Deploying elastic routing capability in an SDN/NFV-enabled environment

SDN and NFV are two paradigms that introduce unseen flexibility in telecom networks. Where previously telecom services were provided by dedicated hardware and associated (vendor-specific) protocols, SDN enables to control telecom networks through specialized software running on controllers. NFV enables highly optimized packet-processing network functions to run on generic/multi-purpose hardware such as x86 servers. Although the possibilities of SDN and NFV are well-known, concrete control and orchestration architectures are still under design and few prototype validations are available. In this demo we demonstrate the dynamic up-and downscaling of an elastic router supporting NFV-based network management, for example needed in a VPN service. The framework which enables this elasticity is the UNIFY ESCAPE environment, which is a PoC following an ETSI NFV MANO-conform architecture. This demo is one of the first to demonstrate a fully closed control loop for scaling NFs in an SDN/NFV control and orchestration architecture

HTGR Technology Family Assessment for a Range of Fuel Cycle Missions

This report examines how the HTGR technology family can provide options for the once through, modified open cycle (MOC), or full recycle fuel cycle strategies. The HTGR can serve all the fuel cycle missions that an LWR can; both are thermal reactors. Additional analyses are warranted to determine if HTGR “full recycle” service could provide improved consumption of transuranic (TRU) material than LWRs (as expected), to analyze the unique proliferation resistance issues associated with the “pebble bed” approach, and to further test and analyze methods to separate TRISO-coated fuel particles from graphite and/or to separate used HTGR fuel meat from its TRISO coating. The feasibility of these two separation issues is not in doubt, but further R&D could clarify and reduce the cost and enable options not adequately explored at present. The analyses here and the now-demonstrated higher fuel burnup tests (after the illustrative designs studied here) should enable future MOC and full recycle HTGR concepts to more rapidly consume TRU, thereby offering waste management advantages. Interest in “limited separation” or “minimum fuel treatment” separation approaches motivates study of impurity-tolerant fuel fabrication. Several issues are outside the scope of this report, including the following: thorium fuel cycles, gas-cooled fast reactors, the reliability of TRISO-coated particles (billions in a reactor), and how soon any new reactor or fuel type could be licensed and then deployed and therefore impact fuel cycle performance measures

What can Recycling in Thermal Reactors Accomplish?

Thermal recycle provides several potential benefits when used as stop-gap, mixed, or backup recycling to recycling in fast reactors. These three roles involve a mixture of thermal and fast recycling; fast reactors are required to some degree at some time. Stop-gap uses thermal reactors only until fast reactors are adequately deployed and until any thermal-recycle-only facilities have met their economic lifetime. Mixed uses thermal and fast reactors symbiotically for an extended period of time. Backup uses thermal reactors only if problems later develop in the fast reactor portion of a recycling system. Thermal recycle can also provide benefits when used as pure thermal recycling, with no intention to use fast reactors. However, long term, the pure thermal recycling approach is inadequate to meet several objectives

HTGR Technology Family Assessment for a Range of Fuel Cycle Missions

This report examines how the HTGR technology family can provide options for the once through, modified open cycle (MOC), or full recycle fuel cycle strategies. The HTGR can serve all the fuel cycle missions that an LWR can; both are thermal reactors. Additional analyses are warranted to determine if HTGR “full recycle” service could provide improved consumption of transuranic (TRU) material than LWRs (as expected), to analyze the unique proliferation resistance issues associated with the “pebble bed” approach, and to further test and analyze methods to separate TRISO-coated fuel particles from graphite and/or to separate used HTGR fuel meat from its TRISO coating. The feasibility of these two separation issues is not in doubt, but further R&D could clarify and reduce the cost and enable options not adequately explored at present. The analyses here and the now-demonstrated higher fuel burnup tests (after the illustrative designs studied here) should enable future MOC and full recycle HTGR concepts to more rapidly consume TRU, thereby offering waste management advantages. Interest in “limited separation” or “minimum fuel treatment” separation approaches motivates study of impurity-tolerant fuel fabrication. Several issues are outside the scope of this report, including the following: thorium fuel cycles, gas-cooled fast reactors, the reliability of TRISO-coated particles (billions in a reactor), and how soon any new reactor or fuel type could be licensed and then deployed and therefore impact fuel cycle performance measures

Filling Knowledge Gaps with Five Fuel Cycle Studies

During FY 2010, five studies were conducted of technology families’ applicability to various fuel cycle strategies to fill in knowledge gaps in option space and to better understand trends and patterns. Here, a “technology family” is considered to be defined by a type of reactor and by selection of which actinides provide fuel. This report summarizes the higher-level findings; the detailed analyses and results are documented in five individual reports, as follows: • Advanced once through with uranium fuel in fast reactors (SFR), • Advanced once through (uranium fuel) or single recycle (TRU fuel) in high temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGR), • Sustained recycle with Th/U-233 in light water reactors (LWRs), • Sustained recycle with Th/U-233 in molten salt reactors (MSR), and • Several fuel cycle missions with Fusion-Fission Hybrid (FFH). Each study examined how the designated technology family could serve one or more designated fuel cycle missions, filling in gaps in overall option space. Each study contains one or more illustrative cases that show how the technology family could be used to meet a fuel cycle mission, as well as broader information on the technology family such as other potential fuel cycle missions for which insufficient information was available to include with an illustrative case. None of the illustrative cases can be considered as a reference, baseline, or nominal set of parameters for judging performance; the assessments were designed to assess areas of option space and were not meant to be optimized. There is no implication that any of the cases or technology families are necessarily the best way to meet a given fuel cycle mission. The studies provide five examples of 1-year fuel cycle assessments of technology families. There is reasonable coverage in the five studies of the performance areas of waste management and uranium utilization. The coverage of economics, safety, and proliferation resistance and physical protection in the five studies was spotty. Some studies did not have existing or past work to draw on in one or more of these areas. Resource constraints limited the amount of new analyses that could be performed. Little or no assessment was done of how soon any of the technologies could be deployed and therefore how quickly they could impact domestic or international fuel cycle performance. There were six common R&D needs, such as the value of advanced fuels, cladding, coating, and structure that would survive high neutron fluence. When a technology family is considered for use in a new fuel cycle mission, fuel cycle performance characteristics are dependent on both the design choices and the fuel cycle approach. For example, the use of the sodium-cooled fast reactor to provide recycle in either breeder or burner mode has been studied for decades, but the SFR could be considered for once-through fuel cycle with the physical reactor design and fuel management parameters changed. In addition, the sustained recycle with Th/U-233 in LWR could be achieved with a heterogeneous assembly and derated power density. Therefore, it may or may not be adjustable for other fuel cycle missions although a reactor intended for one fuel cycle mission is built. Simple parameter adjustment in applying a technology family to a new fuel cycle mission should be avoided and, if observed, the results viewed with caution

Filling Knowledge Gaps with Five Fuel Cycle Studies

During FY 2010, five studies were conducted of technology families’ applicability to various fuel cycle strategies to fill in knowledge gaps in option space and to better understand trends and patterns. Here, a “technology family” is considered to be defined by a type of reactor and by selection of which actinides provide fuel. This report summarizes the higher-level findings; the detailed analyses and results are documented in five individual reports, as follows: • Advanced once through with uranium fuel in fast reactors (SFR), • Advanced once through (uranium fuel) or single recycle (TRU fuel) in high temperature gas cooled reactors (HTGR), • Sustained recycle with Th/U-233 in light water reactors (LWRs), • Sustained recycle with Th/U-233 in molten salt reactors (MSR), and • Several fuel cycle missions with Fusion-Fission Hybrid (FFH). Each study examined how the designated technology family could serve one or more designated fuel cycle missions, filling in gaps in overall option space. Each study contains one or more illustrative cases that show how the technology family could be used to meet a fuel cycle mission, as well as broader information on the technology family such as other potential fuel cycle missions for which insufficient information was available to include with an illustrative case. None of the illustrative cases can be considered as a reference, baseline, or nominal set of parameters for judging performance; the assessments were designed to assess areas of option space and were not meant to be optimized. There is no implication that any of the cases or technology families are necessarily the best way to meet a given fuel cycle mission. The studies provide five examples of 1-year fuel cycle assessments of technology families. There is reasonable coverage in the five studies of the performance areas of waste management and uranium utilization. The coverage of economics, safety, and proliferation resistance and physical protection in the five studies was spotty. Some studies did not have existing or past work to draw on in one or more of these areas. Resource constraints limited the amount of new analyses that could be performed. Little or no assessment was done of how soon any of the technologies could be deployed and therefore how quickly they could impact domestic or international fuel cycle performance. There were six common R&D needs, such as the value of advanced fuels, cladding, coating, and structure that would survive high neutron fluence. When a technology family is considered for use in a new fuel cycle mission, fuel cycle performance characteristics are dependent on both the design choices and the fuel cycle approach. For example, the use of the sodium-cooled fast reactor to provide recycle in either breeder or burner mode has been studied for decades, but the SFR could be considered for once-through fuel cycle with the physical reactor design and fuel management parameters changed. In addition, the sustained recycle with Th/U-233 in LWR could be achieved with a heterogeneous assembly and derated power density. Therefore, it may or may not be adjustable for other fuel cycle missions although a reactor intended for one fuel cycle mission is built. Simple parameter adjustment in applying a technology family to a new fuel cycle mission should be avoided and, if observed, the results viewed with caution

Vrednovanje analitičkih metoda i laboratorijskih postupaka u kemijskim mjerenjima

Method validation is a key element in the establishment of reference methods and in the assessment of a laboratory’s competence in producing reliable analytical data. Hence, the scope of the term »method validation« is wide, especially if one bears in mind the role of Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC). The paper puts validation in the context of the process generating chemical information, introduces basic performance parameters included in the validation processes, and evaluates current approaches to the problem. Two cases are presented in more detail: the development of European standard for chlorophenols and its validation by a full scale collaborative trial and the intralaboratory validation of a method for ethylenethiourea (ETU) by using alternative analytical techniques.Vrednovanje metoda ključni je postupak u utvrđivanju referentnih metoda i procjeni kompetencije laboratorija da proizvodi pouzdane rezultate analiza. Stoga je značenje širine okvira ovog termina posebice važno jer valja imati na umu i ulogu osiguranja kakvoće i kontrole kakvoće. Autori stavljaju postupak vrednovanja metoda u kontekst proizvodnje kemijskoanalitičkih podataka, upoznaju čitatelja s osnovnim parametrima pri ocjeni uspješnosti te ocjenjuju trenutne pristupe ovom problemu. U dva je primjera posebna pozornost posvećena razvoju europske norme za klorofenole i njezinoj ocjeni opsežnim pokusom te unutarlaboratorijskom potvrdom metode za određivanje etilentioureje rabeći alternativne analitičke tehnike

Multi-Reactor Transmutation Analysis Utility (MRTAU,alpha1): Verification

Multi-Reactor Transmutation Utility (MRTAU) is a general depletion/decay algorithm under development at INL to support quick assessment of off-normal fuel cycle scenarios of similar nature to well studied reactor and fuel cycle concepts for which isotopic and cross-section data exists. MRTAU has been used in the past for scoping calculations to determine actinide composition evolution over the course of multiple recycles in Light Water Reactor Mixed Oxide and Sodium cooled Fast Reactor. In these applications, various actinide partitioning scenarios of interest were considered. The code has recently been expanded to include fission product generation, depletion and isotopic evolution over multiple recycles. The capability was added to investigate potential partial separations and/or limited recycling technologies such as Melt-Refining, AIROX, DUPIC or other fuel recycle technology where the recycled fuel stream is not completely decontaminated of fission products prior to being re-irradiated in a subsequent reactor pass. This report documents the code's solution methodology and algorithm as well as its solution accuracy compared to the SCALE6.0 software suite

Lessons Learned From Dynamic Simulations of Advanced Fuel Cycles

Years of performing dynamic simulations of advanced nuclear fuel cycle options provide insights into how they could work and how one might transition from the current once-through fuel cycle. This paper summarizes those insights from the context of the 2005 objectives and goals of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI). Our intent is not to compare options, assess options versus those objectives and goals, nor recommend changes to those objectives and goals. Rather, we organize what we have learned from dynamic simulations in the context of the AFCI objectives for waste management, proliferation resistance, uranium utilization, and economics. Thus, we do not merely describe “lessons learned” from dynamic simulations but attempt to answer the “so what” question by using this context. The analyses have been performed using the Verifiable Fuel Cycle Simulation of Nuclear Fuel Cycle Dynamics (VISION). We observe that the 2005 objectives and goals do not address many of the inherently dynamic discriminators among advanced fuel cycle options and transitions thereof