Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “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.

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 OSTI2022

Code Verification and Solution Verification framework in pin-resolved neutron transport code MPACT

Program verification in scientific computing encompasses the application of formal and mathematical techniques to a scientific computing code for its credibility, accuracy, and validity. Code Verification identifies bugs and performance issues in the software development stage. Solution Verification assesses the applicability of the code and the accuracy of the solution to problems of interest. Both activities utilize application cases and quantify the error against prescribed acceptance criteria. However, simply executing more application cases does not guarantee stronger or more comprehensive credibility. Here, we establish a verification framework that involves Code Verification and Solution Verification, both of which work together such that the overarching goal of “converge to the correct answer for the intended application” can be reasonably inferred. The application of such a verification framework is demonstrated using the pin-resolved neutron transport code MPACT, where standard unit tests and regression tests are covered, and where the Method of Exact Solutions and the Method of Manufactured Solutions are successfully used. Additionally, the applicability of Method of Manufactured Solutions is extended to the OECD/NEA C5G7 benchmark problems of practical material and geometric configurations. Solution Verification activities are demonstrated on a practical hierarchy of application models of increasing complexity ranging from 2D pin cell problems to 3D assembly problems. The convergence behavior and rate of convergence with respect to each individual variable are studied and provided. This framework can be adapted broadly to other fields involving scientific computing codes.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Practical verification protocols for analog quantum simulators

Abstract Analog quantum simulation is expected to be a significant application of near-term quantum devices. Verification of these devices without comparison to known simulation results will be an important task as the system size grows beyond the regime that can be simulated classically. We introduce a set of experimentally-motivated verification protocols for analog quantum simulators, discussing their sensitivity to a variety of error sources and their scalability to larger system sizes. We demonstrate these protocols experimentally using a two-qubit trapped-ion analog quantum simulator and numerically using models of up to five qubits.

Physics↗
DOE OSTI2022

Software Verification Toolkit (SVT): Survey on Available Software Verification Tools and Future Direction

Writing software is difficult. However, writing complex, well tested and designed, and functionally correct software is incredibly difficult. An entire field of study is devoted to the validation and verification of software to address this problem, and in this paper we analyze the landscape of currently available third party software. We have divided our analyses into three separate subsections with regards to software validation: formal methods, static analysis, and test generation. Formal verification is the most complex method in which to validate software correctness, but also the most thorough as it truly validates the mathematical validity of the source code. Static analysis generally is relegated to abstract syntax tree traversal techniques to find errors related to faulty software such as memory leaks or stack overflow issues. Automatic test generation is similar in implementation to static analysis, but pushes a bit further in verifying the boundedness of function inputs and outputs with regards to annotated or parsed criteria. The crux of this report is to analyze and describe the software tools that implement these techniques to validate and verify software. Pros and cons related to installation, utilization, and capabilities of the frameworks are described, and reproducible examples are provided with a focus on usability. The initial survey concluded that the most interesting tools of note are Z3, Isabelle/HOL, and TLA+ with regards to formal verification; and Infer, Frama-C, and SonarQube with regards to static analysis. With these tools in mind, a final conjecture is provided that describes future avenues of utilizing these tools for developing a verification framework to assist in validating existing software at Sandia National Laboratories.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Kinetic Plasma Simulation in the MOOSE Framework: Verification of Electrostatic Particle In Cell Capabilities

In magnetic confinement nuclear fusion reactors, the interaction between the plasma edge and plasma facing components is extremely important. At the plasma edge, a kinetic representation such as particle-in-cell (rather than a fluid representation) is required to accurately capture the plasma behavior. General purpose particle-in-cell plasma simulation capabilities have been developed in the Multiphysics Object-Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) framework. This new capability is a part of the development of a new MOOSE-based framework for modeling plasma facing components, the Fusion ENergy Integrated multiphys-X (FENIX) framework. In this work, the verification of foundational particle-in-cell capabilities in FENIX is presented. This new plasma simulation capability has three main components: moving particles in discrete steps on the finite element mesh, mapping charge density from the particle's location to the finite element mesh, and solving for the electrostatic potential based on the charge density mapped from particles to the mesh. In this paper, simple verification problems demonstrating each of these new capabilities are presented, and future work includes electromagnetic capabilities and Monte Carlo collisions with neutral gas particles.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Verification and Validation Tests of Gamma Library of MC2-3 for Coupled Neutron and Gamma Heating Calculation

For the accurate assessment of the heat generation rate in fast reactors, the gamma library of MC2 -3 and the MC2 -3 + GAMSOR procedure employing the coupled neutron and gamma heating calculation has been thoroughly verified against Monte Carlo results and validated using the ZPPR-15D gamma dose measurement data. NJOY outputs are post-processed in a consistent way with the NJOY procedure to avoid any missing data or double counting of data. Prompt heating for 379 out of 391 isotopes in the gamma library was verified against MCNP6.2 to within 1% relative error in total heating for most isotopes. For both a simple one-dimensional slab problem representing a sodium cooled fast reactor and the Experimental Breeder Reactor II (EBR-II) benchmark problem, the root-mean-square values of assembly power error were less than 0.5% for fuel assemblies, ~1% in blankets and ~1 to ~3% in reflectors compared to MCNP6.2 results. The most plausible cause for the 3% error in a reflector assembly is believed to be the error in the multigroup neutron cross sections for the reflector assembly. For validation, gamma doses measured with thermoluminiscent dosimeters (TLDs) in the ZPPR-15D experiment were calculated using GAMSOR. Due to the uncertainty in the TLD measurement with regards to the energy deposition of photons and neutrons, the validation data leads to a 12.7% uncertainty on the experimental measurement. With this uncertainty bound, the calculated doses all fell within one standard deviation of the measured value. Combined with the accurate calculation of reaction rate distributions and neutron spectrum measurements, these results indicate good agreement for the neutron and gamma heating calculations that were performed.

coupled neutron and gamma heating↗
DOE OSTI2024

High-Fidelity Numerical Wave Tank Verification & Validation Study: Wave Generation Through Paddle Motion: Preprint

This paper presents a numerical benchmark study of wave propagation due to a paddle motion using different high-fidelity numerical models, which are capable of replicating the nearly actual physical wave tank testing. A full time series of the measured wave generation paddle motion which was used to generate wave propagation in the physical wave tank will be utilized in each of the models contributed by IEA OES Task 10's participants, which includes both computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and smooth hydrodynamic particle (SPH). The high-fidelity simulations of the physical wave testcase will allow for the evaluation of the initial transient effects from wave ramp-up and its evolution in the wave tank over time for two representative regular waves with varying levels of nonlinearity. A couple of interesting metrics like the predicted wave surface elevation at select wave probes, wave period, and phase-shift in time will be assessed to evaluate the relative accuracy of numerical models versus experimental data within specified time intervals. These models will serve as a guide for modelers in the wave energy community and provide a base case to allow further and more detailed numerical modeling of the fixed Kramer Sphere Cases under wave excitation force wave tank testing.

HYDRO ENERGY,TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2024

Verification of RESRAD-OFFSITE Code (V.4)

This report documents the verification of RESRAD-OFFSITE Version 4.0 and describes, where necessary, the verification of the following: • The data comprising the standard dose and risk coefficient libraries in the RESRAD database files Master_dcf_ICRP07.mdb and Master_dcf_2k.mdb. • The extraction and transfer of the data from the selected database file to the computational code by the RESRAD-OFFSITE 4.0 interface, ResOWin.exe. • The different processes that are modeled by the main computational code in RESRAD OFFSITE 4.0, ResOMain.exe. • The data displayed in the graphical and text reports. Many verifications were performed as part of the quality assurance quality control program associated with the development and release of RESRAD-OFFSITE 4.0, namely: • developer testing, • internal independent testing, and • release testing. Some were also performed in response to questions from users regarding the performance of the code. The main text of the report focuses on summarizing a subset of those tests, both independent and developer tests that verified the computations performed by the code. The verifications included in this report served as the basis for the development of the release tests of the computational executables and provided the quantitative results to be compared with the code output. The input and output interfaces and the data transfers between the various executables of the code were tested while performing the verification testing. They were tested intentionally during release testing. This report also provides some basic information to help in understanding the activities that were verified. The report: • outlines the components of RESRAD-OFFSITE 4.0 and the interconnections between these components, • outlines the processes modeled by the computational code, • provides summary figures and tables to offer confirmation of the verification of the computational components of the code, • reproduces the verifiers’ reports, if available, in individual appendices, • refers to the previous verification report (Yu et al. 2011) for more details about some of the verifications, and • reproduces the test cases and the testers’ reports from the release testing in individual appendices, when possible.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Verification of Maximal Oxygen Uptake in Active Military Personnel During Treadmill Running

Figueiredo, PS, Looney, DP, Pryor, JL, Doughty, EM, McClung, HL, Vangala, SV, Santee, WR, Beidleman, BA, and Potter, AW. Verification of maximal oxygen uptake in active military personnel during treadmill running. J Strength Cond Res 36(4): 1053–1058, 2022—It is unclear whether verification tests are required to confirm “true” maximal oxygen uptake ($\dot{V}_{o2}$max) in modern warfighter populations. Our study investigated the prevalence of $\dot{V}_{o2}$max attainment in U.S. Army soldiers performing a traditional incremental running test. In addition, we examined the utility of supramaximal verification testing as well as repeated trials for familiarization for accurate $\dot{V}_{o2}$max assessment. Sixteen U.S. Army soldiers (1 woman, 15men; age, 21±2 years; height, 1.73±0.06m; body mass, 71.6±10.1 kg) completed 2 laboratory visits, each with an incremental running test (modified Astrand protocol) and a verification test (110% maximal incremental test speed) on a motorized treadmill. We evaluated $\dot{V}_{o2}$max attainment during incremental testing by testing for the definitive $\dot{V}_{o2}$ plateau using a linear least-squares regression approach. Peak oxygen uptake ($\dot{V}_{o2}$peak) was considered statistically equivalent between tests if the 90% confidence interval around the mean difference was within 62.1 ml·kg -1 ·min -1 . Oxygen uptake plateaus were identified in 14 of 16 volunteers for visit 1 (87.5%) and all 16 volunteers for visit 2 (100%). Peak oxygen uptake was not statistically equivalent, apparent from the mean difference in $\dot{V}_{o2}$peak measures between the incremental test and verification test on visit 1 (2.3 ml·kg -1 ·min -1 , [1.3–3.2]) or visit 2 (1.1 ml·kg -1 ·min -1 [0.2–2.1]). Interestingly, $\dot{V}_{o2}$peak was equivalent, apparent from the mean difference in $\dot{V}_{o2}$peak measures between visits for the incremental tests (0.0ml·kg -1 ·min -1 [-0.8to 0.9]) but not the verification tests (-1.2 ml·kg -1 ·min -1 [-2.2 to -0.2]). Modern U.S. Army soldiers can attain $\dot{V}_{o2}$max by performing a modified Astrand treadmill running test. Additional familiarization and verification tests for confirming $\dot{V}_{o2}$max in healthy active military personnel may be unnecessary.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the polynomial order used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Sierra/SolidMechanics Verification Report

This document presents the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) verification plan. This plan centers on the tests in the Sierra/SM verification test suite, a subset of which are documented in the Sierra/SM Verification Tests Manual. Most of these tests are run nightly with the Sierra/SM code suite, and the results of the tests are checked against analytic solutions. For each of the tests presented in the Verification Tests Manual, 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 verification plan discusses these various types of tests and what they mean for Sierra/SM verification. Many other activities also contribute to Sierra/SM quality. These address code and solution quality and range from low-level unit tests, run nightly, up to full-fidelity acceptance tests, used to verify release stability. This acceptance test suite checks that new versions of Sierra/SM continue to yield the same answers for high-resolution analyst problems. Further code quality measures include an extensive suite of intermediate-size regression tests and automated nightly code quality checks. While these additional activities do not fall under a strict definition of verification, they greatly add to the quality, stability, and reliability of Sierra/SM, and are discussed here as well.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

FY2021 Improvements to the New CTH Code Verification & Validation Test Suite

Over the past few years, the CTH multiphysics hydrocode has overhauled its software quality and testing processes, implementing current best practices in software quality and building a robust V&V test suite comprised of traditional hydrocode verification problems, including ASC Tri-Lab Test Suite and Enhanced Tri-Lab Test Suite problems, as well as validation problems for some of CTH’s most frequently used equations of state, materials models, and other key capabilities. Substantial progress towards building this new test suite was made in FY19 and FY20. In FY21, the test suite has been expanded to include verification and validation tests of the Steinberg-Guinan-Lund (ST) viscoplastic model and the Johnson Cook (JFRAC) fracture model. Additionally, two new verification tests were added, covering hydrodynamics and high explosive (HE) modeling capabilities: the Kidder Gaussian density problem and the Escape of HE Products (EHEP) problem from the Tri-Lab Test Suite. This report discusses each of these test problems in detail. Verification test results are compared to analytic solutions. Validation test results are compared to experimental data. Wherever possible, convergence or mesh refinement studies are included. Additionally, while implementing the Kidder verification problem, a bug was identified that affects the use of tables to initialize pressure or density in 1D or 2D calculations. A brief discussion of the bug and its fix is included. CTH demonstrates good performance overall on the new test suite problems. Simulation results showed good agreement with analytic solutions for the Kidder problem, with convergence rates ranging between 1.8 and sub-linear, and relatively good agreement for the EHEP problem, though convergence rates for pressure and density were nearly 0. The ST and JFRAC strain rate loading verification tests show good agreement with analytic solutions. Likewise, CTH simulation results show good agreement with experimental validation data, including Taylor rod impact testing, for the materials tested. Future V&V work will focus on adding 2D and 3D versions of existing verification tests as well as adding validation tests of other frequently used capabilities such as other fracture models.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗