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
Mathematics & Computation
Division members promote the advancement of mathematical and computational methods for solving problems arising in all disciplines encompassed by the Society. They place particular emphasis on numerical techniques for efficient computer applications to aid in the dissemination, integration, and proper use of computer codes, including preparation of computational benchmark and development of standards for computing practices, and to encourage the development on new computer codes and broaden their use.
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.
Joel A. Kulesza, Roger L. Martz
Nuclear Technology | Volume 195 | Number 1 | July 2016 | Pages 55-70
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NT15-122
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
This paper provides results for calculations performed using MCNP6’s unstructured mesh (UM) capabilities based on the three problems described in the Kobayashi benchmark suite. These calculations are performed to provide a comprehensive and consistent basis for the verification and validation of MCNP6’s constructive solid geometry (CSG) and UM neutron transport capabilities relative to a well-known analytic benchmark. First, preexisting MCNP5 CSG models are updated and reexecuted to form a basis of comparison with UM for both the consistency of the numeric results and speed of execution. Next, a series of UM calculations is performed using first- and second-order tetrahedral and hexahedral elements with mesh generated using Abaqus. In addition, a different first-order tetrahedral mesh is generated with Attila4MC in order to investigate the effect on the results. When executed, the results for both CSG and UM agree among themselves and with the benchmark quantities within reasonable statistical fluctuations (at worst, the results agree within 2σ or 10% but generally within 1σ or 5%) and recognizing from historical work that improved agreement is possible with additional variance-reduction effort. As expected, for the simple geometries herein, we find the CSG calculations completing approximately ten times faster than the comparable fastest UM calculations. We find minor speed differences (~1%) between multigroup and continuous-energy nuclear data and significant speed differences (factor ~100) between different element types. As such, the timing results support the recommendation that users run with the simplest UM element type that adequately represents the problem geometry, ideally first-order hexahedra, and with the most convenient nuclear data energy treatment.