Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “flow 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.

382 records · Page 22
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Resilient U.S. Land Ports of Entry

The continued operation of Land Ports of Entry (LPOE), managed by the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and General Services Administration% is vital to the U.S. economy and security. Border faculties are included in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Government Facilities Sector2, one of the 16 critical infrastructures "whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.'" Specifically, disruptions to the flow of border crossing traffic, in the form of closures or increased border crossing wait times, impact the economy and security of all countries involved. This paper describes a process for analyzing and improving the resilience of U.S. Land Ports of Entry. For LPOE, the team believes that energy resilience is the primary objective due to the complete reliance on the e-manifest system and the increasing use of Multi-Energy Portals (MEPs). Emanifests are part of CPB's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). They document several key pieces of information about cargo vehicles wishing to cross the border into the United States and are submitted before arriving at the port. Vehicles can be flagged for more invasive inspection based on the content of the e-manifest. MEPs are a non-intrusive inspection (NII) technology used to scan the contents of the cargo. Together MEPs and ACE serve an important role in aiding CBP with their mission to protect "the public from dangerous people and materials", and "enabling legitimate trade and travel.'" To analyze resilience of a port, the team would need to understand the port's current energy usage, which systems depend on energy and what backup systems exist, and any emergency operation plans that dictate how systems are operated in the event of a power outage. The team would also need to determine the design basis threats (DBTs) for the LPOE which could include natural disasters, manmade events, and accidents. The magnitudes of the DBTs are calculated and are then translated to expected impacts on the infrastructure and systems at the port. With this information gathered, existing LPOE models developed here at Sandia National Laboratories could be extended to support decisions about resilience. Current models are implemented in FlexSim, a 3rd party discrete event simulator. FlexSim provides 3-D visuals of physical layout that can reveal valuable insights, allows input to be variable (e.g. time it takes to interact with the CBP officer at primary inspection can vary) so that a whole range of possibilities can be captured in the results, and can be used to collect user-defined output metrics. Current LPOE models focus on cargo vehicle traffic, and process changes caused by the installation of new drive-through MEPs. Extending them to address resilience questions would require the addition of key pieces of information learned during the resilience analysis including critical systems, failure rates, and process changes for when failures occur. The primary output metric for current models is border crossing wait time. Additional metrics would also be added to the model to gain a more complete understanding of impacts related to resilience, for example, MEP scan rate. Once complete, the model could be used to analyze the effectiveness of mitigation strategies representing some future state.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Surface Properties of Double-Fin Generated Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions

Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction (SBLI) is ubiquitous in high-speed air vehicles. SBLI surface flowfield properties of crossing shocks induced by symmetric Double-Fins (DFs) at fin angles of 8° and 10° at Mach 2 are experimentally investigated; a 10° Single-Fin (SF) is also explored as a comparison. Surface visualization is used to capture distinct flowfield structures such as separation and upstream influence. Steady and unsteady Pressure-Sensitive Paints (PSPs) are used to obtain global surface pressure fields. Characteristics of DF-SBLI surface topology are discussed by comparing the corresponding SF-SBLI. Here, the effect of fin angle on DF-SBLI is characterized, and unsteady dynamics of the pressure field are examined. Spectral Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (SPOD) is performed on unsteady PSP, and traveling surface pressure waves and their frequency-dependent behavior are discussed. Dispersion relation of surface pressure waves is revealed by performing two-dimensional space–time Fourier transform on unsteady PSP, and the results are compared with the phase velocity distributions obtained from SPOD. Accompanying group velocity behavior is examined for distinct SBLI regions wherein wave propagation is found dependent on its frequency. Steady surface pressures along the centerline are compared with previous experimental data. Fin-tip spacing is found to be an essential parameter for scaling of upstream influence length.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Models, data, and scripts associated with “Prediction of Distributed River Sediment Respiration Rates using Community-Generated Data and Machine Learning”

This data package is associated with the publication “Prediction of Distributed River Sediment Respiration Rates using Community-Generated Data and Machine Learning’’ submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research: Machine Learning and Computation (Scheibe et al. 2024). River sediment respiration observations are expensive and labor intensive to obtain and there is no physical model for predicting this quantity. The Worldwide Hydrobiogeochemisty Observation Network for Dynamic River Systems (WHONDRS) observational data set (Goldman et al.; 2020) is used to train machine learning (ML) models to predict respiration rates at unsampled sites. This repository archives training data, ML models, predictions, and model evaluation results for the purposes of reproducibility of the results in the associated manuscript and community reuse of the ML models trained in this project. One of the key challenges in this work was to find an optimum configuration for machine learning models to work with this feature-rich (i.e. 100+ possible input variables) data set. Here, we used a two-tiered approach to managing the analysis of this complex data set: 1) a stacked ensemble of ML models that can automatically optimize hyperparameters to accelerate the process of model selection and tuning and 2) feature permutation importance to iteratively select the most important features (i.e. inputs) to the ML models. The major elements of this ML workflow are modular, portable, open, and cloud-based, thus making this implementation a potential template for other applications. This data package is associated with the GitHub repository found at Please see the file level metadata (flmd; “sl-archive-whondrs_flmd.csv”) for a list of all files contained in this data package and descriptions for each. Please see the data dictionary (dd; “sl-archive-whondrs_dd.csv”) for a list of all column headers contained within comma separated value (csv) files in this data package and descriptions for each. The GitHub repository is organized into five top-level directories: (1) “input_data” holds the training data for the ML models; (2) “ml_models” holds machine learning models trained on the data in “input_data”; (3) “scripts” contains data preprocessing and postprocessing scripts and intermediate results specific to this data set that bookend the ML workflow; (4) “examples” contains the visualization of the results in this repository including plotting scripts for the manuscript (e.g., model evaluation, FPI results) and scripts for running predictions with the ML models (i.e., reusing the trained ML models); (5) “output_data” holds the overall results of the ML model on that branch. Each trained ML model resides on its own branch in the repository; this means that inputs and outputs can be different branch-to-branch. Furthermore, depending on the number of features used to train the ML models, the preprocessing and postprocessing scripts, and their intermediate results, can also be different branch-to-branch. The “main-*” branches are meant to be starting points (i.e. trunks) for each model branch (i.e. sprouts). Please see the Branch Navigation section in the top-level README.md in the GitHub repository for more details. There is also one hidden directory “.github/workflows”. This hidden directory contains information for how to run the ML workflow as an end-to-end automated GitHub Action but it is not needed for reusing the ML models archived here. Please the top-level README.md in the GitHub repository for more details on the automation.

13C↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

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

Lisk, Matthew↗