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 Annual Conference
May 31–June 3, 2026
Denver, CO|Sheraton Denver
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
Nov 2025
Jul 2025
Latest Journal Issues
Nuclear Science and Engineering
December 2025
Nuclear Technology
Fusion Science and Technology
November 2025
Latest News
Education and training to support Canadian nuclear workforce development
Along with several other nations, Canada has committed to net-zero emissions by 2050. Part of this plan is tripling nuclear generating capacity. As of 2025, the country has four operating nuclear generating stations with a total of 17 reactors, 16 of which are in the province of Ontario. The Independent Electricity System Operator has recommended that an additional 17,800 MWe of nuclear power be added to Ontario’s grid.
Jason B. Meng, Francesco Deleo (TerraPower)
Proceedings | 2018 International Congress on Advances in Nuclear Power Plants (ICAPP 2018) | Charlotte, NC, April 8-11, 2018 | Pages 51-59
The TerraPower-developed mechanical analysis code OXBOW is used to evaluate the mechanical performance of Traveling Wave Reactor core assemblies. Benchmarking work was performed using OXBOW to compare displacement and contact load results against a variety of mechanical analysis codes from the International Working Group on Fast Reactors (IWGFR) for a set of well-defined assembly conditions. Significant differences in results were found in the benchmark problem modeling a thermally bowing row of assemblies in a limited free bow core restraint configuration. This is due to a bridging effect which occurs due to differences in contact modeling methodology. Additionally, significant displacement differences in results were found in the benchmark problem modeling duct dilation under internal pressure, temperature, and irradiation. These differences are due to the fact that OXBOW dilation models account for both stress relaxation and geometric nonlinearities. Differences in results between OXBOW and the IWGFR benchmark participants are attributed to higher fidelity models generated using OXBOW.