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.
Division Spotlight
Nuclear Criticality Safety
NCSD provides communication among nuclear criticality safety professionals through the development of standards, the evolution of training methods and materials, the presentation of technical data and procedures, and the creation of specialty publications. In these ways, the division furthers the exchange of technical information on nuclear criticality safety with the ultimate goal of promoting the safe handling of fissionable materials outside reactors.
Meeting Spotlight
Conference on Nuclear Training and Education: A Biennial International Forum (CONTE 2025)
February 3–6, 2025
Amelia Island, FL|Omni Amelia Island Resort
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
Jan 2025
Jul 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
February 2025
Nuclear Technology
January 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Senate committee hears from energy secretary nominee Chris Wright
Chris Wright, president-elect Trump’s pick to lead the U.S. Department of Energy, spent hours today fielding questions from members of the U.S. Senate’s committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
During the hearing, Wright—who’s spent most of his career in fossil fuels—made comments in support of nuclear energy and efforts to expand domestic generation in the near future. Asked what actions he would take as energy secretary to improve the development and deployment of SMRs, Wright said: “It’s a big challenge, and I’m new to government, so I can’t list off the five levers I can pull. But (I’ve been in discussions) about how to make it easier to research, to invest, to build things. The DOE has land at some of its facilities that can be helpful in this regard.”
John F. Carew, Stephen J. Finch, Lambros Lois
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 143 | Number 2 | February 2003 | Pages 158-163
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE03-A2326
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The calculated >1-MeV pressure vessel fluence is used to determine the fracture toughness and integrity of the reactor pressure vessel. It is therefore of the utmost importance to ensure that the fluence prediction is accurate and unbiased. In practice, this assurance is provided by comparing the predictions of the calculational methodology with an extensive set of accurate benchmarks. A benchmarking database is used to provide an estimate of the overall average measurement-to-calculation (M/C) bias in the calculations (<M/C>). This average <M/C> is used as an ad-hoc multiplicative adjustment to the calculations to correct for the observed calculational bias. However, this average only provides a well-defined and valid adjustment of the fluence if the M/C data are homogeneous; i.e., the data are statistically independent and there is no correlation between subsets of M/C data.Typically, the identification of correlations between the errors in the database M/C values is difficult because the correlation is of the same magnitude as the random errors in the M/C data and varies substantially over the database. In this paper, an evaluation of a reactor dosimetry benchmark database is performed to determine the statistical validity of the <M/C> adjustment to the calculated pressure vessel fluence. Physical mechanisms that could potentially introduce a correlation between the subsets of M/C ratios are identified and included in a multiple regression analysis of the M/C data. Rigorous statistical criteria are used to evaluate the homogeneity of the M/C data and determine the validity of the <M/C> adjustment.For the database evaluated, the M/C data are found to be strongly correlated with dosimeter response threshold energy and dosimeter location (e.g., cavity versus in-vessel). It is shown that because of the inhomogeneity in the M/C data, for this database, the benchmark data do not provide a valid basis for adjusting the pressure vessel fluence.The statistical criteria and methods employed in this analysis are generic and may be applied in benchmarking applications where the M/C comparisons are used to determine an adjustment of the calculations.
