Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Location”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Location Identifiers, Metadata, and Map for Field Measurements at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory, Colorado, USA (Version 3.3)

This dataset contains identifiers, metadata, and a map of the locations where field measurements have been conducted at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. This is version 3.3 of the dataset and replaces the prior version 3.2 (see below for details on changes between the versions). Dataset description: The East River-Taylor Watershed is the primary field site of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) and the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Researchers from several institutions generate highly diverse hydrological, biogeochemical, climate, vegetation, geological, remote sensing, and model data at the East-Taylor Watershed in collaboration with the WFSFA. Thus, the purpose of this dataset is to maintain an inventory of the field locations and instrumentation to provide information on the field activities in the East-Taylor Watershed and coordinate data collected across different locations, researchers, and institutions. The dataset contains (1) a README file with information on the various files, (2) three csv files describing the metadata collected for each surface point location, plot and region registered with the WFSFA, (3) csv files with metadata and contact information for each surface point location registered with the WFSFA, (4) a csv file with with metadata and contact information for plots, (5) a csv file with metadata for geographic regions and sub-regions within the watershed, (6) a compiled xlsx file with all the data and metadata which can be opened in Microsoft Excel, (7) a kml map of the locations plotted in the watershed which can be opened in Google Earth, (8) a jpg image of the kml map which can be viewed in any photo viewer, and (9) a zipped file with the registration templates used by the SFA team to collect location metadata. The zipped template file contains two csv files with the blank templates (point and plot), two csv files with instructions for filling out the location templates, and one compiled xlsx file with the instructions and blank templates together. Additionally, the templates in the xlsx include drop down validation for any controlled metadata fields. Persistent location identifiers (Location_ID) are determined by the WFSFA data management team and are used to track data and samples across locations. Dataset uses: This location metadata is used to update the Watershed SFA’s publicly accessible Field Information Portal (an interactive field sampling metadata exploration tool; https://wfsfa-data.lbl.gov/watershed/), the kml map file included in this dataset, and other data management tools internal to the Watershed SFA team. Version Information: The latest version of this dataset publication is version 3.3. This version contains 167 new point locations, 1 new plot, and 2 new geographic regions. Overall, there are a total of 1439 point locations, 75 plots, and 54 geographic regions. Additionally, the kml map of locations and image now includes two boundaries (Upper Ohio Creek (UO) and Carbon Creek (CA)) outside of the East River watershed (USGS HUC-10) and accompanying stream network that represents areas of focus. Refer to methods for further details on the version history. This dataset will be updated on a periodic basis with new measurement location information. Researchers interested in having their East-Taylor Watershed measurement locations added to this list should reach out to the WFSFA data management team at wfsfa-data@googlegroups.com. Acknowledgments: Please cite this dataset if using any of the location metadata in other publications or derived products. If using the location metadata for the 2018 NEON hyperspectral campaign, additionally cite Chadwick et al. (2020). doi:10.15485/1618130. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231. Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility 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 This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License 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 (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility 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 This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License 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 (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2025

CERF: IM3 Projected Western US Power Plant Locations

Overview The Capacity Expansion Regional Feasibility (CERF) model is an open-source geospatial python package that provides new power plant locations at a 1km resolution. The model ingests U.S. state or regional-scale electricity system capacity expansion plans, such as those produced by the Global Change Analysis Model (GCAM-USA), and identifies feasible, site-specific locations for individual new power plants (renewable and non-renewable). CERF combines high-resolution geospatial suitability analyses with an economic algorithm that selects individual plant siting locations based on grid interconnection costs and the locational marginal value of new generation. The model incorporates a wide range of dynamic constraints and opportunities, such as protected lands, population density, existing infrastructure, and water availability. This dataset provides CERF power plant siting results for IM3 Phase 2 simulations across eight different scenarios for the Western US through 2055. The scenarios include combinations of two Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP3 and SSP5) with four high-resolution climate projections specific to the United States (see, https://tgw-data.msdlive.org/). These climate projections include "hotter" and "cooler" variants for two Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5). The resulting eight simulations are: rcp45cooler_ssp3 rcp45cooler_ssp5 rcp45hotter_ssp3 rcp45hotter_ssp5 rcp85cooler_ssp3 rcp85cooler_ssp5 rcp85hotter_ssp3 rcp85hotter_ssp5 CERF siting results in this dataset correspond to capacity expansion plans in the GCAM-USA IM3 Phase 2 simulation data and are available for each of the above scenarios. Data Details Temporal Range: 2015-2055 in 5-year timesteps. Note that 2015 is the experiment base year and 2020 and beyond represent model simulation years. Spatial Range: Plant locations are provided for the eleven states in the Western US including Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. Spatial Resolution: 1 km-squared, provided in x and y coordinates Geospatial Projection: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) File Type: csv The dataset contains subdirectories for each of the eight scenarios described in the overview. Each scenario folder contains two subfolders with the following information: 1. Power Plant Data This directory contains a single .csv file of power plant locations for both pre-existing (non-CERF sited plants in operation in 2015) and new (CERF-sited) power plants across the temporal range along with additional CERF model output parameters for CERF-sited plants. Plant with a siting year earlier than 2020 correspond to facilities that are operational leading into the first timestep CERF simulation. For a more detailed description of CERF model output parameters, see the CERF model documentation. Note that the cerf_plant_id parameter is unique within each scenario file but not across scenario files. Parameter Descriptions scenario - Name of scenario cerf_plant_id - Unique siting identifier cerf_sited - If True, indicates that plant was sited by CERF model. If False, indicates pre-existing facility region_name - Name of region (state) tech_id - Technology ID tech_name - Full generation technology name inclusive of cooling type (if applicable) and additional characteristics tech_simple - Simplified generation technology type unit_size_mw - Power plant unit size (MW) xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) index - Index position in the flattend 2D array buffer_in_km - Exclusion buffer around site (km) sited_year - Year of siting retirement_year - Year of retirement lmp_zone - Locational marginal price (LMP) zone ID locational_marginal_price_usd_per_mwh - Locational marginal price ($/MWh) generation_mwh_per_year - Generation output (MWh/yr) operating_cost_usd_per_year - Cost of plant operations ($/yr) net_operational_value - Net operational value based on LMP and and operating costs ($/yr) interconnection_cost - Cost of interconnection for transmission & gas pipeline (if applicable) net_locational_cost -- Difference of interconnection cost and operating value ($/yr) capacity_factor_fraction - Capacity factor (fraction) carbon_capture_rate_fraction - Carbon capture rate (fraction) fuel_co2_content_tons_per_btu - Fuel CO2 content (tons/Btu) fuel_price_usd_per_mmbtu - Fuel price ($/MMBtu) fuel_price_esc_rate_fraction - Fuel price escalation rate (fraction) heat_rate_btu_per_kWh - Heat rate (Btu/kWh) lifetime_yrs - Technology lifetime for annuity (years) operational_life_yrs - Operational lifetime for retirement (years) variable_om_usd_per_mwh - Variable operation and maintenance costs of yearly capacity use ($/MWh) variable_om_esc_rate_fraction - Variable operation and maintenance costs escalation rate (fraction) carbon_tax_usd_per_ton - Carbon tax ($/ton) carbon_tax_esc_rate_fraction - Carbon tax escalation rate (fraction) 2. Storage Data This directory contains information on new and pre-existing energy storage facilities operational in each timestep along with various storage operational parameters. The 2015 timestep provides pre-existing energy storage data and corresponds with facilities that are operational leading into the first model simulation timestep. Note that coordinates in the storage files correspond to the interconnection point on the grid (substation location), not individual energy storage locations. Energy storage is added in a cumulative process at each given interconnection point. That is, each individual file provides the total operational storage capacity interconnected to the specified substation for the given timestep, inclusive of previously installed storage at that location and new storage installed in that timestep at that location. Parameters scenario - Name of scenario timestep - Simulation timestep name - Unique storage identifier s_typ - Type of energy storage technology (battery or pumped storage hydro) s_node - Node ID of interconnecting substation xcoord - X coordinate in the default CRS (meters) ycoord - Y coordinate in the default CRS (meters) charge_rate - Maximum charge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) discharge_rate - Maximum discharge rate (power capacity) of storage system (MW) duration - Duration of storage system (hours) max_SoC - Allowed maximum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) min_SoC -Allowed minimum state of charge (energy capacity) of storage system (MWh) charge_eff - Efficiency of charge (fraction between 0 and 1) discharge_eff - Efficiency of discharge (fraction between 0 and 1) 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.

CERF↗
DOE OSTI2022

ESS-DIVE Reporting Format for Location Metadata

The ESS-DIVE location metadata reporting format provides instructions and templates for reporting a minimum set of metadata for discrete point locations in geographic space represented by x, y, and z coordinates. This format was created based on a need for earth and environmental science researchers to more consistently provide metadata about locations where they conduct studies. To create the format, we incorporated elements from ESS-DIVE’s community reporting formats as well as 12 additional data standards or other data resources (e.g., databases, data systems, or repositories). In the template, we ask researchers to indicate unique locations using Location IDs and indicate hierarchies of locations through parent location IDs. We also provide additional optional fields for researchers to indicate how they measured the point location and the date and time that the location was first used as a research siteThis dataset contains support documentation for the reporting format (README.md and instructions.md), a terminology guide (guide.md), a crosswalk indicating how this reporting format relates to existing standards and data resources (Location_metadata_crosswalk.csv), a data dictionary (dd.csv), file-level metadata (flmd.csv), and the location metadata templates in both CSV (Location_metadata_template.csv) and Excel formats (Location_metadata_template.xlsx).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Evaluating the location capabilities of a regional infrasonic network in Utah, US, using both ray tracing-derived and empirical-derived celerity-range and backazimuth models

SUMMARY More realistic models for infrasound signal propagation across a region can be used to improve the precision and accuracy of spatial and temporal source localization estimates. Motivated by incomplete infrasound event bulletins in the Western US, the location capabilities of a regional infrasonic network of stations located between 84–458 km from the Utah Test and Training Range, Utah, USA, is assessed using a series of near-surface explosive events with complementary ground truth (GT) information. Signal arrival times and backazimuth estimates are determined with an automatic F-statistic based signal detector and manually refined by an analyst. This study represents the first application of three distinct celerity-range and backazimuth models to an extensive suite of realistic signal detections for event location purposes. A singular celerity and backazimuth deviation model was previously constructed using ray tracing analysis based on an extensive archive of historical atmospheric specifications and is applied within this study to test location capabilities. Similarly, a set of multivariate, season and location specific models for celerity and backazimuth are compared to an empirical model that depends on the observations across the infrasound network and the GT events, which accounts for atmospheric propagation variations from source to receiver. Discrepancies between observed and predicted signal celerities result in locations with poor accuracy. Application of the empirical model improves both spatial localization precision and accuracy; all but one location estimates retain the true GT location within the 90 per cent confidence bounds. Average mislocation of the events is 15.49 km and average 90 per cent error ellipse areas are 4141 km2. The empirical model additionally reduces origin time residuals; origin time residuals from the other location models are in excess of 160 s while residuals produced with the empirical model are within 30 s of the true origin time. We demonstrate that event location accuracy is driven by a combination of signal propagation model and the azimuthal gap of detecting stations. A direct relationship between mislocation, error ellipse area and increased station azimuthal gaps indicate that for sparse networks, detection backazimuths may drive location biases over traveltime estimates.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1999

The Structure and Evolution of LOCBURST: The BATSE Burst Location Algorithm

The gamma-ray burst (GRB) location algorithm used to produce the BATSE GRB locations is described. The general flow of control of the current location algorithm is presented, and the significant properties of the various physical inputs required are identified. The development of the burst location algorithm during the releases of the BATSE IB, 2B, and 3B GRB catalogs is presented so that the reasons for the differences in the positions and error estimates between the catalogs can be understood. In particular, differences between the 2B and 3B locations are discussed for events that have moved significantly and the reasons for the changes explained. The locations of bursts located independently by the interplanetary network (IPN) are used to illustrate the effect on burst location accuracy of various components of the algorithm. IPN data and locations from other gamma-ray instruments are used to calculate estimates of the systematic errors on BATSE burst locations.

Pendleton, Geoffrey N.↗
NASA NTRS1998

The Structure of Evolution LOCBURST: The BATSE Burst Location Algorithm

The gamma-ray bursts (GRB) location algorithm used to produce the BATSE GRB locations is described. The general flow of control of the current location algorithm is presented and the significant properties of the various physical inputs required are identified. The development of the burst location algorithm during the releases of the BATSE 1B, 2B, and 3B gamma-ray burst catalogs is presented so that the reasons for the differences in the positions and error estimates between the catalogs can be understood. In particular, differences between the 2B and 3B locations are discussed for events that have moved significantly and the reasons for the changes explained. The locations of bursts located independently by the interplanetary network are used to illustrate the effect on burst location accuracy of various components of the algorithm. IPN data as well as locations from other gamma-ray instruments are used to calculate estimates of the systematic errors on BATSE burst locations.

Pendleton, Geoffrey N.↗
NASA NTRS2003

The Effect of Mission Location on Mission Costs and Equivalent System Mass

Equivalent System Mass (ESM) is used by the Advanced Life Support (ALS) community to quantify mission costs of technologies for space applications (Drysdale et al, 1999, Levri et al, 2000). Mass is used as a cost measure because the mass of an object determines propulsion (acceleration) cost (i.e. amount of fuel needed), and costs relating to propulsion dominate mission cost. Mission location drives mission cost because acceleration is typically required to initiate and complete a change in location. Total mission costs may be reduced by minimizing the mass of materials that must be propelled to each distinct location. In order to minimize fuel requirements for missions beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO), the hardware and astronauts may not all go to the same location. For example, on a Lunar or Mars mission, some of the hardware or astronauts may stay in orbit while the rest of the hardware and astronauts descend to the planetary surface. In addition, there may be disposal of waste or used hardware at various mission locations to avoid propulsion of mass that is no longer needed in the mission. This paper demonstrates how using location factors in the calculation of ESM can account for the effects of various acceleration events and can improve the accuracy and value of the ESM metric to mission planners. Even a mission with one location can benefit from location factor analysis if the alternative technologies under consideration consume resources at different rates. For example, a mission that regenerates resources will have a relatively constant mass compared to one that uses consumables and vents/discards mass along the way. This paper shows examples of how location factors can affect ESM calculations and how the inclusion of location factors can change the relative value of technologies being considered for development.

Fisher, John W.↗
NASA NTRS1991

A Dynamic Failure Model for Predicting the Impact that a Program Location has on the Program

This paper presents a dynamic technique for predicting the effect that a "location" of a program will have on the program's computational behavior. The technique is based on the three necessary and sufficient conditions for software failure to occur: (1) a fault must be executed, (2) the fault must adversely affect the data state, and (3) the adverse effect in a data state must affect program output. In order to predict the effect that a location of a program will have on the program's computational behavior, the following characteristics of each program location are estimated: (1) the probability that a location of the program is executed, (2) the probability that a location of the program noticeably affects the program state created by the location, and (3) the probability that the data states created by a location affect the program's output. With estimates of these characteristics for each location in a program, we can predict those locations where a fault can more easily remain undetected during testing, as well as predict the degree of testing necessary to be convinced that a fault is not remaining undetected in a particular location.

Voas, Jeffrey↗
DOE OSTI2025

Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling to Facilitate Qualification of Stack Sampling Probe Location

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling was used to help evaluate modifications to a radiological effluent stack and assist with establishing a stack sampling location that met the mixing criteria for qualification. Requirements for stack sampling location are listed in the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-2021 standard. Modeling was performed to help develop a suitable design for increasing building ventilation for the radiological effluent stack. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-2021 criteria for the air monitoring probe location are that the coefficient of variation of velocity uniformity, gaseous tracer uniformity, and particulate tracer uniformity must be less than or equal to 20%. Furthermore, no point in the sampling location may have a gaseous tracer concentration that varies from the mean concentration by more than 30%. Additionally, the flow angle at the sampling location must not be more than 20 degrees. The ANSI/HPS N13.1-2021 standard allows for models (physical or computational) to be employed to perform the full suite of qualification tests, followed by a more limited set of verification tests on the actual stack to qualify the stack sampling location. Here, a series of computational model simulations were employed to evaluate the stack qualification criteria. Significant time and re-source savings are achieved using CFD modeling. CFD modeling demonstrated that the stack meets the criteria at the sample probe location. Verification tests were performed on the modified stack to measure the velocity uniformity and flow angle at the stack sampling location, and results demonstrated that the CFD model results may be used to support the qualification of the stack sampling location.

Air Monitoring↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Integration of Wi-Fi Location-Based Services to Optimize Energy Efficient Commercial Building Operations

This project investigated and demonstrated the use of Wi-Fi Location-Based Services (LBS) to perform occupancy sensing in commercial buildings. Wi-Fi LBS can be used to detect the presence of Wi-Fi enabled mobile devices and laptops that accompany occupants as they move through the building. These signals can be used to determine occupant presence, head count, and location. When integrated with the building automation system, this emerging technology approach can be used to manage other connected systems such as lighting and HVAC to reduce energy usage in the building and improve occupant comfort. An open source location detection algorithm was developed, which uses data collected from three or more Wi-Fi access points to determine the presence and estimate the location of mobile devices and laptops. Access points can detect Wi-Fi enabled devices even if they are not connected to the existing Wi-Fi network. Building occupancy is determined based on the presence, location, and movement of these devices through the space. From lab and small-scale in-situ testing, the Location Detection Algorithm (LDA) was found to be accurate to within 10 feet and could be further refined by tuning the algorithm for the specific space characteristics such as layout and obstructions (walls, furniture, etc.). An open source method to integrate the occupancy data with existing building automations systems was investigated. The Wi-Fi occupancy sensing approach was then demonstrated and validated at commercial buildings located in Saint Paul, MN; Madison, WI; New York City; and Fort Worth, TX.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

Developing capacitated p-median location-allocation model in the spopt library to allow UCL student teacher placements using public transport

Location-allocation is a key tool within the GIS and network analysis toolbox. In this paper we discuss the real world application of a location-allocation case study (approx 800 students, 500 schools) from UCL using public transport. The use of public transportation is key for this case study, as many location-allocation approaches only make use of drive-time or walking-time distances, but the location of UCL in Greater London, UK makes the inclusion of public transport vital for this case study. The location-allocation is implemented as a capacitated p-median location-allocation model, using the spopt library, part of the Python Spatial Analysis Library (PySAL). The capacitated variation of the p-median location-allocation problem is a new addition to the spopt library, which this work will present. The results from the initial version of the capacitated p-median location-allocation problem has shown a marked improvement on public transport travel time, with public transport travel time reduced by 891 minutes overall for an initial sample of 93 students (9.58 minutes per student). Results will be presented below and plans for further improvement shared.

Bearman, Nick↗