SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “GDR”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1982

Portable design rules for bulk CMOS

It is pointed out that for the past several years, one school of IC designers has used a simplified set of nMOS geometric design rules (GDR) which is 'portable', in that it can be used by many different nMOS manufacturers. The present investigation is concerned with a preliminary set of design rules for bulk CMOS which has been verified for simple test structures. The GDR are defined in terms of Caltech Intermediate Form (CIF), which is a geometry-description language that defines simple geometrical objects in layers. The layers are abstractions of physical mask layers. The design rules do not presume the existence of any particular design methodology. Attention is given to p-well and n-well CMOS processes, bulk CMOS and CMOS-SOS, CMOS geometric rules, and a description of the advantages of CMOS technology.

Griswold, T. W.↗

NASA NTRS1985

Charge-to-mass dispersion methods for abrasion-ablation fragmentation models

Methods to describe the charge-to-mass dispersion distributions of projectile prefragments are presented and used to determine individual isotope cross-sections or various elements produced in the fragmentation of relativistic argon nuclei by carbon targets. Although slight improvements in predicted cross-sections are obtained for the quantum mechanical giant dipole resonance (GDR) distribution when compared qith the predictions of the geometric GDR model, the closest agreement between theory and experiment continues to be obtained with the simple hypergeometric distribution, which treats the nucleons in the nucleus as completely uncorrelated.

Townsend, L. W.↗

NASA NTRS1992

Satellite altimetry

Since altimetry data are not really old enough to use the term data archaeology, Mr. Cheney referred to the stewardship of these data. He noted that it is very important to document the basis for an altimetry data set as the algorithms and corrections used to arrive at the Geophysical Data Record (GDR) have been improving and are continuing to improve the precision of sea level data derived from altimetry. He noted that the GEOSAT Exact Repeat Mission (ERM) data set has recently been reprocessed by his organization in the National Ocean Service of NOAA and made available to the scientific community on CD/ROM disks by the National Oceanographic Data Center of the U.S. (NODC). The new data set contains a satellite orbit more precise by an order of magnitude together with an improved water vapor correction. A new, comprehensive GDR Handbook has also been prepared.

Cheney, Robert E.↗

NASA NTRS1994

Mean sea surface and geoid gradient comparisons with TOPEX altimeter data

Cycles 4 to 54 of TOPEX data have been analyzed through comparisons with the mean sea surface given on the disturbed geophysical data record (GDR). Two inverted barometer correction procedures were considered for the data reduction. One used a constant atmospheric pressure for all data while the one adopted for use, for most computations, introduced a cycle average pressure. The maximum difference between the two estimates was 3.0 cm with a clear annual signal. With the modified correction the TOPEX sea surface was compared to The Ohio State University (OSU) mean sea surface, given on the GDR, to estimate three translations ( delta x = -2.3 cm; delta y = 25.0 cm; delta z = -0.3 cm) and a bias (43.3 cm) between the two surfaces. The only significant translation is delta y which indicates the reference frame of the TOPEX system differs from that used in the OSU mean sea surface system. The bias between the TOPEX mean sea surface and the OSU mean sea surface was used to estimate an equatorial radius of 6,378,136.55 m based on an 18-cm biased estimate of the TOPEX altimeter. Examination of the average difference, by cycle, between the TOPEX sea surface and the OSU mean sea surface suggested a bias change of 3.1 +/- 2.2 mm/yr with a positive sign indicating the average ocean surface is rising or the altimeter measured distance is decreasing. Models were implemented that solved directly for a bias, bias rate annual/semiannual, and tide correction terms. The computations indicated that a simultaneous solution for this bias, bias rate, and annual/semiannual terms gave the most accurate results. Nonsimultaneous solutions led to slightly different bias rate values. The root mean square difference between the TOPEX sea surface and OSU sea surface, after translation and bias correction, was +/- 17 cm for a typical cycle. Some locations were indentified where the difference could reach 2.3 cm and were repeated over several cycles indicating errors in the mean sea surface. Most of the large differences occur in regions lacking altimeter data prior to the TOPEX/POSEIDON mission and/or areas of significant bathymetric signature. Geoid gradients are needed for the reduction of individual track data to a reference track. The accuracy of the determination of such gradients was determined through the comparison of predicted along-track gradients to the observed gradients. Among four mean sea surfaces tested the best agreement was found with the OSU mean sea surface placed on the TOPEX geophysical data record.

Rapp, Richard H.↗

NASA NTRS1994

TOPEX/POSEIDON tides estimated using a global inverse model

Altimetric data from the TOPEX/POSEIDON mission will be used for studies of global ocean circulation and marine geophysics. However, it is first necessary to remove the ocean tides, which are aliased in the raw data. The tides are constrained by the two distinct types of information: the hydrodynamic equations which the tidal fields of elevations and velocities must satisfy, and direct observational data from tide gauges and satellite altimetry. Here we develop and apply a generalized inverse method, which allows us to combine rationally all of this information into global tidal fields best fitting both the data and the dynamics, in a least squares sense. The resulting inverse solution is a sum of the direct solution to the astronomically forced Laplace tidal equations and a linear combination of the representers for the data functionals. The representer functions (one for each datum) are determined by the dynamical equations, and by our prior estimates of the statistics or errors in these equations. Our major task is a direct numerical calculation of these representers. This task is computationally intensive, but well suited to massively parallel processing. By calculating the representers we reduce the full (infinite dimensional) problem to a relatively low-dimensional problem at the outset, allowing full control over the conditioning and hence the stability of the inverse solution. With the representers calculated we can easily update our model as additional TOPEX/POSEIDON data become available. As an initial illustration we invert harmonic constants from a set of 80 open-ocean tide gauges. We then present a practical scheme for direct inversion of TOPEX/POSEIDON crossover data. We apply this method to 38 cycles of geophysical data records (GDR) data, computing preliminary global estimates of the four principal tidal constituents, M(sub 2), S(sub 2), K(sub 1) and O(sub 1). The inverse solution yields tidal fields which are simultaneously smoother, and in better agreement with altimetric and ground truth data, than previously proposed tidal models. Relative to the 'default' tidal corrections provided with the TOPEX/POSEIDON GDR, the inverse solution reduces crossover difference variances significantly (approximately 20-30%), even though only a small number of free parameters (approximately equal to 1000) are actually fit to the crossover data.

Egbert, Gary D.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Evaluation of GEOSAT Follow-On Precise Orbit Ephemeris

The GEOSAT Follow-On spacecraft (GFO-l), launched in 1998, began continuous radar altimeter coverage of the oceans in 2000, and after an extensive series of calibration campaigns in 1999 and 2000 was finally accepted by the US Navy on November 29, 2000. By providing high quality altimeter data, GFO can supplement TOPEX/POSEIDON(T/P), ERS-1, and ERS-2 data, providing a different synoptic sampling of the oceans with its 17-day ground track repeat cycle. Altimeter analysis suggests GFO is capable of POSEIDON class altimetry, with orbit error the largest contributor to the GFO altimeter error budget. Satellite laser ranging (SLR), especially in combination with altimeter crossover data, offer the only means of determining high-quality precise orbits. SLR tracking is also augmented by Doppler (Tranet style) beacons. These data were used to tune the gravity field and macromodel (3D representation of the spacecraft geometry and surface properties). Beginning with January 2000 GSFC has produced a 2.5 year span of the Precision Orbit Ephemeris (POE) intended for use on the GFO GDR and for the Pathfinder Project. Using GFO GDR and IGDR altimeter data from NOAA, a two year span of POE orbits are evaluated with respect to the TOPEX orbits by adjusting the GFO data into the TOPEX frame with the help of TOPEX/GFO altimeter crossovers. A 2.5 year span of orbits are also evaluated using tracking data residual analysis, GFO altimeter crossover residual analysis, and direct orbit comparison. In an effort to improve the current POE orbit several ideas are considered, including using recent gravity models which include CHAMP data, the reduced-dynamic approach, and including TOPEX/GFO altimeter crossover data in the orbit solution.

Lemoine, Frank G.↗

DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE: Deep Wells Temperature Surveys as of September 2022

This Excel spreadsheet contains temperature survey results for Utah FORGE wells 58-32, 78-32, 56-32, 16A(78)-32 and 78B-32. It also contains charts and comparisons, along with a "Data Summary" which provides links to previous GDR submissions with temperature data for each well.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

DEEPEN Global Standardized Categorical Exploration Datasets for Magmatic Plays

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

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

DEEPEN 3D PFA Weights for Exploration Datasets in Magmatic Environments

DEEPEN stands for DE-risking Exploration of geothermal Plays in magmatic ENvironments. As part of the development of the DEEPEN 3D play fairway analysis (PFA) methodology for magmatic plays (conventional hydrothermal, superhot EGS, and supercritical), weights needed to be developed for use in the weighted sum of the different favorability index models produced from geoscientific exploration datasets. This GDR submission includes those weights. The weighting was done using two different approaches: one based on expert opinions, and one based on statistical learning. The weights are intended to describe how useful a particular exploration method is for imaging each component of each play type. They may be adjusted based on the characteristics of the resource under investigation, knowledge of the quality of the dataset, or simply to reduce the impact a single dataset has on the resulting outputs. Within the DEEPEN PFA, separate sets of weights are produced for each component of each play type, since exploration methods hold different levels of importance for detecting each play component, within each play type. The weights for conventional hydrothermal systems were based on the average of the normalized weights used in the DOE-funded PFA projects that were focused on magmatic plays. This decision was made because conventional hydrothermal plays are already well-studied and understood, and therefore it is logical to use existing weights where possible. In contrast, a true PFA has never been applied to superhot EGS or supercritical plays, meaning that exploration methods have never been weighted in terms of their utility in imaging the components of these plays. To produce weights for superhot EGS and supercritical plays, two different approaches were used: one based on expert opinion and the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), and another using a statistical approach based on principal component analysis (PCA). The weights are intended to provide standardized sets of weights for each play type in all magmatic geothermal systems. Two different approaches were used to investigate whether a more data-centric approach might allow new insights into the datasets, and also to analyze how different weighting approaches impact the outcomes. The expert/AHP approach involved using an online tool (https://bpmsg.com/ahp/) with built-in forms to make pairwise comparisons which are used to rank exploration methods against one-another. The inputs are then combined in a quantitative way, ultimately producing a set of consensus-based weights. To minimize the burden on each individual participant, the forms were completed in group discussions. While the group setting means that there is potential for some opinions to outweigh others, it also provides a venue for conversation to take place, in theory leading the group to a more robust consensus then what can be achieved on an individual basis. This exercise was done with two separate groups: one consisting of U.S.-based experts, and one consisting of Iceland-based experts in magmatic geothermal systems. The two sets of weights were then averaged to produce what we will from here on refer to as the "expert opinion-based weights," or "expert weights" for short. While expert opinions allow us to include more nuanced information in the weights, expert opinions are subject to human bias. Data-centric or statistical approaches help to overcome these potential human biases by focusing on and drawing conclusions from the data alone. More information on this approach along with the dataset used to produce the statistical weights may be found in the linked dataset below.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

DEEPEN 3D PFA Index Models for Exploration Datasets at Newberry Volcano

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

DEEPEN 3D PFA Favorability Models and 2D Favorability Maps at Newberry Volcano

DEEPEN stands for DE-risking Exploration of geothermal Plays in magmatic ENvironments. Part of the DEEPEN project involved developing and testing a methodology for a 3D play fairway analysis (PFA) for multiple play types (conventional hydrothermal, superhot EGS, and supercritical). This was tested using new and existing geoscientific exploration datasets at Newberry Volcano. This GDR submission includes images, data, and models related to the 3D favorability and uncertainty models and the 2D favorability and uncertainty maps. The DEEPEN PFA Methodology is based on the method proposed by Poux et al. (2020), which uses the Leapfrog Geothermal software with the Edge extension to conduct PFA in 3D. This method uses all available data to build a 3D geodata model which can be broken down into smaller blocks and analyzed with advanced geostatistical methods. Each data set is imported into a 3D model in Leapfrog and divided into smaller blocks. Conditional queries can then be used to assign each block an index value which conditionally ranks each block's favorability, from 0-5 with 5 being most favorable, for each model (e.g., lithologic, seismic, magnetic, structural). The values between 0-5 assigned to each block are referred to as index values. The final step of the process is to combine all the index models to create a favorability index. This involves multiplying each index model by a given weight and then summing the resulting values. The DEEPEN PFA Methodology follows this approach, but split up by the specific geologic components of each play type. These components are defined as follows for each magmatic play type: 1. Conventional hydrothermal plays in magmatic environments: Heat, fluid, and permeability 2. Superhot EGS plays: Heat, thermal insulation, and producibility (the ability to create and sustain fractures suitable for and EGS reservoir) 3. Supercritical plays: Heat, supercritical fluid, pressure seal, and producibility (the proper permeability and pressure conditions to allow production of supercritical fluid) More information on these components and their development can be found in Kolker et al., 2022. For the purposes of subsurface imaging, it is easier to detect a permeable fluid-filled reservoir than it is to detect separate fluid and permeability components. Therefore, in this analysis, we combine fluid and permeability for conventional hydrothermal plays, and supercritical fluid and producibility for supercritical plays. More information on this process is described in the following sections. We also project the 3D favorability volumes onto 2D surfaces for simplified joint interpretation, and we incorporate an uncertainty component. Uncertainty was modeled using the best approach for the dataset in question, for the datasets where we had enough information to do so. Identifying which subsurface parameters are the least resolved can help qualify current PFA results and focus future efforts in data collection. Where possible, the resulting uncertainty models/indices were weighted using the same weights applied to the respective datasets, and summed, following the PFA methodology above, but for uncertainty. There are two different versions of the Leapfrog model and associated favorability models: - v1.0: The first release in June 2023 - v2.1: The second release, with improvements made to the earthquake catalog (included additional identified events, removed duplicate events), to the temperature model (fixed a deep BHT), and to the index models (updated the seismicity-heat source index models for supercritical and EGS, and the resistivity-insulation index models for all three play types). Also uses the jet color map rather than the magma color map for improved interpretability. - v2.1.1: Updated to include v2.0 uncertainty results (see below for uncertainty model versions) There are two different versions of the associated uncertainty models: - v1.0: The first release in June 2023 - v2.0: The se...

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

Utah FORGE: Powder X-ray Diffraction Data from Well 16A(78)-32 Core

This dataset from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) consists of four raw X-ray diffraction (XRD) scans and preliminary results of quantitative XRD analysis. The scanned samples were prepared from four subcores, which came from various depths of the FORGE well 16A(78)-32 core. Desired core lengths were selected from available core photos (on GDR), provided by FORGE personnel, and subcored at LLNL. The XRD scans were collected in May 2023 at LLNL as pre-experimental characterization data for these subcores, which will be used in core-flooding experiments at LLNL and in triaxial direct shear experiments at Los Alamos National Laboratory as part of DOE Project 5-2428. XRD scans are in RAW file format (e.g., FORGE-5477-full.raw) and are suitable for viewing and analysis using open-source quantitative XRD software (e.g., Profex; www.profex-xrd.org ) and/or other proprietary instrument software.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

DEEPEN: Newberry Volcano MT and Gravity Data - 2022 and 2023 Acquisition and Processing

As part of DEEPEN (DE-risking Exploration of geothermal Plays in magmatic ENvironments), a 3D play fairway analysis (PFA) was conducted at Newberry Volcano in Central Oregon for multiple play types (conventional hydrothermal, superhot EGS, and supercritical). For use in this PFA, combined full tensor broadband magnetotelluric (MT) and gravity data were acquired, processed, and inverted by Enthalpion Energy LLC (Enthalpion) with support from NREL staff. The data collection efforts took place from June 19th to July 24. Data were collected with the goal of gaining an improved understanding of the South Flank and the extent of the magma chamber. This GDR submission includes the raw data, single inversions, joint inversions, resolution matrices, and a report on these processes. More detailed information about the folder structure of the datasets included in this submission may be found on pages 94-97 of Magnetotelluric and Gravity Survey Report.pdf below.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

DEEPEN: Final 3D PFA Favorability Models and 2D Favorability Maps at Newberry Volcano

Part of the DEEPEN (DE-risking Exploration of geothermal Plays in magmatic ENvironments) project involved developing and testing a methodology for a 3D play fairway analysis (PFA) for multiple play types (conventional hydrothermal, superhot EGS, and supercritical). This was tested using new and existing geoscientific exploration datasets at Newberry Volcano. This GDR submission includes images, data, and models related to the 3D favorability and uncertainty models and the 2D favorability and uncertainty maps. The DEEPEN PFA Methodology, detailed in the journal article below, is based on the method proposed by Poux & O'brien (2020), which uses the Leapfrog Geothermal software with the Edge extension to conduct PFA in 3D. This method uses all available data to build a 3D geodata model which can be broken down into smaller blocks and analyzed with advanced geostatistical methods. Each data set is imported into a 3D model in Leapfrog and divided into smaller blocks. Conditional queries can then be used to assign each block an index value which conditionally ranks each block's favorability, from 0-5 with 5 being most favorable, for each model (e.g., lithologic, seismic, magnetic, structural). The values between 0-5 assigned to each block are referred to as index values. The final step of the process is to combine all the index models to create a favorability index. This involves multiplying each index model by a given weight and then summing the resulting values. The DEEPEN PFA Methodology follows this approach, but split up by the specific geologic components of each play type. These components are defined as follows for each magmatic play type: 1. Conventional hydrothermal plays in magmatic environments: Heat, fluid, and permeability 2. Superhot EGS plays: Heat, thermal insulation, and producibility (the ability to create and sustain fractures suitable for and EGS reservoir) 3. Supercritical plays: Heat, supercritical fluid, pressure seal, and producibility (the proper permeability and pressure conditions to allow production of supercritical fluid) More information on these components and their development can be found in Kolker et al., (2022). For the purposes of subsurface imaging, it is easier to detect a permeable fluid-filled reservoir than it is to detect separate fluid and permeability components. Therefore, in this analysis, we combine fluid and permeability for conventional hydrothermal plays, and supercritical fluid and producibility for supercritical plays. We also project the 3D favorability volumes onto 2D surfaces for simplified joint interpretation, and we incorporate an uncertainty component. Uncertainty was modeled using the best approach for the dataset in question, for the datasets where we had enough information to do so. Identifying which subsurface parameters are the least resolved can help qualify current PFA results and focus future efforts in data collection. Where possible, the resulting uncertainty models/indices were weighted using the same weights applied to the respective datasets, and summed, following the PFA methodology above, but for uncertainty.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

EGS Collab Experiment 2: Shear Stimulation ERT Monitoring Data

This repository contains the electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) monitoring data that was collected before, during, and after shear stimulation attempts were conducted at EGS Collab. These tests were carried out on the SURF 4100 level during Experiment 2 in March, 2022. Flow and stimulation data corresponding to this dataset are available in a different GDR dataset, which is linked below. Also included here are the E4D input files that were used to process the ERT data. E4D is an open source ERT monitoring and inversion code which is linked for use below.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

GeoThermalCloud: A Machine Learning Tool for Discovery, Exploration, and Development of Hidden Geothermal Resources

In this 25 minute presentation, we showcase our open source “GeoThermalCloud” tool for identifying hidden geothermal resources using a publicly available dataset for southwestern New Mexico. The presenters include Bulbul Ahmmed and Luke Frash. All of the visuals use source material from LA-UR approved publications and this work falls under the Earth Sciences DUSA. The code shown in this video is already released with LANL approval in open source format on GitHub and DockerHub. The audio in this video includes only material on the topics of geothermal energy and machine learning applied to geothermal energy. The primary machine learning method used is LANL’s Non-negative Matrix Factorization “NMFk” method. Modeling work also mentions LANL’s Geothermal Design Tool “GeoDT” which is another approved open source code that has been released by LANL. This work was performed for DOE Geothermal Technologies Office (DE-EE-3.1.8.1). The host for the released video is intended to be YouTube or a suitable perpetual data repository such as GDR.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Machine Learning Approaches to Predicting Induced Seismicity and Imaging Geothermal Reservoir Properties

This project developed machine learning (ML) methods, lab data sets, and field data to advance geothermal exploration and geothermal energy production. The work had three focus areas. One involved the development of ML methods to use microearthquakes (MEQs) for imaging geothermal reservoir properties and improving subsurface characterization – most importantly the evolution of permeability within the evolving reservoir. This part of the work included development of ML approaches for automated MEQ location, focal mechanism determination and identification of earthquake precursors. The second area focused on using MEQ signals generated by geothermal exploration and production to predict the relationship between fluid injection and seismicity. Here, we extended to reservoir scale our success in using ML to predict laboratory earthquakes and fault zone stress state. The third focus area was on lab experiments. Here, we developed new ML models for lab earthquake prediction and identification of precursors to failure to improve earthquake forecasting and early warning in geothermal settings. Major outcomes of our work include ML models that learn from MEQ signals during geothermal exploration and production to predict induced seismicity. MEQs occur naturally in connection with drilling and energy production. We developed ML methods to use the seismic waves from these events to characterize the elastic, hydraulic and poromechanical properties of reservoirs. Our work illuminated fracture geometry and the evolution of fracture permeability by incorporating seismic coda wave analysis and ML methods to relate fluid injection and seismicity. We significantly expanded laboratory earthquake prediction to include methods that use both passive measurements of microearthquakes within the lab fault zones and also active source acoustic measurements of fault zone elastic properties. These methods can now predict fault zone stress state, time to failure and the magnitude of lab earthquakes. Our work showed that repetitive stick- slip failure events during frictional sliding (the lab equivalent of earthquakes) are preceded by a cascade of micro-failure events that radiate energy in a manner that foretells unstable failure – manifest as laboratory MEQs. We documented a mapping between fracture properties and statistical attributes of elastic radiation. We extended existing works to geothermal reservoir scale and developed ML methods to determine reservoir permeability, fracture properties, and their evolution during geothermal energy production. An attractive feature of ML algorithms is their ability to handle big datasets and reveal patterns and correlations that may remain invisible to conventional analyses. Our work connected data from field, laboratory and intermediate scales to study permeability, stress, strength, fracture stiffness and geometry. At the field scale we used data from the Newberry Volcano field site, UtahFORGE, EGS Collab, and also the Bedretto underground research lab in Switzerland. These data sets are bridging the gap between the lab scale, theory, and reservoir scale. Our work produced plain language summaries to improve public understanding of DOE research. We also developed openly distributed ML and seismicity datasets for use by all researchers and we published connections between induced seismicity in geothermal areas and reservoir properties including permeability, fracture properties, and stress state. Our models are designed for the large data sets of induced seismicity typically associated with geothermal sites. We produced labeled event catalogs and used them on geothermal data to assess how ML can facilitate geothermal production and exploration. All datasets are available on the GDR Productivity: The project produced 32 publications in peer reviewed journals (two are in review). It supported the work of 6 PhD students, 40 conference presentations, 6 keynote talks at national meetings, and mentoring and professional development for 4 postdoctoral fellows.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

NASA NTRS1984

The Dynamics of Ionospheric D Region over East Siberia

Some main results of experimental investigations of the dynamical regime of the ionospheric D-region over East Siberia are presented. Regular measurements of horizontal ionospheric drifts by the radio method of closely spaced receivers, using a long wavelength transmitter operating at a frequency of 200 kHz, were carried out near Irkutsk, USSR, since 1975. The seasonal and inter-annual variations of prevailing wind (zonal and meridional), and amplitudes and phases of semi-diurnal tides are investigated. Evidence is presented to show the response of D-region dynamics to stratospheric warmings. Planetary and gravity waves are found in the wind field. Comparison with results of analogous measurements in Central Europe (Collm, GDR) reveals a longitudinal effect on the dynamical regime of the mid-latitude lower thermosphere.

Kazimirovsky, E. S.↗