ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and technologies to benefit society.
Explore the many uses for nuclear science and its impact on energy, the environment, healthcare, food, and more.
Explore membership for yourself or for your organization.
Conference Spotlight
2026 Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
Standards Program
The Standards Committee is responsible for the development and maintenance of voluntary consensus standards that address the design, analysis, and operation of components, systems, and facilities related to the application of nuclear science and technology. Find out What’s New, check out the Standards Store, or Get Involved today!
Latest Magazine Issues
Dec 2025
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
January 2026
Nuclear Technology
December 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2025
Latest News
What’s the most difficult question you’ve been asked as a maintenance instructor?
Blye Widmar
"Where are the prints?!"
This was the final question in an onslaught of verbal feedback, comments, and critiques I received from my students back in 2019. I had two years of instructor experience and was teaching a class that had been meticulously rehearsed in preparation for an accreditation visit. I knew the training material well and transferred that knowledge effectively enough for all the students to pass the class. As we wrapped up, I asked the students how they felt about my first big system-level class, and they did not hold back.
“Why was the exam from memory when we don’t work from memory in the plant?” “Why didn’t we refer to the vendor documents?” “Why didn’t we practice more on the mock-up?” And so on.
Sebastian Schunert, Yousry Azmy
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 173 | Number 3 | March 2013 | Pages 233-258
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE11-17
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
For the sake of a high-fidelity representation of the curved surfaces characteristic of fuel pins, the standard reactor design process employs the method of collision probabilities (CP), the method of characteristics (MOC), or unstructured-grid discrete ordinates (SN) transport solvers for assembly-level calculations. In this work we provide a proof of principle using highly simplified assembly configurations that an approximate staircased representation of the fuel pin's circumference via an orthogonal mesh is accurate enough for reactor physics computations. For the purpose of comparing the performance of these approaches, we employ the orthogonal-grid SN code DORT and the lattice code DRAGON (CP and MOC) to perform k-eigenvalue-type computations for both a boiling water reactor (BWR) and pressurized water reactor (PWR) test assembly. In the framework of a computational model refinement study, the multiplication factor and the fission source distribution are computed and compared to a high-fidelity multigroup MCNP reference solution. The accuracy of the considered methods at each considered model refinement level (fidelity of curved surface representation in DORT, number of tracks in MOC, etc.) is quantified via the difference of the multiplication factor from its reference value and via the root-mean-square and maximum norm of the error in the fission source distribution. We find that for the BWR assembly DORT outperforms MOC and CP in both accuracy and computational efficiency, while for the PWR test case, MOC computes the most accurate fission source distribution but fails to compute the multiplication factor accurately.
