Results for “VERIFICATION” — Page 9

DOE OSTI2023

MPACT Verification and Validation Manual Version 4.4

As the VERA SQA plan requires, it is the responsibility of the University of Michigan (UM) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), as co-owners of MPACT, to ensure that verification and validation activities are performed and documented in a V&V manual with supporting publications and CASL technical reports which can be provided for reference and distribution within VERA. This document provides the current revision of the MPACT verification and validation (V&V) manual and describes the current state of MPACT V&V and updates the plans for future MPACT V&V activities. The following sections provide an overview of the V&V process used in MPACT, as well as a summary of the status of each component of V&V in the code.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2023

HYBRID Modeling Validation and Verification Status Matrix

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

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

DOE OSTI2024

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 Verification Testing for Sodium Fast Reactor Applications (Acceptance Testing Report)

SAS4A/SASSYS-1 (SAS) is a simulation tool used to perform deterministic analyses of anticipated events as well as design basis and beyond design basis accidents for advanced liquid-metal- cooled nuclear reactors. With its origin as SAS1A in the late 1960s, the SAS series of codes has been under continuous use and development for over fifty years and represents a critical investment in safety analysis capabilities for the U.S. Department of Energy. To support demonstration of software pedigree and confirm key functional requirements, this report has been generated to provide detailed verification of the software. Although SAS was developed to support the analysis of any liquid-metal-cooled nuclear reactor, the acceptance testing described in this document focuses on the verification of SAS capabilities as they relate to pool-type Sodium Fast Reactors (SFRs). This report includes documentation of the test problem definition, analytical solution(s), computational solution(s), acceptance criteria, comparisons of analytical/computational solutions, and determination of acceptance of the computational solution(s). Deviations from acceptance criteria are noted.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

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↗

DOE OSTI2024

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↗

DOE OSTI2021

Electropotential Verification for Nuclear Safeguards

The international safeguards regime desires methods to efficiently verify that facilities are only performing declared activities. Electropotential verification (EPV) is a newly proposed technique that was tested for its feasibility to perform facility design information verification (DIV). EPV works by passing a constant, low voltage current through a conductive system (facility infrastructure of nuclear fuel assembly) and measuring the resulting voltage at various places throughout the infrastructure in order to establish a baseline. Changes made to the system affect these voltage readings, which will deviate from the baseline and indicate that a change to the system was made. For large scale infrastructure such as a nuclear facility DIV, it appears feasible that changes in configuration of the system’s grounding can be detected in real-time, and the location of the change can be inferred from the measured intensity of the change in voltage.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

DOE OSTI2023

MRT 7365 Power flow physics and key physics phenomena: EMPIRE verification suite

This milestone work baselines electromagnetic particle-in-cell capability of the EMPIRE plasma simulation code to model key processes germane to the physics of electrode plasmas arising in magnetically-insulated transmission lines operating at or near 20 MA. This evaluation is done so through the provision of benchmark verification problems designed to exercise the individual and combined physics models on a small-scale surrogate geometry for the final-feed-to-load region of the Z accelerator under representative operating conditions. In this report, we overview our test designs, and present a portfolio of simulation results along with performance assessments which altogether establish state-of-the-art. In particular, two main verification categories are covered this report: (1) Z-relevant desorption physics (Temkin isotherm), and (2) two approaches to simulate electrode plasma creation and dynamics (automatic creation versus self-consistent creation through direct simulation Monte Carlo collisions).

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Developing an intrinsically secure information barrier for arms control verification through machine learning

Near-term solutions are needed to allow for flexible engagement in future nuclear arms control discussions. This project developed a method for implementing an information barrier (IB) on commercial systems, shortening the research and development lifecycle for warhead verification technologies while offering improved and inherently flexible capabilities. The crux of the verification challenge remains the difficulty in developing an authenticatable IB which prevents sensitive host country information from inadvertent transmission to an inspector. Many concepts for IB’s rely on dedicated “trusted” processor modules developed with dedicated custom radiation detection systems and associated algorithms. Without a priori knowledge of the treaty item, the parameter space for measurements can be nearly infinite and robustness against spoofing without the ability to view sensitive data is key. This project has produced an unclassified framework capable of ingesting data from common gamma detectors and identifying the presence of weapons grade nuclear material at over 90% accuracy.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

DOE OSTI2023

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↗

DOE OSTI2024

MOOSE-Based Fast Reactor Core Bowing Capabilities: Coupled Structural Mechanics – Thermal Fluids Demonstration and Related Verification Efforts

Under the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Nuclear Energy’s Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) Program, an integrated multiphysics approach is being developed to model the core bowing phenomena important to liquid metal-cooled fast reactors. Core bowing is an important passive safety mechanism in liquid metal-cooled fast reactors and involves multiphysics effects including radiation transport, fluid flow, heat transfer, and mechanical response to temperature and flux gradients. Verification and assessment efforts continued on the Multiphysics Object Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) capabilities relevant for modeling thermo-mechanical core bowing behavior. IAEA Verification Problem 4, which was started in FY23, was further examined with MOOSE capabilities to rectify discrepancies observed in previous years when compared to IAEA benchmark participant data. Meshing and postprocessing capabilities in MOOSE were also advanced by other teams and utilized this year. A thermal fluids-structural mechanical coupling demonstration has performed on 7-assemblyand 19-assembly fast reactor assembly configurations using MOOSE. Subchannel capabilities are used to calculate coolant temperature, and heat conduction capabilities calculate duct wall temperature as well as heat transfer through the inter-assembly gap. Structural mechanical capabilities then deform the mesh, accounting for contact between assemblies, according to the temperature gradients calculated by the thermal solvers. Power distributions are imposed rather than calculated to demonstrate different deformations.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Level 2 Milestone: Develop and Incorporate Novel Code Verification of Fundamental Equations in Gemma and Set Up Appropriate Tests

For computational physics simulations, code verification plays a major role in establishing the credibility of the results by assessing the correctness of the implementation of the underlying numerical methods. In computational electromagnetics, surface integral equations, such as the method-of-moments implementations of the electric-, magnetic-, and combinedfield integral equations, are frequently used to solve Maxwell’s equations on the surfaces of electromagnetic scatterers. These electromagnetic surface integral equations yield many code-verification challenges due to the various sources of numerical error and their possible interactions. In this report, we provide approaches to separately measure the numerical errors arising from these different error sources. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these approaches in Gemma.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.22 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↗

DOE OSTI2024

Verification of the PERSENT Software

Ongoing commercial design activities require a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes to be performed. DIF3D is central to this system and substantial work has been done to verify its accuracy on several identified commercial needs. This manuscript details the verification work done on PERSENT which relies upon the DIF3D for its forward and adjoint flux solution.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2021

FAST-1.0.1 User Installation and Verification Guide

The purpose of this document is to provide the user information about the installation of FAST-1.0.1 on their computers or servers. General information about the code and supported operating systems is described in Section 1.0.1. Self-service oriented FAST-1.0.1 software licensing steps are described in Section 2.0. An installation verification test suite is provided with FAST-1.0.1 and described in Section 3.0. A convenience script for converting FRAPCON to FAST inputs is discussed in Section 4.0. FAST-1.0.1 was developed and released under a software quality assurance program based upon NQA-1-2017. FAST-1.0.1 is the latest baseline code and the result of a bug fixes to FAST-1.0 with other software and methodology developments. The installation verification test suite contains both steady state and transient Anticipated Operation Occurrences (AOOs). Capability to model accident conditions, such as Reactivity Initiated Accidents (RIAs) and Loss Of Coolant Accidents (LOCAs), are targeted for a later release of FAST. FRAPTRAN-2.0 will continue to be used for accident conditions until the release of FAST with accident condition modeling capabilities.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2023

FAST-1.2 User Installation and Verification Guide: Developed Under NQA-1-2017

The purpose of this document is to provide the user information about the installation of Fuel Analysis for Steady state and Transient (FAST)-1.2 on their computers or servers. General information about the code and supported operating systems is described in Section 1.0. Self-service oriented FAST-1.2 software licensing steps are described in Section 2.0. An installation verification test suite is provided with FAST-1.2 and described in Section 3.0. A convenience script for converting Fuel Rod Analysis Program – Constant (FRAPCON) to FAST inputs is discussed in Section 4.0. FAST-1.2 was developed and released under a software quality assurance program based upon NQA-1-2017 at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). FAST-1.2 is the latest baseline code. The installation verification test suite contains both steady state and transient Anticipated Operation Occurrences (AOOs), accident conditions, such as Reactivity Initiated Accidents (RIAs) and Loss of Coolant Accidents (LOCAs).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Portal Monitoring Considerations for Treaty Verification Applications

Portal monitoring is one method in a suite of options for treaty verification and can assist in verification of treaty accountable items (TAIs). Portal monitor technology spans a wide range of sensors, including radiation detectors, break-beams, or weight sensors. For radiation-detecting portal monitors, they are able to confirm absence / presence of a radiological signature and to track TAI direction of motion. Portal monitoring uses measurements from strategically placed sensors (e.g., radiation detectors) to record the entry or egress of TAIs. The implementation of portal monitoring relies on three key elements: perimeter definition, portal locations, and sensor technology, and can be implemented in either time-bound or continuous operations depending on what is permitted by the Treaty.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗

DOE OSTI2026

Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.28 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.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

DOE OSTI2023

Sample-efficient verification of continuously-parameterized quantum gates for small quantum processors

Most near-term quantum information processing devices will not be capable of implementing quantum error correction and the associated logical quantum gate set. Instead, quantum circuits will be implemented directly using the physical native gate set of the device. These native gates often have a parameterization (e.g., rotation angles) which provide the ability to perform a continuous range of operations. Verification of the correct operation of these gates across the allowable range of parameters is important for gaining confidence in the reliability of these devices. In this work, we demonstrate a procedure for sample-efficient verification of continuously-parameterized quantum gates for small quantum processors of up to approximately 10 qubits. This procedure involves generating random sequences of randomly-parameterized layers of gates chosen from the native gate set of the device, and then stochastically compiling an approximate inverse to this sequence such that executing the full sequence on the device should leave the system near its initial state. We show that fidelity estimates made via this technique have a lower variance than fidelity estimates made via cross-entropy benchmarking. This provides an experimentally-relevant advantage in sample efficiency when estimating the fidelity loss to some desired precision. We describe the experimental realization of this technique using continuously-parameterized quantum gate sets on a trapped-ion quantum processor from Sandia QSCOUT and a superconducting quantum processor from IBM Q, and we demonstrate the sample efficiency advantage of this technique both numerically and experimentally.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗