Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “checking”

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 145 records · Page 8

Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.4 Verification Tests Manual

Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.6 Verification Tests Manual

Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra / SolidMechanics (Sierra / SM) verfication test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra / SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra / SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verfied or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra / SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verfication tests exist in the Sierra / SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.8 Verification Tests Manual

Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Using the Criticality Accident Alarm System modeling capabilities in SCALE [Slides]

The following is a summary of advice for CAAS modeling in SCALE. Refer to the SCALE Criticality Safety and Radiation Shielding training slides or to the SCALE manual for exact syntax. Use a mesh for the fission source that is the most adequate for the problem to solve (coarse/fine). Don’t spend unnecessary resources; simplify the model if it does not impact the final results of interest. Be careful to deactivate secondary fissions in MAVRIC or the calculation may never end. Check that k eff and $\overline{\upsilon}$ calculated results are logical. Between KENO and MAVRIC, cross section libraries, materials, geometry, and mesh grid can be the same or different. Iterative calculations are usually complex problems that need variance reduction. It will be hard to find the best solving parameters in the first attempt; expert judgement is needed. Check each step separately. Use Fulcrum to visualize fission source, mesh source, and spatial/energy distributions to find potential errors or impactful imprecisions.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.10 Verification Tests Manual

Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.

42 ENGINEERING↗

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Pilot Demonstration of an Attestation and Anomaly Detection Framework using Distributed Ledger Technology for Power Grid Infrastructure

This report summarizes the design and pilot demonstration of a framework called Grid Guard that was created to provide increased data and device trustworthiness to electric grid devices by leveraging distributed ledger technology (DLT), specifically blockchain. Grid Guard contains a combination of core cryptographic methods such as the secure hash algorithm (SHA), and asymmetric cryptography, private permissioned blockchain, baselining configuration data, consensus algorithm (Raft) and the Hyperledger Fabric (HLF) framework. The system implements a low energy, fast, and robust enhancement to system trustworthiness within and across electric grid systems such as substations, control centers and metering infrastructures. Blockchain is a distributed database structured that provides a practically unalterable (immutable) timeline of stored transactions. By relying on hashing and the Raft consensus algorithm, if an entity tries to illegitimately alter a record at one instance of the database the other ledger nodes are not altered. They work to cross-reference each other and easily locate any incorrectly added data and remove it. The bulk raw data is stored in an off-chain storage (outside of the blockchain ledger) and a hash of this baseline data is stored in the Blockchain ledger via hashing windows of time-series and configuration data, after aggregation and filtering. The bulk off-chain data repository is then considered to be trust-anchored using the hashes stored in the blockchain. To secure the electric grid testbed devices and data, device configuration baselines were compared to those baselines that had been previously stored in the ledger. Statistical baselines for device configurations, network communication patterns, and high-speed sensor data are calculated and then stored off-chain and hashes stored in the ledger. Measurements such as three-phase voltage and current, frequency, breaker status, protection scheme settings, network configuration settings (and other device configuration artifacts) and network traffic features (packet interarrival times) are compared every minute or other selected time windows. During phase 1 of the Grid Guard DLT project different DLT technologies were studies, and an assessment was performed on DLT technology vulnerabilities, uses, and key characteristics. DLT consensus protocols were studies (e.g., RAFT, named after Reliable, Replicated, Redundant, And Fault-Tolerant). Also, cryptography, public, private and permissioned or permissionless systems were assessed. Grid Guard implements a permissioned private DLT. Consensus algorithm selection and choice of DLT implementation depended heavily on the use-case. For this use-case, parameters were selected to measure performance and existing tools for assessment. Benchmarking was performed theoretically and practically. During phase 2 hashed transactions/blocks were inserted into the ledger every second. During phase 2 of the Grid Guard DLT project, a prototype framework was developed and demonstrated for attestation of critical substation devices and data using precision timing systems that use PTP and IRIG-B protocols) on a testbed of operational devices that emulated a distribution substation, control center, and power metering infrastructure using real Operational Technology (OT). The testbed includes OT devices such as protective relays, human machine interfaces (HMI), and power meters. To determine when to collect and compare system and network baselines, an initial examination of an anomaly detection capability to identify malicious manipulation of data streams was conducted. The resulting anomaly detection was demonstrated in a set of experiments and leveraged to trigger device artifact attestation checks. Attestation checks occur against device configuration baselines when compared with the immutable blockchain-stored baselines, which provided a cryptographically supported means by which to store baselines. The electrical substation-grid testbed was created to test the Grid Guard framework. The testbed emulates the operations of a portion of a power grid and SCADA systems as closely as possible. The testbed integrates real protocols, mainly IEC 61850 standard protocols, such as the Sampled Value (SV) and the GOOSE protocols. The testbed also supports DNP3 and other layer 2 and layer 3 protocols such as Telnet, SSH, SFTP/FTP and other proprietary protocols needed to connect to industrial control system equipment. The testbed emulates real power conditions using the OpalRT hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) device which can create fault situations that cannot be easily tested on real systems. The electrical substation-grid testbed was created using real measurement, communication, and protection devices that electrical utilities commonly use.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

VALID Past, Present, and Future [Slides]

This presentation discusses the Verified, Archived Library of Inputs and Data (VALID) procedure which is managed per computational procedure under the overall SCALE quality assurance plan. The principle behind VALID is that two independent, qualified people prepare and review the model, while a dual, independent check acts as a primary barrier to prevent errors in the library. A final check by VALID QAC of procedural compliance is then performed. The future for VALID includes plans to add more experiments, a review for all ICSBEP cases containing Deuterium, ZEUS intermediate and fast spectrum evaluations, intermediate enrichment experiments, other cases of interest to sponsors, and mixed/intermediate spectrum experiments.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

Status of FUDGE [Slides]

This presentation discusses the nuclear data management code FUDGE (For Updating Data and Generating Evaluations). While FUDGE is designed to support GNDS, the presentation also states that ENDF-6 and ENDL data files are also supported but must first be translated into GNDS; translators are included with FUDGE. It also states that FUDGE supports plotting, manipulating, checking for physical content, resonance reconstruction, Doppler broadening, etc. FUDGE also supports processing for Monte Carlo and deterministic transport. FUDGE is open source, and the latest public release was FUDGE-4.2.3 with support for GNDS-1.9. In summation, FUDGE capabilities include translating older formats into GNDS, translating GNDS back to ENDF-6, and visualizing, modifying, checking, and processing GNDS data. It also states that a new version of FUDGE is coming soon. The plan is to support GNDS-2.0 specification, but it may be released sooner if v2.0 is delayed.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

LANL Meteorological Program: 2022 Data Completeness/Quality Report

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) operates seven mesa-top instrumented meteorology towers: Technical Area (TA) 6, TA-49, TA-53, TA-54, TA-63, TA-54B, and TA-16B. An additional instrumented tower is located in Mortandad Canyon (TA-5 MDCN), and there is a rain gauge at North Community (NCOM), located within the town of Los Alamos. The 10 meter (m) towers at TA-63, TA- 54B, and TA-16B were installed in 2021, and will be included in the 2023 data completeness/quality report. A description of the meteorology monitoring network, prior to the installation of the TA-63, TA-54B, and TA-16B is found in Dewart and Boggs (2014). Four of the mesa-top towers (e.g., TA-6, TA-49, TA-53, and TA-54) are instrumented at the 1.2 m, 11.5 m, 23 m, and 46 m levels. In addition, the TA-6 tower is instrumented at the 92 m level. The TA-5 MDCN tower is 10 m in height and is instrumented at 1.2 m and 10 m. Data are collected and averaged every 15 minutes. Range checking is performed on each measurement every 15 minutes; data that are beyond normal ranges are eliminated from the data set and replaced by a code for missing data. In addition, data are reviewed weekly by qualified meteorologists to identify bad data not identified by the range checking technique. The data steward eliminates these data from the data set and replaces them with a code for missing data. The instrument technicians also review that data and schedule instrument replacement, as required. All instruments are calibrated at a frequency that meets the criteria identified in ANSI/ANS-3.11-2015. Data completeness is determined by the number of total 15-minute records available versus the number of possible measurements for the entire year. As a rule, the meteorologists do not attempt to estimate data that are eliminated as bad data. Original datalogger records, including bad data, can be recalled from program archival storage.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Performance and electret charge of N95 respirators after decontamination [Slides]

Filtration, pressure drop and quantitative fit of N95 respirators were robust to several decontamination methods including vaporous hydrogen peroxide, wet heat, bleach, and ultraviolet light. Bleach may not have penetrated the hydrophobic outer layers of the N95 respirator. Isopropyl alcohol and detergent both severely degraded the electrostatic charge of the electret filtration layer. First data in N95 respirators that the loss of filtration efficiency was directly correlated with loss of surface potential on the filtration layer. The pressure drop was unchanged, so loss of filtration efficacy would not be apparent during a user seal check. Mechanical straps degrade with repeated mechanical cycling during extended use. Decontamination did not appear to degrade the elastic straps. Significant loss of strap elasticity would be apparent during a user negative pressure seal check.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

SFRC Measurement Control Summary - FY23 Q3/Q4

Measurements with the Spent Fuel Rod Counter (SFRC) to be performed bi annually include 3 He detector efficiency checks (in both modules) and ion chamber channel tests with a pocket pulser. These measurements will all be performed at TA-35, building 27 where the SFRC is stored. Refer to LA-UR-22-31737 and LA-CP-22-20079 SFRC measurement control documents for a description of additional tests. Note that during this measurement period, counts could not be confirmed for the Si detectors, as an analog pulse to TTL box necessary for the DAQs to communicate with the detectors was still under construction. For this reason, typical measurements at the Calibrated Dose Facility were not performed for the second half of FY23. When these components are finished by the NEN electrical shop, the Si detectors will be implemented into these measurement control checks.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Magnification Determination for AGHCF Metallographic Images

Metallographic images generated in the Alpha Gamma Hot Cell Facility (AGHCF) have been used for quantitative and qualitative characterization of irradiated metallic fuel pins. Individual high-magnification images (micrographs) contained in AGHCF file folders and experimental notebooks are in the form of polaroid photographs labeled with AGHCF identification number, magnification, and surface condition (as-polished or etched). Low magnification composite images (photomosaics) are also available for fuel cross sections, for radial strips from the fuel center to the cladding outer diameter, and for circumferential strips of the cladding and outer fuel region. The individual images do not have scale bars. Only a few of the composite images contain scale bars. The purpose of this work is to describe and apply methods for checking the magnification (50X to 500X) of individual images and for determining the magnification (~25X to ~100X) of composite images. The metallographic images used to verify and/or determine magnification were generated during the 1989 to 1993 timeframe for cross sections of U-10Zr/HT9 fuel rods irradiated in EBR-II and for cross sections of irradiated U-10Zr/HT9 fuel-rod samples following elevated-temperature tests conducted in the out-of-pile AGHCF Fuel Behavior Test Apparatus (FBTA). Procedures are documented in the AGHCF Operations Manual for preparation of metallographic samples, for calibration verification, and for constructing composites from individual images. Calibration verification of magnification was performed at least semiannually. One standard used for calibration verification was a glass slide with vertical lines indicating distances of 1 mm, 0.1 mm and 0.01mm. Guidance is provided in the current work for determining magnification from images of the standard. In addition to the periodic calibration verification, consistency checks are recommended to verify the magnification of images taken between the routine calibration verifications. For cladding samples with or without significant fuel-cladding chemical interaction (FCCI), images taken at different magnifications (e.g., 150X and 200X) of the unaffected cladding thickness can be compared. This process is independent of changes in cladding thickness due to swelling and creep. For images taken at only one magnification of cladding regions with no FCCI, the cladding thickness determined from the images may be compared to the nominal as-built cladding thickness (15.0 ± 0.5 mils for examples used in current work)). This procedure works best for cladding that has not experienced significant swelling and/or creep (e.g., ≤2% circumferential strain at the cladding outer surface). Composite images were constructed by pasting together higher magnification images and photographing the composite to generate a negative from which the hard-copy photograph was developed. The primary purpose of the composite images was to identify interesting areas of the fuel and cladding for imaging at higher magnification. However, procedures are recommended in the current work for determining composite magnifications to allow quantitative characterization of the fuel. Composites are not recommended for determining cladding thickness or FCCI depth because magnifications are too low (generally ≤110X) and image contrast is low. Fuel cross-section composites were created by pasting together 50X or 75X images. The nominal magnification for the photographed fuel cross-section composites is 25.4X. A more precise magnification can be determined by comparing the average cladding outer diameter measured from the composite to the average cladding outer diameter measured by profilometry. Radial-strip composites were constructed by pasting together high-magnification (150X or 250X) images. The nominal magnification of radial-strip composites photographs is about 100X. A more precise method for determining the magnification of radial strips is to compare the cladding thick

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Plutonium-238 Loadout Calorimeter Return To Service

The calorimeter in the transfer area in Building 7920 at the US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory is used to measure the amount of 238 Pu in the Plutonium Heat Source Oxide. The calorimetry measurement is taken after the oxide is packaged in an ORISC (Oak Ridge Inner Shipping Capsule)/FSO (Fuel Storage Outer) assembly before loading into the Containment Vessel and shipping container. The equipment is used in three specific configurations: zero measurement (nothing in the sample cup), FSO measurement (actual measurement of 238 Pu), and reference calibration measurement (using the reference FSO as a known heat source). System checks were performed in July 2023 in preparation for scheduled material loadout. During these checks, personnel discovered that the reference FSO had experienced an electrical short in the heater cable and was no longer functional. The calorimeter was in the reference calibration measurement configuration at this time. Facility management was notified when the damage was discovered. The data from the Yokogawa recorder were pulled and analyzed for a span of time between September 2022 and July 2023. An unusual spike was found in the sample cup temperature data that started on October 19, 2022, and ended on October 20, 2022. The sample cup reached a temperature of 191.1°C. The maximum allowable temperature for the calorimeter thermopile to reach is 220°C based on the manufacturer statement provided in Appendix B of this report [1]. The calorimeter thermopile and the sample cup thermocouple are physically close to each other; therefore, the data suggest that the calorimeter itself never saw a temperature in excess of 191.1°C. Physical damage present on the cable, tape, and insulation suggests that the temperature reached a higher value in some locations within the sample cup than the data shows. Because of this discrepancy, testing of the calorimeter was required to confirm that the calorimeter is functioning the same as it was before the electrical short. The intent of this report is to assess the functionality of the calorimeter and determine if it is acceptable to use for 238 Pu loadout material measurement. Testing showed that the calorimeter is functionally equivalent to the initial calibration that was performed in the summer of 2021, and thus, the calorimeter was cleared to be used for its intended purposes.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.20 Verification Tests Manual

Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

LYNM-PE1 Seismic Parameters from Borehole Log, Laboratory, and Tabletop Measurements

The goal of this work is to provide a database of quality-checked seismic parameters that can be integrated with the Geologic Framework Model (GFM) for the LYNM-PE1 (Low Yield Nuclear Monitoring – Physical Experiment 1) testbed. We integrated data from geophysical borehole logs, tabletop measurements on collected core, and laboratory measurements. We reviewed for internal consistency among each measurement type, documented the caveats of measurement conditions, and integrated lithologic logs to check the validity of outlier values. The resulting consolidated parameter tables can be used as inputs for modeling and analysis codes and are designed to interface with the GFM, which is being actively developed.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.18 Verification Tests Manual

Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.16 Verification Tests Manual

Presented in this document is a small portion of the tests that exist in the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification test suite. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the test are checked versus the correct analytical result. For each of the tests presented in this document, the test setup, a description of the analytic solution, and comparison of the Sierra/SM code results to the analytic solution is provided. Mesh convergence is also checked on a nightly basis for several of these tests. This document can be used to confirm that a given code capability is verified or referenced as a compilation of example problems. Additional example problems are provided in the Sierra/SM Example Problems Manual. Note, many other verification tests exist in the Sierra/SM test suite, but have not yet been included in this manual.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

LANL Meteorological Program: 2023 Data Completeness/Quality Report

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) operates seven mesa-top instrumented meteorology towers: Technical Area (TA) 6, TA-49, TA-53, TA-54, TA-63, TA-54B, and TA-16B. An additional instrumented tower is located in Mortandad Canyon (TA-5 MDCN), and there is a rain gauge at North Community (NCOM), located within the town of Los Alamos. The 10 meter (m) towers at TA-63, TA-54B, and TA-16B have been in testing since they were installed in 2021, and will be included in a future data completeness report. A description of the meteorology monitoring network, prior to the installation of the TA-63, TA-54B, and TA-16B is found in Dewart and Boggs (2014). Four of the mesa-top towers (e.g., TA-6, TA-49, TA-53, and TA-54) are instrumented at the 1.2 m, 11.5 m, 23 m, and 46 m levels. In addition, the TA-6 tower is instrumented at the 92 m level. The TA-5 MDCN tower is 10 m in height and is instrumented at 1.2 m and 10 m. Data are collected and averaged every 15 minutes. Range checking is performed on each measurement every 15 minutes; data that are beyond normal ranges are eliminated from the data set and replaced by a code for missing data. In addition, data are reviewed weekly by qualified meteorologists to identify bad data not identified by the range checking technique. The data steward eliminates these data from the data set and replaces them with a code for missing data. The instrument technicians also review that data and schedule instrument replacement, as required. All instruments are calibrated at a frequency that meets the criteria identified in ANSI/ANS-3.11-2015. Data completeness is determined by the number of total 15-minute records available versus the number of possible measurements for the entire year. As a rule, the meteorologists do not attempt to estimate data that are eliminated as bad data. Original datalogger records, including bad data, can be recalled from program archival storage.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗