Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Appendix G”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Performance Assessment for the E-Area Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Facility at the Savannah River Site: Appendix G

This appendix contains supporting information and key data used during the IHI analysis, including the following: • A list of parent radionuclides requiring IHI inventory limits (Section G.1) • Tables of IHI acute and chronic dose factors, inventory limits, and concentration limits for all DUs (Section G.2) • IHI acute and chronic dose history time profiles for all DUs (Section G.3)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Commercial Building Prototypes Based on ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 Appendix G PRM: Technical Support Document

The two paths for documenting compliance with ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 are the prescriptive path and the performance path. Beyond code programs and rating systems (for example, USGBC-LEED ) are primarily known to use a third path – the Appendix G Performance Rating Method. An update in the 2016 edition of Standard 90.1 approved the Appendix G Performance Rating System for code compliance, extending its application and allowing for greater consistency of modeling rules for code and beyond code building energy modeling. The Appendix G PRM provides rules for the development of whole building energy models of baseline and proposed models for calculating the “performance cost index target” value using the simulated energy results of the baseline and proposed models and the building performance factors published in Table 4.2.1.1 of the Standard. This report documents (1) the methodology used for development of the baseline and proposed energy models of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and U.S. Department of Energy commercial building prototypes using the Appendix G Performance Rating Method; and (2) the building performance factors that were calculated using those models.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sister Rod Destructive Examinations (FY2021) Appendix G: CRIFT Uncertainty Calculations

This document discusses the uncertainty of measurements associated with the CIRFT system and the resulting uncertainty in the acquired measurements and calculated information. The primary parameters measured during the CIRFT test include the deflection magnitude of the specimen, the load applied in bending, and the number of cycles to specimen gross failure. The associated primary calculated parameters are the bending radius/curvature and bending moment. Secondary calculated parameters include specimen stress and strain amplitudes and flexural rigidity. The uncertainty associated with the primary and secondary calculated parameters are investigated based on the known uncertainty in the measured parameters.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sister Rod Destructive Examinations (FY23) Appendix G: CIRFT Uncertainty Calculations

This document discusses the uncertainty of measurements associated with the cyclic integrated reversible-bending fatigue tester (CIRFT) system and the resulting uncertainty in the acquired measurements and calculated information. The primary parameters measured during the CIRFT test include the deflection magnitude of the specimen, the load applied during bending, and the number of cycles to specimen gross failure. The associated primary calculated parameters are the bending radius/curvature and the bending moment. Secondary calculated parameters include specimen stress and strain amplitudes, as well as flexural rigidity. The uncertainty associated with the primary and secondary calculated parameters is investigated based on the known uncertainty in the measured parameters.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2021

NuScale Pressure and Temperature Limits Methodology Using Finite Element Analysis

Per 10 CFR 50 Appendix G, the pressure-temperature (P-T) limits curves and minimum temperature must be established to provide adequate margins for ferritic pressure-retaining components of the reactor coolant pressure boundary; this is to protect against brittle failure during any normal operating conditions, including anticipated operational occurrences and system hydrostatic tests, to which the pressure boundary may be subjected over its service lifetime. Specifically, ASME Code Section XI Appendix G procedures must be used for P-T limits calculation considering the pressure and temperature at various operating transient conditions. However, the elastic fracture mechanics solutions in Section XI are only suitable for cylindrical reactor pressure vessel (RPV) beltline without geometric discontinuities. Hence, these solutions are not suitable for postulated flaws near the core support blocks attached to the NuScale RPV inside surface, which is part of the beltline. As a result, NuScale has used finite element analysis to calculate thermal stress and stress intensity factor for the postulated flaws. The solutions using finite-element analysis have been validated using the formulations for straight cylinders for both axial and circumferential flaws. In addition, special considerations are given to the RPV beltline nil-ductility transition temperature (RTNDT) due to neutron irradiation occurring at lower temperatures than conventional plants. The paper summarizes the methodology and finite-element models used to develop P-T limits curves for NuScale RPV at the end of its 60-year design life.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2022 Performance Rating Method Reference Manual

This document is intended to be a reference manual for the Appendix G Performance Rating Method (PRM) of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2022 (Standard 90.1-2022). The PRM can be used to demonstrate compliance with the standard and to rate the energy efficiency of commercial and high-rise residential buildings with designs that exceed the requirements of Standard 90.1. Use of the PRM for demonstrating compliance with Standard 90.1 was a new feature of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 (Standard 90.1-2016). The procedures and processes described in the PRM reference manual (PRM-RM) are designed to provide consistency and accuracy by filling in gaps and providing additional details needed by users of the PRM.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Chilled water temperature set-point reset based on outdoor air temperature and its cooling energy performance in an office building

Here, in this study, the cooling energy performance of two strategies for controlling ChWT (chilled water temperature) are compared: the conventional control strategy of constantly fixing ChWT and the OAT (outdoor air temperature) compensation control strategy that adjusts ChWT according to the changes in OAT. OAT compensation control strategy was modeled and realized based on Appendix G of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. It was confirmed that applying OAT compensation control strategy can significantly reduce chiller energy consumption, which accounts for the largest portion of total cooling energy consumption. It was found that the difference in total cooling energy consumption between applying the conventional control of constantly fixing ChWT to 6 °C and applying the OAT compensation control was approximately 8 % and 3 % during spring (March to May) and summer (June to August), respectively. Additionally, during the fall (September–November) period, about 7 % of total cooling energy consumption could be saved.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

pnnl/ruleset-checking-tool

The Ruleset Checking Tool (RCT) will be a tool for verifying implementation of a ruleset (such as ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Appendix G) in building performance modeling (BPM) tools.

McNeill, James↗
DOE OSTI2023

ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 Performance Rating Method Reference Manual

This document is intended to be a reference manual for the Appendix G Performance Rating Method (PRM) of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 (Standard 90.1-2019). The PRM can be used to demonstrate compliance with the standard and to rate the energy efficiency of commercial and high-rise residential buildings with designs that exceed the requirements of Standard 90.1. Use of the PRM for demonstrating compliance with Standard 90.1 was a new feature of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2016 (Standard 90.1-2016). The procedures and processes described in the PRM reference manual (PRM-RM) are designed to provide consistency and accuracy by filling in gaps and providing additional details needed by users of the PRM.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

UAE6 - Wind Tunnel Tests Data - UAE6 - Sequence 8 - Raw Data

Sequences 8 and 9: Downwind Sonics (F,P) and Downwind Sonics Parked (P) This test sequence used an upwind, rigid turbine with a 0° cone angle. The wind speed ranged from 5 m/s to 25 m/s. Yaw angles of 0° to 60° were achieved. The blade tip pitch was 3°. The rotor rotated at 72 RPM during Sequence 8, but it was parked during Sequence 9. Blade pressure measurements were collected. The five-hole probes were removed and the plugs were installed. Plastic tape 0.03-mm-thick was used to smooth the interface between the plugs and the blade. The teeter dampers were replaced with rigid links, and these two channels were flagged as not applicable by setting the measured values in the data file to –99999.99 Nm. The teeter link load cell was pre-tensioned to 40,000 N. During post-processing, the probe channels were set to read -99999.99. Sonic anemometers were mounted on a strut downwind of the turbine. The strut was mounted to the T-frame, which was rotated to align the anemometers aft of the 9% and 49% radius locations at hub height. Because of this configuration, the tunnel balance data are considered invalid. Sequence 9 was designed to compare the downwind sonic anemometer readings with the upwind sonic anemometers without interference from the turbine. The rotor was parked with the instrumented blade at 0° azimuth. All pressure measurements obtained in Sequence 9 are invalid because sufficient time for temperature stabilization did not occur, thus all associated data values were flagged as not applicable by setting the measured values in the data file to 0.0000 Pa. This test is further described in Appendix G.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

UAE6 - Wind Tunnel Tests Data - UAE6 - Sequence 9 - Raw Data

Sequences 8 and 9: Downwind Sonics (F,P) and Downwind Sonics Parked (P) This test sequence used an upwind, rigid turbine with a 0° cone angle. The wind speed ranged from 5 m/s to 25 m/s. Yaw angles of 0° to 60° were achieved. The blade tip pitch was 3°. The rotor rotated at 72 RPM during Sequence 8, but it was parked during Sequence 9. Blade pressure measurements were collected. The five-hole probes were removed and the plugs were installed. Plastic tape 0.03-mm-thick was used to smooth the interface between the plugs and the blade. The teeter dampers were replaced with rigid links, and these two channels were flagged as not applicable by setting the measured values in the data file to –99999.99 Nm. The teeter link load cell was pre-tensioned to 40,000 N. During post-processing, the probe channels were set to read -99999.99. Sonic anemometers were mounted on a strut downwind of the turbine. The strut was mounted to the T-frame, which was rotated to align the anemometers aft of the 9% and 49% radius locations at hub height. Because of this configuration, the tunnel balance data are considered invalid. Sequence 9 was designed to compare the downwind sonic anemometer readings with the upwind sonic anemometers without interference from the turbine. The rotor was parked with the instrumented blade at 0° azimuth. All pressure measurements obtained in Sequence 9 are invalid because sufficient time for temperature stabilization did not occur, thus all associated data values were flagged as not applicable by setting the measured values in the data file to 0.0000 Pa. This test is further described in Appendix G.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Measuring Impact: Evaluating Thermal Zoning Simplification on Energy Efficiency Measures Analysis

Building Energy Modeling (BEM) is a versatile tool for designing, retrofitting, ensuring code compliance, obtaining certifications, qualifying for incentives, and enabling real-time building control. However, capturing all the details of building geometry for thermal zoning can be time-consuming, costly, and sometimes computationally challenging. As a result, modelers have been applying zoning simplification based on factors such as space functions and internal loads, as well as relying on their experience and judgment while adhering to zoning rules outlined in industry standards. Despite the prevalence of this common practice, a notable gap exists in the literature regarding studies quantifying the influence of simplified thermal zoning on the evaluation of Energy Efficiency Measures (EEMs). Recognizing this gap, this paper seeks to contribute to the field by enhancing the understanding of how the simplification of thermal zoning influences the evaluation of EEMs against a baseline design. The study utilized a medium office prototype model with a detailed floor plan featuring over 20 zones per floor covering diverse functional spaces with varying internal loads and occupancy schedules. A standard thermal zoning strategy outlined in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Appendix G was employed as the simplified zoning method. This strategy condenses the zoning into a core zone and four perimeter zones per floor. It was compared with the detailed zoning approach, which involves one zone per space. Common Energy EEMs, such as enhanced envelope, high-efficiency appliances and equipment, and HVAC controls, were individually implemented and evaluated. The results indicate that the performance comparison between the two zoning methods varies depending on the type of measures considered. Basic measures, such as adding wall insulation, demonstrate similar energy impacts, while advanced HVAC control measures, such as static pressure reset, exhibit a more substantial difference that cannot be overlooked.

Xie, Jiarong↗
DOE OSTI2024

The soaring kite: a tale of two punctured tori

We consider the 5-mass kite family of self-energy Feynman integrals and present a systematic approach for constructing an ε-form basis, along with its differential equation pulled back onto the moduli space of two tori. Each torus is associated with one of the two distinct elliptic curves this family depends on. We demonstrate how the locations of relevant punctures, which are required to parametrize the full image of the kinematic space onto this moduli space, can be extracted from integrals over maximal cuts. A boundary value is provided such that the differential equation is systematically solved in terms of iterated integrals over g-kernels and modular forms. Then, the numerical evaluation of the master integrals is discussed, and important challenges in that regard are emphasized. In an appendix, we introduce new relations between g-kernels.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Incorporation of Thermal Hydraulic Models for Thermal Power Dispatch into a PWR Power Plant Simulator

This report describes the development, modeling, and results of a generic pressurized water reactor power plant simulator that incorporates coupled electrical and thermal power dispatch to an industrial process located approximately one kilometer from the nuclear power plant. The simulator is a commercial PWR simulator that has been modified to include thermal power dispatch as described in past milestone reports [ , ]. The commercial PWR simulator is a generic simulator available from GSE SYSTEMS® (Sykesville, MD, USA) that is built using RELAP5-HDTM Real-Time Solution and in-house software developed by GSE Systems. This generic PWR (GPWR) simulator performs real-time simulation of the complete power plant from the reactor neutronics to the electricity generation and distribution. All primary, secondary, and auxiliary systems are modeled including all control logic in order to provide the most accurate representation of actual nuclear power plant (NPP) operation, and the simulator results have been rigorously verified by an actual NPP operating at approximately 1 GWe. This report is a continuation of worked performed in previous years, and supplemental information from previous reports is included in the appendix for reference.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Isochronic Evolution and the Radioactive Decay of r-process Nuclei

Abstract We report on the creation and application of a novel decay network that uses the latest data from experiment and evaluation. We use the network to simulate the late-time phase of the rapid neutron capture ( r ) process. In this epoch, the bulk of nuclear reactions, such as radiative capture, have ceased, and nuclear decays are the dominant transmutation channels. We find that the decay from short-lived to long-lived species naturally leads to an isochronic evolution in which nuclei with similar half-lives are populated at the same time. We consider random perturbations along each isobaric chain to initial solar-like r -process compositions to demonstrate the isochronic nature of the late-time phase of the r -process. Our analysis shows that detailed knowledge of the final isotopic composition allows for the prediction of late-time evolution with a high degree of confidence despite uncertainties that exist in astrophysical conditions and the nuclear physics properties of the most neutron-rich nuclei. We provide the time-dependent nuclear composition in the Appendix as supplemental material.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Opacity Table Generation

Radiation opacity is a key property of material systems which describes the absorption and scattering of photons. Such processes are an important part of energy transport, diagnostics, and astrophysical phenomena. Recent experiments in iron opacity and continuum lowering have sparked renewed interest in and careful vetting of opacity models. Even within the local thermodynamic equilibrium approximation, opacity varies over a large parameter space: material, temperature, density, and energy. Opacity tables that span wide regimes of this parameter space are of prime importance to radiation-hydrodynamics codes. Accurate opacity calculations cannot be achieved inline during a radiation hydrodynamics simulation since they involve accounting for all possible electron transitions of all important atomic states of a thermal ensemble. Livermore’s current framework utilizes precalculated tables at many densities, temperatures, and energies. Last year, the opacity theory team completed an L2 milestone concerning the development of a new code, Opus, which served the dual purpose of creating a modern code infrastructure and version control as well as the basis for training new members of that team, a critical need as key members near or are passed retirement. For the current L2 milestone, we exercised and validated Opus on three elements: boron, carbon, and nitrogen, which have few enough electrons to allow a careful convergence study over many input parameters. Here, we report on the production of new tables, show their convergence with respect to important parameters, state some of their limitations, and document a mostly automated production process. In this section, we address the milestone completion criteria, found on the title page and the subsection headings. In section 2, we validate Opus against Tycho and compare with TabOp and Atomic. Section 3 details some of the physics implemented in Opus and relevant to this report. We then cover details of the density-temperature grid in section 4 and do a spectral comparison between different parameter settings and different codes in section 5. After summarizing these results in section 6, we give instructions how to run the opacity table scripts in appendix A and document the scripts and input/output files in appendix B.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Measurement of the production of charm jets tagged with D0 mesons in pp collisions at $\sqrt{s}$ = 5.02 and 13 TeV

The measurement of the production of charm jets, identified by the presence of a D 0 meson in the jet constituents, is presented in proton–proton collisions at centre-of-mass energies of $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 and 13 TeV with the ALICE detector at the CERN LHC. The D 0 mesons were reconstructed from their hadronic decay D 0 → K – π + and the respective charge conjugate. Jets were reconstructed from D 0 -meson candidates and charged particles using the anti-k T algorithm, in the jet transverse momentum range 5 < p T,chjet < 50 GeV/c, pseudorapidity |η jet | < 0.9 – R, and with the jet resolution parameters R = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6. The distribution of the jet momentum fraction carried by a D 0 meson along the jet axis $\left({z}_{\Big\Vert}^{\textrm{ch}}\right)$ was measured in the range 0.4 < ${z}_{\Big\Vert}^{\textrm{ch}}$ < 1.0 in four ranges of the jet transverse momentum. Comparisons of results for different collision energies and jet resolution parameters are also presented. The measurements are compared to predictions from Monte Carlo event generators based on leading-order and next-to-leading-order perturbative quantum chromodynamics calculations. A generally good description of the main features of the data is obtained in spite of a few discrepancies at low p T,chjet . Measurements were also done for R = 0.3 at $\sqrt{s}$= 5.02 and are shown along with their comparisons to theoretical predictions in an appendix to this paper.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Research and Test Reactor Fuels

PRO-RR is the research reactor focused program element of the broader Proliferation Resistance Optimization program (PRO-X) under the National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) in the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). PRO-X provides a framework for integrating proliferation resistance in nuclear system designs to minimize weapons usable nuclear materials (WUNM) production and diversion pathways while optimizing systems performance for peaceful use missions. PRO-RR applies the PRO-X mission objectives to research reactor system design. This document serves as one of the foundational documents for the PRO-RR-Fuel System Design technical team by documenting current research reactor fuels usage. The PRO-RR-Fuel System Design technical team consists of subject matter experts from Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) and Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL). In order to determine the preferred fuel of use in upcoming research and test reactors to optimize proliferation resistance, performance, and safety, it is useful to assess the fuels that have been used in the past, or are currently in use. This report reviews the historical and current fuels used in research and test reactors to inform future fuel selection. Chapter 2 discusses the low-enriched uranium (LEU) fuels currently in use in terms of thermal power level and utilization of the reactor. Chapter 3 summarizes the fabrication processes for common fuel types. Chapter 4 discusses in detail the fuel types in use in research and test reactors. A review of the cladding types in use is presented in Chapter 5, and a historical review of research and test reactor fuel fabricators is presented in Chapter 6. The data collection strategy used the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) research reactor database [1] as a starting point. Information on the fuel used was gathered on research reactors (other than critical assemblies) that were listed as operational, planned, or in temporary shutdown in the IAEA database. Data on the fuel type, geometry, enrichment, uranium loading, cladding type, and fabricator were collected for each of the reactors available in the public domain. Sources of data included conference papers, journal articles, and facility and fabricator websites. Data on research reactors operating on LEU fuels are presented in Appendix A, while Appendix B presents data collected on all reactors at the time of publication of this report. Appendix C presents data collected on reactors that were part of the M3 research and test reactor conversion program.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗