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
2026 Nuclear Energy Conference & Expo (NECX)
August 24–27, 2026
Dallas, TX|Hilton Anatole
Latest Magazine Issues
Jul 2026
Jan 2026
2026
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
September 2026
Nuclear Technology
August 2026
Fusion Science and Technology
Latest News
Gov. Sherrill signs bill to begin nuclear procurement in N.J.
On July 13, New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill signed the Power NJ Act, a bill that directs the state’s Board of Public Utilities (BPU), in collaboration with the state’s Economic Development Authority, to establish an “advanced nuclear energy procurement program.”
S. Smolentsev, T. Rhodes, Y. Yan, A. Tassone, C. Mistrangelo, L. Bühler, F. R. Urgorri
Fusion Science and Technology | Volume 76 | Number 5 | July 2020 | Pages 653-669
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.1080/15361055.2020.1751378
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
In “An Approach to Verification and Validation of MHD Codes for Fusion Applications” [S. Smolentsev et al., Fusion Eng. Des., Vol. 100, p. 65 (2015)], an effort for verification and validation of computer codes for liquid metal flows in a magnetic field for fusion cooling/breeding applications was initiated. The current study continues that effort. A group of experts in computational magnetohydrodynamics from several institutions in the United States and Europe performed a code-to-code comparison for the selected reference case of a mixed-convection buoyancy-opposed magnetohydrodynamic flow of eutectic lead-lithium (PbLi) alloy in a thin-wall conducting square duct at Hartmann number Ha = 220, Reynolds number Re = 3040, and Grashof number Gr = 2.88 × 107. As shown, the reference flow demonstrates a boundary layer separation in the heated region and formation of a reversed flow zone. The results of the comparison suggest that all five solvers predict well the key flow features but have moderate quantitative differences, in particular, in the location of the separation point. Also, two of the codes are more computationally dissipative, showing no velocity and temperature oscillations.