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

Title: Design of Experiments (DOE) Choice Design vs. Forced Ranking.

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)
OSTI Identifier:
1376787
Report Number(s):
SAND2016-8005C
646697
DOE Contract Number:
AC04-94AL85000
Resource Type:
Conference
Resource Relation:
Conference: Proposed for presentation at the Discovery Summit held September 19-23, 2016 in Cary, NC.
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English

Citation Formats

Lifke, Don, and Syroid, Claire. Design of Experiments (DOE) Choice Design vs. Forced Ranking.. United States: N. p., 2016. Web.
Lifke, Don, & Syroid, Claire. Design of Experiments (DOE) Choice Design vs. Forced Ranking.. United States.
Lifke, Don, and Syroid, Claire. Mon . "Design of Experiments (DOE) Choice Design vs. Forced Ranking.". United States. doi:. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1376787.
@article{osti_1376787,
title = {Design of Experiments (DOE) Choice Design vs. Forced Ranking.},
author = {Lifke, Don and Syroid, Claire},
abstractNote = {Abstract not provided.},
doi = {},
journal = {},
number = ,
volume = ,
place = {United States},
year = {Mon Aug 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016},
month = {Mon Aug 01 00:00:00 EDT 2016}
}

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:
  • The US Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Environmental Restoration (EM-40) has developed the Relative Ranking Evaluation Framework (RREF) to help categorize release sites, facilities and buildings requiring restoration or decommissioning. Based on this framework, a computer tool, the Relative Rank Evaluation Program (RREP) has been developed to evaluate release sites, facilities and buildings, and to manage information pertaining to relative ranking evaluations. The relative ranking information is being used by both Headquarters and field project managers, and other environmental personnel responsible for planning, executing and evaluation environmental restoration activities at DOE installations. External stakeholders, such as representatives of federalmore » and state regulatory agencies, local governments and communities in the vicinity of current and formerly used DOE installations may use this data to review proposed and planned activities.« less
  • The DOE Hydrogen Program needs to develop criteria as part of a systematic evaluation process for proposal identification, evaluation and selection. The H Scan component of this process provides a framework in which a project proposer can fully describe their candidate technology system and its components. The H Scan complements traditional methods of capturing cost and technical information. It consists of a special set of survey forms designed to elicit information so expert reviewers can assess the proposal relative to DOE specified selection criteria. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) component of the decision process assembles the management defined evaluation andmore » selection criteria into a coherent multi-level decision construct by which projects can be evaluated in pair-wise comparisons. The AHP model will reflect management`s objectives and it will assist in the ranking of individual projects based on the extent to which each contributes to management`s objectives. This paper contains a detailed description of the products and activities associated with the planning and evaluation process: The objectives or criteria; the H Scan; and The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).« less
  • Distribution efficiency was measured using a short-term coheating technique before and after aggressive air sealing retrofits in six Pacific Northwest homes heated with gas furnaces. These houses were selected to have a large amount of air lost from the supply side of the duct system to outdoors. Additional measurements included duct and house leakage, distribution system pressures, and temperatures inside and outside the home as well as in the buffer spaces where the ducts were located. Physical characteristics of the ducts and buffer spaces, including surface area and insulation levels, were also measured. These additional measurements provide the inputs tomore » a duct efficiency model developed by Ecotope, which accounts separately for supply- and return-side losses and for conduction and leakage losses. The model also accounts for duct losses recovered to the house via regain and the interaction of duct leakage with natural infiltration. This paper presents the measured results of the coheating tests and compares them to the predictions provided by the model. Estimates of the reduction in energy use caused by the retrofits are also calculated from both the coheating measurements and the model.« less
  • The AP600 LWR is a new advanced passive design that has been submitted to the USNRC for design certification. Within the certification process the USNRC will perform selected system thermal hydraulic response audit studies to help confirm parts of the vendor`s safety analysis submittal. Because of certain innovative design features of the safety systems, new experimental data and related advances in the system thermal hydraulic analysis computer code are being developed by the USNRC. The PIRT process is being used to focus the experimental and analytical work to obtain a sufficient and cost effective research effort. The objective of thismore » paper is to describe the application and most significant results of the PIRT process, including several innovative features needed in the application to accommodate the short design certification schedule. The short design certification schedule has required that many aspects of the USNRC experimental and analytical research be performed in parallel, rather than in series as was normal for currently operating LWRS. This has required development and use of management techniques that focus and integrate the various diverse parts of the research. The original PIRTs were based on inexact knowledge of an evolving reactor design, and concentrated on the new passive features of the design. Subsequently, the PIRTs have evolved in two more stages as the design became more firm and experimental and analytical data became available. A fourth and final stage is planned and in progress to complete the PIRT development. The PIRTs existing at the end of each development stage have been used to guide the experimental program, scaling analyses and code development supporting the audit studies.« less