Cover Page ofThe Mayfield Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing
Table of ContentsWriting TimelineHelpCredits

Section 2.4.5

Progress Reports

Project monitoring and accountability are the main objectives ofprogress reports. The typical progress report gives some summary of the project goal, states theprogress made toward that goal during the reporting period, discusses significant costs andscheduling issues, and lists future objectives to be carried out. Generally, progress reports areprepared at intervals, most frequently at quarterly intervals of the fiscal year. The intervals areoften specified in the initial project proposal.

Consultants use progress reports to maintain contact with sponsors. Research organizations useprogress reports to inform funding organizations, government or commercial, of their workprogress. Internal research workers use progress reports to report on their work to managersand others within their own organizations. Progress reports are useful tools for management inkeeping track of work progress in their groups, and they also furnish researchers a structure formonitoring their own commitments and levels of support.

Format of Progress Reports

The general format of progress reports varies widely from aninformal business letter giving an update on work accomplishedto the highly detailed formal structure required by funding agencies at specified intervals. Thesequence of information is often as follows:

  1. Front matter. Project title, funding source, contract number, funding period, report date, research organization, and funded staff
  2. Body. Project summary, overview, report of progress, problems (cost or schedule issues), future work
  3. End matter. References, attachments

Following are excerpts from a progress report.


Pipe-to-Pipe Impact: Quarterly Report

January 1-March 31, 19--

Report Number NUREG/CB-16

Reactor Safety Research Programs

P. N. Laboratory,

Richland, WA 99352

Contract Number B83234-6

Division of Accident Evaluation

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research

U.S.N.R.C.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Summary

One additional pipe-to-pipe impact test was run during the lastquarter. Additional testing was temporarily suspended to decidetwo new questions. Should possible flaws in the specimen becharacterized? If so, which nondestructive examination techniquesshould be used? The consequences of rupturing specimens underpressurized water reactor (PWR) conditions were given additionalattention because of their potential safety hazards.

Introduction

The object of the Pipe-to-Pipe Impact Program is to provide theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with experimental data andanalytical models for making licensing decisions regardingpipe-to-pipe impact following any break in high-energy fluid systempiping. Current licensing criteria, as contained in StandardReview Plan 3.6.2 in Dynamic Effects of Piping Rupture, are beingevaluated. Data is being obtained from a series of tests in whichselected pipe specimens with appropriate energies are beingimpacted against stationary specimens to achieve required damagelevels.

This program involves two main areas: obtaining experimental dataand developing predictive models. Preliminary analyses . . . 

Technical Progress

The first supported test from the matrix was completed usingunderpressurized specimens at room temperature. Compressivestrains of over 55% and tensile strains of over 25% were detectedon the impacted pipe. Significantly more deformation and higherlocal strains than expected were observed for the target pipe . . . 

After tests were conducted, the target pipe revealed several crackson the outside surface in areas of relatively high tensile strain. Microphotographs of the wall cross section showed that the crackpenetrated at a very shallow angle with the surface. The distancealong the crack was ~0.040 in., but the maximum depth was . . . 

A concern has been raised that the specimens should benondestructively examined before additional testing, in order tocharacterize any flaws that could possibly cause a rupture of thespecimen. If the size . . . 

Delays in Subtask D-2 Loop Experiments

Reductions in funding have limited the FY 19-- task todemonstrating the capabilities of the testing facility with twounirradiated cladding samples. The samples have been rescheduledto be tested . . . 

Future Work

The following activities are planned for the next quarter:


Reference Link Text
## Progress Reports ##
Reference Link Text

[ Home | Table of Contents| Writing Timeline | Index |Help | Credits]

Copyright ©2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. McGraw-Hill Higher Education is one of the many fine businesses of
The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
.
Corporate Link