Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “oregon”

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

DEEPEN Global Standardized Categorical Exploration Datasets for Magmatic Plays

DEEPEN stands for DE-risking Exploration of geothermal Plays in magmatic ENvironments. As part of the development of the DEEPEN 3D play fairway analysis (PFA) methodology for magmatic plays (conventional hydrothermal, superhot EGS, and supercritical), weights needed to be developed for use in the weighted sum of the different favorability index models produced from geoscientific exploration datasets. This was done using two different approaches: one based on expert opinions, and one based on statistical learning. This GDR submission includes the datasets used to produce the statistical learning-based weights. While expert opinions allow us to include more nuanced information in the weights, expert opinions are subject to human bias. Data-centric or statistical approaches help to overcome these potential human biases by focusing on and drawing conclusions from the data alone. The drawback is that, to apply these types of approaches, a dataset is needed. Therefore, we attempted to build comprehensive standardized datasets mapping anomalies in each exploration dataset to each component of each play. This data was gathered through a literature review focused on magmatic hydrothermal plays along with well-characterized areas where superhot or supercritical conditions are thought to exist. Datasets were assembled for all three play types, but the hydrothermal dataset is the least complete due to its relatively low priority. For each known or assumed resource, the dataset states what anomaly in each exploration dataset is associated with each component of the system. The data is only a semi-quantitative, where values are either high, medium, or low, relative to background levels. In addition, the dataset has significant gaps, as not every possible exploration dataset has been collected and analyzed at every known or suspected geothermal resource area, in the context of all possible play types. The following training sites were used to assemble this dataset: - Conventional magmatic hydrothermal: Akutan (from AK PFA), Oregon Cascades PFA, Glass Buttes OR, Mauna Kea (from HI PFA), Lanai (from HI PFA), Mt St Helens Shear Zone (from WA PFA), Wind River Valley (From WA PFA), Mount Baker (from WA PFA). - Superhot EGS: Newberry (EGS demonstration project), Coso (EGS demonstration project), Geysers (EGS demonstration project), Eastern Snake River Plain (EGS demonstration project), Utah FORGE, Larderello, Kakkonda, Taupo Volcanic Zone, Acoculco, Krafla. - Supercritical: Coso, Geysers, Salton Sea, Larderello, Los Humeros, Taupo Volcanic Zone, Krafla, Reyjanes, Hengill. **Disclaimer: Treat the supercritical fluid anomalies with skepticism. They are based on assumptions due to the general lack of confirmed supercritical fluid encounters and samples at the sites included in this dataset, at the time of assembling the dataset. The main assumption was that the supercritical fluid in a given geothermal system has shared properties with the hydrothermal fluid, which may not be the case in reality. Once the datasets were assembled, principal component analysis (PCA) was applied to each. PCA is an unsupervised statistical learning technique, meaning that labels are not required on the data, that summarized the directions of variance in the data. This approach was chosen because our labels are not certain, i.e., we do not know with 100% confidence that superhot resources exist at all the assumed positive areas. We also do not have data for any known non-geothermal areas, meaning that it would be challenging to apply a supervised learning technique. In order to generate weights from the PCA, an analysis of the PCA loading values was conducted. PCA loading values represent how much a feature is contributing to each principal component, and therefore the overall variance in the data.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Hawaii Wave Surge Energy Converter (HAWSEC) OSU O.H. Hinsdale Basin

The following information and metadata applies to both the Phase I (Hydrodynamics) and Phase II (Full System Power Take-Off) zip folders which contain testing data from the OSU (Oregon State University) O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory, from both OSU and the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH). See zip folders provided further below in the downloads section. For experimental data of the full system, including PTO, see Phase II dataset. There are two main directories in each Phases's zip folder: "OSU_data" and "UH_data". The "OSU_data" directory contains data collected from their DAQ (data acquisition system), which includes all wave gauge observations, as well as body motions derived from their Qualisys motion tracking system. The organization of the directory follows OSU's convention. Detailed information on the instrument setup can be found under "OSU_data/docs/setup/instm_locations". The experiments conducted are documented in the "OSU_data/docs/daq_logs", which provides the trial number to the corresponding data located under "OSU_data/data" in several formats (e.g., ".mat" and ".txt"). Inside the trial directory, data is provided for each of the instruments defined in "OSU_data/docs/setup/instm_locations". The "UH_data" directory contains data collected from their DAQ. The data is stored in a ".tdms" file format. There are free plug-ins for Microsoft Excel and MathWorks MATLAB to read the ".tdms" format. Below are a few links providing methods to read in the data, but a Google search should identify alternatives sources if these no longer exist (valid as of January 2024): Excel: http://www.ni.com/example/27944/en/ MATLAB: https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/30023-tdms-reader The Excel plugin is recommend to get a quick overview of the data. The UH data is organized by directory name, in which the sub-directories for each experiment contains a directory whose name defines the wave height and period for the experimental data within. For example, a directory name "H02_T0275" corresponds to an experiment with wave height 0.1m and a period of 2.75s. For random wave data, the gamma value is also included in the directory name. For example, a directory name "H02_T0225_G18" corresponds to an experiment with a significant wave height of 0.2m, a peak period of 2.25s, and a gamma value of 1.8, with each spectra being a TMA spectrum. For the free decay experiments, the directory name is defined by the initial angular displacement. For example, a directory name "ang05_run01" corresponds to an experiment with an initial angular displacement of 5 degrees. There is a dataset in the UH data for each corresponding experiment defined in the OSU DAQ logs. The ".tdms" data is output from the DAQ at fixed intervals. Therefore, if multiple files are contained within the folder, the data will need to be stitched together. Within the UH dataset, there are two input channels from the OSU DAQ providing a random square wave signal for time synchronization ("ENV-WHT-0010") and a high/low signal ("ENV-WHT-0012") to identify when the wave maker is active (+5V). The UH data is logged as a collection of channel outputs. Channels not in use for the OSU testing (either Phase I or Phase II) are marked "nan" below. If the sensor is disconnected, it will record noise throughout the experiment. Below are the channel definitions in terms of what they measure: GPS Time = time CYL-POS-0001 = position between flap and fixed reference CYL-LCA-0001 = force between flap and hydraulic cylinder REC-LPT-0001 = nan REC-HPT-0001 = nan REC-HPT-0002 = nan REC-HPT-0003 = nan HHT-HPT-0001 = pressure at exhaust ("head" only) REC-FQC-0001 = nan REC-FQC-0002 = nan HHT-FQC-0001 = flow at exhaust ("head" only) ENV-WHT-0001 = nan ENV-WHT-0002 = nan ENV-WHT-0003 = nan ENV-WHT-0010 = random signal from OSU DAQ ENV-WHT-0012 = high/low signal from OSU DAQ Also included is a calibration curve to convert the string pot data to flap pi...

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

TEAMER: Drifting Hydrophone System - Block Diagram and Pre-Amplifier Calibrations

This data release is part of TEAMER RFTS 2, where the Cooperative Institute for Marine Resources Studies (CIMRS) at Oregon State University is performing hardware and software development and integration of four newly designed drifting hydrophone systems for underwater noise measurements at marine renewable energy projects. These new acoustic systems will provide advanced technology support available for use at both tidal and wave energy deployments adding additional resources to the limited amount of drifting hydrophone technologies that are available to the marine energy community The submission data contains 2 files plus a Post-Access Report: One file containing the calibration parameters for four (4) pre-amplifier boards used on the drifting hydrophones. Pre-amplifier boards are model "WB PREAMP REV6," with serial numbers; 28, 29, 30, and 31. One image file illustrating the system functional block diagram of the drifting hydrophone system configuration.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

1994 Portland Household Travel Survey

The Portland Household Travel Survey was conducted under the auspices of the Oregon Department of Transportation to provide information suitable for gaining an in-depth understanding of the activity and travel behavior of both households in metropolitan areas and the individuals within those households. The first round of surveys collected household activity data from the four metropolitan planning organization areas around Portland, plus three extra counties (Marion, Polk, and Yamhill). A total of 11,762 households participated in this study. Each household member was asked to record any activity that lasted 30 minutes or longer, or any activity that required travel for the specified 48-hour period.

1Hz data↗

FTICR-MS, Sensor, and Environmental Data from 5 Streams Impacted by the 2020 Holiday Farm Fire Associated with: "Spatiotemporal controls on the delivery of dissolved organic matter to streams following a wildfire"

This data package is associated with the publication "Spatiotemporal Controls on the Delivery of Dissolved Organic Matter to Streams Following a Wildfire" submitted to Geophysical Research Letters (Roebuck et al., 2022). The study aims to understand storm induced transport of pyrogenic materials to streams impacted by varying degrees of burn severity. Time series samples (24 samples in 1-hour intervals) were collected at 5 sites within the McKenzie River Watershed (Oregon, USA) whose catchment were each completely engulfed by the 2020 Holiday Farm Fire. The samples were collected in November 2020 during the first major storm pulse following the conclusion of the wildfire. Samples were characterized for dissolved organic carbon, total dissolved nitrogen, and by ultra-high resolution mass spectrometry. In situ turbidity data also collected.This data package contains 4 primary folders that include the following: 1) Metadata, 2) EnvData (Environmental Data), 3) SensorData, and 4) FTICR_SupportingData. The package contains a single file-level metadata (flmd) file. Each primary folder also contains individual data dictionaries (dd) to define and provide descriptors of column/row headers and data flags. The FTICR_SupportingData, folder 4, contains raw, unprocessed FTICR-MS Data files in addition to a csv containing processed FTICR-MS data. This package contains the following file types: csv, xml, pdf.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

WHONDRS Surface Water Dissolved Organic Carbon and FTICR-MS across Stream Orders in Four United States Watersheds in 2019 and 2020 (v3)

This dataset supports the broader Watershed Rules of Life (WROL) study examining spatial and temporal biogeochemical and microbial relationships across the Connecticut River, Deschutes River, Gunnison River, and Willamette River watersheds. The dataset provides geochemistry and organic matter characterization data generated from surface water collected from August 2019 to September 2020 in Colorado, Connecticut, Oregon, and Vermont. Related data were collected and will be published separately in collaboration with P. A. Raymond and B. C. Crump as part of WROL. This dataset is comprised of one folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) readme; (4) field metadata; (5) dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (6) surface water sampling protocol; (7) methods codes; (8) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; and (9) a folder of high resolution characterization of organic matter via 12 Tesla Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) generated through the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL; https://www.pnnl.gov/environmental-molecular-sciences-laboratory). The FTICR folder contains two subfolders, one containing the .xml data files and the other containing instructions for using Formularity (https://omics.pnl.gov/software/formularity) and an R script to process the data based on the user's specific needs. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .ref, or .xml. This data package was originally published in October 2022. It was updated in July 2023 (v2) and again in November 2023 (v3). See the change history section in the readme for more details.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

WHONDRS River Corridor Sediment and Water Geochemistry and In Situ Sensor Data from Machine-Learning-Informed Sites across the Contiguous United States (v6)

This dataset supports a broader study examining hyporheic zone respiration rates to improve predictive models at a contiguous United States (CONUS) scale. The CONUS-Scale Model-Sample Study (CM) was designed following ICON (integrated, coordinated, open, and networked) principles to facilitate a model-experiment (ModEx) iteration approach, leveraging crowdsourced sampling across the CONUS. New machine learning models were created every month to guide sampling locations. Data from the resulting samples were used to test and rebuild the machine learning models for the next round of sampling guidance. Sampling began in April 2022 and ended in October 2023. In addition to the widely distributed CONUS sites, a more spatially focused sampling occurred in the Yakima River Basin, WA in summer 2022. Data from this more spatially intensive sampling occurred under the label “Second Spatial Study (SSS)” and were also included in the machine learning models. Other data types collected from SSS that were not part of CM were published in a separate data package (https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1969566). This data package was originally published in February 2023. It was updated in June 2023 (v2; new and modified files); December 2023 (v3; new and modified files); June 2024 (v4; new and modified files); April 2024 (v5; new and modified files); and September 2025 (v6; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of two folders of field photos and videos, one folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data and one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) readme; (5) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (6) field protocols; (7) a subfolder with sample data; and (8) a subfolder with sensor data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) surface water and sediment dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) surface water and sediment total nitrogen data and averages; (3) surface water major cations and anions and averages; (4) sediment grain size data; (5) sediment iron (II) data and averages; (6) wet sediment mass, dry sediment mass, water mass, and wet sediment volume in incubation and sediment ICR vials; (7) sediment incubation respiration rate data and averages; (8) normalized respiration rate data and averages; (9) methods codes; (10) sediment specific surface area; (11) sediment percent carbon and nitrogen; (12) sediment gravimetric moisture and averages; (15) sediment X-ray diffraction (XRD) data; (16) sediment adenosine triphosphate (ATP) and averages; (17) a subfolder with sediment incubation respiration data, scripts, and plots; (18) surface water and sediment FTICR methods; and (19) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla (9.4T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains five subfolders, one containing the sediment .xml data files, one containing the water .xml files, one containing the sediment CoreMS output files, one containing the water CoreMS output files, and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS).The sensor data subfolder contains (1) a subfolder with miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature data and plots; (2) miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature summary data; and (3) miniDOT installation methods. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .d, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mov, or .mp4. CORRECTION: Carbon and nitrogen content are reported as percentages. The current column headers "01395_C_percent_per_mg" and "01397_N_percent_per_mg" are incorrect. These should read "01395_C_percent" and "01397_N_percent" and will be corrected in the next version of this data package. We thank the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Cowiche Canyon Conservatory, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Scientific Research Permit #210901), and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for access to field locations where the samples labeled “SSS” were collected. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview. WHONDRS consortium members were asked to provide any acknowledgments for the collection of samples labeled “CM” and the following is a list of acknowledgments that were submitted with their corresponding Site IDs: (MART) Research activities were conducted in part on the Wind River Experimental Forest within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest; (MP- 100379) Philadelphia is part of Lenapehoking, the ancestral homelands of the Lenape peoples; (MP-102398) Land surveyed is the ancestral homelands of the Nookhose'iinenno (Arapaho), Tsis tsis'tas (Cheyenne), and Nuuchu (Ute); (MP-100749 and MP- 100747) Georgia Coastal Ecosystem LTER, OCE-1832178; (SP-70 and SP-72) Eastern Shoshone, Shoshone-Bannock; (MP- 102944) Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. On the traditional lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Rhonde, and the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribe; (MP- 100607) Holiday Creek is located on the traditional territory of the Monacan Indian Nation; (SP-45) Lafayette Blue Springs State Park; (MP-102420) NSF DEB-2016749; (MP-100019) New Hampshire Agriculture Experiment Station; (SP-35) Rayonier (land owner; https://www.rayonier.com/); (MP- 101276) US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research, Subsurface Biogeochemical Research, Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 103224) Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 101584) Traditional lands of the Oceti Sakowin (Dakota, Lakota, Nakoda) and Anishinaabe Peoples.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Meteorological and hydrological parameters for 17 locations of meteorological stations of the East River Watershed

The Data Package includes a set of csv files of input meteorological parameters for locations of 17 meteorological stations within the East River watershed. These meteorological datasets were downloaded from the (1) PRISM database--monthly precipitation, air temperature (minimum, mean, and maximum), vapor pressure deficit (minimum and maximum), and dewpoint temperature, and (2) NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis database – wind database. The datasets were used for calculations of the Potential Evapotranspiration (ETo), Actual Evapotranspiration (ET), Standard Precipitation Index (SPI) , Standard Evapotranspiration-Precipitation Index (SPEI) for the period from 1966 to 2021. The main research questions addressed are: the evaluation of the long-term temporal trends of climatic parameters, hierarchical clustering, and areal mapping/zonation of the East River watershed. Calculations were conducted in the Rstudio environment. The dataset additionally includes a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type.The input datasets were downloaded from (a) PRISM database (the Northwest Alliance for Computational Science and Engineering at the Oregon State University), and (b) NCEP/NCAR Reanalysis database.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Organic Matter Concentration and Composition in November 2021 and April 2022 from 12 Streams Impacted by the 2020 Holiday Farm Fire (v2)

This dataset represents results from a field study aiming to understand storm induced transport of pyrogenic materials to streams impacted by varying degrees of burn severity. Time series samples were collected at 5 sites within the McKenzie River Watershed (Oregon, USA) whose catchment were each completely engulfed by the 2020 Holiday Farm Fire. An additional 7 sites were sampled once during the storm. The samples were collected during storm events in November 2020, January 2021, November 2021, and April 2022. Samples were characterized for benezenepolycarboxylic acids (BPCA), ultra-high resolution mass spectrometry, dissolved organic carbon and optics (absorbance and fluorescence). Fourier-transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR) and dissolved organic carbon data from the November 2020 (referred to as “EWEB_2020”) sampling can be found in a separate data package (doi: 10.15485/1869708). NOTE: The 2020 samples were run on FTICR-MS in two unique instances. The first run can be found in the previous data package (EWEB_2020). The second run is included in this data package. These samples were run for a second time so that the data were more directly interoperable with the other samples in this data package. We have not done any investigation into the differences/similarities between these datasets and the previously ran/published data in the other data package. This data package was originally published in November 2024. It was updated in April 2025 (v2; new and modified files). See the change history section below for more details. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset contains (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) data package readme; (4) metadata; (5) methods information; (6) dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data; (7) excitation emission matrix (EEM) methods; and (8) a sub-folder with processed EEM data (9) benzene polycarboxylic acid (BPCA) concentration data; (10) Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) methods; and (11) folder of high-resolution characterization of organic matter via 12 Tesla FTICR-MS generated through the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL; https://www.pnnl.gov/environmental-molecular-sciences-laboratory). The EEMs sub-folder contains two additional folders; the Absorbance and Fluorescence folders which contain the processed EEMs absorbance and fluorescence data respectively. This package contains the following file types: csv, xml, pdf.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Machine learning model inputs, outputs, and scripts associated with “Artificial intelligence-guided iterations between observations and modeling significantly improve environmental predictions”

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final dataset and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the manuscript “Artificial intelligence-guided iterations between observations and modeling significantly improve environmental predictions” (Malhotra et al., in prep). This effort was designed following ICON (integrated, coordinated, open, and networked) principles to facilitate a model-experiment (ModEx) iteration approach, leveraging crowdsourced sampling across the contiguous United States (CONUS). New machine learning models were created every month to guide sampling locations. Data from the resulting samples were used to test and rebuild the machine learning models for the next round of sampling guidance. Associated sediment and water geochemistry and in situ sensor data can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1923689, https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1729719, and https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1603775. This data package is associated with two GitHub repositories found at https://github.com/parallelworks/dynamic-learning-rivers and https://github.com/WHONDRS-Hub/ICON-ModEx_Open_Manuscript. In addition to this readme, this data package also includes two file-level metadata (FLMD) files that describes each file and two data dictionaries (DD) that describe all column/row headers and variable definitions. This data package consists of two main folders (1) dynamic-learning-rivers and (2) ICON-ModEx_Open_Manuscript which contain snapshots of the associated GitHub repositories. The input data, output data, and machine learning models used to guide sampling locations are within dynamic-learning-rivers. The folder is organized into five top-level directories: (1) “input_data” holds the training data for the ML models; (2) “ml_models” holds machine learning (ML) models trained on the data in “input_data”; (3) “examples” contains files for direct experimentation with the machine learning model, including scripts for setting up “hindcast” run; (4) “scripts” contains data preprocessing and postprocessing scripts and intermediate results specific to this data set that bookend the ML workflow; and (5) “output_data” holds the overall results of the ML model on that branch. Each trained ML model resides on its own branch in the repository; this means that inputs and outputs can be different branch-to-branch. There is also one hidden directory “.github/workflows”. This hidden directory contains information for how to run the ML workflow as an end-to-end automated GitHub Action but it is not needed for reusing the ML models archived here. Please see the top-level README.md in the GitHub repository for more details on the automation. The scripts and data used to create figures in the manuscript are within ICON-ModEx_Open_Manuscript. The folder is organized into four folders which contain the scripts, data, and pdf for each figure. Within the “fig-model-score-evolution” folder, there is a folder called “intermediate_branch_data” which contains some intermediate files pulled from dynamic-learning-rivers and reorganized to easily integrate into the workflows. NOTE: THIS FOLDER INCLUDES THE FILES AT THE POINT OF PAPER SUBMISSION. IT WILL BE UPDATED ONCE THE PAPER IS ACCEPTED WITH ANY REVISIONS AND WILL INCLUDE A DD/FLMD AT THAT POINT. We thank the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Cowiche Canyon Conservatory, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission (Scientific Research Permit #210901), and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for access to field locations where the samples labeled “SSS” were collected. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview. WHONDRS consortium members were asked to provide any acknowledgments for the collection of samples labeled “CM” and the following is a list of acknowledgments that were submitted with their corresponding Site IDs: (MART) Research activities were conducted in part on the Wind River Experimental Forest within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest; (MP- 100379) Philadelphia is part of Lenapehoking, the ancestral homelands of the Lenape peoples; (MP-102398) Land surveyed is the ancestral homelands of the Nookhose'iinenno (Arapaho), Tsis tsis'tas (Cheyenne), and Nuuchu (Ute); (MP-100749 and MP- 100747) Georgia Coastal Ecosystem LTER, OCE-1832178; (SP-70 and SP-72) Eastern Shoshone, Shoshone-Bannock; (MP- 102944) Funded by Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board. On the traditional lands of the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Rhonde, and the Clatsop-Nehalem Confederated Tribe; (MP- 100607) Holiday Creek is located on the traditional territory of the Monacan Indian Nation; (SP-45) Lafayette Blue Springs State Park; (MP-102420) NSF DEB-2016749; (MP-100019) New Hampshire Agriculture Experiment Station; (SP-35) Rayonier (land owner; https://www.rayonier.com/); (MP- 101276) US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research, Subsurface Biogeochemical Research, Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 103224) Watershed Dynamics and Evolution SFA at ORNL; (MP- 101584) Traditional lands of the Oceti Sakowin (Dakota, Lakota, Nakoda) and Anishinaabe Peoples.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-Me6 Metolius Young Pine Burn

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-Me6 Metolius Young Pine Burn. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-Me6 Metolius Young Pine Burn produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - The study site is located east of the Cascade mountains, near Sisters, Central Oregon and is part of the Metolius cluster sites with different age and disturbance classes within the AmeriFlux network. After a severe fire in 1979, the site was salvage logged, was acquired by the US Forest Service land and re-forested in 1990. The dominant overstory vegetation are 20-year old ponderosa pine trees with an average height of 5.2 +/- 1.1 m. The season maximum overstory half-sided LAI was 0.6 m2 m-2 in 2010. Tree density is low, with ca. 162 trees ha-1.

Hanson, Chad↗

Crowdsourcing Felt Reports Using the MyShake Smartphone App

MyShake is a free citizen science smartphone app that provides a range of features related to earthquakes. Features available globally include rapid postearthquake notifications, live maps of earthquake damage as reported by MyShake users, safety tips, and various educational features. The app also uses the accelerometer in the mobile device to detect earthquake shaking, and to record and submit waveforms to a central archive. In addition, MyShake delivers earthquake early warning alerts in California, Oregon, and Washington. Here, in this study, we compare the felt shaking reports provided by MyShake users in California with the U.S. Geological Survey’s (USGSs) “Did You Feel It?” intensity reports. The MyShake app simply asks, “What strength of shaking did you feel?” and users report on a five-level scale. When the MyShake reports are averaged in spatial or time bins, we find strong correlation with the Modified Mercalli Intensity scale values reported by the USGS based on the DYFI surveys. The MyShake felt reports can therefore contribute to the creation of shaking intensity maps.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Newberry Volcano magnetotelluric impedance data

This submission includes all magnetotelluric (MT) transfer functions acquired during the 2014 EGS stimulation at Newberry Volcano in central Oregon as well as previously acquired MT data for the overall volcano. Plots of all data are provided (including forward response from a model used in a publication now in review in G-cubed). Also included is a kmz file giving all station locations.

3D↗

Hero Carbonsafe Phase 2 Project in the Columbia River Basalt Group: Technical Program Overview

The Hermiston, Oregon Basalt CarbonSAFE Phase II project (HERO CarbonSAFE) seeks to accelerate the deployment of commercial carbon dioxide (CO2) storage projects in basaltic rocks. Hermiston is located near the center of the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG), which is one of the largest basalt flows in the US. Basalt CO2 storage has potential advantages to conventional saline storage reservoirs including 1. The potential for rapid mineralization of CO2, 2. associated decreases in pressure and CO2 migration risks, 3. reduced long-term monitoring requirements with respect to plume tracking, 4. widespread geographic distribution and, 5. large storage potential due to thickness, porosity, and CO2 interactions with basalt. For locations such as the Pacific Northwest (PNW), Hawaii, Iceland, India and Japan, whose localities are isolated from large sedimentary basins offering conventional saline storage options, basalt may offer the only feasible option for local CO2 storage. However, mineralization/basalt storage still has many uncertainties, as there are limited field-scale assessments of CO2 storage in basalt. There are significant uncertainties hindering the effective implementation of carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) in basalt. These include the lack of proven storage capacities, challenges in methodologies for modeling the area of review in igneous formations, limited understanding of mineralization kinetics and timing, and uncertainties in injectivity. Additionally, the domestic availability of specialized services and drilling expertise is constrained, and existing CCUS permitting and regulatory frameworks, originally developed for conventional saline reservoirs, may not adequately address the unique requirements of basalt systems. HERO CarbonSAFE is designed to address major research gaps and uncertainties associated with basalt storage. Specifically, the project will assess the feasibility of CO2 injection in the deep layered basalts of the CRBG, long-term storage (mineralization), practical approaches for large-scale implementation (50+ million metric tons of CO2 over 30 years), lithology-specific risks, and the technoeconomic potential for CO2 storage in basalts.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

Noncontact Flow Rate Using Laser Ultrasonics

Several types of advanced nuclear reactors are cooled with high-temperature liquid metal or molten salt flows. There is a critical need to measure flow velocity in flow channels for test purposes, and eventually in operational reactors. In conventional ultrasonic flow sensors, ultrasonic waves traveling in both the upstream and downstream directions are generated and detected by transducers that must contact the flow channels. A shift in the frequency or transit time between the two ultrasonic waves is measured to determine flow velocity. We describe here an initial effort to apply that sensing concept when the contact transducers are replaced by laser-based generation and detection instrumentation. This noncontact sensing avoids many practical problems associated with contact transducers when implemented on flow channels at high temperature. Laser-based flow monitoring can also be applied to hot-process piping in the geothermal energy, chemical-processing and petroleum-refining industries. Our effort has included theoretical simulation of noncontact laser-based flow monitoring, indicating capability of measuring flow velocities relevant to reactor cooling. It also included a room-temperature experimental demonstration using water as the flow liquid, and indicating capability of measuring flow velocity at a responsivity roughly consistent with simulation predictions. Plans were made for an experimental demonstration at Oregon State University using liquid metal at 110 degrees C.

02 PETROLEUM↗

An Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package. Final Report

The “Intelligent Adaptable Monitoring Package” project was a four-year effort that demonstrated the feasibility of integrated sensing packages at tidal and wave energy sites. Such integration is generally required by the breadth of sensors required to understand environmental effects at marine energy sites and the operational difficulty of deploying, maintaining, and recovering such sensors. Over the course of the project, the Adaptable Monitoring Package (AMP) was deployed in multiple settings, each corresponding to a project budget period: - Budget Period 1: Demonstration of cabled deployment at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s Marine Science Laboratory. The deployment highlighted AMP hardware endurance over a 4-month deployment in a tidally-dominated environment and laid the groundwork for machine learning algorithms to detect and classify targets present in active sonar data. - Budget Period 2: Demonstration of an autonomous deployment at PacWave South off the coast of Newport, Oregon. The deployment highlighted the stability of AMP hardware and software, with the autonomous package collecting data on a duty cycle over a 1.5-month deployment. - Budget Period 3: Demonstration of an autonomous deployment powered by a wave energy converter at the U.S. Navy’s Wave Energy Test Site. The deployment highlighted the potential of wave energy to power ocean observatories and led to the development of machine learning algorithms to detect and classify targets in optical camera data. In aggregate, this project’s greatest success was demonstrating the AMP’s flexibility in a range of deployment scenarios. Each budget period represented a “first of a kind” demonstration of integrated instrumentation – cabled AMP, autonomous AMP, wave-energy powered AMP – and each deployment helped to identify and set goals for the next. Further, despite the exploratory nature of these deployments, each one achieved high system up-time and proved that flexible integration of multiple sensors in a single package represents a viable strategy for marine energy environmental monitoring. The key lessons learned from the project are: - Without continuous power, either from a shore cable or in situ source, many of the benefits of integration are lost (If continuous power is not available, the ability to detect rare events is lost, as is the ability to minimize the risk of behavioral changes through adaptive sensing. However, even on a duty cycle, there is still value in being able to acquire synchronous data from multiple sensors.); and - Observations from a moving platform present substantially greater data processing challenges than those from stationary platforms. Finally, these deployments also demonstrate an important truth: successful integration alone does not guarantee that relevant data are collected. To grow the knowledge base about environmental interactions with marine energy converters, integrated systems, like the AMP, need to include the right sensor mix and connect the data pipelines to effective processing algorithms. These deployments establish a strong foundation for future collaborations with the environmental research community: not only to understand the environmental effects of marine energy, but also to improve our general ability to study life in the sea.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

RELAP5-3D Modeling of High Temperature Test Facility (HTTF) Test PG-26

The High Temperature Test Facility (HTTF) at Oregon State University (OSU) is a scaled integral effects experiment designed to investigate transient behavior in high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors with prismatic fuel and reflector blocks. Several tests have been completed, and more are still planned to at the HTTF, including depressurized conduction cooldown (DCC) and pressurized conduction cooldown (PCC) transients. This report analyses test PG-26, a progression of the Double Ended Inlet-Outlet Crossover Duct Break transient that is referred to as a DCC. PG-26 has been performed at the HTTF between May 30 and June 30, 2019. Core initial conditions (i.e., before the DCC started) have been met using low power (<100 kW) and two of ten available electric heaters. The DCC transient was initiated during the 50 th hour of the test. The break valves were opened, and hot helium from the core and cold helium from the reactor cavity simulation tank (RCST) started mixing. The gases flowed in a countercurrent fashion, where the top half of the hot duct contained hot helium that flowed in one direction and cold helium that flowed in the other direction in the bottom half of the duct. After the pressure and density reached equilibrium, the event entered a diffusion mode. The onset of a reverse natural circulation was not observed during the DCC period of the test. Version 4.4.2ie of the RELAP5-3D computer code has been used to model the HTTF PG-26 test, and results have been compared to available high-quality measured data. The model used in this study is the quality-controlled HTTF RELAP5-3D model (HTTF base 2018-04-19 QA), originally developed by P. Bayless. The report includes RELAP5-3D results of the “base calculations” as well as some sensitivities to important uncertain model inputs, such as primary helium mass flow rate, core ceramic thermal properties, as well as heat evacuation and loop friction models. Using the base RELAP5-3D model predicts a countercurrent helium flow in the hot duct observed at the beginning of the DCC, but instead of going into a molecular diffusion mode, the model predicts the onset of natural convection. Increasing friction in the core and hot duct prevents the natural convection from happening in some of the simulations. Although some temperatures are well predicted (and even overpredicted), the general tendency is to underpredict the ceramic and helium temperatures and heat removal rates during the DCC, resulting in many of the assessment findings being in minimal or insufficient agreement with the data. It is worth noting that the described discrepancies between measured data and RELAP5-3D predictions are not RELAP5-3D code limitations. More so, they reflect limitations in boundary condition and thermal property knowledge. While the RELAP5-3D calculations of the test provide some insights into what happens during the transient, and point to missing or potentially uncertain data to which the experimenters can direct their attention, the principal conclusion is that the PG-26 test data are insufficient for a system code assessment.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

Sources of Propane Consumed in California

Project Scope: The objective of this study is to specify the sources of propane consumed in California. It answers the questions, where does the propane used in California come from and how was it produced? The results of this study provide comprehensive, transparent, and verifiable estimates, based on the 2018 market. The information provided in this report is suitable for use to assess the life cycle carbon intensity of propane used as a transportation fuel in California. As the 2009 Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) aims to reduce California’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and other smog-forming and toxic air pollutants, the appropriate designation of carbon intensity for propane as a transportation fuel is important for evaluating propane’s potential to contribute to GHG goals and understandings in the context of various actions. This study focuses on estimating the shares of total propane consumed in the state of California produced from petroleum refineries, natural gas plants, and bituminous sands sources inside California and elsewhere. Results: An estimated 590 million gallons of propane were consumed in California in 2018, of which, 59.5% originated from refinery production and 40.5% originated from natural gas plants. The majority of this was sourced from refinery production in California, 334 million gallons. Most of the propane imported to California for consumption was sourced from natural gas plants, 113 million gallons, with over half of the imported volume sourced from Canada. The volume sourced from bituminous sand upgrader and fractionator operations was negligible. Details from this analysis are presented in the table below which provides an overview of the propane flows estimated in this study by region and production method. The shares and volumes presented here represent a snapshot for 2018. A significant increase in propane demand, such as could be caused by increased use of propane as a transportation fuel in the state, would affect California’s propane production, imports, and exports. The method and data sources used for the estimates provided in this report also provide the framework which could be used for future updates. Key Method Considerations: The values presented here are based on a two-step approach where the first step was to determine the flows of propane into and out of California from different regions and the second step was to estimate the propane production methods in each region. A volume balance approach is used as the primary method for tracking the volume of propane in and out of California as propane production and import volumes are available by Petroleum Administration of Defense District (PADD) from EIA and neither inter-PADD propane transfers nor state-specific non-prime supplier consumption are available from a public data source. The volume balance performed for this study covered PADD 5 (the West Coast), which includes Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. The volume balance used all available public datasets to determine propane production, imports, exports, and consumption. Volumes unaccounted for by these datasets were estimated using the resulting volume balance by assuming market equilibrium. Consumption within each state in PADD 5 was estimated based on known import, export, and production volumes and this amount was used to develop the volume balance. EIA only tracks consumption at the state level by prime supplier sales. The volume balance approach provides the basis to correct for additional propane consumed in-states where propane is transferred to California. To determine the California propane sources and trade in 2018. volume of propane consumed in California, the volume balance approach is again used where it was estimated all imported volumes not specifically flagged for re-export were consumed, and the remaining consumption was produced in-state. The California Energy Commission (CEC) provided the total volume of propane imported and exported from California in 2018; this volume data set along with commodity tracking from the Canada Energy Regulator (CER) and the International Trade Commission (ITC) which tracks port of entry and final destination was used to determine where propane originated from and where it was ultimately consumed. For example, the CER tracks propane leaving Canada and entering each state within the U.S. Imported propane from Canada to California – marked for California – is assumed to be consumed in California. When no further data were available, import volumes were assumed to be consumed in California without pass-through (i.e., no propane imported to California was directly sold and exported). In most cases, the production method for each propane source region was applied to the volume of propane transferred to California. In other words, the shares of propane sourced from natural gas and refineries for each production region was assigned to California imports based on their contribution to the total volume flows into California to determine the production method for propane consumed in-state. For volumes imported into California from PADD 4, Washington State, Canada, and the rest of the world (Argentina, Chile, Norway, Peru, South Korea, and Trinidad and Tobago), the volumes sourced from petroleum refineries and natural gas plants reflect the either production ratio for the region or, in cases where the sources specific to the amounts exported to California could be determined, the sources specific to the volumes transferred to California.

03 NATURAL GAS↗