Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Uncertainty visualization”

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.

385 records · Page 22
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Shallow cumuli cover and its uncertainties from ground-based lidar–radar data and sky images

Cloud cover estimates of single-layer shallow cumuli obtained from narrow field-of-view (FOV) lidar–radar and wide-FOV total sky imager (TSI) data are compared over an extended period (2000–2017 summers) at the established United States Atmospheric Radiation Measurement mid-continental Southern Great Plains site. We quantify the impacts of two factors on hourly and sub-hourly cloud cover estimates: (1) instrument-dependent cloud detection and data merging criteria and (2) FOV configuration. Enhanced observations at this site combine the advantages of the ceilometer, micropulse lidar (MPL) and cloud radar in merged data products. Data collected by these three instruments are used to calculate narrow-FOV cloud fraction (CF) as a temporal fraction of cloudy returns within a given period. Sky images provided by TSI are used to calculate the wide-FOV fractional sky cover (FSC) as a fraction of cloudy pixels within a given image. To assess the impact of the first factor on CF obtained from the merged data products, we consider two additional subperiods (2000–2010 and 2011–2017 summers) that mark significant instrumentation and algorithmic advances in the cloud detection and data merging. We demonstrate that CF obtained from ceilometer data alone and FSC obtained from sky images provide the most similar and consistent cloud cover estimates; hourly bias and root-mean-square difference (RMSD) are within 0.04 and 0.12, respectively. However, CF from merged MPL–ceilometer data provides the largest estimates of the multiyear mean cloud cover, about 0.12 (35 %) and 0.08 (24 %) greater than FSC for the first and second subperiods, respectively. CF from merged ceilometer–MPL–radar data has the strongest subperiod dependence with a bias of 0.08 (24 %) compared to FSC for the first subperiod and shows no bias for the second subperiod. The strong period dependence of CF obtained from the combined ceilometer–MPL–radar data is likely results from a change in what sensors are relied on to detect clouds below 3 km. After 2011, the MPL stopped being used for cloud top height detection below 3 km, leaving the radar as the only sensor used in cloud top height retrievals. To quantify the FOV impact, a narrow-FOV FSC is derived from the TSI images. We demonstrate that FOV configuration does not modify the bias but impacts the RMSD (0.1 hourly, 0.15 sub-hourly). In particular, the FOV impact is significant for sub-hourly observations, where 41 % of narrow- and wide-FOV FSC differ by more than 0.1. A new “quick-look” tool is introduced to visualize impacts of these two factors through integration of CF and FSC data with novel TSI-based images of the spatial variability in cloud cover. The influence of cloud field organization, such cloud streets parallel to the wind direction, on narrow- and wide-FOV cloud cover estimates can be visually assessed.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. 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.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. 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.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. 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.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Validating Greater Sage-Grouse Individual-based Model (IBM) Tool (Final Report)

The project focused on validating the previously developed Greater Sage-Grouse Individual-based Model (GrSG IBM; LaGory et al. 2012, 2021). The objective was to transform this predictive, spatially and temporally explicit model into a portable resource to assist siting/resource managers in proactively assessing the cumulative impacts of wind energy development on the greater sage-grouse. Utilizing a bottom-up, individual-based approach, the GrSG IBM accounts for landscape context and species behavior, aiming to reduce uncertainty in estimating development impacts and support ecologically mindful land-based wind energy development. The validation effort covered approximately 6,540 km 2 near the Seven Mile Hill Wind Project in Wyoming. The GrSG IBM tool, built on the NetLogo platform (Tisue and Wilensky 2004), was executed over a 50-year period, with the analysis focusing on years following a 10-year initialization phase. Key results demonstrated the tool’s biological soundness across five key biological metrics: non-chick age class distribution (older than 10 weeks), adult sex ratio, life expectancy, population size, and overall population growth. For instance, the tool estimated that 58.6% of the non-chick population was reproductively immature, while the reference ranges from 51.4% to 57.8% (Patterson 1952, Rogers 1964). Experts confirmed the tool’s estimate was within a reasonable range for the species. The tool estimated average life expectancy of 1.43 years, while the reference ranges from 0.9 years to 1.1 years (Ammann 1957, Hamerstrom 1949). Experts also supported the model’s life-expectancy estimate as ecologically sound for the species in the study area. In terms of population change, the model estimated an annual shift between a 0.6% decline and a 1.0% increase over 50 years. While the reference suggests 2.9% annual decline in range-wide populations (Cortes et al. 2023), that includes many at-risk populations in South Dakota and Washington, for example. Our study area—in the northeastern part of Carbon County and western-edge of Albany County, Wyoming—is one of the remaining greater sage-grouse habitats supporting some of the most stable populations. Experts confirmed that the range of the annual population change spanning from a 0.6% decline to a 1.0% increase estimated by the tool was reasonable for our study area for this reason and confirmed that aligned with population estimates from existing studies on the greater sage-grouse and wind energy development in the study area (LeBeau et al. 2017a, Smith et al. 2024). Furthermore, the project showed that temporally explicit biological metrics generated by the GrSG IBM tool can complement the USGS’ Prioritizing Restoration of Sagebrush Ecosystems Tool (PReSET; Duchardt et al. 2021) by incorporating habitat restoration strategies into seasonal habitat suitability models to visualize population responses over time.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

MOSCATO Development and Integration in Fiscal Year 2025: Implementation of Multiphase, Multiphysics Modeling Capabilities for Molten Salt Systems

MOSCATO (Molten Salt Chemistry and Transport) is a multiphysics code that provides high-fidelity, coupled simulations of fluid flow, heat transfer, mass transfer, chemistry, electrochemical phenomena, and alloy corrosion for molten salt systems. In FY25, significant developments were made to the code package, enhancing its capabilities for modeling all relevant phenomena within operating moltens salt reactors (MSRs). The developments and activities in FY25 included: 1. Implementation of Level-Set methods to enable modeling of single-bubble behavior in molten salts. In FY25, the Level-Set two-phase flow modeling implementation was improved to simulate single bubble behavior with molten salt media. The large density and viscosity ratios between typical gases and molten salt liquids present challenges for these types of numerical solvers. With enhancements to the pressure projection method, MOSCATO’s Level-Set solver was able to be successfully validated to experiments related to helium bubble rise in stagnant molten salt. The simulated bubble rising velocity showed reasonable good agreement with experimental measurements. The bubble shape and dynamics were also visually compared with experimental snapshots, demonstrating a good qualitative match. 2. Generation of mass transfer correlations for multiphase flow systems. To enable calculations of the tritium transport across the interface between gas bubbles and salt, we modeled high- Schmidt-number mass transfer around a sphere across a broad range of Reynolds numbers. The mesh near the sphere surface was highly refined to resolve steep concentration gradients caused by the low diffusion coefficient. Literature-based mass transfer correlations were compared with the numerical results, and modifications were proposed to improve agreement, particularly at higher Schmidt numbers. These mass transfer correlations were subsequently provided to other national laboratories to help enable high quality mass transfer simulations using lower-order solvers under development within the NEAMS program. 3. Preliminary implementation of a bubbly flow solver. To model bubbly flow in molten salt, we implemented a bubbly flow solver for void fractions less than 5%. To do so, an algebraic relative velocity model that assumes small bubbles with rapid momentum equilibration was added to MOSCATO to compute bubble velocities. Preliminary comparisons with experimental data showed reasonable agreement, and further improvements are underway. 4. Generation of mass transfer correlations for MSRE subchannel The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) was a landmark historical project that demonstrated the feasibility of molten-salt reactor technology. The MSRE campaign also generated a significant body of experimental data and reports that continue to support molten-salt–related research. In this report, the MSRE core subchannel was used as the reference geometry for a mass transfer study performed with MOSCATO. The geometry and computational mesh were adapted from a previous study, providing adequate resolution for the relatively low Reynolds number in this case. Additional mesh refinement was applied to reach higher Schmidt numbers, enabling the derivation of a reliable mass-transfer correlation for the present scenario. 5. Simulations of oxygen ingressions into molten salt. In the previous fiscal year, we initiated a study to simulate oxygen ingression in stagnant salt. As oxygen enters the salt through its surface, it reacts with Ce 3+ to form solid CeO 2 and other reaction products. To more fully capture the complex diffusion-convection-reaction mechanisms, capabilities for modeling natural convection in the salt vessel were added. These were needed as the flow of the ingressed gas induced flow in the salt caused by surface shear and non-isothermal effects. With these updated physics in place, we were able to successfully reproduce the experimental results for the rate of change of CeCl 3 concentrations versus time. 6. Flow corrosion model validation. In FY24, MOSCATO’s corrosion model was validated against static corrosion experiments. In FY25, this work was extended to a flow corrosion experiment, where FLiNaK salt was driven by natural convection, with initial salt impurities to initiate corrosion. Despite uncertainties in parameters such as elemental diffusion coefficients in the alloy and unknown H + concentrations, the simulations achieved good agreement with experimental results, especially in predicting sample mass losses.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Robust Carbon Dioxide Plume Imaging Using Joint Tomographic Inversion of Seismic Onset Time and Distributed Pressure and Temperature Measurements (Final Report)

We develop and demonstrate rapid and cost-effective methodologies for spatiotemporal tracking of CO2 plumes during geologic sequestration using joint inversion of seismic data and distributed pressure and temperature measurements. Key elements of our methodology are: (a) a computationally efficient approach to pressure and temperature propagation, (b) analysis of time lapse seismic data using a novel ‘seismic onset time’ approach to detect fluid front propagation, and (c) data assimilation and uncertainty assessment via joint inversion of pressure, temperature and time lapse seismic data, and (d) validating the numerical tomographic inversion using a CO2 injection demonstration projects, specifically data collected from the from the Petra Nova Parish Holdings CCUS project in the West Ranch Field, Texas and the Chester-16 reef CO2 injection site in Northern Michigan which is part of the DOE Midwestern Carbon Sequestration Project. The research team is led by Texas A&M University and includes Battelle as a subcontractor with support from Shell, Anadarko, Chevron and JX Nippon. A carbon dioxide (CO2) water-alternating-gas (WAG) pilot was conducted to gain insights into tertiary oil recovery potential via CO2 flood in the West Ranch Field as part of the Petra Nova project, the world’s largest post-combustion CO2 capture and utilization initiative. With a fluvial formation geology and large contrasts in permeability, this is a challenging and novel application of CO2 enhanced oil recovery (EOR). We build a predictive dynamic model of the subsurface that incorporates the multiphase and compositional data acquired during the pilot operation. The calibrated model is used for the carbon dioxide plume imaging. The study began with an initialization of the pilot sector model extracted from a calibrated full-field model. The pilot model calibration follows a two-step hierarchical workflow. First, we performed a large-scale update of the permeability distribution by integrating available bottomhole pressure and multiphase production data. In the second step, local permeability field is fine-tuned using a streamline-based method to match CO2 breakthrough times at the producers. The predictive capability of the calibrated model was verified through two blind validation tests: (1) the model showed good agreement with saturation logs acquired at two observation wells; and (2) the model reproduced the CO2 recovery as a fraction of the injected CO2. The use of seismic onset times has shown great promise for integrating near-continuous seismic surveys for updating geologic models. In this study, we analyze the impact of seismic survey frequency on the onset time approach aiming to extend the application of onset time to infrequent seismic surveys. In addition, we quantitatively examine the nonlinearity of the onset time method and compare it to the commonly used amplitude inversion method. We carry out a sensitivity analysis of seismic survey frequency based on the complete seismic survey data (over 175 surveys) of steam injection in a heavy oil reservoir (Peace River Unit) in Canada. Our results show that an adequate onset time map can be obtained from the infrequent seismic surveys by interpolation between seismic surveys as long as there is no change in the dominant underlying physics between the successive surveys. The study also shows that nonlinearity of the onset time method can be -smaller than that of the amplitude inversion method by several orders of magnitude. Application to the Brugge benchmark case shows that the onset time method obtains comparable permeability update as the traditional seismic amplitude inversion method with faster computation and improved convergence characteristics. We extend the streamline-based data integration approach to incorporate distributed temperature sensor (DTS) data using the concept of thermal tracer travel time. Then, a hierarchical workflow composed of evolutionary and streamline methods is employed to jointly history match the DTS and pressure data. Finally, CO2 saturation and streamline maps are used to visualize the CO2 plume movement during the sequestration process. The hierarchical workflow is applied to a carbon sequestration project in a carbonate reef reservoir within the Northern Niagaran Pinnacle Reef Trend in Michigan, USA. The monitoring data set consists of distributed temperature sensing (DTS) data acquired at the injection well and a monitoring well, flowing bottom-hole pressure data at the injection well, and time-lapse pressure measurements at several locations along the monitoring well. The history matching results indicate that the CO2 movement is mostly restricted to the intended zones of injection which is consistent with an independent warm-back analysis of the temperature data. In addition to employing simulation models and inverse methods for CO2 plume imaging, we also initialized a data-driven technology for detecting inter-well connectivity based on production and pressure data. Our machine-learning framework is built on the statistical recurrent unit (SRU) model and interprets well-based injection/production data into inter-well connectivity without relying on a geologic model. We test it on synthetic and field-scale CO2 EOR projects utilizing the water-alternating-gas (WAG) process. The validation of the proposed data-driven inter-well connectivity assessment is performed using synthetic data from simulation models where inter-well connectivity can be easily measured using the streamline-based flux allocation. The SRU model is shown to offer excellent prediction performance on the synthetic case. Despite significant measurement noise and frequent well shut-ins imposed in the field-scale case, the SRU model offers good prediction accuracy, the overall relative error of the phase production rates at most producers ranges from 10% to 30%. It is shown that the dominant connections identified by the data-driven method and streamline method are in close agreement. Texas A&M University, the lead organization in the project, was primarily responsible for the development of tomographic approaches for CO2 plume mapping in conjunction with distributed pressure, temperature and seismic onset time data. Battelle, as a subcontractor, was primarily responsible for the development of analytical and empirical methods for analyzing transient injection rate and pressure data from point/line sources such as injection and monitoring wells. An additional area of emphasis for Battelle was the use of machine learning for such tasks as inferring reservoir connectivity information from injection-production data, and identifying variable importance for machine learning-based proxy models developed from full-physics simulations. The two organizations also collaborated on the application of the tomographic inversion methodology for a field data set.

02 PETROLEUM↗