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

Title: FRMAC Working Group Updates for Semi-Annual State/FRMAC Call.

Abstract

Abstract not provided.

Authors:
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Sandia National Lab. (SNL-NM), Albuquerque, NM (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), Office of Emergency Operations (NA-40)
OSTI Identifier:
1373170
Report Number(s):
SAND2016-7134PE
646048
DOE Contract Number:
AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: Proposed for presentation at the Semi-Annual State/FRMAC Webinar/Conference Call held July 27, 2016.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Allen, Mark B. FRMAC Working Group Updates for Semi-Annual State/FRMAC Call.. United States: N. p., 2016. Web.
Allen, Mark B. FRMAC Working Group Updates for Semi-Annual State/FRMAC Call.. United States.
Allen, Mark B. 2016. "FRMAC Working Group Updates for Semi-Annual State/FRMAC Call.". United States. doi:. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1373170.
@article{osti_1373170,
title = {FRMAC Working Group Updates for Semi-Annual State/FRMAC Call.},
author = {Allen, Mark B.},
abstractNote = {Abstract not provided.},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = 2016,
month = 7
}

Conference:
Other availability
Please see Document Availability for additional information on obtaining the full-text document. Library patrons may search WorldCat to identify libraries that hold this conference proceeding.

Save / Share:
  • No abstract prepared.
  • This talks describes updates in the following updates in FRMAC publications concerning radiation emergencies: Monitoring and Analysis Manual; Evaluation and Assessment Manual; Handshake Series (Biannual) including exercises participated in; environmental Data and Instrument Transmission System (EDITS); Plume in a Box with all radiological data stored onto a hand-held computer; and courses given.
  • In this paper, the authors study the interplay between flow dynamics and Quality of Service (QoS) routing through examining its impact on call blocking probability in the context of the ATM PNNI protocol. The PNNI specification consists of a routing protocol, based upon OSPF, and a signaling protocol, based upon the ITU-T's B-ISDN signaling, i.e., Q.2931. In PNNI routing, the routing information exchanged includes link state information as well as ATM QoS state information such as maximum cell transfer delay (maxCTD), cell delay variation (CDV), and available cell rate (ACR). The exchange of routing information is done by controlled flooding.more » In PNNI, when a flow arrives at the entry of the network, the source switch uses its local view of the network to select a path which meets the flow's QoS requirements. If it cannot find a suitable path, the Generic Call Admission Control (GCAC) of the source switch rejects the flow. If a suitable path is found, the flow set-up procedure is invoked and every switch along the path performs Actual Connection Admission Control (ACAC) to determine whether it has the requested resources. If not, the flow is rejected. Otherwise, the resources are reserved. For very large networks, PNNI also supports recursive hierarchical routing. However due to the additional complexity of aggregating topology as well as QoS metrics, they consider only non-hierarchical networks in this study. Based on a simplified version of PNNI, they examine the relationship between the frequency of QoS state updates, the QoS-routing related control traffic overhead and the call blocking probability. For instance, if the source switch uses out-of-date information to select a path, a false blocking situation (i.e., the local routing table's view of the network does not reflect the current increased resource availability), or a false probing situation (i.e., the local routing table's view of the network does not reflect the current decreased resource availability) may occur. In addition, out-of-date information could also lead the GCAC to select false routes. They investigate these issues under varying load conditions and for different QoS state update intervals. In the remainder of this extended abstract, they present the specific problem formulation, describe their approach and report their simulation results and findings.« less
  • European Communities, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Japan, Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States on national policies and positions on seabed disposal are summarized. Task group reports on systems analysis, site assessment, canisters, waste forms, sediment and rocks, physical oceanography, and biology are presented. (DMC)
  • Major objectives of this year's meeting are: to exchange data and information collected during 1980; to outline each participant's seabed disposal program status and specific plans for next year; to coordinate this year's cooperative work, including research vessel cruises; to review the System Analysis Task Group (SATG) report and to provide further information for the SATG models; and to outline the major tasks and timing for the Seabed Working Group programs for the next five years. The end product of the workshop is to have a basis for: A summary report to the NEA Radioactive Waste Management Committee on themore » SWG activities; Identification of specific areas of continued Task Group coordination; An update of specific Task Group members; and Identification of specific areas of continued multinational participation. Separate abstracts have been prepared for the individual task groups' reports for inclusion in the Energy Data Base. National summary reports on the status of programs in the USA, United Kingdom, France, Japan, Canada, Netherlands, Commission of the European Communities, Federal Republic of Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium are included. (DMC)« less