Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “corporate”

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 307 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

More science with less: evaluation of a 3D-printed weather station

Abstract. A weather station built using 3D-printed parts and low-cost sensors, based on plans and guidance provided by the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 3D-Printed Automatic Weather Station Initiative, was deployed alongside an Oklahoma Mesonet station to compare its performance against standard commercial sensors and determine the longevity and durability of the system. Temperature, relative humidity, atmospheric pressure, wind speed and direction, solar radiation, and precipitation measurements were collected over an 8-month field deployment in Norman, Oklahoma. Measurements were comparable to the commercial sensors except for wind direction, which proved to be problematic. Longevity and durability of the system varied, as some sensors and 3D-printed components failed during the deployment. Overall, results show that these low-cost sensors are comparable to the more expensive commercial counterparts and could serve as viable alternatives for researchers and educators with limited resources for short-term deployments. Long-term deployments are feasible with proper maintenance and regular replacement of sensors and 3D-printed components.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Experimental Operation of a Prototype 750C Advanced Chloride Molten Salt Bellows Valve

To achieve DOE 2030 SunShot targets that reduce the cost of liquid-based solar by an additional 40% to 70% beyond 2018 costs, a more reliable, highly manufacturable flow valve, capable of achieving operational temperatures of >700°C is required [1]. This paper investigates the development of an innovative high-temperature chloride molten salt valve, with operation up to 750°C. This valve is intended to be employed within Gen 3 CSP liquid-based thermal energy storage (TES) systems as well as Gen 4 modular salt reactor (MSR) technologies. This work details the general design and flow testing of a bellows-seal flow control valve (FCV). This design includes an integrated closed-loop thermal control system to ensure robust design for freeze-thaw cycles. The self-contained thermal management STM system, is unique in the salt valve industry since it is an integrated solution to provide a consistent, repeatable alternative to typical heat tracing. Additionally, the design includes the employment of a novel heat pipe valve stem to facilitate enhanced passive thermal management into the valve assembly. This valve stem heat pipe is designed to facilitate natural circulation within the bonnet to ensure robust operation, during both nominal and transient thermal operation. The valve body and trim will be designed using SS316H, consistent with Flowserve Corporation’s existing product base and is code qualified but will utilize clad material for materials corrosion, manufacturing cost reduction and compatibility to ensure design flexibility. A test campaign was performed in this investigation utilizing a novel 750°C ternary chloride (20%NaCl/40%MgCl2/40%KCl by mol. wt. %) molten salt flow loop. A discussion about the design and installation of the valves within this test bed is provided for this investigation. Valve test results from this study assessed Cv curves as well as multiple actuator cycles, under varying thermodynamic and operational mode conditions, which would be characteristic within a commercial molten salt facility. The results indicate nominal operation for the baseline design, though improved performance and reliability is expected with the full designed FCV.

Armijo, Kenneth (ORCID:0000000346832147)↗
DOE OSTI2021

NGEE Arctic, Canopy Spectral Reflectance, Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska, 2014-2016

Measurements of full-spectrum (i.e. 350-2500 nm) canopy spectral reflectance of Arctic plant species within the BEO, Barrow, Alaska. Spectra were collected using Spectra Vista Corporation (SVC) HR-2014i and Spectral Evolution (SE) PSR+ instruments mounted on a tripod or monopod together with a Spectralon white plate to calibrate each measurement under variable illumination conditions. Data were collected in Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska during the 2014 to 2016 period. Data package includes processed spectra (*.csv) files and original instrument output and processing files (*.zip).The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a 10-year research effort (2012-2022) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Integrating New Arctic Plant Functional Types in a Land Surface Model Using Above- and Belowground Field Observations: Modeling Archive

This Modeling Archive is in support of an NGEE Arctic publication "Integrating New Arctic Plant Functional Types in a Land Surface Model Using Above- and Belowground Field Observations". We used field observations of biomass and leaf traits (Salmon et al., 2019b) across a gradient of plant communities on the Seward Peninsula in northwest Alaska (Breen et al., 2020; Iversen et al., 2017) to replace the original ELM configuration with nine, arctic-specific PFTs. Original arctic PFTs in the model were (1) broadleaf deciduous boreal shrub and (2) C3 arctic grass. New PFTs were (1) lichen, (2) bryophyte, (3) evergreen dwarf shrub, (4) deciduous dwarf shrub, (5) deciduous low shrub, (6) deciduous low to tall shrub, (7) alder shrub, (8) forb, and (9) graminoid. New PFTs were parameterized and evaluated using site-level trait and biomass measurements (Salmon et al., 2019b), root C:N ratios and rooting depth patterns (Salmon et al., 2019c), and root biomass (Salmon et al., 2020). This archive contains forcing data and model output from ELM simulations conducted at the Kougarok Hillslope site (Kougarok Road Mile Marker 64). Simulations were conducted for the Kougarok Hillslope site using meteorological driving data from the Scenarios Network for Alaska and Arctic Planning (SNAP) downscaled climate projection dataset using NCAR-CCSM forcing (Bieniek et al., 2020 dataset; Walsh et al., 2018). The archive includes three versions of model simulations representing a progression from the original model configuration to an Arctic-specific configuration (see Output section below). Simulation 1 used grid cell data from a global E3SM configuration, including the fractional area of E3SM PFTs assigned to the grid cell containing the Kougarok Hillslope site in global simulations. This simulation did not distinguish between different plant communities on the Kougarok Hillslope, but instead used a single point simulation to represent the entire area. Simulation 2 used default E3SM PFT definitions combined with adjusted depth to bedrock for plant communities with shallow rocky layers to represent the role of abiotic soil factors in driving site differences (based on depth measurements of Iversen et al., 2019a), and adjusted the relative areas of the broadleaf deciduous boreal shrub and C3 arctic grass PFTs to reflect the observed spatial coverage of shrub and non-shrub PFTs across Kougarok Hillslope plant communities. Simulation 3 used the new arctic PFT definitions and parameterizations based on the vegetation types present at the site, along with the adjusted soil depths used in Simulation 2. Included are *.pdf, *.nc (NetCDF), *tar.gz, *.py, and *.bash files. We would like to thank Mary's Igloo Native Corporation for allowing us to perform this research on their land and giving us the opportunity to share this research with their community. Thanks to Shawn Serbin and Alistair Rogers for helpful discussions. Holly Vander Stel, Joanne Childs, and Stan Wullschleger helped with collection of field data. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Full Spectrum, 350 - 2500 nm, Leaf and Canopy Spectral Reflectance, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2017

Full-range (350 - 2500 nm) leaf and canopy reflectance spectra of various Arctic tundra ecosystem endmembers, including species-level leaf reflectance, canopy-scale species endmember spectra, plot-scale spectra, and transect spectra as well as non-vegetated surface (NVS) spectra. The datasets were collected at the three core NGEE-Arctic watersheds, Kougarok, Teller, and Council within the larger Seward Peninsula, Alaska region. The data were collected in the months of July and August of 2017 using a full-range Spectra Vista Corporation (SVC) HR-1024i spectroradiometer. Leaf-level spectra were collected with the original SVC leaf clip/plant probe connected to the spectrometer through a 1.15 meter long fiber optic cable, while canopy-scale reflectance was collected with an 8-degree field-of-view (FOV) foreoptic lens. All spectral measurements were collected as calibrated surface radiance and converted to surface reflectance using a 99.99% reflective Spectralon white reference standard. For those canopy spectra collected with associated functional trait data, the FOV of the instrument was positioned to include the same leaves harvested for functional trait measurements, including leaf mass per area (LMA) and foliar carbon and nitrogen content (see associated dataset). This data package includes 26 files in a variety of formats including processed canopy and leaf spectra (*.csv), processed dGPS locations (*.csv and *.kmz), digital photographs of spectral targets (*.jpg) and raw data from spectroradiometer and dGPS instruments (compressed as tar.gz). Metadata files include data descriptions (_dd.csv) for tabular data and a key to species symbols used in data files. All included files are listed and described in NGA110_flmd.csv.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Full spectrum (350-2500 nm) canopy spectral reflectance, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2018

Full-range (350-2500 nm) canopy reflectance spectra of various Arctic tundra ecosystem endmembers, including canopy-scale species endmember spectra, plot-scale spectra, and transect spectra as well as non-vegetated surface (NVS) spectra. The datasets were collected at the three core NGEE-Arctic watersheds, Kougarok, Teller, and Council, as well as the supplemental Kougarok Mile 80 site within the larger Seward Peninsula, Alaska region. The data were collected in July 2018 using a full-range Spectra Vista Corporation (SVC) HR-1024i spectroradiometer. Canopy-scale reflectance was collected with an 8-degree field-of-view (FOV) foreoptic lens. All spectral measurements were collected as calibrated surface radiance and converted to surface reflectance using a 99.99% reflective Spectralon white reference standard. For those canopy spectra collected with associated functional trait data, the FOV of the instrument was positioned to include the same leaves harvested for functional trait measurements, including leaf mass per area (LMA) and foliar carbon and nitrogen content (see associated dataset). Species included in the spectra and functional trait dataset include Alnus viridis, Betula nana, Betula glandulosa, Arctous alpina, and Salix pulchra. This data package includes 35 files in a variety of formats including processed canopy spectra (*.csv), processed dGPS locations (*.csv and *.kmz), digital photographs of spectral targets (*.jpg) and raw data from spectroradiometer and dGPS instruments (compressed as tar.gz). Metadata files include data descriptions (_dd.csv) for tabular data and a key to species symbols used in data files. All included files are listed and described in NGA208_flmd.csv.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Full spectrum (350-2500 nm) leaf and canopy spectral reflectance, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019

Full-range (350 - 2500 nm) leaf and canopy reflectance spectra of various Arctic tundra ecosystem endmembers, including species-level leaf reflectance, canopy-scale species endmember spectra, plot-scale spectra, and transect spectra. These data were collected in support of ongoing NASA ABoVE AVIRIS data synthesis work. The datasets were collected at the NGEE-Arctic watershed sites, Kougarok MM64 and MM80, and Teller MM27 on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska. The data were collected in July 2019 using a full-range Spectra Vista Corporation (SVC) HR-1024i spectroradiometer. Leaf-level spectra were collected with the original SVC leaf clip/plant probe connected to the spectrometer through a 1.15 meter long fiber optic cable, while canopy-scale reflectance was collected with an 8-degree field-of-view (FOV) foreoptic lens. All spectral measurements were collected as calibrated surface radiance and converted to surface reflectance using a 99.99% reflective Spectralon white reference standard. For those canopy spectra collected with associated functional trait data, the FOV of the instrument was positioned to include the same leaves harvested for functional trait measurements, including leaf mass per area (LMA) and foliar carbon and nitrogen content (see leaf trait data package for these data). Canopy spectra were obtained for 23 different species, and leaf spectra for 8 species. This data package includes processed canopy and leaf spectra (*.csv), processed dGPS locations (*.csv and *.kmz), digital photographs of spectral targets (*.jpg) and raw data from spectroradiometer and dGPS instruments (compressed as tar.gz). Metadata files include data descriptions (_dd.csv) for tabular data and a key to species symbols used in data files. All included files are listed and described in NGA212_flmd.csv.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a 15-year research effort (2012-2027) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2020

Solving Hard Problems with AI: Dramatically Accelerating Drug Discovery Through A Unique Public-Private Partnership

Dramatic disruptions in technologies can result in the creation of new markets, the emergence of new paradigms, and the displacement of entrenched approaches and business models. This can be especially pronounced when multiple technologies converge to create something new. Today, artificial intelligence (“AI”) is acting as an accelerant for such technology transformations. Still, the scope and depth of its impact will depend in part on our ability to address challenging problems that are surfacing without solutions. Industries will pursue AI for their corporate missions and to create shareholder value. But the timescales and applications can be incongruent with important public needs and with the longer research horizons required to make real progress. Public-Private partnerships are an important mechanism for tackling these rapidly emerging new, complex, challenging problems. Finally, this paper examines our experience gained by creating a unique public-private partnership to apply AI to one example of a hard problem that is particularly timely today-- dramatically accelerating drug discovery.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

EarthScope Seismic Station A21K (A21K-6) Field Campaign Report

Seismic station A21K has been successfully operating over the last five years. The station was constructed on 4/24/2014 by creating a borehole using an auger drill and inserting a PVC pipe casing. Roughly one month later, on 6/2/2014, the seismometer, weather station (Vaisala WXT520 meteorological sensor), enclosure, and electronics were installed. Collected data is being reported in real-time and is publicly available. On rare occasion, the station has required in-person service/maintenance visits, occurring on 4/29/2015 (fix faulty cable), 4/5/2016 (swap VIE), and 8/4/2017 (general check-up visit while in the area). This station is one in a 280-station seismic array/grid that make up the EarthScope: Transportable Array (USArray) project, funded by the National Science Foundation. USArray is operated by the Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology (IRIS), a nonprofit 503(c) Corporation founded in 1984, that is a consortium of over 100 US universities dedicated to the operation of science facilities for the acquisition, management, and distribution of seismological data.

North Slope of Alaska, seismology, Earth system↗
DOE OSTI2020

Feature Engineering and Process Mining to Enable Hazard Detection in Health Information Technology

Motivation for this work originates from a recognized need for developing data-driven approaches through analysis of complex electronic health records. Specifically, we aim to enhance the reliability of health information technology (HIT) systems by detection of plausible HIT hazards in clinical order transactions. In the absence of well-defined event logs in corporate data warehouses, our proposed approach identifies relevant timestamped data fields that could indicate transactions in the clinical order life cycle generating raw event sequences. Subsequently, we adopt state transitions of the OASIS Human Task standard to map the raw event sequences and simplify the complex process that clinical radiology orders go through. We describe how the current approach provides the potential to investigate areas of improvement and potential hazards in HIT systems. The discussion concludes with a use case and opportunities for future applications.

Ozmen, Ozgur↗
DOE OSTI2020

Subtask 1.3 – Integrated Carbon Capture and Storage for North Dakota Ethanol Production

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Red Trail Energy, LLC (RTE), a North Dakota ethanol producer; the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) Renewable Energy Program (REP); and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), conducted a feasibility and implementation study for a commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) effort. This subtask provided technical support and developed recommended practices of how small-scale industrial CO2 emitters (<1,000,000 tonnes of CO2 emitted annually) may economically deploy CCS. The 64-million-gallon dry mill RTE ethanol facility, emitting an average 180,000 tonnes of CO2 annually, was the subject of the case study. The positive outcome of this research, which shows technical and economic potential for ethanol–CCS in North Dakota, has resulted in RTE acquiring an approved Permit to Drill on December 2, 2019, for a stratigraphic test well in early 2020, a necessary step toward a North Dakota CO2 Storage Facility Permit (SFP) for the RTE CCS effort. Outcomes include 1) validating the Broom Creek Formation as a regional target for CCS, 2) determining the full carbon life cycle of an industrial fuel production facility with CCS, 3) developing a field implementation plan (FIP) for small-scale CCS, and 4) determining the validity and pathway for using CCS to meet low-carbon fuel (LCF) standards. The technical team included the EERC, RTE, Trimeric Corporation, Schlumberger Carbon Services, and Computer Modelling Group (CMG). Findings from activities conducted November 2016 – May 2020 are summarized as follows. Several key steps have been accomplished toward validating the Broom Creek Formation as a CO2 injection and storage target at the RTE CCS site, including verification of the presence and structure of sandstone layers that may comprise the potential CO2 storage reservoir and the several thousand feet of overlying confining zone. Work included site characterization using existing data, interpretation of seismic data within the study area, and geologic modeling simulation of CO2 injection. Interpreted results estimate 3000 feet of confining zone between the Broom Creek Formation (storage target) and the lowermost underground source of drinking water (e.g., the Fox Hills Formation). The thickness of the Broom Creek injection target varies 230–420 ft within the survey area. Results were used to inform the location of a stratigraphic test well and associated characterization test program. No impediments were identified within the targeted CO2 storage complex that would prevent the project from moving forward. A stratigraphic test well is the next step to validate these results and to acquire remaining data necessary to develop a North Dakota CO2 SFP application. The EERC generated full carbon life cycle estimates for CCS integration with the RTE ethanol facility. Results indicated that an average 40% reduction in CO2 emissions is possible through CCS implementation. Approximately half of the carbon in the overall life cycle for a dry mill ethanol plant is generated through the fermentation process and emitted to the atmosphere; this is the CO2 stream targeted for CCS. The remaining carbon is attributed to corn feedstock farming (diesel, fertilizer), energy for fuel processing (natural gas, electricity), and transportation (diesel) of the fuel product. Life cycle carbon estimates are also affected by the anticipated energy consumption of a potential capture facility, which depend on the type of CO2 product generated. For example, a 30%–40% net CO2 emission reduction is estimated if a liquefied CO2 facility were incorporated compared to a 40%–50% net CO2 reduction if a supercritical “injection-grade” CO2 product is generated; i.e., more energy is required to further refine the CO2 stream, affecting the full carbon life cycle estimates. A CCS FIP was developed and initiated at the RTE CCS site, resulting in the development of several guidance documents: a CO2 Capture Process Design Package, a North Dakota CO2 geologic Storage Permits Template, and a Public Outreach Package for CCS in North Dakota. General FIP components include CO2 capture system, pipeline and well designs; monitoring, verification, and accounting (MVA) plans; geologic characterization and testing programs; and permitting and outreach plans. Vendor bids were also acquired for the CO2 liquefaction facility. Near-surface characterization (groundwater and soil gas sampling) and geologic characterization (seismic survey) were initiated to inform development of a UIC Class VI-compliant MVA plan compliant with a North Dakota CO2 SFP. Designs (well and geologic testing) were completed for a stratigraphic test well compliant with a North Dakota CO2 SFP. In addition, the outreach plan was executed, including community open houses, meetings with city/county/state officials, and development of public materials. Although other entities continued to mature incentive programs in 2019–2020, California and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) currently provide the most advanced economic opportunities for CCS integrated with fuel production. The California Low-Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) adopted a CCS Protocol in January 2019, allowing submittal of a design-based pathway (DBP) application for an approved temporary (not certified) carbon intensity value for a fully engineered facility. An ethanol–CCS DBP application to the California LCFS Program (officially approved February 28, 2020) was developed to show that the RTE CCS effort meets LCFS requirements. The approved DBP provides confidence to advance the project and supports potential investments. Other entities continue to mature incentive programs. The IRS issued guidance in February 2020 that addresses the definition of beginning of construction and revenue procedure on partnerships for the Enhancement of Carbon Dioxide Sequestration Credit (a.k.a. Section 45Q) CCS tax credit program; the IRS anticipates issuing further guidance on issues such as secure geologic storage, utilization qualifications, and recapture of claimed credits. Maturing incentive programs coupled with workable permitting regulations provide confidence to advance CCS projects in North Dakota and support financial investment to proceed with designing, constructing, and implementing CCS projects at small-scale fuel production facilities. The largest hurdles for CCS implementation at small-scale industrial systems are often business/economic-related (i.e., not technical). Market uncertainty already exists for agriculture-based alternative fuels such as corn ethanol, for which production has increased by ~33%, and prices have correspondingly lowered since 2015. Passing the Section 45Q tax credit program improves economic feasibility for CCS but may require external investors for a small business to achieve maximum benefits. Public–private partnerships with NDIC and DOE have resulted in foundational technical and regulatory knowledge, growing stakeholder confidence, and a pathway to implementation that enables similar industrial CCS projects in the region to advance. This subtask was funded through the EERC–DOE Joint Program on Research and Development for Fossil Energy-Related Resources Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233. Nonfederal funding was provided by NDIC and RTE. The authors would also like to thank CMG, ESRI, IHS, Neuralog, and Schlumberger for allowing the use of their software packages in support of this work.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Detection of Anomalous Events in Electronic Health Records

Over the past decade, Health Information Technology (Health IT) has enabled an explosion in the amount of digital information stored in electronic health records (EHRs). According to recent studies, safety-related issues in healthcare can present themselves as anomalies in EHR data. Motivating examples of anomalous events in EHRs include clinical events related to invalid order cancellations or rejections, which may be initiated by clinical staff or automatic software routines in Health IT systems. Such events may be detected using anomaly detection or change point detection methods. In this paper, we explore the use of a forecasting approach to detect anomalies in EHR data using an online Support Vector Regression technique. Specifically, the proposed approach uses temporal frequency of activities in EHRs, coupled with dynamic robust confidence intervals, to characterize events as normal or anomalous. Once an event is characterized as an anomaly, our approach suppresses its effects in subsequent time intervals. The proposed approach shows encouraging results using real-world EHR data from the Veterans Affairs' corporate data warehouse

Pellett, Jordan J.↗
DOE OSTI2020

JSONize: A Scalable Machine Learning Pipeline to Model Medical Notes as Semi-structured Documents

The Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) archives the largest corpora of clinical notes in their corporate data warehouse (CDW) as unstructured text data. Unstructured text easily supports keyword searches and regular expressions. Often these simple searches do not adequately support the complex searches that need to be performed on notes. For example, a researcher may want all notes with a Duke Treadmill Score less than 5 or people that smoke more than 1 pack per day. Range queries like this and more can be supported by modelling text as semi-structured documents. In this paper, we implement a scalable machine learning pipeline that models plain medical text as useful semi-structured documents. We improve on existing models and achieve a F1-score of 0.912 and scale our methods to the entire VA corpus.

Rush III, Everett↗
DOE OSTI2020

AURORA-SETO_VirginiaTech_ Power & Energy Center

This is a presentation. The outline of the presentation is : Overview multiple grid resiliency projects at Siemens Corporate Technology Introduce AURORA project(AUtonomous and Resilient Operation of energy systems with RenewaAbles) Dive into physics and cyber situation awareness Discuss challenges encountered at building a more resilient distribution grid

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗