Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Volumetric”

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

Electric charge build-up and dissipation at pulsed streamer corona by EFISH and probe measurements

The aim of this work is to study the dynamics of volumetric electric charge deposited by a single pin electrode streamer corona in atmospheric air at ambient conditions. Recent studies show that, at pulse-periodic operation, electric charge remains in surrounding air after the first discharge. This residual charge significantly impacts the electric field distribution and morphology of discharges at subsequent pulses. In this study, the residual electrical potential/field was measured during and after dissipation of a pulsed 80kV streamer corona of alternating polarity. This was accomplished using electrostatic probes and the EFISH method (Electric Field Induced Second Harmonic generation). The residual volumetric charge of a positive pulse polarity streamer corona occupies a zone up to 80mm from the electrode. The subsequent application of a negative polarity pulse leads to partial neutralization of the previous charge and the generation of a region with a high-amplitude electric field. Here, the propagation of following positive polarity pulses is limited by the residual positive volumetric charge. The EFISH method reveals the magnitude of the electric field at discharge propagation and electrostatic probes inform the polarity. Intensified imaging acquisition was used to evaluate the spatial distribution and dynamics of corona discharge during the alternating polarity waveform.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Numerical Simulations of Carbon Dioxide Storage Efficiency in Heterogeneous Reservoir Models

The U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (DOE-NETL) has been developing methods and tools (the online Carbon Dioxide Storage prospeCtive Resource Estimation Excel aNalysis (CO2-SCREEN) tool) to estimate carbon dioxide (CO2) storage potential in subsurface reservoirs. The CO2 storage efficiency terms are input in the tool to calculate storage potential in targeted reservoirs. In this effort, two CO2 storage efficiency terms were evaluated: volumetric displacement ( E V ) and microscopic displacement ( E d ). The first term deals with efficiency of CO2 propagation into an accessible reservoir volume, while the second term evaluates effectiveness of native fluid displacement with CO2. The interpreted well logs and core sample measurements were applied to create the heterogeneous reservoir models including geostatistical realizations of porosity and intrinsic permeability fields. Supercritical CO2 was injected over the course of 30 years into brine-saturated reservoir models for clastics, limestone, and dolomite lithologies and deltaic fluvial, aeolian, shallow marine, and reef depositional environments by means of varying reservoir parameters and injection scenarios. The reservoir models providing vertically heterogeneous petrophysical properties and designated as “layered reservoir models” (with homogeneous parameters along each layer of the model) were not determined to be a transition between the homogeneous and heterogeneous models in respect to storage efficiency. Another finding shows that high-efficiency factors do not necessarily mean increased CO2 storage; they rather indicate that the available volume and pore space are more fully utilized. The CO2 storage efficiency factors were evaluated dynamically at the select time points using P 10 ‐ P 50 ‐ P 90 percentiles. The results of this study show that the P 10 ‐ P 90 distribution for volumetric efficiency is wider when compared to the microscopic efficiency. It was found that where dominant buoyancy forces drive the plume to the top of a target formation, the volumetric efficiency is low. Tighter sandstone and carbonate formations show prevalence of capillary forces and better utilization of reservoir volume.

Myshakin, Evgeniy M.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Understanding the tool influence function during sub-aperture belt-on-wheel glass polishing

The tool influence function (TIF) during sub-aperture belt-on-wheel polishing has been evaluated as a function of various process conditions (belt use/wear, dwell time, displacement, belt velocity, and wheel modulus and diameter) on fused silica glass workpieces using C e O 2 polishing media. TIF spots are circular or elliptical in shape with a largely flat bottom character. Furthermore, the volumetric removal rate varies significantly with belt use (or wear), stabilizing after ~<!-- ~ --> 15 m i n of use. A modified Preston model, where the pressure dependence is adjusted using a different scaling of the wheel modulus ( E w 0.5 ), largely predicts the volumetric removal rate over the range of process conditions evaluated. The relatively high volumetric removal rate of 30 -<!-- - --> 60 m m 3 / h using a fixed C e O 2 -in-resin-host belt offers a rapid, and hence, more economical, initial polish of aspheric and freeform optics.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

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 near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. 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 ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. 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 OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

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 near Trail Creek. 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 TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores 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 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 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 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 OSTI2020

Gasoline Engine and Fuels Offering Reduced Fuel Consumption and Emissions: Vehicle Modeling Final Report

The Gasoline Engine and Fuels Offering Reduced Fuel Consumption and Emissions (GEFORCE) project was proposed in response to the U.S. Department of Energy’s Funding Opportunity Announcement 0991 by a team made up of the members of the Coordinating Research Council (CRC) and the research staff at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL.) The project focused on investigating the potential benefits that might be attained through synergistic use of specific engine technology together with fuels formulated to represent potential directions that high-octane fuels of the future might progress. A stated objective in the DOE FOA was to demonstrate a 25% reduction in petroleum consumption through optimization of the engine technologies together with a suitable fuel. An advanced engine was constructed and used with a matrix of research fuels to investigate potential avenues for efficiency improvement. The engine incorporated technologies expected to become mainstream for boosted engines in the next 10 to 20 years. These included increased compression ratio, a two-stage turbocharger, and cooled external exhaust gas recirculation (EGR). The fuel matrix was designed to investigate impacts from research octane number (RON), volumetric ethanol content, and the final boiling point of the fuel. The engine calibration was optimized for each fuel individually and data collected to enable vehicle system modelling that projected energy consumption, fuel economy, tailpipe CO₂ emissions, and impact on petroleum consumption for an industry-average mid-size sedan. The engine calibration and data collection were carried out at IAV in Michigan and is the subject of a separate report. IAV provided the engine data to Oak Ridge National Laboratory to support the vehicle modelling portion of the project. The vehicle modelling results show the following trends: Ethanol content does have a consistently strong influence on the fuel economy results for all cycles and all fuels. Among the fuels of a nominal RON level, increasing ethanol content consistently lowers fuel economy, with the 30% ethanol fuels always providing the lowest fuel economy for a given RON level. However, in some cases the energy consumption improvement allows the 30% ethanol fuels to match the fuel economy of the ethanol-free fuel P. These observations underscore the importance of both engine efficiency and fuel volumetric energy content on vehicle fuel economy.; There was no consistent trend in the projected energy consumption results for differences in fuel T90 for all fuels and cycles. Fuel economy projections did show a consistent trend, with the higher T90 fuel providing slightly greater fuel economy when compared to the low T90 fuel of the same ethanol content. The observed trends were consistent with differences in the heating value of the fuels.; The 102-RON fuels provided reduced energy consumption and greater fuel economy for the advanced engine on all drive cycles. The engine compression ratio of 11.5 was higher than would typically be used in a turbocharged engine when 92-RON fuel use is expected. Hence, the engine experiences more efficiency degradation from knock avoidance when using the 92-RON fuels. This degradation causes the fuel economy results for the 92-RON fuels to be lower than those for the 102-RON fuels.; Fuels E and F (92-RON, 30% ethanol) are projected to achieve 10% or greater reduction in petroleum consumption, with fuels K (102-RON, 30% ethanol) and O (97 RON, 30% ethanol) achieving greater than a 20% reduction. Fuel L (102-RON, 30% ethanol) achieves greater than 25% reduction, meeting the petroleum reduction target of the project. All of the fuels that achieve 10% or greater reduction in petroleum consumption are 30% ethanol blends.; Increasing final boiling point increased fuel economy at fixed ethanol content when the 102-RON fuels were used. This trend is a result of differences in the volumetric energy content of the fuels and the projected energy consumption values for the fuels. In the case of the 102-RON fuels, increasing final boiling point also resulted in an increase in the energy content of the fuel. There was not a consistent trend between the energy content and final boiling point for the 92-RON fuels at fixed ethanol content.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Impact of Cooling Rate and Thermal Mass on Supercooling in a Salt-Hydrogel Complex for Thermal Energy Storage

Glauber’s salt is a promising phase change material for building thermal management because of its high latent heat, acceptable melting temperature of 32.3 °C for indoor air1,2. Despite these advantages, the practical application of Glauber’s salt in thermal energy storage systems is still challenging due to supercooling and phase segregation1–3. Here, we report the impact of temperature ramp rate and thermal mass on the supercooling of Glauber’s salt through the DSC and T-history experiment. The ramp rate effect was studied with a wide range of ramp rates in 1 to 10 °C/min in DSC and 1 to 4 °C/min in the T-history experiment. The thermal mass effect was investigated by comparing DSC and T-history experiment. The latent heat was also analyzed for different ramp rates and thermal mass conditions. The melting temperatures of Glauber’s salt from the two techniques were identical while freezing temperatures were different because of the thermal mass effect. During freezing in the T-history experiment, the latent heat was reduced by around 75% to the latent heat in melting due to supercooling and phase segregation. To overcome this bottleneck, we developed a novel hydrogel complex that reduces the supercooling and prevents phase segregation to maintain volumetric energy density for 100 cycles. Thermodynamic analysis accounting for composition shows that a higher salt composition can further enhance the volumetric energy storage density. For example, a 10% increase in the weight percentage of salt leads to about 50% enhancement in volumetric energy storage density. References: 1. D. R. Biswas, Solar Energy. 19, 99–100 (1977). 2. S. M. Hasnain, Energy Conversion and Management. 39, 1127–1138 (1998). 3. Byung Chul Shin, Sang Done Kim, P. Won-Hoon, Energy. 14, 921–930 (1989).

inorganic, thermodynamics↗
DOE OSTI2026

California Price Response Potential Study

California's energy landscape is undergoing a significant transformation, driven by the increasing integration of renewable energy sources, the increased adoption of distributed energy resources, the electrification of end-use loads, and the growing need for grid efficiency. To address these challenges, recent revisions to the State’s Load Management Standards (LMS) require all of California’s large utilities and community choice aggregators (CCAs) to offer dynamic electricity pricing options to customers by 2027. Dynamic pricing, which involves varying electricity rates based on real-time supply and demand conditions, offers a promising solution for optimizing grid operations, reducing costs, and incentivizing efficient use of grid capacity. Effective implementation of dynamic pricing requires understanding the potential impacts on customer bills, system load, and the cost-effectiveness of automation technologies. This study aims to evaluate the load response of various end-use devices to hourly dynamic prices. The end-uses studied here are space cooling, space heating, water heating, crop irrigation, pool and spa pumps, and electric vehicle (EV) charging, all for both residential and commercial applications, except for crop irrigation. In 2030, these end uses are forecasted to account for 18% of annual electricity demand in the state, but 40% of demand in the peak net load hour. By modeling possible price-responsive load dispatch algorithms and assessing the resulting impacts on both individual bills and the overall grid, we seek to inform policymakers and utilities about the potential benefits and challenges associated with dynamic pricing, and considerations for the design of dynamic pricing tariffs. Additionally, we will explore the cost effectiveness of adopting automation technologies to enable devices to respond more effectively to real-time price signals. This study considers a range of price profiles, accounting for differences across utilities and customer classes, and presents scenarios for dynamic price design via variation in the percentage of total customer electric costs that are allocated dynamically (versus constituting a fixed portion of the hourly volumetric price). We present results focused primarily on 2030, forecasting electricity prices under both low and high-cost scenarios, to inform longer-term tariff design considerations. We design tariffs by starting with 2019 prices that were calculated according to CalFUSE guidance (CPUC, 2022) and that have been used in recent studies; these prices are all-in volumetric rates that vary by utility and are revenue-neutral to each customer class. They are developed by considering six electricity cost components that are allocated hourly based on system load indicators (gross and net load, and wholesale prices). These prices are forecasted to 2030 for low and high cost scenarios, considering recent trends in total electricity costs with and without years of substantial wildfire mitigation investments. These tariffs, which allocate all costs on an hourly basis, are considered our “Full” dynamic tariff design scenario, while two additional scenarios explore allocating a portion of costs as a flat volumetric charge: the “Medium” scenario allocates 50% of revenue dynamically (and keeps 50% flat), while the “Mild” scenario allocates 20% of revenue dynamically. The 20% dynamic allocation on the Mild scenario aims to represent a case where only the marginal operating costs of the grid are included in the dynamic price.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Cladding Profilometry Analysis of Experimental Breeder Reactor-II Metallic Fuel Pins with HT9, D9, and SS316 Cladding

BISON finite element method fuel performance simulations were conducted using an existing automated process that couples the Fuels Irradiation & Physics Database (FIPD) and the Integral Fast Reactor Materials Information System database by writing input files and comparing the BISON output to post-irradiation fuel pin profilometry measurements contained within the databases. The importance of this work is to demonstrate the ability to benchmark fuel performance metallic fuel models within BISON using Experimental Breeder Reactor-II fuel pin data for a number of similar pins, while building off previous modeling efforts. Changes to the generic BISON input file include implementing pin specific axial power and flux profiles, pin specific fluences, frictional contact, and irradiation-induced volumetric swelling models for cladding. A statistical analysis of irradiation-induced volumetric swelling models for HT9, D9, and SS316 was performed for experiments X421/X421A, X441/X441A, and X486. Between these three experiments, there were 174 post-irradiation examination (PIE) profilometries used for validating the swelling models presented using a standard error of the estimate (SEE) method. Implementation of the volumetric swelling models for D9 and SS316 claddings was found to have a significant impact on the BISON profilometry simulated, where HT9 clad pins had an insignificant change due to low fluence values. BISON profilometry simulated for HT9, D9, and SS316 fuel pins agreed with PIE profilometry measurements, with assembly SEE values being 4.4 × 10−3 for X421A, 2.0 × 10−3 for X441A, and 2.8 × 10−3 for X486. D9 clad pins in X421/X421A had the highest SEE values, which is due to the BISON simulated profilometry being shifted axially. While this work accomplished its purpose to demonstrate the modeling of multiple fuel pins from the databases to help validate models, the results suggest that the continued development of metallic fuel models is necessary for qualifying new metallic fuel systems to better capture some physical performance phenomena, such as the hot pressing of U-Pu-Zr and the fuel cladding chemical interaction.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Capture probe

A system for sampling a sample material includes a device for directing sample into a capture probe. A probe includes an outer probe housing having an open end. A liquid supply conduit has an outlet positioned to deliver liquid to the open end. An exhaust conduit removes liquid from the open end of the housing. The liquid supply conduit can be connectable to a liquid supply for delivering liquid at a first volumetric flow rate to the open end of the housing. A liquid exhaust system can be in fluid connection with the liquid exhaust conduit for removing liquid from the liquid exhaust conduit at a second volumetric flow rate, which exceeds the first volumetric flow rate such that gas with sample is withdrawn with the liquid.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Review of Low-Cost Organic and Inorganic Phase Change Materials with Phase Change Temperature between 0°C and 65°C

Phase change materials (PCMs) that undergo a phase transition may be used to provide a nearly isothermal latent heat storage at the phase change temperature. This work reports the energy storage material cost ($/kWh) of various PCMs with phase change between 0-65°C. Four PCM classes are analyzed for their potential use in building systems: 1) inorganic salt hydrates, 2) organic fatty acids, 3) organic fatty alcohols, and 4) organic paraffin waxes. Many salt hydrates have low material costs (0.09 - 2.53 $-kg-1), high latent heat of fusion (100-290 J-g-1), and high densities (1.3-2.6 g-cm-3), leading to favorable volumetric storage density and low energy storage costs, 50-130 kWh-m3 and 0.90-40 $-kWh-1, respectively. Some salts are notably more expensive due to their scarcity or pressures from competing industries such as lithium-based salts. Fatty acids have the lowest energy storage cost in the temperature range 8-17°C at 6.50 – 40 $-kWh-1. Despite favorable latent heat (125 – 250 J-g-1) their low density gives (0.9 g-cm3) gives poor volumetric storage capacity, 32 – 80 kWh-m3. Fatty alcohols generally have high material costs 2.50 – 200 $-kg-1 which leads to high energy storage costs, 40-3000 $/kWh. With latent heat and density similar to fatty acids, fatty alcohols have poor volumetric energy storage, 43 – 55 kWh-m-3.Paraffin waxes containing only a single length carbon chain have a higher energy cost (15 – 500 $-kWh-1) than generic paraffin waxes containing many lengths of carbon chains (7 – 30 $-kWh-1). Pure waxes have a discrete phase change temperature due to their homogeneity. In contrast, a less refined generic wax with several carbon chain lengths is more likely to have a pronounced temperature glide during its phase change. Pure single carbon chain waxes are generally required for applications <45°C as generic paraffin waxes melt between 45-70°C. For many waxes, a solid-solid transition occurs at temperatures below the solid-liquid phase change. For pure paraffins with carbon content ≥22 C atoms, these transitions may appear near the same temperature resembling a temperature glide.The challenges with fatty acids, fatty alcohols, and waxes are low thermal conductivity, low density, some flammability concerns, and compatibility issues with some common engineering materials such as polymers. Challenges with salt hydrates are pronounced supercooling (>5°C), incongruent melting, and corrosiveness. All PCMs may degrade if exposed to ambient conditions and therefore require proper sealing.

Hirschey, Jason↗
DOE OSTI2021

Thermal Charging Rate of Composite Wax-Expanded Graphite Phase Change Materials

Phase change materials (PCMs) are valuable for their ability to store heat nearly isothermally around their phase transition temperature. PCMs are at the core of latent heat thermal energy storage (LHTES) systems, which provide the ability to buffer high thermal loads or decouple the time when heating or cooling is needed from when it is produced. Thermal charging and discharging of LHTES systems often employ a constant temperature source, and the rate at which heat can be exchanged is dependent on the thermophysical properties of the PCM. For graphite composite PCMs, the high thermal conductivity of the graphite enables an increased heat transfer rate through the material, but its presence displaces PCM which reduces the effective volumetric latent heat of the composite relative to the pure PCM. This results in a tradeoff between thermal power and volumetric energy storage capacity. The thermal charging rate is the average thermal energy stored in the material for some elapsed time. In this study, composite PCMs of compressed expanded natural graphite (CENG) and n-Octadecane are studied. Samples with varying CENG mass fractions were synthesized and the thermal charging rate was measured under a constant temperature boundary condition. For evaluation of the expanded graphite-PCM composite, one boundary of the material was exposed to a 50°C constant temperature plate, above the 27.5°C melting temperature of the PCM. The melting front progression [mm-s-1] and the thermal charging rate [W-cm-2] of the PCM were determined, and the results were compared with analytical predictions for the 1-D semi-infinite phase change. For CENG addition up to 5.75% mass fraction, a 450% thermal conductivity increase was observed with a 5% decrease in volumetric energy density as compared to pure octadecane. The average thermal charging rate was increased by over 430% for the melt to penetrate a depth of 22 mm. The experimental results matched analytical predictions, indicating that higher CENG fractions can be evaluated using analytical approaches.

Hirschey, Jason↗
DOE OSTI2026

MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND VERIFICATION OF A 1,350°C AIR RECEIVER TEST SYSTEM

Open-loop volumetric receivers work with air at atmospheric pressure and are suitable for single-cycle or multicycle power plants. A novel additively manufactured (AM) silicon carbide (SiC), ceramic matrix composite (CMC) volumetric receiver was developed that consisted of a lattice structure, which absorbs solar radiation and converts it into heat energy. Heat energy from the porous receiver was transferred to heated ambient air. The receiver acted as a convective heat exchanger, transferring heat to the fluid through convection. Engineering was facilitated to develop a high-temperature air receiver test bed at Sandia national Laboratories (SNL) capable of demonstrating a 50kWth open-loop volumetric SiC air receiver module developed by General Electric Aerospace Research (GE Aerospace). This paper presents the development of the high temperature AM SiC-CMC air receiver, the test bed, and the first testing operations of this device, which was experimentally demonstrated to achieve 1,350°C for over 3.5 hours of operation, based on input flux levels of 67–91 W/cm2 0.5-2.5 kg/s flow rates. From the test campaign results, based on the measured convective heat transfer to the airflow and bounded radiative-loss assumptions, the solar-thermal efficiency of HOTSSTAR test module was estimated to be approximately as high as 74% for representative test conditions.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Virtual Volumes

SAND2022-14692 O Virtual Volumes is a CAD2VR plugin that gives users a powerful and intuitive way of exploring volumetric data in a three-dimensional (3D) virtual reality (VR) environment. It enables viewing of and interaction with volumetric and voxel data derived from sources such computed tomography (CT) scans. Current 2D software solutions for viewing CT scans and other volumetric data forces the user to look through "slices" of their data across anatomical planes. In Virtual Volumes, the user can intuitively interact, scale, crop, colorize, and threshold their data in a 3D VR environment. Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525.

Krukar, JohnA.↗
DOE OSTI2021

Damage development in neutron-irradiated concrete in a test reactor: Hygro-thermal and mechanical simulations

This paper reports the development of a 3D mesoscale hygro-thermal-mechanical simulation approach to predict damage in concrete irradiated in a test reactor. This framework, developed in MOOSE, considers the effects of elevated temperature, moisture content, and high neutron fluence (energy threshold, E > 0.1 MeV) on the mortar and aggregates separately. The first-stage simulation implements hygro-thermal analysis to determine the temperature and RH inside the specimen as a function of imposed radiation energy. These are used as inputs to the second stage, which considers radiation-induced volumetric expansion (RIVE) of aggregates, and creep, shrinkage, and stress-strain response of mortar to predict the expansion, stresses, and damage in specimens made using different coarse aggregates and subjected to different irradiation times. The irradiation time-dependent damage in the mortar is expressed using an isotropic damage parameter. This multi-physics model serves as a predictive tool for damage quantification in concrete due to neutron irradiation.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil Moisture Data for TRACER project (Houston, TX)

The purpose of this study was to collect and distribute ground-truth soil water content and meteorological data in the Houston, TX, area, supporting the Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility, and the 2022 field campaign for the Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions ExpeRiment (TRACER). The files herein contain soil water content and meteorological data for three stations that the Bureau of Economic Geology at UT Austin installed in the Houston, TX, area during the period of performance. The data includes soil moisture, volumetric water content, electrical conductivity of soil, soil temperature, rain precipitation, air temperature and other parameters. Data files within this data set contain measurements at both sub-hourly and 1-hour resolution measurements. The sub-hourly meteorological data file names end with “TRACER_SubHourly_met.dat”, and the sub-hourly soil data files end with “TRACER_SubHourly_soil.dat”. For the 1-hour resolution data, the files ending with "_Soil_flagged.dat” contain mean hourly volumetric soil water content and temperature measured at 5, 10, 20 and 50 cm depths. The files ending with “_Meteoro_flagged.dat” contain mean hourly measured precipitation, air temperature and humidity, wind speed and direction, and solar radiation. All data have undergone QA/QC procedures that are described by Caldwell et al. (2019) and Dorigo et al. (2013) for the soil-specific data, and EPA (2008) for the meteorological data.

Air temperature↗