Cover Page of
The Mayfield Handbook of Technical & Scientific Writing
Table of ContentsWriting TimelineIndexHelpCredits

Section 2.4.5

Progress Reports

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

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

Format of Progress Reports

The general format of progress reports varies widely from an informal business letter giving an update on work accomplished to the highly detailed formal structure required by funding agencies at specified intervals. The sequence 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


Washington, D.C. 20555


One additional pipe-to-pipe impact test was run during the last quarter. Additional testing was temporarily suspended to decide two new questions. Should possible flaws in the specimen be characterized? If so, which nondestructive examination techniques should be used? The consequences of rupturing specimens under pressurized water reactor (PWR) conditions were given additional attention because of their potential safety hazards.


The object of the Pipe-to-Pipe Impact Program is to provide the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) with experimental data and analytical models for making licensing decisions regarding pipe-to-pipe impact following any break in high-energy fluid system piping. Current licensing criteria, as contained in Standard Review Plan 3.6.2 in Dynamic Effects of Piping Rupture, are being evaluated. Data is being obtained from a series of tests in which selected pipe specimens with appropriate energies are being impacted against stationary specimens to achieve required damage levels.

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

Technical Progress

The first supported test from the matrix was completed using underpressurized specimens at room temperature. Compressive strains of over 55% and tensile strains of over 25% were detected on the impacted pipe. Significantly more deformation and higher local strains than expected were observed for the target pipe . . . 

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

A concern has been raised that the specimens should be nondestructively examined before additional testing, in order to characterize any flaws that could possibly cause a rupture of the specimen. If the size . . . 

Delays in Subtask D-2 Loop Experiments

Reductions in funding have limited the FY 19-- task to demonstrating the capabilities of the testing facility with two unirradiated cladding samples. The samples have been rescheduled to 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]