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
Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
September 8–11, 2025
Atlanta, GA|Atlanta Marriott Marquis
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
Jul 2025
Jan 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
September 2025
Nuclear Technology
August 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Remembering ANS member Gil Brown
Brown
The nuclear community is mourning the loss of Gilbert Brown, who passed away on July 11 at the age of 77 following a battle with cancer.
Brown, an American Nuclear Society Fellow and an ANS member for nearly 50 years, joined the faculty at Lowell Technological Institute—now the University of Massachusetts–Lowell—in 1973 and remained there for the rest of his career. He eventually became director of the UMass Lowell nuclear engineering program. After his retirement, he remained an emeritus professor at the university.
Sukesh Aghara, chair of the Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization, noted in an email to NEDHO members and others that “Gil was a relentless advocate for nuclear energy and a deeply respected member of our professional community. He was also a kind and generous friend—and one of the reasons I ended up at UMass Lowell. He served the university with great dedication. . . . Within NEDHO, Gil was a steady presence and served for many years as our treasurer. His contributions to nuclear engineering education and to this community will be dearly missed.”
David L. Luxat, Donald A. Kalanich, Joshua T. Hanophy, Randall O. Gauntt, Richard M. Wachowiak
Nuclear Technology | Volume 196 | Number 3 | December 2016 | Pages 684-697
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NT16-57
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
The Modular Accident Analysis Program (MAAP), Version 5 (MAAP5) and Methods of Estimation of Leakages and Consequences of Releases (MELCOR) are widely used integral plant response analysis computer codes. Both programs have been developed over the past 30 years for the purpose of simulating a range of beyond-design-basis accidents. The codes are benchmarked against numerous separate-effects experiments that reflect, to varying degrees, conditions expected to arise in light water reactor accidents. Such separate-effects tests, however, do not completely represent the novel physics that can arise through the interaction of multiple phenomena and physical processes at a reactor scale. Furthermore, aside from the Three Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI-2) core damage event, there is limited information available to evaluate reactor-scale behavior. Both MAAP5 and MELCOR have developed models to capture reactor-scale accident progression that, to a certain extent, extrapolate from separate-effects experiments, with assessment against the TMI-2 event only. Because of the limited information available to assess these extrapolated reactor-scale models, differences in MAAP5 and MELCOR code predictions do exist, most notably in the simulation of in-vessel core-melt progression. While these differences are not necessarily influential for the key metrics evaluated in probabilistic risk assessments, they can have a more pronounced impact on studies assessing the efficacy of accident management measures. This paper reports the first phase of a MAAP-MELCOR crosswalk designed to identify the key core-melt progression modeling differences. The results of this study highlight the impact that assumptions about reactor-scale, in-vessel core debris morphology have on (a) the potential for high temperatures to develop above the reactor core and in the main steam lines and (b) the magnitude and extent of the period for in-vessel hydrogen generation. These examples play critical roles in the evolution of challenges to the reactor pressure vessel pressure boundary and containment and are ultimately central to the evaluation of accident management effectiveness.