Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “software software evaluation arguments”

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.

4 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Enhancing Cloud Cybersecurity: Prescriptive Controls for Operational Technology

This whitepaper provides strategic insights and recommendations into security cloud-based solutions for electric utilities, encompassing operational technology (OT), virtual power plants (VPP), distributed energy resources (DERs), applications, networks, and data storage as they transition to and leverage cloud infrastructure through managed service providers (MSPs) and cloud service providers (CSPs). Principles derived from established frameworks serve as a foundation for best practices across cybersecurity projects and remove the constraints of settling on a single framework. For organizations that prefer not to integrate a specific framework altogether, elements of the proposed approach could be adopted or tailored to best fit defined requirements and expected functionalities. The Cirrus assessment, a utility cloud feasibility tool, and the roadmap it provides serve as a precursor to this paper, which seeks to be a valuable resource for defining next steps following cloud technology integration feasibility appraisal. With its comprehensive approach to adoption, the Cirrus framework offers strategic guidance on responsibly preparing for or deploying a utility cloud solution. The previously published whitepaper, “Use Case-Informed Framework for Utility Cloud Migration,” details the guiding strategy, research, and deployment of cloud solutions within electric and interconnected grid systems. Before implementing the controls suggested in this document, it is recommended that stakeholders complete Cirrus's cloud integration assessment and pair the results with their unique cybersecurity controls to form a comprehensive cloud-based utility cybersecurity plan. The Cirrus outcome will consider a series of future architectures for the grid before and after the energy transition and evaluate the arguments for and against cloud applications for each electric and interconnected grid layer. This document is a companion to the original whitepaper, "Use Case-Informed Framework for Utility Cloud Migration" to further identify and recommend security controls based on Cirrus’s cloud integration assessment output. The following whitepaper outlines the cybersecurity controls that secure cloud-service models pertinent to the electric sector using the predefined categories identify, protect, detect, and respond and recover. The objective is to outline prescriptive security controls based on the type of architecture and data stored in the cloud. The focus includes dissecting the shared responsibility model and elucidating what on-premises Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS), Platform as a Service (PaaS), and Software as a Service (SaaS) entail. A pivotal consideration in this context is allocating responsibility for foundational cybersecurity aspects—having used Cirrus for the cloud integration assessment. The ensuing controls detailed herein also represent a checklist of controls necessary for a secure cloud transition, equipping utilities with the knowledge to navigate this digital transformation with confidence and strategic foresight in a safe and responsible manner.

42 ENGINEERING↗
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 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↗
DOE OSTI2023

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis (Rev. 3)

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.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗