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.
B. Richardson, J. King, A. Alajo, S. Usman, C. H. C. Giraldo
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 187 | Number 1 | July 2017 | Pages 100-106
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/00295639.2017.1292089
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
To validate an MCNP5 model of the Missouri S&T Research Reactor (MSTR), temperature and void effects on reactivity experiments were simulated and performed. We compared the keff of the modeled reactor mirroring the position of all control rods to the actual critical reactor (keff = 1.00000). In the simulation we modeled three different scenarios. In the first two scenarios, the reactor is modeled as isothermal at two different temperatures (measured experimentally near the core), and in the third scenario, we split the core into bottom and top parts and used interpolated values for the temperatures of both halves. The model predicted keff’s for the “critical reactor” between 1.00234 and 1.00248 (±0.00018) when using as temperature the experimental thermocouple readings at the top of the core and keff’s between 1.00296 to 1.00383 (±0.00018) when using the temperature of thermocouple readings at the bottom of the core. In the third experiment, a linear vertical temperature profile was included in the model (only top and bottom of the core), and the model predicted keff’s between 1.00218 and 1.00302 (±0.00018). The keff modeled and experimental values differed by as much as 0.40%. A void coefficient of the reactivity experiment was also simulated introducing a void tube in the model and the control rods made to mirror the critical experimental reactor with an identical void.