SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Qualitative and Quantitative verification”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

EVALUATION OF HRA METHODOLOGIES FOR APPLICATION IN SDP WORK

This study critically evaluates human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies applicable to regulatory probabilistic safety assessment (PSA) model, with a particular focus on their role in supporting the significance determination process (SDP) in nuclear safety assessment. Firstly, three widely utilized HRA methods – IDHEAS-ECA, SPAR-H, and ASEP/THERP – were qualitatively and quantitatively assessed. Qualitative assessments were conducted using attributes from the NEA/CSNI/R(2015)1 report, while quantitative evaluations employed regression and correlation analyses to compare predicted human error probabilities (HEPs) against empirical data. Results reveal distinct strengths, for example, IDHEAS-ECA’s robust predictive accuracy and K-HRA’s alignment with operational practices. In addition, dependency analysis and recovery analysis were critically evaluated. For dependency analysis, the methods’ handling of inter-task dependencies and their impact on HEPs were examined, while recovery analysis highlighted strategies for mitigating failure events. Furthermore, strategies were proposed to evaluate performance-shaping factors under conditions of reduced human performance, such as stress, fatigue, or cognitive overload, addressing specific challenges faced in SDP evaluations. Human errors from KINS’s operational performance information system event reports were evaluated as a case study. This study identifies gaps and provides actionable insights to ensure their validity and applicability in SDP HRA applications. This paper is a part of research conducted by KINS, and it should be noted that this result does not represent the regulatory position of KINS.

99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Synthetic Scientific Image Generation with VAE, GAN, and Diffusion Model Architectures

Generative AI (genAI) has emerged as a powerful tool for synthesizing diverse and complex image data, offering new possibilities for scientific imaging applications. This review presents a comprehensive comparative analysis of leading generative architectures, ranging from Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) to Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) on through to Diffusion Models, in the context of scientific image synthesis. We examine each model's foundational principles, recent architectural advancements, and practical trade-offs. Our evaluation, conducted on domain-specific datasets including microCT scans of rocks and composite fibers, as well as high-resolution images of plant roots, integrates both quantitative metrics (SSIM, LPIPS, FID, CLIPScore) and expert-driven qualitative assessments. Results show that GANs, particularly StyleGAN, produce images with high perceptual quality and structural coherence. Diffusion-based models for inpainting and image variation, such as DALL-E 2, delivered high realism and semantic alignment but generally struggled in balancing visual fidelity with scientific accuracy. Importantly, our findings reveal limitations of standard quantitative metrics in capturing scientific relevance, underscoring the need for domain-expert validation. We conclude by discussing key challenges such as model interpretability, computational cost, and verification protocols, and discuss future directions where generative AI can drive innovation in data augmentation, simulation, and hypothesis generation in scientific research.

Generative Adversarial Networks↗

DOE OSTI2025

Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration: Phase III (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) is one of 7 regional partnerships formed in 2003 under the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) initiative. The overall purpose of the initiative was to help determine and implement the technology, infrastructure, and regulations most appropriate to promote carbon storage in different regions of the country. Covering Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and parts of Texas, Wyoming, and Kansas, the SWP evaluated regional carbon storage and utilization potential and focused on technologies and sites that could complement the region’s strong position in energy production. The project progressed through three phases: • Phase I (2003–2005): Characterized regional geologic formations and CO 2 sources, assessed sequestration potential, and identified pilot test sites. • Phase II (2005–2013): Conducted small-scale field tests to validate sequestration methods, including geologic and terrestrial projects. • Phase III (2008–2022): Demonstrated large-scale CO 2 injection at a commercial oil field to test monitoring, verification, and long-term storage strategies. This report covers Phase III. The final project site, the Farnsworth Unit (FWU) in Texas, provided real-world testing of reservoir characterization, monitoring, and risk evaluation tools and processes that could be used in any commercial scale carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) project. Extensive data collection and analysis helped refine best practices for reservoir characterization, injection monitoring, and storage verification. The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Key lessons learned include the importance of robust data management, strategic site selection, regulatory navigation, and effective industry collaboration. The project’s findings will inform ongoing and future carbon storage initiatives. Task 1 (Regional Characterization) • The SWP continued to participate in national outreach efforts and NATCARB. • The SWP evaluated multiple potential sites before selecting the FWU as the primary field test location. Task 2 (Public Outreach and Education) • The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Task 3 (Permitting and Regulatory Compliance) • The SWP ensured compliance with federal and state regulations, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. • The SWP obtained all necessary permits for drilling, injection, and monitoring activities. Task 4 (Site Characterization and Planning) • The SWP developed work plans for four key activities: characterization, simulation, monitoring and verification, and risk evaluation. • The SWP collected and synthesized legacy data from multiple sources to build initial static geological models and dynamic reservoir models demonstrating project feasibility. • The SWP conducted an initial risk evaluation and developed mitigation plans. Task 5 (Field Operations and Data Collection) • The SWP drilled, logged, and cored three characterization wells to gather critical subsurface data. • The SWP conducted multiple geophysical surveys, including 3D seismic, crosswell seismic, and vertical seismic profiling, to improve reservoir characterization. Task 6 (Monitoring and Verification) • The SWP performed extensive geological characterization using data from characterization wells and seismic surveys. • The SWP established a surface monitoring network to track CO 2 flux in soil gas, groundwater chemistry, and near-surface atmospheric CO 2 levels. • The SWP built and refined reservoir models to study the effects of relative permeability on simulation behavior and improve calibration with experimental data. Task 7 (Risk Assessment and Model Refinement) • The SWP conducted multiple studies to evaluate reservoir integrity, predict CO 2 plume behavior and improve predictive modeling capabilities. • The SWP refined geological models and used them to enhance the accuracy of simulation models. • The SWP continued quantitative risk assessment of top-ranked risks and strengthened the link between qualitative and quantitative risk methodologies.

02 PETROLEUM↗

DOE OSTI2025

Simulation Center for Runaway Electron Avoidance and Mitigation (SCREAM SciDAC) (Technical Final Report)

Runaway electrons can severely damage the plasma facing components on ITER during a major disruption and pose a major risk for tokamak fusion. It has been recognized that an adequate disruption mitigation system (DMS) is essential for the safe operation of ITER. The United States is responsible for the design and implementation of the disruption mitigation system on ITER, and in July 2016 the Simulation Center for Runaway Electron Avoidance and Mitigation (SCREAM) was launched by DOE, in a joint Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) and Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) collaboration. SCREAM was a comprehensive theory and simulation SciDAC center that provided physics guidance in the avoidance and mitigation of runaway electrons, and in tandem with domestic and international experiments, helped establish the qualitative and quantitative bases for safe operational scenarios and viable mitigation techniques. The SCREAM center assembled a national team of experts in runaway electron physics, tokamak disruptions, magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation, and advanced algorithms and computing. The team combined advanced simulation and analysis capability facilitated by direct participation of ASCR SciDAC institutes with theoretical models and code development by FES scientists to focus on the runaway risk for ITER and tokamaks in general. The research scope was focussed on integrated simulations of kinetic runaway electrons, including MHD and fluid models of impurity transport, within a research plan guided by theory. The specific research tasks were (1) establish the fundamental physics of runaway generation, saturation, and dynamical evolution in a tokamak; (2) examine the critical path toward runaway avoidance; and (3) investigate the viability and effectiveness of the leading candidate schemes for runaway mitigation. In all three areas, members of the team carried out scoping studies that established the readiness for rapid and critical advances, especially in the deployment and further development of large-to extreme-scale simulation tools. Our multi-pronged computational approach included (1) relativistic Fokker-Planck solvers with discretization in phase space, (2) self-consistent particle-in-cell techniques, (3) particle-based Monte-Carlo, and (4) MHD-particle hybrid simulations. Cross-check between these different methods provided an additional means for verification and further bolstered the fidelity of our physics prediction. Validation against experimental results brings confidence to the predictive capability for ITER and frequently leads to new ideas for understanding and mitigating the thermal quench driven runaway electron phenomenon.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗