback effects, in situations where the appropriate experimental techniques and facilities might not exist today. However, the ability to conduct validation experiments has for certain applications progressed at a slower pace than for computational methods, or in some cases it has significantly regressed (through shutdown of facilities, or through retirement of experts). In addition, as modelling capabilities are reaching deeper levels in single physics phenomena and in coupled behaviors, appropriate experimental techniques may not yet exist. Validation of multiple physics models requires a wide variety of experimental data, which emphasizes the importance of maximizing the use of historically accumulated data to avoid the significant cost of performing similar experiments today. Moreover, the pedigree and quality of this data as it pertains to modern day simulation methods may be insufficient for rigorous validation of high fidelity modeling and simulation tools. Thus, these data can often exhibit limitations including a lack of measurement accuracy or a lack of knowledge of the measurement uncertainty in the experimental techniques; an absence of measurements for some critical parameters; an obscuring of relationships between individual physics phenomena owing to the output data resolution; or simply an inability to allow for a detailed reinterpretation of the experiments based on the documented information. The organization of the EGMPEBV relies on three Task Forces, focused on 1) Experimental Data Qualification and Benchmark Evaluation; 2) Methods and Standards, and 3) Specific Applications. Task Force 1 is focused on providing better and more accurate experimental datasets, which support validation of high-fidelity multi-physics modelling and simulation (M and S) tools. At the same time it has to consider the incompleteness of past experimental data sets (in terms of data, documentation, or uncertainties) and with the limited number of available multi-physics experimental facilities. Task Force 2 is designed to develop validation methods and guidelines, and uncertainty qualification for the new family of multi-physics, multi-scale codes in the context of emerging demands such as longer fuel cycles and power uprate. Task Force 3 is focused on applications of validation experiments and has the objective to organize multi-physics M and S benchmarks involving validation experiments.
22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Blind Modeling Validation Exercises Using the Horizontal Dry Cask Simulator
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) established a need to understand the thermal-hydraulic properties of dry storage systems for commercial spent nuclear fuel (SNF) in response to a shift towards the storage of high-burnup (HBU) fuel (> 45 gigawatt days per metric ton of uranium, or GWd/MTU). This shift raises concerns regarding cladding integrity, which faces increased risk at the higher temperatures within spent fuel assemblies present within HBU fuel compared to low-burnup fuel (≤ 45 GWd/MTU). A dry cask simulator (DCS) was built at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in Albuquerque, New Mexico to produce validation-quality data that can be used to test the accuracy of the modeling used to predict cladding temperatures. These temperatures are critical to evaluating cladding integrity throughout the storage cycle of commercial spent nuclear fuel. A model validation exercise was previously carried out for the DCS in a vertical configuration. Lessons learned during the previous validation exercise have been applied to a new, blind study using a horizontal dry cask simulator (HDCS). Three modeling institutions – the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), and Empresa Nacional del Uranio, S.A., S.M.E. (ENUSA) – were granted access to the input parameters from the DCS Handbook, SAND2017-13058R, and results from a limited data set from the horizontal BWR dry cask simulator tests reported in the HDCS update report, SAND2019-11688R. With this information, each institution was tasked to calculate peak cladding temperatures and air mass flow rates for ten HDCS test cases. Axial as well as vertical and horizontal transverse temperature profiles were also calculated. These calculations were done using modeling codes (ANSYS/Fluent, STAR-CCM+, or COBRA-SFS), each with their own unique combination of modeling assumptions and boundary conditions. For this validation study, the ten test cases of the horizontal dry cask simulator were defined by three independent variables – fuel assembly decay heat (0.5 kW, 1 kW, 2.5 W, and 5 kW), internal backfill pressure (100 kPa and 800 kPa), and backfill gas (helium and air). The plots provided in Chapter 3 of this report show the axial, vertical, and horizontal temperature profiles obtained from the dry cask simulator experiments in the horizontal configuration and the corresponding models used to describe the thermal-hydraulic behavior of this system. The tables provided in Chapter 3 illustrate the closeness of fit of the model data to the experiment data through root mean square (RMS) calculations of the error in peak cladding temperatures (PCTs), PCT axial locations, axial temperature profiles, vertical and horizontal temperature profiles at two different axial locations, and air mass flow rates for the ten test cases, normalized by the experimental results. The model results are assigned arbitrary model numbers to retain anonymity. Due to the relatively flat axial temperature profiles, small temperature gradients resulted in large deviations of all models’ PCT axial location from the experimental PCT axial location. When the PCT axial location error is excluded in the calculation of the combined RMS of the normalized errors that considers PCT, the temperature profiles, and the air mass flow rates, the model data fits the experimental data to within 5%. When the vault information is excluded, the model data fits the experimental data to within 2.5%. An error analysis was developed further for one model, using the model and experimental uncertainties in each validation parameter to calculate validation uncertainties. The uncertainties for each parameter were used to define quantifiable validation criteria. For this analysis, the model was considered validated for a given comparison metric if the normalized error in that metric divided by the validation uncertainty was less than or equal to 1. When considering the combined RMS of the normalized errors of all metrics divided by their validation uncertainties, the model was found to have satisfied the criterion for model validation.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Validation on the Europa Clipper Mission in the Formulation Phase
The Europa Clipper mission will perform a detailed investigation of Europa’s environment and habitability by placing a spacecraft into a looping orbit around Jupiter and performing repeated close Europa flybys. The Europa Clipper Project Verification and Validation (V&V) team is responsible for verifying that the Project System is compliant with the science and engineering requirements levied on it and validating that it is capable of meeting the mission objectives. Europa Clipper has developed a V&V framework to ensure that mission capabilities are realized at a reasonable confidence level prior to launch. The V&V team will coordinate the validation activities defined by this framework throughout the project lifecycle as the spacecraft evolves from design to implementation and operations. Validation of space missions is typically grouped into three categories: 1) requirements validation, 2) model validation, and 3) system validation. System validation, along with verification activities, are often the primary focus of V&V programs and these efforts peak in the implementation phase. However, the increasing reliance of exploration missions on models and simulations, and the complexity of the Europa Clipper mission, have dictated attention to requirements and model validation in the formulation phase. This paper discusses the development of the Europa Clipper V&V framework with emphasis on the validation of models and simulations, and of requirements. Approaches include the adaptation of institutional guidelines, such as those in the NASA-STD-7009 document, to create a Project Model V&V Plan and the use of tools such as DOORS NG to plan model validation and derive requirement quality metrics.
Srivastava, Priyanka↗
Improvements to Bison Validation Base for LWR Fuel
The Bison fuel performance code is being developed by Idaho National Laboratory (INL) to analyze a wide range of fuel forms and operating conditions with the flexibility to conduct simulations in 1D through 3D geometries. Bison plays an important role in the development of advanced fuel with improved accident tolerance for existing light water reactors (LWRs), the improved understanding of mechanisms in fuel designs in a wider range of operating conditions, and the facilitation of future development of fuel for advanced reactor designs. Additionally, industry interest in advanced fuels has also driven Bison development for advanced fuels in the last few years. All of these factors combine to create a potential increase of new Bison users. These new users will potentially be interested in the Bison LWR validation base for examples of Bison's capabilities and how to use Bison. Current users also rely on the Bison validation base as a demonstration of the best practices settings and material behavioral models. Bison, both through direct updates to the Bison source code and to the nearly daily changes and improvements in the underlying MOOSE framework source code, undergoes nearly continuous changes. It is necessary that these source code changes are reflected with updated input files in the Bison validation base. Periodic updates of the validation case input files should also be accompanied by a review and revision of the validation case documentation on which our users rely. Therefore our efforts under this milestone were guided by two objectives: (1) Update the Bison LWR validation input files to use current Bison simulation settings, and (2) Enhance the ease-of-use for Bison through improved documentation These objectives build on the goals identified FY18 CASL milestone reports. During FY18 we addressed issues with the robustness of Bison and identified a need to migrate the assessment suite to the more reliable tensor mechanics module system and set a goal of standardizing the Bison input files. The FY18 CASL milestone report on updates to the Bison documentation system listed continued development of user-focused guides and examples along with revisions to the validation case documentation as future development goals. During FY19 we have separated these two objectives into four different focus areas for our work on this milestone. Our first two focus areas target the existing Bison validation suite: update the existing LWR validation cases and the accompanying documentation. The second two focus areas center on adding new capabilities: a new Bison LWR validation case and expansion of user support documentation. In the following report each of these four focus areas are discussed as a separate section. We conclude the report with a summary of potential future work to build on the efforts of this year.
11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
Progress Towards the Validation of a new RELAP5-3D model of the High Temperature Test Facility
Validation is a key step in the development of any type of systems model. As the next generation of reactors approaches, the need for codes that have been validated for these new types of systems continues to grow. An example of a prominent option is the Reactor Excursion Leak Analysis Program (RELAP5-3D), developed by Idaho National Laboratory. This code was developed for the purpose of systems level thermal-hydraulic modeling of light water reactors (LWRS) and postulated transients that can occur in LWRS.RELAP5-3D has been substantially validated against LWR data. Due to its long history as a reactor safety analysis tool, there has been an effort to adapt RELAP5-3D for the purposes of advanced reactor concepts such as prismatic high-temperature gas-cooled reactors (HTGRs). However, RELAP5-3D has not nearly been validated and verified for HTGRs to the degree of LWRs, warranting verification and validation opportunities with computational benchmarks and existing experimental facilities. Examples of such facilities include the modular high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (MHTGR) 350 and the high temperature engineering test reactor (HTTR) from Japan. The MHTGR 350 is a benchmark design concept for code-to-code verification purposes; therefore, it does not provide any experimental data for validation opportunities The HTTR provides useful multiphysics validation data but does not have the in-core instruments to generate thermal-hydraulic experimental data to help with RELAP5-3D validation. Consequently, a facility that could provide key in-core temperatures for thermal-hydraulic validation was still needed. The High Temperature Test Facility (HTTF) is an integral effects facility for HTGR thermal hydraulics developed and operated by Oregon State University. HTTF represents ¼ length scale of the General Atomics MHTGR and is rated for a total power of 2.2 MW. Axially, the core consists of an upper and lower reflector and 10 blocks, numbered from bottom to top (Block 1 is right above lower reflector). The core is heated via graphite resistive heater rods, with respective channels distributed throughout the core. The primary coolant is helium and heat can radiate out of the core to the reactor cavity cooling system (RCCS), which is cooled by water. The primary purpose of the facility is to investigate pressurized conduction cooldown (PCC) and depressurized conduction cooldown (DCC) transients, which are also referred to as the pressurized and depressurized loss of forced cooling respectively. Two experiments were chosen to perform the validation study with a RELAP5-3D model of HTTF. These experiments are PG-27 (PCC) and PG-29 (DCC). These were chosen based off of the quality of available experimental data before and during the experiment which led to their inclusion in the HTGR Thermal Hydraulics Benchmark.
22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
Argonne Reactor Code Software Verification and Validation Plan for the Versatile Test Reactor
This Argonne Reactor Code (ARC) software has taken a pivotal role in the design work of the Versatile Test Reactor. The ARC software itself consists of several independent or semiindependent pieces of software that are used in concert to carry out specific analysis and design objectives. In this report, we discuss the validation that is needed for the ARC software overall and discuss available, usable experimental data and how it relates to the VTR project. We also discuss the verification that is required for the ARC software with respect to its usage in the VTR project and give some concrete examples as to what it must accomplish. A list of goals for the verification and validation work are presented as the general procedure that will be implemented for every individual piece of software in ARC. The ARC software has been continuously developed for over 50 years and many of the features used for the VTR project have thus been rigorously tested for accuracy during that timeframe. The ARC software is presently under source code control and undergoes nightly regression testing of not only the individual pieces, but the interconnected aspects that are common to most analysis projects. Its greatest weakness, from a software verification and validation perspective, is both a lack of documentation and outdated documentation. As an example, much of the previous validation work will require contemporary effort to re-evaluate given the updated base data libraries and modifications to the software that have occurred since. This requires new documentation to be produced to support the usage of the software in the VTR project. The bulk of the ARC software is focused on steady state neutronics and TH behavior of a reactor system. In this regard, we have identified the ZPPR, FFTF, and EBR-II programs as the best candidates for sources of validation data for the VTR project. The ZPPR-15 series in the ZPPR program was chosen as it is the best representation of the VTR fuel form and reactor core layout of all of the ZPPR measurements. Additional support for it comes from the fact that most of the data has already been processed into usable ARC models for VTR validation. The FFTF and EBR-II reactors were both functional reactors that provide reactor scale measurements. FFTF is clearly a closer match to VTR and its startup measurements would be a very valuable validation basis. EBR-II has invaluable burnup related measurements that will play a key role in the ARC software validation work. Each piece of ARC software will require a report detailing the software verification. The validation work will be logically split into the results of modeling each identified experimental resource (ZPPR, EBR-II, FFTF). The intended timeline for the VTR project is to have the ARC software verified and validated by the end of fiscal year 2020. This is incumbent on sufficient funding allocated to V&V activities and no change in programmatic priorities.
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
Adaptive Protection and Validated Models to Enable Deployment of High Penetrations of Solar PV (PV-MOD)
The availability and validation of various PV models in commercial tools differ, with some models not yet thoroughly validated for advanced inverter functionalities and reliable performance under weak system conditions. Many existing models do not fully incorporate new inverter control functions, which can affect system stability. The increasing deployment of solar PV and other inverter-based resources (IBRs), including distributed energy resources (DERs), is influencing the reliable operation of protection schemes in distribution systems and microgrids. Emerging adaptive protection schemes (APS) offer new opportunities for protecting these systems during varying configurations and DER operating conditions, though their demonstration and validation remain limited. Adaptive protection schemes face similar challenges, as they are typically designed for specific configurations. There is a growing need for tools and methodologies to streamline the deployment of adaptive protection for safe and reliable DER integration. The project main objective was to develop and validate high-fidelity generic models of solar PV facilities for stability, protection, EMT, and QSTS analyses. This objective was achieved, and these models can now be integrated into commercial software tools, enabling utilities, vendors, and developers to study high-penetration PV systems more confidently. The project also demonstrated advanced applications of these models, including the design and deployment of adaptive protection schemes in high-penetration field applications and microgrids, supporting grid safety and reliability. Several milestones were reached by the end of the project. A sophisticated inverter test plan was developed, and inverters representative of the North American marketplace were selected. EPRI and NREL tested various inverters, conforming to IEEE standards. Improvements were made to existing generic models of IBR units, IBR plants, and aggregated feeders for various analyses. The first generic electromagnetic transient (EMT) model for a solar PV plant was developed, conforming to IEEE Std 2800™-2022 and validated against laboratory measurements of a 2.2 MVA large-scale battery energy storage system (BESS) inverter. That model was then used to produce reference responses illustrating examples of validated and verified IBR plant models that pass or fail tests for technical minimum capability and performance as specified in the IEEE standard. The developed, tested, and validated generic models can be used for transmission planning, stability assessments, expansion planning, and evaluating potential future IBR interconnection requirements. They can also support interconnection screens and conformity assessments of IBR plants, including solar PV. The project significantly contributed to the ongoing standardization and model-based representation and verification of IBR responses. The project further addressed challenges of common distribution protection schemes with increasing deployment of DER by developing, validating, and demonstrating adaptive protection schemes (APS) that can improve the reliable and safe integration of DER into distribution systems. New APS were designed using improved DER models for three common distribution systems: a radial feeder, a meshed network, and a microgrid. Modeling and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testing of the APS were conducted, successfully showing their effectiveness and selectivity. Proof-of-concept field demonstration was achieved for two APS, i.e., one on a radial feeder and another one in a microgrid. Field demonstration could not be achieved for the APS on a meshed network, primarily due apprehension of one utility partner and also due to limited access to the protective algorithms in the network protectors. Guidelines developed from the lessons learned in the project lay out the general process followed in the design, installation, and commissioning of APS for various distribution systems. Distribution utility partners’ apprehension about field demonstration of the new APS were addressed—with varying success—by taking a stepped risk-management approach of modeling of a wide range of sensitivities first, performing in-depth proof-of-concept testing in the laboratory including HIL next, and finally deliberately implementing and commissioning the actual protection equipment and algorithms into parts of—or in parallel operation to—the three real distribution systems. Future work should include pilot projects that further show the acceptable performance of the developed APS before these schemes be rolled out more widely. Inclusion of both utility and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in future projects could increase chances of successful field demonstration. Despite challenges in achieving the field demonstration goal of the project for all three APS, the research significantly contributed to the innovation of adaptive protection solutions for scalable and reliable DER integration into distribution systems. This project significantly enhances the understanding of the impact of using appropriate inverter models on distribution and transmission (T&D) systems. By addressing the limitations of existing generic models, the project introduces high-fidelity models for stability, protection, electromagnetic transient (EMT), and quasi-static time series (QSTS) analyses. These models, integrated into commercial software tools, enable utilities, vendors, and developers to confidently study high-penetration PV systems. The project also demonstrates advanced applications, including adaptive protection schemes (APS) for distribution systems and microgrids, ensuring grid safety and reliability. The technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of the methods are evident through the development and validation of sophisticated inverter test plans and the selection of representative inverters. Testing by EPRI and NREL on retail, commercial, and utility-scale inverters, conforming to IEEE standards, underscores the robustness of the models. Improvements to existing generic models for various analyses further enhance their validity and applicability. The project also identifies gaps in common distribution protection schemes and designed new APS using improved DER models, demonstrating their effectiveness through modeling and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testing. The project’s benefits to the public are manifold. By advancing the standardization and model-based representation of IBR response, it supports transmission planning, stability assessments, and future IBR interconnection requirements. The generic models can facilitate better communication between transmission planners and developers, supporting expected IBR plant capability and performance. Additionally, the development of APS for radial feeders, meshed networks, and microgrids supports the integration of distributed energy resources (DERs) into distribution systems, enhancing grid reliability and safety. The project’s emphasis on thorough testing and simplicity in design ensures practical and scalable solutions for DER integration.
14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
Design and validation of fault-tolerant flight systems
Flight systems must be validated to show that they are consistent with the requirements of their intended applications. While high reliability is difficult to validate, the additional complexity of fault tolerance further compounds the validation problem. The objective of NASA’s research is to develop a methodology for designing validatable fault-tolerant systems. Under the design-for-validation philosophy, emphasis is placed on developing validation methods that can be incorporated into the design process right from the start and design methods and guidance which, while incorporating fault tolerance, can assure validatability. This paper examines the statistical issues of validating highly reliable, fault tolerant system. There are many problems associated with traditional methods of designing and validating these potentially complex hardware and software systems. Useful design-for-validation methods, which include structured specification and design methodologies, mathematical proof techniques, analytical modeling, simulation and emulation, and physical testing, are discussed. Important design issues associated with fault tolerance are presented along with the related validation concerns which must be addressed. Experience has shown that synchronization and Byzantine resilience must accompany fault tolerance. Other design attributes associated with fault tolerance may be used by a designer on the basis of cost, weight, performance, and validation considerations.
Computer systems↗
CFD validation for aerodynamic flows - Challenge for the '90's
The process of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) validation is described from two perspectives, numerical error validation and physical model validation. Errors associated with time and space discretization, grid refinement, numerical dissipation, and level of solution convergence, are all possible sources of numerical error. The second aspect of CFD code validation is associated with the governing equations and the physical models, e.g., chemistry and turbulence models. This type of validation requires comparisons with carefully conducted experiments and is the primary aspect of the validation process discussed in this paper. Examples of validation are shown for selected Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes codes for conditions from transonic through hypersonic. Since code applications are becoming more complex, it no longer suffices to use data from surface or integral quantities alone to provide the required validation. Flow field surveys and experimental boundary condition measurements are emerging as critical data that must be obtained for CFD code validation. Progress in the overall level of validation is shown to be improving. However, future challenges remain, some of which are enumerated.
Marvin, Joseph G.↗
NASA's CFD Validation Program
With computational fluid dynamics (CFD) becoming a productive research and design tool, the requirement to validate CFD codes has grown significantly. NASA had emphasized CFD validation activities since 1986 when a separate work element was formed to fund experimental activities related to validation. NASA's CFD and CFD validation programs are closely coordinated to ensure that experimental data bases are available as soon as possible for validating codes. In response to industry and academic requirements, four levels of experimental research have been defined as part of CFD validation with NASA's Aeronautics Advisory Committee (AAC) support although only the fourth level actually has the detailed information necessary for validating codes. Critical flow physics especially turbulence modeling are key to improved CFD codes. NASA has focused additional resources on transition and turbulence physics to meet these requirements. With improved turbulence models, CFD codes will be more accurate, robust, and efficient. However, with the level of detailed information available from CFD codes, highly accurate and detailed experiments are required to capture the critical information for validating codes. Advanced instrumentation especially non-intrusive instrumentation is required to acquire this information in validation experiments. The CFD validation program is being coordinated and managed to address these critical activities. A list of experiments which are currently being supported at least partially are included.
Satran, Dale R.↗