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
Human Factors, Instrumentation & Controls
Improving task performance, system reliability, system and personnel safety, efficiency, and effectiveness are the division's main objectives. Its major areas of interest include task design, procedures, training, instrument and control layout and placement, stress control, anthropometrics, psychological input, and motivation.
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
Feb 2025
Jul 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
March 2025
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
February 2025
Latest News
Colin Judge: Testing structural materials in Idaho’s newest hot cell facility
Idaho National Laboratory’s newest facility—the Sample Preparation Laboratory (SPL)—sits across the road from the Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF), which started operating in 1975. SPL will host the first new hot cells at INL’s Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC) in 50 years, giving INL researchers and partners new flexibility to test the structural properties of irradiated materials fresh from the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) or from a partner’s facility.
Materials meant to withstand extreme conditions in fission or fusion power plants must be tested under similar conditions and pushed past their breaking points so performance and limitations can be understood and improved. Once irradiated, materials samples can be cut down to size in SPL and packaged for testing in other facilities at INL or other national laboratories, commercial labs, or universities. But they can also be subjected to extreme thermal or corrosive conditions and mechanical testing right in SPL, explains Colin Judge, who, as INL’s division director for nuclear materials performance, oversees SPL and other facilities at the MFC.
SPL won’t go “hot” until January 2026, but Judge spoke with NN staff writer Susan Gallier about its capabilities as his team was moving instruments into the new facility.
Constantine P. Tzanos, Maxim Popov, Fred Mendonca
Nuclear Technology | Volume 173 | Number 3 | March 2011 | Pages 239-250
Technical Paper | One-Phase Fluid Flow | doi.org/10.13182/NT11-A11659
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
To assess the accuracy of large eddy simulation (LES) predictions for a flow in a rod bundle, analyses were performed with different parameters of a constant-coefficient Smagorinsky LES model for a flow in a square-pitch rod bundle, and model predictions are compared with experimental data. The parameters considered are the grid structure, the value of the Smagorinsky constant, the damping of the eddy viscosity, and the size of the channel geometry. Because LES simulations are computationally very demanding, for adequately accurate predictions the grid structure needs to be well optimized in terms of cell size, aspect ratio, and cell orthogonality. The use of hanging nodes can significantly reduce the number of cells without a significant penalty on the accuracy of predictions. For this flow, the change in the value of the Smagorinsky constant from 0.14 to zero did not have a drastic effect on predictions. Although, overall, Lilly damping gave slightly better predictions than van Driest damping, both damping functions gave similar predictions. The LES predictions for the mean axial velocity, for the fluctuating velocity component in the main flow direction, and for the Reynolds stresses are in very good agreement with the experimental measurements. There is also good agreement between predictions and measurements for the wall shear stress, but there is a significant discrepancy between predictions and measurements for the fluctuating velocity components in the lateral directions (u and v).