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

Title: Shift Verification and Validation

Abstract

This documentation outlines the verification and validation of Shift for the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL). Five main types of problems were used for validation: small criticality benchmark problems; full-core reactor benchmarks for light water reactors; fixed-source coupled neutron-photon dosimetry benchmarks; depletion/burnup benchmarks; and full-core reactor performance benchmarks. We compared Shift results to measured data and other simulated Monte Carlo radiation transport code results, and found very good agreement in a variety of comparison measures. These include prediction of critical eigenvalue, radial and axial pin power distributions, rod worth, leakage spectra, and nuclide inventories over a burn cycle. Based on this validation of Shift, we are confident in Shift to provide reference results for CASL benchmarking.

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [1];  [1];  [1]
  1. Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Oak Ridge National Lab. (ORNL), Oak Ridge, TN (United States). Consortium for Advanced Simulation of LWRs (CASL)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE
OSTI Identifier:
1329768
Report Number(s):
ORNL/SR-2016/516
CASL-U-2016-1186-000; TRN: US1700404
DOE Contract Number:
AC05-00OR22725
Resource Type:
Technical Report
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS; 97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING; VALIDATION; S CODES; BENCHMARKS; WATER MODERATED REACTORS; COMPARATIVE EVALUATIONS; NEUTRONS; REACTOR CORES; EIGENVALUES; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PHOTONS; COMPUTERIZED SIMULATION; VERIFICATION; WATER COOLED REACTORS; POWER DISTRIBUTION; RADIATION TRANSPORT; BURNUP; CRITICALITY; DOSIMETRY; FORECASTING; PERFORMANCE; CONTROL ROD WORTHS; FUEL PINS

Citation Formats

Pandya, Tara M., Evans, Thomas M., Davidson, Gregory G, Johnson, Seth R., and Godfrey, Andrew T. Shift Verification and Validation. United States: N. p., 2016. Web. doi:10.2172/1329768.
Pandya, Tara M., Evans, Thomas M., Davidson, Gregory G, Johnson, Seth R., & Godfrey, Andrew T. Shift Verification and Validation. United States. doi:10.2172/1329768.
Pandya, Tara M., Evans, Thomas M., Davidson, Gregory G, Johnson, Seth R., and Godfrey, Andrew T. 2016. "Shift Verification and Validation". United States. doi:10.2172/1329768. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1329768.
@article{osti_1329768,
title = {Shift Verification and Validation},
author = {Pandya, Tara M. and Evans, Thomas M. and Davidson, Gregory G and Johnson, Seth R. and Godfrey, Andrew T.},
abstractNote = {This documentation outlines the verification and validation of Shift for the Consortium for Advanced Simulation of Light Water Reactors (CASL). Five main types of problems were used for validation: small criticality benchmark problems; full-core reactor benchmarks for light water reactors; fixed-source coupled neutron-photon dosimetry benchmarks; depletion/burnup benchmarks; and full-core reactor performance benchmarks. We compared Shift results to measured data and other simulated Monte Carlo radiation transport code results, and found very good agreement in a variety of comparison measures. These include prediction of critical eigenvalue, radial and axial pin power distributions, rod worth, leakage spectra, and nuclide inventories over a burn cycle. Based on this validation of Shift, we are confident in Shift to provide reference results for CASL benchmarking.},
doi = {10.2172/1329768},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 9
}

Technical Report:

Save / Share:
  • 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
  • This report is the fifth volume in a series of reports describing the results of the Expert System Verification and Validation (V&V) project which is jointly funded by US NRC and EPRI toward formulating guidelines for V&V of expert systems for use in nuclear power applications. This report provides the rationale for and description of those guidelines. The actual guidelines themselves (and the accompanying 11 step by step Procedures) are presented in Volume 7, User`s Manual. Three factors determine what V&V is needed: (1) the stage, of the development life cycle (requirements, design, or implementation), (2) whether the overall systemmore » or a specialized component needs be tested (knowledge base component, inference engine or other highly reusable element, or a component involving conventional software), and (3) the stringency of V&V that is needed (as judged from an assessment of the system`s complexity and the requirement for its integrity to form three Classes). A V&V guideline package is provided for each of the combinations of these three variables. The package specifies the V&V methods recommended and the order in which they should be administered, the assurances each method provides, the qualifications needed by the V&V team to employ each Particular method, the degree to which the methods should be applied, the performance measures that should be taken, and the decision criteria for accepting, conditionally accepting, or rejecting an evaluated system. In addition to the guideline packages, highly detailed step-by-step procedures are provided for 11 of the more important methods, to ensure that they Can be implemented correctly. The guidelines can apply to conventional procedural software systems as well as all kinds of AI systems.« 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 in terms of their overall cost-benefits and effectiveness. The applicability was then assessed of each method for the four 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