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
The human factor in licensing and operating the next generation of nuclear plants
As human factors specialists working at the intersection of human performance and nuclear operations, we are witnessing one of the nuclear sector’s most significant transitions in decades. The emergence of small modular reactors, microreactors, and other advanced designs is reshaping the industry’s landscape. Digital instrumentation and controls, passive safety systems, and increased automation are creating opportunities for greater safety margins and more flexible operation. These same features also fundamentally redefine what it means to “operate” a nuclear plant. Interactions among human roles, automation, and passive systems shape how people maintain awareness, exercise judgment, and intervene when necessary. These developments affect both operational realities and the regulatory foundations on which nuclear safety is built.
Joel A. Kulesza, Roger L. Martz
Nuclear Technology | Volume 195 | Number 1 | July 2016 | Pages 55-70
Technical Paper | doi.org/10.13182/NT15-122
Articles are hosted by Taylor and Francis Online.
This paper provides results for calculations performed using MCNP6’s unstructured mesh (UM) capabilities based on the three problems described in the Kobayashi benchmark suite. These calculations are performed to provide a comprehensive and consistent basis for the verification and validation of MCNP6’s constructive solid geometry (CSG) and UM neutron transport capabilities relative to a well-known analytic benchmark. First, preexisting MCNP5 CSG models are updated and reexecuted to form a basis of comparison with UM for both the consistency of the numeric results and speed of execution. Next, a series of UM calculations is performed using first- and second-order tetrahedral and hexahedral elements with mesh generated using Abaqus. In addition, a different first-order tetrahedral mesh is generated with Attila4MC in order to investigate the effect on the results. When executed, the results for both CSG and UM agree among themselves and with the benchmark quantities within reasonable statistical fluctuations (at worst, the results agree within 2σ or 10% but generally within 1σ or 5%) and recognizing from historical work that improved agreement is possible with additional variance-reduction effort. As expected, for the simple geometries herein, we find the CSG calculations completing approximately ten times faster than the comparable fastest UM calculations. We find minor speed differences (~1%) between multigroup and continuous-energy nuclear data and significant speed differences (factor ~100) between different element types. As such, the timing results support the recommendation that users run with the simplest UM element type that adequately represents the problem geometry, ideally first-order hexahedra, and with the most convenient nuclear data energy treatment.