Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “current distribution mapping”

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.

184 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Modeling the Functional Forms of Grid Disturbances

This report introduces a functional form that may be used to quantitatively predict the impacts of new grid tools and changing system qualities on the likelihoods, durations, and depths of various grid disturbances. Each disturbance scenario is modeled to have three component stages—avoidance, reactance and recovery, which together parametrically estimate one disturbance’s impacts. The modeled scenario is then placed and replicated within an analysis period to represent the likelihood or frequency of the scenario and its consequent impacts. Whereas analysts have struggled to define and apply metrics for grid resilience, the functional form introduced by this report shares units of measurement with accepted grid-status measures (e.g., numbers of customers currently experiencing a service outage). Furthermore, the integrated and averaged functional form over an analysis period provides a meaningful normalized performance metric (e.g., customer outage minutes per year) that is ultimately independent of the duration of the period of. The approach may be applied similarly regardless of the severity or frequency of the disturbances that are being analyzed. Because metrics can be chosen to be identical in both the hypothetical future and the actual historical past, the historical past eventually becomes the test of the future predictions, at least in a statistical sense. The authors originally developed this approach to facilitate analysis of the effects of transactive energy (TE) systems effects on electric power grid resilience. TE systems invite energy suppliers and consumers to actively collaborate toward the discovery of, and their responses to, the locational value of energy. The findings from this process are often embodied as energy prices, the dynamics of which indicate the locational value of energy and can further represent important grid service needs. While some academic papers claim to quantify the value of a specific TE system design toward grid resilience, the answer, in general, has been elusive. Not only do multiple and conflicting definitions of resilience and reliability exist, but countless TE systems are being invented. We conclude the following: (1) The ideal analysis should harmonize rather than differentiate resilience and reliability. Therefore, this report uses the more general term disturbance whenever the overloaded terms resilience and reliability can be avoided. (2) The effectiveness of TE systems must be mapped to underlying qualities of a TE system, thereby avoiding presumptions that every TE design offers similar advantages. The authors seek to evaluate the parametric effects of TE system qualities (e.g., spatial granularity, granularity of time steps, length of future prediction horizon) on avoiding, reacting to, and recovering from grid disturbances. Furthermore, any advantages (or disadvantages) must be fairly compared with the many alternative tools, systems, and strategies that might offer comparable benefits.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2023

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↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hybrid Power Plants: Status of Operating and Proposed Plants, 2022 Edition [Slides]

Falling battery prices and the growth of variable renewable generation are driving a surge of interest in “hybrid” power plants that combine, for example, wind or solar generating capacity with co-located batteries. While most of the current interest involves pairing photovoltaic (PV) plants with batteries, other types of hybrid or co-located plants with wide-ranging configurations have been part of the U.S. electricity mix for decades. This annually updated briefing tracks and maps existing hybrid or co-located plants across the United States while also synthesizing data mined from power purchase agreements (PPAs) and generation interconnection queues to shed light on near- and long-term development pipelines. The scope includes co-located hybrid plants that pair two or more generators and/or that pair generation with storage at a single point of interconnection, and full hybrids that feature co-location and co-control. The focus is on plants with one megawatt (MW) or more of capacity; smaller (often behind-the-meter) projects are also increasingly common, but are not included in this data synthesis. Key findings from the latest briefing include: -At the end of 2021, there were nearly 300 hybrid plants (>1 MW) operating across the United States, totaling nearly 36 gigawatts (GW) of generating capacity and 3.2 GW/8.1 GWh of energy storage. PV+storage plants are by far the most common, dominating in terms of plant number (140), storage capacity (2.2 GW/7.0 GWh), storage:generator ratio (53%), and storage duration (3.2 hours). But there are nearly twenty other hybrid plant configurations as well, including several different fossil hybrid categories (each dominated by the fossil component) as well as wind+storage, wind+PV, wind+PV+storage, geothermal+PV, and others. -Last year was a breakout year for PV+storage hybrids in particular: 67 of the 74 hybrids added in 2021 were PV+storage. By the end of 2021, there were more GW of battery capacity installed in PV+storage hybrids (2.2 GW) than as standalone storage plants (1.8 GW). The difference is even starker in energy terms, with PV+storage plants hosting twice as much battery capacity as standalone storage plants (7 GWh vs. 3.5 GWh, respectively). Much of the battery capacity added in hybrid form in 2021 was a battery retrofit to a pre-existing PV plant. -Data on plants under development from the interconnection queues of all seven ISOs/RTOs plus 35 individual utilities suggest that these hybridization trends are likely to continue. At the close of 2021, there were more than 670 GW of solar plants in the nation’s queues; 285 GW (~42%) of this capacity was proposed as a hybrid, most typically pairing PV with battery storage (PV+storage represented nearly 90% of all hybrid capacity in the queues). For wind, 247 GW of capacity sat in the queues, with 19 GW (~8%) proposed as a hybrid, again most-often pairing wind with storage (wind+storage represented ~4% of all hybrid capacity in the queues). Meanwhile, nearly half of all storage in the queues is estimated to be part of a hybrid plant. While many of these proposed plants will not ultimately reach commercial operations, the depth of interest in hybrid plants—especially PV+storage—is notable.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Digital Twin Model for Advanced Manufacture of a Rotating Detonation Engine Injector

A digital twin material model (DTMM) of an additive manufacturing (AM) process was created to advance the state of the art in rotating detonation engine (RDE) injector design. Current RDE injectors are designed with large pressure drops, enabling a stable and repeatable combustion process. However, this comes at the cost of system efficiency. For the technology to transition to commercial fossil-based power generation, it is important to develop injectors with reduced flow losses. Low-loss injectors are difficult to design and manufacture with conventional manufacturing techniques. AM enables new design options, but the AM manufacturing process must be thoroughly understood to result in a robust design. A DTMM provides the necessary insight by defining the cause-effect relationships between process parameters, microstructure features, and properties. Therefore, a DTMM to support the design and manufacturing process was developed and applied to the design of a new additively manufactured low-loss injector. The injector combustion behavior was characterized through hot-fire tests, and mechanical performance was compared to the DTMM predictions. The two project goals were the successful development of the DTMM and the demonstration of an improved RDE injector design. The RDE injector design and DTMM developments occurred on parallel but dependent paths. The injector was designed to reduce pressure drop by increasing the cross-sectional flow area ratio between the injector air passages and the combustor annulus. This resulted in less structural material, raising the concern that thin members would be susceptible to high-cycle fatigue (HCF) under the periodic loading inherent to an RDE. It was most important for the DTMM to predict behavior in these features; therefore, the injector design concept guided the material thicknesses used in fatigue tests. The DTMM development started by manufacturing a series of coupons over the range of possible AM process variations. A design-of-experiment approach was used to select which process variable combinations gave the most efficient coverage relevant to the injector design space. The microstructure in each of these coupons was characterized, and then computational methods were used to create a numerical model of the correlation between process variables and microstructure. Next, a set of HCF samples were tested to calibrate existing models that map microstructure to HCF performance. Together, these two links formed the DTMM that calculates HCF behavior from AM process variables. Two injector prototypes were additively manufactured. The first injector design strategy aggressively pursued low-loss performance by substantially increasing the oxidizer flow area. The combination of manufacturing lead times and the fatigue testing schedule meant that the DTMM was not available when building this first prototype. Therefore, its process parameters were chosen based on a manual review of the available coupon data. This prototype was built successfully and evaluated in 58 combustion tests. Sustained detonation was achieved with remarkably reduced pressure loss, and some tests even displayed pressure loss characteristics similar to conventional gas turbine combustors. This achieved the project goal of improving RDE injector design. The second injector was manufactured according to the optimized parameters predicted by the DTMM. The flow area modifications of this injector were less aggressive than the first injector since demonstrating low pressure loss was not an objective of the second hot-fire test series. Rather, the test objective was to cause high cycle fatigue failure in the part due to periodic loading from the rotating detonation wave. The observed number of cycles to failure was to be compared to the number predicted by the DTMM and thereby assess the utility of the DTMM in component design. However, the required level of vibration was not obtained during combustion. Therefore, high cycle fatigue was not experienced in the hot-fire tests of the second injector. Fatigue data was obtained by further testing the second injector in a conventional HCF test apparatus. The injector demonstrated HCF strength above the DTMM prediction. In fact, it did not fail and testing was only discontinued due to reaching the end of the period of performance. This points to some success in the project’s primary goal of successfully developing and applying the DTMM to a component design. Implementing the DTMM recommendations for optimal processing parameters led to a part with acceptable properties. The DTMM was also shown to be an efficient correlator of data and to provide insight into the relationship between process settings, microstructure, and property performance. However, the failure of the DTMM prediction to match the experimental result of the injector fatigue test also points to the need to include significantly more data in the model development. In this project, coupons made with identical processing parameters exhibited drastically different properties from each other and from the injector part, which clearly influences the accuracy of a model that predicts performance based on parameters. Uncertainties in the build process must be quantified to develop more robust models. A denser and broader matrix of coupon process and geometry variations, several repeated builds of every point, more in-situ build process measurements, and direct observation of tensile and HCF sample microstructure (as opposed to separate microstructure specimens) are recommendations to improve future AM modeling efforts.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗