Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Distributed File Systems”

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.

225 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

TaV_BCC_SolidSolution_128atoms_VASP6

We performed density functional theory (DFT) calculations for body-centered-cubic (BCC) structures with 128 lattices sites of solid solution binary alloys tantalum-vanadium (Tanu-V). The electronic structures of alloys have been calculated using Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package (VASP). Within this package the DFT approach is used to reduce many-body Schrodinger equation to set of single particle Kohn-Sham (KS) equations. The generalized electronic exchange-correlation functional is described by generalized gradient approximation with the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof parametrization. The electron-ion interactions is described by pseudopotentials developed within the plane-wave basis projector augmented-wave (PAW) approach. These pseudopotentials are available at the VASP portal (http://cms.mpi.univie.ac.at/vasp/). Our calculations have been run with the pseudopotentials treating s and p semi-core states as valence in case for the element V. For Ta, p semi-core states as valence were chosen. The electronic densities and potentials are expanded over plane-waves with energy cutoff of 350 eV. 2x2x2 k-mesh and normal precision were used. The alloys were modeled by supercell containing 128 randomly distributed atoms. At initial step the atoms occupy perfect bcc lattice cites. This initial structure was optimized until energy changes less than 1e-6 eV, while forces acting on atoms don't exceed 1e-2 eV/angstrom. The electron-ion interaction is described by PAW pseudopotentials. The calculations have been collected by sampling chemical compositions across the entire compositional range. The chemical compositions have been sampled by progressively changing the number of atoms per constituent by 4. For each chemical composition of binaries and ternaries, the first-principle calculations have been run for 100 randomized arrangements of the constituents on the BCC lattice sites. We collected data for a total of 3,100 randomized atomic structures over 31 chemical compositions. The calculations have been collected on NERSC-Perlmutter and OLCF-Summit using the VASP 6.3.2. The VASP calculations for every atomic structure have been performed in 2 main steps: 1. Starting from an ideal body-centered-cubic (BCC) structure, geometry optimization with low precision has been executed to perform a preliminary optimization of the atomic structure. The output for this calculations is available in the files 0.CONTCAR, 0.OUTCAR, rlx1.out. 2. Using the atomic structure resulting from the preliminary geometry optimization, a second geometry optimization has been performed using normal precision. The output for this calculations is available in the files CONTCAR, OUTCAR, rlx2.out, vaspout.h5, and vasprun.xml. Cases 1-10 have been run without generating the file 'vaspout.h5'. Every chemical composition sampled across the composition range in the dataset has its own directory. The convention used to name the directories for binary alloys is AXBY, where A and B refer to the constituents, whereas X and Y are positive integers that represent the number of atoms for each constituent and their values still sum up to 128. Each atomic structure associated with a specific chemical composition has its own sub-directory within the directory of the corresponding chemical composition. The sub-directories for each atomic structure for each chemical composition are named 'case-*', where * is a positive integer that spans all the values from 1 through 100, extremes included. The files contained in each sub-directory 'case-*' for each atomic structure are as follows: FILES contained in each subdirectory with name case-N where N ranges between 11 and 100, extremes included: 1. INCAR: input file that contains various parameters and settings for controlling the behavior of the electronic structure calculations 2. KPOINTS: input file that specifies the Bloch vectors (k points) used to sample the Brillouin zone 3. 0.POSCAR: input file that defines the atomic structure of a system 4. 0.CONTCAR: output file that provides the atomic positions and cell parameters after the first geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 5. 0.OUTCAR: output file that contains detailed information about the progress of a calculation after the first geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 6. rlx1.out: file with diagnostic information about the execution of the first geometry optimization with precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 7. POSCAR: input file that defines the atomic structure of a system after the first geometry optimization has been run at low precision. This represents the input for the second geometry optimization run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 8. CONTCAR: output file that provides the atomic positions and cell parameters after the second geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 9. OUTCAR: output file that contains detailed information about the progress of a calculation after the second geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 10. rlx2.out: file with diagnostic information about the execution of the second geometry optimization with precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 11. vaspout.h5: hierarchical HDF5 file containing the inputs and outputs of a VASP calculation. To analyze the data in this file we recommend using py4vasp. This file is only produced if the VASP version used is compiled with HDF5 support 12. vasprun.xml: contains similar information to OUTCAR, but in an xml format. Subdirectories with name case-N, where N ranges between 1 and 10 (extremes included) contain all the files listed above except 'vaspout.h5'. Subdirectories with name case-N, where N ranges between 41 and 60 (extremes included), contain a duplicate copy of the files listed above except for KPOINTS. The names of the duplicate files end with -bis, and correspond to a second VASP calculation that has converged to a different optimized geometry. This research is sponsored by the Artificial Intelligence Initiative as part of the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. This work used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725, under Directorate Discretionary awards MAT025 (Materials Science) and LRN026 (Machine Learning), and INCITE award MAT201. This work also used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, under award ERCAP0025216. REFERENCES (1) Kresse, G. and Hafner, J. Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals. Phys. review B 47, 558 (1993). (2) Kresse, G. and Hafner, J. Ab initio molecular-dynamics simulation of the liquid-metal-amorphous-semiconductor transition in germanium. Phys. Rev. B 49, 14251 (1994) (3) Kresse, G. and Furthmuller, J. Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set. Comput. materials science 6, 15-50 (1996) (4) Kresse, G. and Furthmuller, J. Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. Phys. review B 54, 11169 (1996) (5) Kresse, G. and Joubert, D. From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method. Phys. review b 59, 1758 (1999)

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2023

NbV_BCC_SolidSolution_128atoms_VASP6

We performed density functional theory (DFT) calculations for body-centered-cubic (BCC) structures with 128 lattices sites of solid solution binary alloys niobium-vanadium (Nb-V). The electronic structures of alloys have been calculated using Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package (VASP). Within this package the DFT approach is used to reduce many-body Schrodinger equation to set of single particle Kohn-Sham (KS) equations. The generalized electronic exchange-correlation functional is described by generalized gradient approximation with the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof parametrization. The electron-ion interactions is described by pseudopotentials developed within the plane-wave basis projector augmented-wave (PAW) approach \cite{PAW}. These pseudopotentials are available at the VASP portal (http://cms.mpi.univie.ac.at/vasp/). Our calculations have been run with the pseudopotentials treating s and p semi-core states as valence in case for the elements Nb and V. The electronic densities and potentials are expanded over plane-waves with energy cutoff of 350 eV. 2x2x2 k-mesh and normal precision were used. The alloys were modeled by supercell containing 128 randomly distributed atoms. At initial step the atoms occupy perfect bcc lattice cites. This initial structure was optimized until energy changes less than 1e-6 eV, while forces acting on atoms don't exceed 1e-2 eV/angstrom. The electron-ion interaction is described by PAW pseudopotentials. The calculations have been collected by sampling chemical compositions across the entire compositional range. The chemical compositions have been sampled by progressively changing the number of atoms per constituent by 4. For each chemical composition of binaries and ternaries, the first-principle calculations have been run for 100 randomized arrangements of the constituents on the BCC lattice sites. We collected data for a total of 3,100 randomized atomic structures over 31 chemical compositions. The calculations have been collected on NERSC-Perlmutter and OLCF-Summit using the VASP 6.3.2. The VASP calculations for every atomic structure have been performed in 2 main steps: 1. Starting from an ideal body-centered-cubic (BCC) structure, geometry optimization with low precision has been executed to perform a preliminary optimization of the atomic structure. The output for this calculations is available in the files 0.CONTCAR, 0.OUTCAR, rlx1.out. 2. Using the atomic structure resulting from the preliminary geometry optimization, a second geometry optimization has been performed using normal precision. The output for this calculations is available in the files CONTCAR, OUTCAR, rlx2.out, vaspout.h5, and vasprun.xml. Cases 1-10 have been run without generating the file 'vaspout.h5'. Every chemical composition sampled across the composition range in the dataset has its own directory. The convention used to name the directories for binary alloys is AXBY, where A and B refer to the constituents, whereas X and Y are positive integers that represent the number of atoms for each constituent and their values still sum up to 128. Each atomic structure associated with a specific chemical composition has its own sub-directory within the directory of the corresponding chemical composition. The sub-directories for each atomic structure for each chemical composition are named 'case-*', where * is a positive integer that spans all the values from 1 through 100, extremes included. The files contained in each sub-directory 'case-*' for each atomic structure are as follows: FILES contained in each subdirectory with name case-N where N ranges between 11 and 100, extremes included: 1. INCAR: input file that contains various parameters and settings for controlling the behavior of the electronic structure calculations 2. KPOINTS: input file that specifies the Bloch vectors (k points) used to sample the Brillouin zone 3. 0.POSCAR: input file that defines the atomic structure of a system 4. 0.CONTCAR: output file that provides the atomic positions and cell parameters after the first geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 5. 0.OUTCAR: output file that contains detailed information about the progress of a calculation after the first geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 6. rlx1.out: file with diagnostic information about the execution of the first geometry optimization with precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 7. POSCAR: input file that defines the atomic structure of a system after the first geometry optimization has been run at low precision. This represents the input for the second geometry optimization run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 8. CONTCAR: output file that provides the atomic positions and cell parameters after the second geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 9. OUTCAR: output file that contains detailed information about the progress of a calculation after the second geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 10. rlx2.out: file with diagnostic information about the execution of the second geometry optimization with precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 11. vaspout.h5: hierarchical HDF5 file containing the inputs and outputs of a VASP calculation. To analyze the data in this file we recommend using py4vasp. This file is only produced if the VASP version used is compiled with HDF5 support 12. vasprun.xml: contains similar information to OUTCAR, but in an xml format. Subdirectories with name case-N, where N ranges between 1 and 10 (extremes included) contain all the files listed above except 'vaspout.h5'. Subdirectories with name case-N, where N ranges between 41 and 60 (extremes included), contain a duplicate copy of the files listed above except for KPOINTS. The names of the duplicate files end with -bis, and correspond to a second VASP calculation that has converged to a different optimized geometry. This research is sponsored by the Artificial Intelligence Initiative as part of the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. This work used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725, under Directorate Discretionary awards MAT025 (Materials Science) and LRN026 (Machine Learning), and INCITE award MAT201. This work also used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, under award ERCAP0025216. REFERENCES (1) Kresse, G. and Hafner, J. Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals. Phys. review B 47, 558 (1993). (2) Kresse, G. and Hafner, J. Ab initio molecular-dynamics simulation of the liquid-metal-amorphous-semiconductor transition in germanium. Phys. Rev. B 49, 14251 (1994) (3) Kresse, G. and Furthmüller, J. Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set. Comput. materials science 6, 15-50 (1996) (4) Kresse, G. and Furthmüller, J. Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. Phys. review B 54, 11169 (1996) (5) Kresse, G. and Joubert, D. From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method. Phys. review b 59, 1758 (1999)

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2022

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

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

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

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

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

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

PipeSight: A High-Performance Computing Platform for Pipeline Integrity Management

The Phase I feasibility study completed as part of this project has led to a number of innovative technologies being developed and has laid the foundation for a successful Phase II effort to commercialize a platform for managing the integrity of pipelines for the damage mechanisms of the new, hybrid-energy based economy. To ground the development efforts and direction of the project, an extensive market research and customer discovery effort was undertaken early in Phase I. Through this effort, a number of pipeline owners and operators were interviewed, and the following key findings were discovered about the pipeline industry: • Small pipeline operators do not have the central engineering groups necessary to perform their own independent analysis of inspection data, but instead rely on summarized tally sheets provided to them by inspection service providers. • The time it takes to go from an inspection to a completed engineering assessment, even for small segments of pipeline, can take anywhere from 30-120 days. During this delay, critical threats can (and have been known to) cause failures. • Uncertainty is often not accounted for in the assessment of pipeline integrity. The tally sheets provided by third-party service providers are almost always deterministic in nature, identifying threats that present a concern only to the current (not the future) integrity of the pipeline. • It is uncommon to apply the latest technologies to perform advanced assessments of damaged pipelines. There is a desire to use more advanced analysis capabilities to assess threats. Many pipeline operators indicated that they would often excavate a pipeline to perform an inspection and find that the damage was not as bad as they anticipated, thus using limited resources unnecessarily. Companies are not consistent in their use of inspection data to determine corrosion rates, and those that do only calculate deterministic corrosion rates. • The industry has prominently relied on time-based inspections but has recently started to transition to risk-based inspections. However, there appears to be no uniform guidance on how to do so while properly accounting for all sources of uncertainty. • Companies are not storing inspection data in a manner that allows for the ready determination of temporal trends. • Predictive maintenance principles and practices are beginning to be used by early adopters • Some pipelines are being re-purposed to transport different process fluids than they were designed for, e.g., H 2 and CO 2 rich process streams to serve the new hybrid-energy based economy, which are presenting new integrity concerns for the existing pipeline network that crisscrosses the United States. As a result of these discoveries, we were able to target the development efforts in Phase I to best serve the needs of the industry. In Phase I, we developed a way to correlate multiple large-scale scans of the pipeline to determine a probabilistic corrosion rate that accounts for all sources of error and uncertainty in the inspection process. This probabilistic corrosion rate can be used to predict the future thickness distribution of the pipe wall. We demonstrate how this analysis may be performed in an analytical fashion and has been implemented in such a manner that it can be readily distributed using GPU computing through integration of the Kokkos programming model. We also make a very novel extension of the analytical corrosion rate model to Bayesian Networks (an explainable AI technique) that can account for non-parametric distributions of corrosion rates. With the predictions made above for the probabilistic corrosion rate and corresponding future distribution of the pipe wall thickness, we can assess the integrity of the pipeline through the use of a probabilistic engineering assessment. We developed a novel screening data analysis approach that can rapidly identify ‘hotspots’ (local thin areas) where the integrity of the pipeline is a concern. Once more, we implemented this screening approach in C++ to leverage GPU computing via the Kokkos programming model. After the critical hotspots are identified, we developed a program that can automatically generate an advanced finite element model of the damaged regions. Since the number of damaged regions that require advanced analysis can number in the thousands, we integrated an open-source container-native workflow engine for orchestrating parallel jobs on the cloud. Initially, these advanced numerical models were only designed to account for loading due to internal pressure. However, in a slight pivot from the initial Phase I proposal, we developed a complete pipe stress analysis program (called Simflex) which can simulate the complete pipeline and its response to thermal expansion, pressure, thermal bowing, weight, wind, earthquake, support displacement, support friction and external forces. This pipe stress analysis program was written generically, to handle any piping system, but contains the features needed to model long pipelines (i.e., it incorporates a model for soil mechanics and can account for the nonlinear boundary conditions necessary to simulate long underground pipelines). This pipe stress analysis program can simulate any segment of the pipeline (simple or complex) under any set of conditions and loads, to determine the supplemental loads (axial forces and bending moments) at the location of damage. This enables the most accurate state of stress to be accounted for in the pipeline, which can prove critical when evaluating the integrity of a damaged region. In the process of developing the technologies to perform the integrity assessment of the pipeline, we also extended one of the industry standard approaches for performing the assessment of local thin areas that extend more in the circumferential direction than the longitudinal direction of the pipeline. This approach was presented to the API 579-1/AS ME FFS-1 steering committee in November 2021 for consideration in the next edition of the industry standard for Fitness-For-Service (expected to be released in 2023). To help pipeline operators make decisions with the results on any integrity assessment, we developed a new approach to the life-cycle management of pipelines which uses a Bayesian Decision Network. The network is designed to help pipeline operators plan and prioritize inspection activities and ultimately make smarter, more cost-effective decisions. The Bayesian approach accounts for all sources of uncertainty and carries them through to the final optimal decisions, providing a probabilistic framework for optimizing inspection intervals. The proof-of-concept networks developed in the feasibility study are complete, verified, and are focused on a subset of the pipeline. To expand this novel approach to the scale necessary for an entire network of pipelines in Phase II, we will leverage the DOE-funded Bengi solver for industrial-scale decision making with Bayesian Networks [22]. Once implemented, we will be able to provide the pipeline industry with a much-needed tool for optimal inspection planning using truly explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). To handle all of these advanced capabilities into a cloud-based platform, the architecture of the Equity Engineering Cloud (EEC) was extended to include Argo Workflows, a framework capable of distributing and managing a massive number of jobs that consume their own resources, such that thousands of serial finite element simulations can be run in parallel. As part of this substantial undertaking, we also integrated Argo Continuous Delivery (CD) into the EEC, to aid with the rapid prototyping and iterations that will be imperative to the success of the PipeSight platform’s Agile development process in Phase II. As part of the pipe stress analysis program, we also developed a custom visualizer that leverages the DOE-funded VTK visualization library. We added custom contouring capabilities and a means for interacting visually with both the inputs and outputs of the pipe stress analysis program. We also developed routines for automating the post-processing of the finite element simulations to determine if any failure criteria are met and to visualize the deformations, stresses and strains in ParaView using the exodus II file format (a subset of netCDF).

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Generator Interconnection Costs to the Transmission System in non-ISO Balancing Authorities [Slides]

Electric transmission system operators—including Independent System Operators (ISOs), Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs), and utilities—require proposed power plants to undergo a series of interconnection studies before connecting to the grid. These studies assess what transmission upgrades or new infrastructure may be necessary and assign the associated costs to the project. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has compiled, aggregated, and cleaned interconnection cost data, originally for ISOs/RTOs, and now for five non-ISO Balancing Authorities: PacifiCorp, Bonneville Power Authority, Duke Energy Progress, Duke Energy Carolinas and Duke Energy Florida. Insufficient transparency in interconnection cost data may contribute to rapidly expanding interconnection queues, with active queue capacities tripling between 2020 and 2024 in the studied BAs. Most projects withdraw after receiving high interconnection cost estimates. Interconnection costs have increased since the early 2000s, with average costs for "complete" projects reaching $194/kW between 2018 and 2024. Active queue projects and withdrawn projects incur substantially higher costs, primarily due to rising network upgrade costs. Recent interconnection costs in non-ISO balancing authorities are higher than in ISO regions, potentially due to a greater willingness to pay among developers. Utility-scale solar, wind, and storage projects have interconnection costs that exceed those for natural gas. However, when focusing on projects that do not withdraw from the queue, the interconnection costs for these technologies are more similar to natural gas projects. Other key findings include: (1) Larger generation projects benefit from lower proportional interconnection costs, (2) capacity transmission service (NRIS) often requires additional network investments, and (3) projects with high network upgrade costs are often clustered geographically. The dataset includes results from 2,104 interconnection studies conducted between 2000 and 2024, covering projects that are operational, withdrawn, or still progressing through the study process. The Excel file contains (a) the complete project-level interconnection cost dataset, and (b) seven additional tabs summarizing cost metrics across dimensions such as time, market structure, cost category (point of interconnection vs. broader network upgrades), fuel type, service type (ERIS vs. NRIS), generator size, and geography.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2026

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Globally Gridded Groundwater Extraction Volumes and Costs under Six Depletion and Ponded Depth Targets

This repository contains simulated outputs from superwell – a hydro-economic tool for long-term assessment of groundwater cost and supply – providing globally gridded groundwater extractable volumes and associated unit costs ($/km³) for accessible groundwater production, based on a variety of user-defined depletion and ponded depth scenarios. Key model documentation: Niazi, H., Ferencz, S. B., Graham, N. T., Yoon, J., Wild, T. B., Hejazi, M., Watson, D. J., & Vernon, C. R. (2025). Long-term hydro-economic analysis tool for evaluating global groundwater cost and supply: Superwell v1.1. Geoscientific Model Development, 18(5), 1737-1767. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1737-2025 Find the source code of the superwell model on GitHub: https://github.com/JGCRI/superwell Repository Overview Main output: superwell_outputs.7z contains 6 files (4.5 GB) named as superwell_py_deep_all_0.*PD_0.*DL.csv. These files present superwell outputs of global groundwater extraction volumes and cost estimates on a 0.5° scale for six scenarios with different Ponded Depth (PD; 0.3 and 0.6 m) and Depletion Limit (DL; 5%, 25%, and 40% of available volume) targets over the entire pumping lifetime of a grid cell superwell_py_deep_all_0.3PD_0.25DL_sample_100.csv contains superwell outputs for 100 data points sampled to match the global inputs' distribution superwell_py_deep_all_0.3PD_0.25DL_Grid_72548.csv contains superwell output for a single grid cell concept_v5.png provides an overview of the superwell workflow Outputs Description year_number: year of pumping depletion_limit: set depletion limit (DL) as a volume fraction of total available groundwater Mappings: continent, country, gcam_basin_id, Basin_long_name, grid_id: geographic identifiers and basin information Inputs: grid_area (km²): area of the grid cell whyclass: hydrogeological classification of the aquifer permeability (m/day), porosity (%), total_thickness (m), depth_to_water (m): aquifer properties. The geo-processed input data has been published separately: https://doi.org/10.57931/2307831 Model outputs: orig_aqfr_sat_thickness (m), aqfr_sat_thickness (m): original and remaining/instantaneous saturated thickness of the aquifer hydraulic_conductivity (m/day), transmissivity (m²/day): hydraulic properties of the aquifer radius_of_influence (m), areal_extent (km²): well radius and area of influence from the center of the well number_of_wells (-): number of wells in a grid cell determined by a ratio of well area and grid area max_drawdown (m), drawdown (m), drawdown_interference (m): well and aquifer drawdown during extraction total_head (m): total lift for the groundwater (depth to water plus drawdown) total_well_length (m): total depth of wells drilled well_yield (m³/day): pumping rate or well yield power (kW), energy (kWh): power and energy required for pumping groundwater Volume Outputs: volume_produced_perwell (m³), cumulative_vol_produced_perwell (m³): production volume metrics per well volume_produced_allwells (m³), cumulative_vol_produced_allwells (m³): aggregate extraction volumes for all wells in a grid cell available_volume (m³): available groundwater in storage for the grid cell as determined by aquifer properties depleted_vol_fraction: fraction of total volume pumped over available volumes in a grid cell (same as depletion limit) Cost Outputs: well_installation_cost ($): well installation cost based on the hydrogeological complexity of the aquifer annual_capital_cost, maintenance_cost, nonenergy_cost ($): nonenergy costs energy_cost_rate ($/kWh): electricity rate energy_cost ($): energy cost of pumping groundwater total_cost_perwell ($), total_cost_allwells ($): total annual energy and non-energy cost for each and all wells in a grid cell a unit_cost ($/m³), unit_cost_per_km3 ($/km³), unit_cost_per_acreft ($/acre-ft): total cost of pumping a unit of groundwater, indicated for different spatial units Key Resources Model documentation: Niazi, H., Ferencz, S., Graham, N., Yoon, J., Wild, T., Hejazi, M., Watson, D., & Vernon, C. (2024; In-prep). Long-term Hydro-economic Assessment Tool for Evaluating Global Groundwater Cost and Supply: Superwell v1. Geoscientific Model Development. Input data: Niazi, H., Watson, D., Hejazi, M., Yonkofski, C., Ferencz, S., Vernon, C., Graham, N., Wild, T., & Yoon, J. (2024). Global Geo-processed Data of Aquifer Properties by 0.5° Grid, Country and Water Basins. MSD-LIVE Data repository. https://doi.org/10.57931/2307831 superwell source code: https://github.com/JGCRI/superwell Cite as Niazi, H., Ferencz, S., Yoon, J., Graham, N., Wild, T., Hejazi, M., Watson, D., & Vernon, C. (2024). Globally Gridded Groundwater Extraction Volumes and Costs under Six Depletion and Ponded Depth Targets. MSD-LIVE Data repository. https://doi.org/10.57931/2307832 Contact Reach out to Hassan Niazi or Stephen Ferencz or open an issue in the superwell repository for questions or suggestions.

Earth Systems↗