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
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
Optimizing Maintenance Strategies in Power Generation: Embracing Predictive and Preventive Approaches
In the high-stakes world of power generation, ensuring continuous operation and reducing downtime are central priorities. With the increasing complexity of power generation systems, maintenance practices are evolving to meet these demands more efficiently. Understanding the roles of Predictive Maintenance (PdM), Preventive Maintenance (PM), and Reactive Maintenance (Run-to-Failure) is crucial for maintenance professionals in the energy sector to make informed decisions about equipment management and long-term operational strategy.
M. T. Farmer, R. Bunt, M. Corradini, P. Ellison, M. Francis, J. Gabor, R. Gauntt, C. Henry, R. Linthicum, W. Luangdilok, R. Lutz, C. Paik, M. Plys, C. Rabiti, J. Rempe, K. Robb, R. Wachowiak
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 184 | Number 3 | November 2016 | Pages 293-304
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NSE16-13
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The reactor accidents at Fukushima Daiichi have rekindled interest in light water reactor (LWR) severe accident phenomenology. Postevent analyses have identified several areas that may warrant additional research and development (R&D) to reduce modeling uncertainties and assist industry in the development of mitigation strategies and in the refinement of severe accident management guidelines to both prevent significant core damage given a beyond-design-basis event and mitigate source term release if core damage does occur. On these bases, a technology gap evaluation on accident-tolerant components and severe accident analysis methodologies was completed with the goal of identifying any data and/or knowledge gaps that may exist given the current state of LWR severe accident research and augmented by insights gained from recent analyses of the Fukushima Daiichi accident. The ultimate benefit of this activity is that the results can be used as a basis for refining research plans to address key knowledge gaps in severe accident phenomenology that affect reactor safety and that are not being directly addressed by the nuclear industry or the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. As a result of this study, 13 gaps were identified in the areas of severe accident–tolerant components and accident modeling. The results clustered in three main areas: (1) modeling and analysis of in-vessel melt progression phenomena, (2) emergency core cooling system equipment performance under beyond-design-basis accident conditions, and (3) ex-vessel debris coolability and core-concrete interaction behavior relevant to accident management actions. This paper provides a high-level summary of the methodology used for the evaluation, the identified gaps, and, finally, the appropriate R&D that may be completed to address the gaps.