skip to main content
OSTI.GOV title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: Verification and Validation of RADTRAN 5.5.

Abstract

This document contains a description of the verification and validation process used for the RADTRAN 5.5 code. The verification and validation process ensured the proper calculational models and mathematical and numerical methods were used in the RADTRAN 5.5 code for the determination of risk and consequence assessments. The differences between RADTRAN 5 and RADTRAN 5.5 are the addition of tables, an expanded isotope library, and the additional User-Defined meteorological option for accident dispersion. 3

Authors:
; ; ;
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
OSTI Identifier:
1143391
Report Number(s):
SAND2005-1274
526319
DOE Contract Number:
DE-AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Osborn, Douglas., Weiner, Ruth F., Mills, George Scott, and Hamp, Steve C. Verification and Validation of RADTRAN 5.5.. United States: N. p., 2005. Web. doi:10.2172/1143391.
Copy to clipboard
Osborn, Douglas., Weiner, Ruth F., Mills, George Scott, & Hamp, Steve C. Verification and Validation of RADTRAN 5.5.. United States. doi:10.2172/1143391.
Copy to clipboard
Osborn, Douglas., Weiner, Ruth F., Mills, George Scott, and Hamp, Steve C. Tue . "Verification and Validation of RADTRAN 5.5.". United States. doi:10.2172/1143391. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1143391.
Copy to clipboard
@article{osti_1143391,
title = {Verification and Validation of RADTRAN 5.5.},
author = {Osborn, Douglas. and Weiner, Ruth F. and Mills, George Scott and Hamp, Steve C.},
abstractNote = {This document contains a description of the verification and validation process used for the RADTRAN 5.5 code. The verification and validation process ensured the proper calculational models and mathematical and numerical methods were used in the RADTRAN 5.5 code for the determination of risk and consequence assessments. The differences between RADTRAN 5 and RADTRAN 5.5 are the addition of tables, an expanded isotope library, and the additional User-Defined meteorological option for accident dispersion. 3},
doi = {10.2172/1143391},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Tue Feb 01 00:00:00 EST 2005},
month = {Tue Feb 01 00:00:00 EST 2005}
}
Copy to clipboard
Technical Report:
View Technical Report
DOI:  10.2172/1143391
Save / Share:
Export Metadata
Save to My Library
You must Sign In or Create an Account in order to save documents to your library.

  • ; ;
    Abstract not provided.

  • ;
    No abstract prepared.

  • ;
    The computer codes HIGHWAY, INTERLINE, RADTRAN 4, and RISKIND were used to estimate radiation doses from the transportation of radioactive material in the Department of Energy Programmatic Spent Nuclear Fuel Management and Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Programs Environmental Impact Statement. HIGHWAY and INTERLINE were used to estimate transportation routes for truck and rail shipments, respectively. RADTRAN 4 was used to estimate collective doses from incident-free transportation and the risk (probability {times} consequence) from transportation accidents. RISKIND was used to estimate incident-free radiation doses for maximally exposed individuals and the consequences from reasonably foreseeable transportation accidents.more » The purpose of this analysis is to validate the estimates made by these computer codes; critiques of the conceptual models used in RADTRAN 4 are also discussed. Validation is defined as ``the test and evaluation of the completed software to ensure compliance with software requirements.`` In this analysis, validation means that the differences between the estimates generated by these codes and independent observations are small (i.e., within the acceptance criterion established for the validation analysis). In some cases, the independent observations used in the validation were measurements; in other cases, the independent observations used in the validation analysis were generated using hand calculations. The results of the validation analyses performed for HIGHWAY, INTERLINE, RADTRAN 4, and RISKIND show that the differences between the estimates generated using the computer codes and independent observations were small. Based on the acceptance criterion established for the validation analyses, the codes yielded acceptable results; in all cases the estimates met the requirements for successful validation.« less

  • ; ; ; ...
    By means of a literature survey, a comprehensive set of methods was identified for the verification and validation of conventional software. The 153 methods so identified were classified according to their appropriateness for various phases of a developmental life-cycle -- requirements, design, and implementation; the last category was subdivided into two, static testing and dynamic testing methods. The methods were then characterized in terms of eight rating factors, four concerning ease-of-use of the methods and four concerning the methods` power to detect defects. Based on these factors, two measurements were developed to permit quantitative comparisons among methods, a Cost-Benefit metricmore » and an Effectiveness Metric. The Effectiveness Metric was further refined to provide three different estimates for each method, depending on three classes of needed stringency of V&V (determined by ratings of a system`s complexity and required-integrity). Methods were then rank-ordered for each of the three classes by terms of their overall cost-benefits and effectiveness. The applicability was then assessed of each for the identified components of knowledge-based and expert systems, as well as the system as a whole.« less

  • ; ;
    This report is the third volume in the final report for the Expert System Verification and Validation (V&V) project which was jointly sponsored by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Electric Power Research Institute. The ultimate objective is the formulation of guidelines for the V&V of expert systems for use in nuclear power applications. The purpose of this activity was to survey and document techniques presently in use for expert system V&V. The survey effort included an extensive telephone interviewing program, site visits, and a thorough bibliographic search and compilation. The major finding was that V&V of expert systems ismore » not nearly as established or prevalent as V&V of conventional software systems. When V&V was used for expert systems, it was almost always at the system validation stage after full implementation and integration usually employing the non-systematic dynamic method of {open_quotes}ad hoc testing.{close_quotes} There were few examples of employing V&V in the early phases of development and only weak sporadic mention of the possibilities in the literature. There is, however, a very active research area concerning the development of methods and tools to detect problems with, particularly, rule-based expert systems. Four such static-testing methods were identified which were not discovered in a comprehensive review of conventional V&V methods in an earlier task.« less