Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Notes”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sierra/SD - Theory Manual (V.5.10)

Sierra/SD provides a massively parallel implementation of structural dynamics finite element analysis, required for high fidelity, validated models used in modal, vibration, static and shock analysis of structural systems. This manual describes the theory behind many of the constructs in Sierra/SD. For a more detailed description of how to use Sierra/SD, we refer the reader to User's Manual. Many of the constructs in Sierra/SD are pulled directly from published material. Where possible, these materials are referenced herein. However, certain functions in Sierra/SD are specific to our implementation. We try to be far more complete in those areas. The theory manual was developed from several sources including general notes, a programmer_notes manual, the user's notes and of course the material in the open literature.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

ESR Dipole Power Supply Current Ripple and Noise Specifications

This note presents key findings for the ESR main magnet dipole power supplies (PS), where we find the current ripple specification to be close to or beyond the state-of-the-art. These specifications originate from beam-beam considerations, with the requirement to limit the ripple-induced hadron emittance growth to below 10%/hour. Beam dynamics that drive this PS ripple specification arise from the beam motions at the Interaction Point (IP). The frequency of the motions can be separated into "low", compared to the betatron frequency, and "high", i.e. around the betatron frequency and harmonics. In terms of the driving frequency, "low" implies ƒ<<ƒ 0 v x,y and "fast" means ƒ≈{ƒ 0 v x,y , ƒ 0 (1- v x,y , etc.}, where ƒ 0 =1/ T 0 =78.2 kHz is the revolution frequency, and v x,y are the fractional parts of the betatron tunes. Frequencies higher than ƒ 0 /2 will be folded back due to the particles sampling the field once per turn. To provide flexibility for future lattice adjustments and working point variations, we do not consider the tunes as fixed. Instead, we assume a certain margin and allow them to potentially fall within the range of 0.1< v x,y <0.5. In other words, the high-frequency region spans approximately from 8kHz to 40 kHz. Consequently,, we definte the dipole PS ripple in two distinct frequency ranges: the low-frequency range of [1-8000] Hz and the high-frequency range of [8-40] kHz. For the physics effects we analyzed in this note, there is no distinction between the ripple (which can be approximately reproduced in the frequency domain) and the random noise if both have some power within the frequency bandwidth of interest. Therefore, while we will use the term "ripple" for short, it should always be understood that we are referring to "ripple plus noise." Except for the lower end of the low-frequency range, the impact of the rippling PS current on the beam will be considerably reduced due to the eddy currents induced in the walls of the vacuum chamber. We will account for this effect in the PS ripple specifications to follow. The remaining sections of this note are structure as follows: Section II outlines the beam-beam physics requirements for the positional stability of the beam at the IP. Section III describes the anticipated shielding effect of the eddy currents induced in the vacuum chamber. Section IV derives the ripple requirement for the low-frequency range by propagating the closed orbit ripple resulting from the rippling dipoles to the IP (relevant lattice simulation results are summarized in the Appendix). In Section V, we present the analytical criterion for the ripple in the high-frequency range by considering resonant oscillations of the electron beam around a stable closed orbit near the betatron frequency. Finally, Section VI provides a summary of our findings and discusses related work.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis (Rev. 3)

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sierra/SD – Theory Manual – 5.22

Sierra/SD provides a massively parallel implementation of structural dynamics finite element analysis, required for high fidelity, validated models used in modal, vibration, static and shock analysis of structural systems. This manual describes the theory behind many of the constructs in Sierra/SD. For a more detailed description of how to use Sierra/SD, we refer the reader to User’s Manual. Many of the constructs in Sierra/SD are pulled directly from published material. Where possible, these materials are referenced herein. However, certain functions in Sierra/SD are specific to our implementation. We try to be far more complete in those areas. The theory manual was developed from several sources including general notes, a programmer_notes manual, the user’s notes and of course the material in the open literature.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Sierra/SD – Theory Manual (V.5.24)

Sierra/SD provides a massively parallel implementation of structural dynamics finite element analysis, required for high fidelity, validated models used in modal, vibration, static and shock analysis of structural systems. This manual describes the theory behind many of the constructs in Sierra/SD. For a more detailed description of how to use Sierra/SD, we refer the reader to User’s Manual. Many of the constructs in Sierra/SD are pulled directly from published material. Where possible, these materials are referenced herein. However, certain functions in Sierra/SD are specific to our implementation. We try to be far more complete in those areas. The theory manual was developed from several sources including general notes, a programmer_notes manual, the user’s notes and of course the material in the open literature.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

CERF↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2020

Quarterly Technical Progress Report Piperazine Advanced Stripper (PZAS™) Front End Engineering Design

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document summarizes the status of Cooperative Agreement DE-FE0031844, “Piperazine Advanced Stripper (PZAS™) Front-End Engineering Design,” during the reporting period of January 1 through March 31, 2020. The objective of this project is to develop accurate installed costs by conducting a Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) of PZAS™ at Golden Spread Electric Cooperative’s (GSEC) Mustang Station located in Denver City, TX. Complementary benefits include positioning the technology for a commercial project with the 45Q tax credits, qualifying PZAS™ for use on a Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) Cogen facility, and to provide cost detail to optimize PZAS™ and help guide R&D of second-generation solvent CO2 capture technologies. Results from the FEED will be used to evaluate the economic feasibility of the process at Mustang Station. This project is funded by the U.S. DOE National Energy Technology Laboratory under the aforementioned Cooperative Agreement. Exxon, Total, Chevron, UOP-Honeywell, and the University of Texas (UT) are project co-funders. AECOM and Trimeric are project team members; UT is the prime contractor. Summary of Progress Cooperative Agreement DE-FE0031844 was established in October 2019. The current reporting period, January 1 through March 31, 2020, is the second technical progress reporting period for the project. Several milestones were accomplished during this reporting period, including: • Kickoff Meeting with DOE on February 3, 2020. • Kickoff Meeting with GSEC on March 30, 2020. (Note: Due to Covid-19 travel restrictions and shelter-in-place guidelines, the kickoff meeting was conducted remotely via videoconferencing. See attached notes from that telecon.) • Updated Project Management Plan March 2020, submitted with this quarterly report Other activities during the quarter included progress on contracting and other legal agreements (e.g., non-disclosure agreements), internal kickoff meetings at both AECOM and Trimeric, and development of a Technical Implementation Plan (TIP). The TIP will help the team to make critical, early process decisions and, ultimately, to develop a project and process design basis. Note that all agreements between project team participants are complete as of this submittal, except the vendor agreement with Kiewit (steam cycle modeling). Plans for Next Reporting Period Activities during the next reporting period (April 1, 2020 through June 30, 2020) include: the completion of the Project Design Basis and progress towards the Process Design Basis/Process Design Package (PDP). The Project Design Basis is due as a deliverable and milestone during the next reporting period.

Rochelle, Gary T.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Electron Bifurcating Hydrogenases

The importance of electron-bifurcating enzymes is manifest by their ability to maximize energy efficiency. Specifically, they couple a downhill oxidation-reduction (redox) reaction with an uphill redox reaction. Since the rapid increase in the discovery of bifurcating enzymes starting in 2008, there has been interest in incorporating their mechanistic principles into artificial/semiartificial systems to drive chemically challenging reactions. This has yet to be achieved, partly because the details of electron bifurcation, i.e. mechanisms, are largely elusive. Nevertheless, much progress has been made in understanding reactivities, structures, and some mechanistic aspects of these enzymes. Notable examples are electron-bifurcating hydrogenases, which are the focus of this chapter. The chapter is organized as follows. Section 11.1 provides an overview of hydrogenases and electron bifurcation. In Section 11.2, some physiological roles of electron-bifurcating hydrogenases are highlighted. Additionally, electron-bifurcating subunit compositions and biochemical reactivities are comprehensively tabulated, and some key points/considerations about these are noted. In Section 11.3, we discuss the known structures of these enzymes, which provide insight into their complex arrangements of redox cofactors, such as iron-sulfur clusters. Also provided are tabulations and discussions of some biophysical properties of the cofactors. In Section 11.4, we discuss the mechanistic proposals of these enzymes, which are primarily based on structural information. Areas of research that are much needed are outlined in Section 11.5. We conclude on the note that what is learned from electron-bifurcating hydrogenases has applicability to other bifurcating enzymes, nonbifurcating analogs, and mechanistic enzymology at large.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

Radiation‐Induced Defects in Uranyl Trinitrate Solids

Abstract Actinides are inherently radioactive; thus, ionizing radiation is emitted by these elements can have profound effects on its surrounding chemical environment through the formation of free radical species. While previous work has noted that the presence of free radicals in the system impacts the redox state of the actinides, there is little atomistic understanding of how these metal cations interact with free radicals. Herein, we explore the effects of radiation (UV and γ) on three U(VI) trinitrate complexes, M[UO 2 (NO 3 ) 3 ] (where M=K + , Rb + , Cs + ), and their respective nitrate salts in the solid state via electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR) and Raman spectroscopy paired with Density Functional Theory (DFT) methods. We find that the alkali salts form nitrate radicals under UV and γ irradiation, but also note the presence of additional degradation products. M[UO 2 (NO 3 ) 3 ] solids also form nitrate radicals and additional DFT calculations indicate the species corresponds to a change from the bidentate bound nitrate anion into a monodentate NO 3 • radical. Computational studies also highlight the need to include the second sphere coordination environment around the [UO 2 (NO 3 ) 3 ] 0,1 species to gain agreement between the experimental and predicted EPR signatures.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2025

Implications of Changes in Water Stress and Precipitation Extremes for Cocoa Production in Côte D'ivoire and Ghana

ABSTRACT Climate change induces high variability in drought patterns and extreme precipitation indices in rainfed cocoa farming, impacting cocoa production. This study evaluated water stress, meteorological and agricultural drought conditions, and critical extreme precipitation indices in the world's two largest cocoa‐producing nations from 1981 to 2022. The results revealed a significant reduction in total annual precipitation (PRCPTOT), in the last three decades, with the greatest decline in the 1991–2000 and 2011–2022 periods. Ghana experienced the most significant reduction up to 15% (200 mm/year) in the last decade, attributed to a substantial decrease in wet days number (RR1) up to 25 days per year, a reduction in maximum consecutive wet days (CWD) up to 6 days per year, and an increase in maximum consecutive dry days (CDD) up to 15 days per year. Moreover, there was a notable decline in the Simple Daily Intensity Index (SDII), with reductions of up to 4 mm/day in certain areas, contributing to increased drought frequency, severity, and duration. In the most recent decade (2011–2022), particularly during the extremely dry years of 2013 and 2015, cocoa‐growing regions in Ghana (GHA) and eastern Côte d'Ivoire (CIV) experienced prolonged agricultural drought expressed by soil moisture deficit, typically extending from May to September. Additionally, large portions of central and eastern Ghana, as well as northeastern Côte d'Ivoire experienced sustained water stress, with over three consecutive months of total monthly precipitation falling below 100 mm, negatively impacting cocoa productivity. The decrease in the yield in the range of 2.5% to 37% was noted in the dry years and the following years, varying according to the country depending on the severity of the drought. Sensitivity analysis highlights cocoa yield's responsiveness to drought and water stress, particularly in specific years when water stress occurred, such as 1984,1985, 1989, 1995, 1999, 2000, and 2008. Considering the observed trends in precipitation patterns and their impact on cocoa production, it is crucial to acknowledge the inherent uncertainty of future precipitation patterns due to climate change. To address this challenge effectively, our study underscores the importance of identifying and closely monitoring regions currently facing water stress, as determined by precipitation and drought indicators. Over the analysed period (1981–2022), we have noted shifts in the distribution of water‐stressed areas, highlighting the dynamic nature of this issue. Consequently, we advocate for a targeted approach to implement cocoa supplementary irrigation in consistently water‐stressed regions.

Obahoundje, Salomon [International Water Managemen↗
DOE OSTI2021

Modeling and Evaluation of Cyber-Attacks on Grid-Interactive Efficient Buildings

Grid-interactive efficient buildings (GEBs) are not only exposed to passive threats (e.g., physical faults) but also active threats such as cyber-attacks launched on the network-based control systems. The impact of cyber-attacks on GEB operation are not yet fully understood, especially as regards the performance of grid services. To quantify the consequences of cyber-attacks on GEBs, this paper proposes a modeling and simulation framework that includes different cyber-attack models and key performance indexes to quantify the performance of GEB operation under cyber-attacks. The framework is numerically demonstrated to model and evaluate cyber-attacks such as data intrusion attacks and Denial-of-Service attacks on a typical medium-sized office building that uses the BACnet/IP protocol for communication networks. Simulation results show that, while different types of attacks could compromise the building systems to different extents, attacks via the remote control of a chiller yield the most significant consequences on a building system’s operation, including both the building service and the grid service. It is also noted that a cyber-attack impacts the building systems during the attack period as well as the post-attack period, which suggests that both periods should be considered to fully evaluate the consequences of a cyber-attack.

Fu, Yanyang↗
DOE OSTI2021

Simulations of Events for the LUX-ZEPLIN (LZ) Dark Matter Experiment

The LUX-ZEPLIN dark matter search aims to achieve a sensitivity to the WIMP-nucleon spin-independent cross-section down to (1–2) ×10−12 pb at a WIMP mass of 40 GeV/ c 2 . This paper describes the simulations framework that, along with radioactivity measurements, was used to support this projection, and also to provide mock data for validating reconstruction and analysis software. Of particular note are the event generators, which allow us to model the background radiation, and the detector response physics used in the production of raw signals, which can be converted into digitized waveforms similar to data from the operational detector. Inclusion of the detector response allows us to process simulated data using the same analysis routines as developed to process the experimental data.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗