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
Radiation Protection & Shielding
The Radiation Protection and Shielding Division is developing and promoting radiation protection and shielding aspects of nuclear science and technology — including interaction of nuclear radiation with materials and biological systems, instruments and techniques for the measurement of nuclear radiation fields, and radiation shield design and evaluation.
Meeting Spotlight
ANS Student Conference 2025
April 3–5, 2025
Albuquerque, NM|The University of New Mexico
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
Apr 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
May 2025
Nuclear Technology
April 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
General Kenneth Nichols and the Manhattan Project
Nichols
The Oak Ridger has published the latest in a series of articles about General Kenneth D. Nichols, the Manhattan Project, and the 1954 Atomic Energy Act. The series has been produced by Nichols’ grandniece Barbara Rogers Scollin and Oak Ridge (Tenn.) city historian David Ray Smith. Gen. Nichols (1907–2000) was the district engineer for the Manhattan Engineer District during the Manhattan Project.
As Smith and Scollin explain, Nichols “had supervision of the research and development connected with, and the design, construction, and operation of, all plants required to produce plutonium-239 and uranium-235, including the construction of the towns of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and Richland, Washington. The responsibility of his position was massive as he oversaw a workforce of both military and civilian personnel of approximately 125,000; his Oak Ridge office became the center of the wartime atomic energy’s activities.”
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.
