Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “2022”

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 271 records · Page 15

ODI notebook additive_manufacturing_video_2022

Additive Manufacturing, video dataset Two-photon lithography (TPL) is a widely used 3D nanoprinting technique that uses laser light to create objects. Challenges to large-scale adoption of this additive manufacturing method include identifying light dosage parameters and monitoring during fabrication. A research team from LLNL, Iowa State University, and Georgia Tech is applying machine learning models to tackle these challenges-i.e., accelerate the process of identifying optimal light dosage parameters and automate the detection of part quality. Funded by LLNL's Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program, the project team has curated a video dataset of TPL processes for parameters such as light dosages, photo-curable resins, and structures. Both raw and labeled versions of the datasets are available on the links in the Open Data Initiative page. The code uses the labeled dataset. Notebook compiled by Nisha Mulakken (mulakken1@llnl.gov) for LLNL Open Data Initiative, Summer 2022. Original code provided by research team. Publications: X.Y. Lee, S.K. Saha, S. Sarkar, B. Giera. "Automated detection of part quality during two-photon lithography via deep learning." Additive Manufacturing 36, December 2020: doi.org/10.1016/j.addma.2020.101444 X.Y. Lee, S.K. Saha, S. Sarkar, B. Giera. "wo Photon lithography additive manufacturing: Video dataset of parameter sweep of light dosages, photo-curable resins, and structures." Data in Brief 32, October 2020. doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106119.

Mulakken, NishaJ↗

Record High 2022 September-Mean Temperature in Western North America

Human-induced warming is estimated to have increased occurrence probability (magnitude) of the record-breaking September 2022 heat event in western North America by 6–67 times (0.6–1 K) by E3SMv2 and even higher by coupled regional refined model (RRM) simulations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

The Role of Internal Variability in Springtime Arctic Amplification from 1980 to 2022

Arctic amplification (AA) refers to the enhanced warming of the Arctic relative to the global average due to rising greenhouse gases, measured as the ratio of Arctic-mean to global-mean surface air temperature (SAT) trends. From 1980 to 2022, annual-mean AA reached 4.2 (Arctic defined as north of 70°N). Climate models simulate AA but fail to reproduce its magnitude. Sweeney et al. attributed much of this model–observation discrepancy to internal variability. AA shows seasonality and so does the discrepancy. Spring (March–May) shows the largest gap: Observed AA is 4.2, while the multimodel mean is 2.7. This raises several questions: 1) What role does internal variability play in observed spring AA? 2) How does simulated spring AA compare to observations when internal variability is removed? 3) If internal variability is significant, what mechanisms drive it? To address these, we adapted the machine learning algorithm from Sweeney et al., training on simulated multidecadal spring SAT and sea level pressure (SLP) trend maps. Our results show that internal variability enhanced spring Arctic warming by 37% and reduced global warming by 10%. Removing internal variability reconciles the spring AA discrepancy. The estimated internal contribution to Arctic spring warming is supported by an independent dynamical adjustment approach. We identify an atmospheric circulation pattern in observations associated with this internal warming. Observed internal Siberian SAT and SLP trends follow the simulated SAT–SLP relationship but lie at the distribution’s extreme, suggesting models generally underestimate internal variability unless the observed configuration reflects a rare real-world realization.

Arctic↗

Evaluation of Serial Testing After Exposure to COVID-19 in Early Care and Education Facilities, Illinois, March–May 2022

Objective: To understand SARS-CoV-2 transmission in early care and education (ECE) settings, we implemented a Test to Stay (TTS) strategy, which allowed children and staff who were close contacts to COVID-19 to remain in person if they agreed to test twice after exposure. We describe SARS-CoV-2 transmission, testing preferences, and the number of in-person days saved among participating ECE facilities. Methods: From March 21 through May 27, 2022, 32 ECE facilities in Illinois implemented TTS. Unvaccinated children and staff who were not up to date with COVID-19 vaccination could participate if exposed to COVID-19. Participants received 2 tests within 7 days after exposure and were given the option to test at home or at the ECE facility. Results: During the study period, 331 TTS participants were exposed to index cases (defined as people attending the ECE facility with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result during the infectious period); 14 participants tested positive, resulting in a secondary attack rate of 4.2%. No tertiary cases (defined as a person with a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result within 10 days after exposure to a secondary case) occurred in the ECE facilities. Most participants (366 of 383; 95.6%) chose to test at home. Remaining in-person after an exposure to COVID-19 saved approximately 1915 in-person days among children and staff and approximately 1870 parent workdays. Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 transmission rates were low in ECE facilities during the study period. Serial testing after COVID-19 exposure among children and staff at ECE facilities is a valuable strategy to allow children to remain in person and parents to avoid missing workdays.

Public, Environmental & Occupational Health↗

Progress on Pu-238 production at Idaho National Laboratory from February 2022 to July 2023

Idaho National Laboratory (INL) has continued to qualify irradiation positions in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) for Pu-238 production to support NASA deep space missions. Over the past year, INL qualified Np-237 targets for ATR’s North East Flux Trap (NEFT), Inner-A and H positions. Work has begun to requalify the South Flux Trap (SFT) and to qualify the East Flux Trap (EFT) for the ATR GEN I target and is midway through the qualification process. This paper gives an overview of operational and technical activities from February 2022 to July 2023.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

EAGLE-I Power Outage Data 2014 - 2022

The provided EAGLE-I historic dataset includes eight years of power outage information at the county level from 2014 to 2022 at 15-minute intervals collected by the EAGLE-I program at ORNL. The data has been collected from utility's public outage maps using an ETL process. The dataset details FIPS code, county name, state name, total number of customers without power, and a date/timestamp. Also included is the EAGLE-I coverage of each state for each year. For detailed metadata, refer to the metadata DOI.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Utah FORGE Groundwater Levels: Updated March 2022

This Excel spreadsheet contains Utah FORGE groundwater data for wells WOW2 and WOW3. The data was updated on March 16th, 2022 and contains legacy data. Groundwater data includes the level, offset, date, and time for each measurement. Temperature, drift, water elevation and other parameters are recorded. Figures in the data include a water elevation over time plot. Legacy data ranges from year 1976 to 2019 and updated data ranges from year 2019 to 2021.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE Well 16A(78)-32 Stimulation Data (April, 2022)

This is a set of data related to the stimulation program at Utah FORGE well 16A(78)-32 during April, 2022. This includes daily reports, 1 second Pason data, tracer data, and shear stimulation data and information including a report of an evolving prognosis for the stimulation operations.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Seismic Event Catalogue from the April, 2022 Stimulation of Well 16A(78)-32

This dataset includes earthquake catalogues for the three stages of the 2022 well 16A(78)-32 stimulation provided by Geo Energie Suisse. Events in these catalogues have been visually inspected. There are additional events of lower signal to noise that were automatically detected. Those events will require additional analysis and processing. Times are recorded in UTC (Coordinate Universal Time), and the coordinate reference system is UTM Zone 12N, NAD83.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Phase 1a Tensor Strainmeter Data for the April, 2022 Stimulation of Well 16A(78)-32

Data from two Tensor Optical Fiber Strainmeters that were operational during Stages 1, 2, and 3 of the April, 2022 stimulation of well 16A(78)-32. Each csv file contains data from each stimulation stage (stage1, stage2, stage3) for both Phase 1a strainmeter installations (FS01, formerly FS-C, and FS02, formerly FS1-2) in human-readable comma-separated value text files. There are two header lines in each file describing the data contained in that column along with their units, respectively. Data have been decimated from 2 to 1 Hz to match the Pason data found in the linked GDR dataset below (16A78-32 Stimulation Pason Data). These files contain the time series spanning the same time interval as the Pason data as well as ambient data for 5 hours before the stimulation and 5 hours following shut in. The station locations were chosen based on their proximity to the borehole seismometers owned and operated by the University of Utah. See README.txt for more information.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Updated Seismic Event Catalogue from the April, 2022 Stimulation of Well 16A(78)-32

These are revised catalogs, related to the April, 2022 well 16A(78)-32 stimulation (phases 1,2, & 3), provided by Geo Energie Suisse (GES) that include additional events at the start of Stage 1 and some tidying up of some locations. These catalogs also include events for additional events that were auto-located to provide a larger dataset for statistical analyses, like b-value calculations. The actual auto-locations have been removed to prevent spurious location plots being created. Times are recorded in UTC (Coordinate Universal Time), and the coordinate reference system is UTM Zone 12N, NAD83.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE InSAR Data from 2022

Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar data from the TerraSAR-X and the TanDEM-X satellite missions operated by the German Space Agency (DLR). Interferometric pairs (interferograms) were created using generic mapping tool GMT-SAR processing software (see link in Resources). Data from January through June 2022.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Utah FORGE: Microseismic Surface Network Catalogs for Wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 Stimulation 2022 and Circulation 2023

This dataset includes microseismic surface network catalogs for Utah FORGE. Data were recorded during the stimulation of well 16A(78)-32 in 2022 and the circulation tests between wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 in 2023. Near-surface seismic monitoring during circulation experiments in wells 16A(78)-32 and 16B(78)-32 revealed fracture growth after shut-in. The catalog provided here offers a comprehensive list of microseismic events, including details on their spatial and temporal distribution, magnitude, and clustering behavior.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

WHOLESCALE: Microseismic Event Catalog for San Emidio, Nevada 2022

This submission includes a high-precision seismic event catalog estimated from seismic data collected at San Emidio, Nevada from April to May 2022. The catalog lists the precise time, location, and magnitude of microseismic events recorded during this period. Both the seismic data and microseismic event catalog were produced as part of the Water & Hole Observations Leverage Effective Stress Calculations and Lessen Expenses (WHOLESCALE) project. Attached here are the microseismic event catalog, a link to the raw seismic data, and a detailed description of methods used to create the catalog.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

MBARI-WEC September and October 2022 Field Data

This data is needed to simulate a model of the MBARI-WEC (Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Wave Energy Converter device) in a simulation environment (e.g. Gazebo) for 56 observation dates in the time between September and October 2022, and to compare the simulation outputs to the corresponding field data of the physical MBARI-WEC. There were 50 observations chosen in Sept and 6 observations in Oct. To help understand terms below, a summary of the system can be found at the github link in the downloads section below. The Gazebo MBARI-WEC model is also provided, should users wish to simulate using this platform. There are 4 *mat files included. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Spectrum and Simulation Inputs: September2022_spectrum_siminputs.mat and October2022_spectrum_siminputs.mat has data needed for simulation inputs in table format. These include the ocean spectrum for an observation and operating parameters of the MBARI-WEC during that observation. They are organized as rows representing an observation and columns representing data. For example, for the September *mat there are 50 rows. The first 7 columns are Datetime, sig_waveheight, peak_period, mean_period, heaveconedoor_status, pistonpos_mean, and scale_factor: - Datetime is the date and time the observation occurred in PST - sig_waveheight is the significant wave height of the ocean spectrum during that observation in meters - peak_period is the peak period of the ocean spectrum during that observation in seconds - mean_period is the mean period of the ocean spectrum during that observation in seconds - heaveconedoor_status is the status of the heave cone doors where 0 represents the doors are open and 1 represents they are closed - pistonpos_mean is the mean position of the PTO ram (piston) in meters - scale_factor is an additional factor of 0.5 --1.4 applied to a default damping relationship The next columns are data needed to represent the ocean spectrum. First are the frequencies [Hz] labeled as "f0-f38", then the variance density [m2/Hz] labeled as "vardens0-vardens38". October2022_spectrum_siminputs.mat follows as a similar format as above, but includes a larger amount of ocean spectrum frequencies and variance density elements. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Field data: The field data is found in MBARIWEC_septdata.mat and MBARIWEC_octdata.mat for the observations of September and October, respectively. These contain data in a struct format. The struct contains the following fields for each observation: PC_BattCurr, PC_LoadCurr, PC_RPM, PC_Voltage, SC_Range, SC_Velocity, DateTime, where: - PC_BattCurr is the current flowing to or from the onboard batteries in Amps - PC_LoadCurr is the current flowing to the load dump in Amps - PC_RPM is the electric/hydraulic motor shaft speed (directly coupled) in RPM - PC_Voltage is the bus voltage at the power converter in Volts - SC_Range is the PTO ram (piston) position in meters where 0 is fully retracted and 2.03 is fully extended - SC_Velocity is the PTO ram (piston) velocity in meters/sec - DateTime is the date and time of the sampled field data in each observation in PST - Electric Power is equal to: PC_Voltage*(PC_BattCurr + PC_LoadCurr) in Watts For example, upon loading MBARIWEC_octdata.mat, the aforementioned fields would be loaded, each with {6x1} cells for the 6 observations chosen in October. Within the first cell of e.g. SC_Range would be sampled data representing the field data of the MBARIWEC PTO piston position for say, one hour, of the first October observation. The corresponding field DateTime would...

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

2021–2022 Can Do Colorado E-Bike Full-Scale Pilot Program Study

In 2021–2022, the Colorado Energy Office conducted a full-scale pilot program study on e-bike usage as part of the Can Do Colorado initiative, providing e-bikes to low-income participants across the state. A [2020 mini pilot program study](https://www.nlr.gov/transportation/secure-transportation-data/tsdc-2020-can-do-colorado-e-bike-pilot-program.html) informed the full-scale study. Both studies used pedal-assist e-bikes, which feature an electric motor and battery to help power the bike. The motor amplifies the power behind each pedal stroke, augmenting the energy you put into the bike. #### Data Collection Agency The Colorado Energy Office conducted the study in partnership with local organizations in Adams and Broomfield counties (Smart Commute Metro North), Boulder (Community Cycles), Durango (Four Corners Office for Resource Efficiency), Fort Collins (City of Fort Collins), Pueblo (Pueblo County), and Vail (Town of Vail). #### Survey Methodology Program participants received an e-bike and accessories at no cost and manually submitted travel data and feedback via the CanBikeCO smartphone app. Developed in partnership with NLR, the app used a customized version of the open-source [NLR OpenPATH platform](https://www.nlr.gov/transportation/openpath.html). #### Survey Records and Data Survey records include 170 participants. The six datasets contain up to 18 months of partially automated travel diaries, combining sensed and surveyed travel behavior data—patterns of multimodal, end-to-end, individual human mobility—as well as demographic information from participants. The number of e-bike trips and e-bike miles traveled per location are 1,560 and 4,179 for Adams and Broomfield counties; 8,481 and 27,000 for Boulder; 2,815 and 6,307 for Durango; 3,483 and 7,080 for Fort Collins; 4,022 and 14,887 for Pueblo, and 1,206 and 3,3361 for Vail.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Data-model files associated with the manuscript "The Effects of Spatial and Temporal Resolution of Gridded Meteorological Forcing on Watershed Hydrological Responses" (Shuai et al., 2022 HESS)

This data package contains the model inputs and outputs used in "The Effects of Spatial and Temporal Resolution of Gridded Meteorological Forcing on Watershed Hydrological Responses" (Shuai et al., 2022 HESS). The data.zip file contains the data used to drive the model simulations. The model.zip file contains the XML input file for ATS. The notebook.zip file contains the Jupyter notebooks for pre- and post- processing model results. The figures.zip file contains the raw figures associated with the manuscript.Meteorological forcing plays a critical role in accurately simulating the watershed hydrological cycle. With the advancement of high-performance computing and the development of integrated watershed models, simulating the watershed hydrological cycle at high temporal (hourly to daily) and spatial resolution (10s of meters) has become efficient and computationally affordable. These hyperresolution watershed models require high resolution of meteorological forcing as model input to ensure the fidelity and accuracy of simulated responses. In this study, we utilized the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), an integrated watershed model, to simulate surface and subsurface flow and land surface processes using unstructured meshes at the Coal Creek Watershed near Crested Butte (Colorado). We compared simulated watershed hydrologic responses including streamflow, and distributed variables such as evapotranspiration, snow water equivalent (SWE), and groundwater table driven by three publicly available, gridded meteorological forcings (GMFs) -- Daily Surface Weather and Climatological Summaries (Daymet), Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM), and North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS). By comparing various spatial resolutions (ranging from 400 m to 4 km) of PRISM, the simulated streamflow only becomes marginally worse when spatial resolution of meteorological forcing is coarsened to 4 km (or 30% of the watershed area). However, the 4 km resolution has much worse performance than finer resolution in spatially distributed variables such as SWE. Using temporally disaggregated PRISM, we compared models forced by different temporal resolutions (hourly to daily), sub-daily resolution preserves the dynamic watershed responses (e.g., diurnal fluctuation of streamflow) that are absent in results forced by daily resolution. Conversely, the simulated streamflow shows better performance using daily resolution compared to that using sub-daily resolution. Our findings suggest that the choice of GMF and its spatiotemporal resolution depends on the quantity of interest and its spatial and temporal scale, which may have important implications on model calibration and watershed management decisions.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗