SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Shallow water equations”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

164 records · Page 10

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2024

GeoThermalCloud: Cloud Fusion of Big Data and Multi-Physics Models using Machine Learning for Discovery, Exploration, and Development of Hidden Geothermal Resources

The primary goals of this project are exploring hidden geothermal resources in the U.S.A. and designing profitable enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Many processes and parameters control geothermal exploration and energy production from geothermal fields. Diverse datasets (e.g., geology, geochemistry, geophysics, satellite, airborne geophysics) are available to help characterize subsurface geothermal conditions. Sparse and multi-scale characteristics of these datasets prohibit properly leveraging these datasets for geothermal exploration and profitable EGS design. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) promise to resolve these issues. The tremendous challenges and risks of geothermal exploration and production bring the demand for novel ML methods and tools that can (1) analyze large field datasets, (2) assimilate model simulations (large inputs and outputs), (3) process sparse datasets, (4) perform transfer learning (between sites with different exploratory levels), (5) extract hidden geothermal signatures in the field and simulation data, (6) label geothermal resources and processes, (7) identify high-value data acquisition targets, and (8) guide geothermal exploration and production by selecting optimal exploration, production, and drilling strategies. To address these necessities, ML-based geothermal resources exploration and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) design tools have been developed. The exploration tool is called GeoThermalCloud and EGS design tool is called GeoDT-ML. GeoThermalCloud (https://github.com/SmartTensors/GeoThermalCloud.jl) utilizes a LANL unsupervised ML platform called SmartTensors (https://tensors.lanl.gov/) to automate data analyses and interpretations by extracting hidden signatures to identify geothermal prospects. Also, it enables the identification of critical measurements needed to identify geothermal resource signatures. Alternatively, GeoDT-ML (https://github.com/SmartTensors/GeoThermalCloud.jl/tree/master/EGS) is an ML-based alternative to GeoDT (https://github.com/GeoDesignTool/GeoDT.git), a fast, simplified multi-physics solver to evaluate EGS project designs in uncertain geologic systems. GeoDT-ML leverages recent advances in deep learning and high-performance computing. It is a faster and simpler version of GeoDT. To make this project a success, we used capabilities of LANL, PNNL, Google, Stanford, and Julia Computing. We analyzed eight datasets of the U.S.A. using GeothermalCloud and demonstrated potential highly prospective geothermal resources and identified key factors defining highly prospective sites. The first data set includes 44 locations in southwest New Mexico and 18 geological, hydrogeological, geophysical, geothermal, geochemical attributes. We defined low- and medium-temperature hydrothermal systems and discovered a new highly prospective site. The second data set analyzed 18 shallow water chemistry attributes at 14,342 locations in the Great Basin. It demarcated modestly, moderately, and highly prospective sites including key attributes for each type of prospectivity. The third data set analyzed Utah FORGE data including satellite (InSAR), geophysical (gravity, seismic), geochemical, and geothermal attributes. Here, we performed prospectivity analysis to identify future drilling locations using geological, geochemical, and geophysical attributes. Maps of temperature at depth and heat flow are constructed based on the available data. Prospectivity maps were generated, and drilling locations were proposed for future geothermal field exploration. The fourth data set analyzed 21 attributes at 120 locations in Tularosa Basin, New Mexico; data comes from past play fairway analyses in this region. ML analyses identified geothermal signatures associated with modestly, moderately, and highly hydrothermal systems. We also defined dominant attributes and spatial distribution of the geothermal signatures. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth datasets include Tohatchi Springs, New Mexico, Hawaii, Brady site, Nevada, and EGS Collab, respectively. Moreover, we coupled GeothermalCloud and magnetotellurics data to pinpoint drilling locations for developing geothermal projects in the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico. GeothermalCloud found potential prospective locations for geothermal resources near White Sands Missile Range and McGregor Range at Fort Bliss. Magnetotellurics data determined the potential depth (~1800m) of geothermal prospects at McGregor Range based on apparent resistivity structures/layers in the subsurface. The McGregor Range consists of three resistivity layers and two resistivity structures. Magnetotellurics data also helps identify that the western portion of the McGregor Range has thick and low-resistivity earth materials. The low resistivity to the west is most likely for a fault system. Assuming temperature is consistent with a geothermal reservoir, the west-central part of the McGregor Range has the highest geothermal potential because of the increase in porosity and associated permeability attributed to the interpreted fault system. Also, we devised a coupling strategy between a process model and GeothermalCloud to characterize hydrogeological conditions and geothermal conditions, respectively. The process model characterizes hydrogeological and geothermal conditions on highly prospective geothermal sites provided by GeothermalCloud. We developed a physics-informed neural network (PINN) version of the Burns equation that can be easily coupled with GeothermalCloud. Furthermore, we performed an optimal design decision maximizing the economic value of an EGS power plant. This study optimized the range of well spacing between injection and production wells maximizing net present value in dollars (NPV). For this task, we used the GeoDT to simulate the Utah FORGE EGS development cycle from the initial well design to the end of production. Next, we accomplished another crucial task, which is predicting permeability of geothermal reservoirs. Predicting permeability of geothermal reservoirs is a non-trivial task because of huge computational runtime of simulation and lack of measurements. To avoid these limitations, we used easy-to-measure chemical concentrations in the subsurface as measurement data and convolutional neural network based ML model of a high-fidelity model. Next, we predicted permeability using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. We found that Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation predicts permeability with a high certainty if the prediction zone in the simulation area has chemical concentration data. Finally, we analyzed the DOE funded INGENIOUS and GeoDAWN projects data. For discovering hidden geothermal systems in the Great Basin, the INGENIOUS project accumulated old data, collected new data, and released them in 2022. The dataset includes a total of 24 geological, geophysical, and geochemical attributes. Data resolution and scale significantly vary prohibiting an appropriate usage. To avoid such limitations, we brought all data in the same resolution and scale by applying the inverse distance weighting interpolation technique for predicting data in unsampled locations. Subsequently, we analyzed LiDAR data of the GeoDAWN project. We received data in tiles format. The DOE’s overarching goal is to use ML on LiDAR data for finding favorable geological structures (e.g., step up faults in Brady, Nevada). To serve the purpose, we need to label favorable geologic structures that correspond to LiDAR data. We wrote an algorithm to label the LiDAR data with the favorable geologic structures.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗