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
2025 ANS Winter Conference & Expo
November 9–12, 2025
Washington, DC|Washington Hilton
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
Oct 2025
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
November 2025
Nuclear Technology
October 2025
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Russia withdraws from 25-year-old weapons-grade plutonium agreement
Russia’s lower house of Parliament, the State Duma, approved a measure to withdraw from a 25-year-old agreement with the United States to cut back on the leftover plutonium from Cold War–era nuclear weapons.
J. J. Yugo, D. E. Williamson
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 21 | Number 3 | May 1992 | Pages 1909-1913
Magnetic | doi.org/10.13182/FST92-A29998
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
Electromagnetic forces due to eddy currents strongly influence the design of components for the next generation of fusion devices. An effort has been made to benchmark two computer programs used to generate transient electromagnetic loads: SPARK and EddyCuFF. Two simple transient field problems were analyzed, both of which had been previously analyzed by the SPARK code with results recorded in the literature. A third problem that uses an ITER inboard blanket benchmark model was analyzed as well. This problem was driven with a self-consistent, distributed multifilament plasma model generated by an axisymmetric physics code. The benchmark problems showed good agreement between the two shell-element codes. Variations in calculated eddy currents of 1–3% have been found for similar, finely meshed models. A difference of 8% was found in induced current and 20% in force for a coarse mesh and complex, multifilament field driver. Because comparisons were made to results obtained from literature, model preparation and code execution times were not evaluated.