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
Education, Training & Workforce Development
The Education, Training & Workforce Development Division provides communication among the academic, industrial, and governmental communities through the exchange of views and information on matters related to education, training and workforce development in nuclear and radiological science, engineering, and technology. Industry leaders, education and training professionals, and interested students work together through Society-sponsored meetings and publications, to enrich their professional development, to educate the general public, and to advance nuclear and radiological science and engineering.
Meeting Spotlight
2024 ANS Annual Conference
June 16–19, 2024
Las Vegas, NV|Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino
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
May 2024
Jan 2024
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
June 2024
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
ANS Standards Committee publishes joint ASME/ANS standard for Level 1/large early release frequency PRA
ANSI/ASME/ANS RA-S-1.1-2024, Standard for Level 1/Large Early Release Frequency Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications, has been published by the American Nuclear Society. The document, which is a joint standard developed with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers by the ANS/ASME Joint Committee on Nuclear Risk Management, received the approval of the American National Standards Institute on February 29, 2024, and was issued on March 15, 2024.
Thomas G. Saller, Vishnu Nair, Andrew Till, Nathan Gibson
Nuclear Science and Engineering | Volume 197 | Number 8 | August 2023 | Pages 2117-2135
Technical papers from: PHYSOR 2022 | doi.org/10.1080/00295639.2022.2133940
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
It is challenging to select an appropriate group structure for any given multigroup neutron transport problem. Many group structures were designed long ago, and the reasoning behind the creator’s choices may be unknown. In this work, we apply the simulated annealing optimization method to develop improved group structures for a set of test problems. We then use a random forest (a machine learning method) to identify which group structure will be the best for any new problem based on input characteristics, such as geometry and isotopics.
Simulated annealing spans a large solution space before narrowing in on an optimal solution, avoiding local minima by jumping around. Our solution space, however, is large and inconsistent, making finding the optimal group structure infeasible. Instead, we find potentially optimal group structures, ones that yield more accurate solutions than our standard group structures, but are probably not the “best” possible. Group structures are obtained for six classes of problems, ranging from a fast 233U system to a thermal 239Pu system. These were chosen to encompass a series of critical assemblies from the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project (ICSBEP) handbook. These optimized group structures were used in PARTISN for a large range of ICSBEP critical assemblies and compared to the traditional Los Alamos National Laboratory group structures. Our reference solution was from 618-group PARTISN runs. The results were used to train a random forest regressor model with bagging, which was then tested on similar benchmarks. The bagging regressor model chose the best group structure from 52% to 65% of the time, and a subjectively “good” group structure up to 91% of the time.