Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “RuN”

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 415 records · Page 23

How negative feedback and the ambient environment limit the influence of recombination in common envelope evolution

ABSTRACT We perform 3D hydrodynamical simulations to study recombination and ionization during the common envelope (CE) phase of binary evolution, and develop techniques to track the ionic transitions in time and space. We simulate the interaction of a $2\, \mathrm{M_\odot }$ red giant branch primary and a $1\, \mathrm{M_\odot }$ companion modelled as a particle. We compare a run employing a tabulated equation of state (EOS) that accounts for ionization and recombination, with a run employing an ideal gas EOS. During the first half of the simulations, ∼15 per cent more mass is unbound in the tabulated EOS run due to the release of recombination energy, but by simulation end the difference has become negligible. We explain this as being a consequence of (i) the tabulated EOS run experiences a shallower inspiral and hence smaller orbital energy release at late times because recombination energy release expands the envelope and reduces drag, and (ii) collision and mixing between expanding envelope gas, ejecta and circumstellar ambient gas assists in unbinding the envelope, but does so less efficiently in the tabulated EOS run where some of the energy transferred to bound envelope gas is used for ionization. The rate of mass unbinding is approximately constant in the last half of the simulations and the orbital separation steadily decreases at late times. A simple linear extrapolation predicts a CE phase duration of ${\sim}2\, {\rm yr}$, after which the envelope would be unbound.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

High-Brightness Self-seeded X-ray Free Electron Laser to Precisely Map Macromolecular Structure

Two datasets were uploaded. Run numbers #r0101~#r0112 were collected from self-seeded XFEL mode. Run numbers #r0079~#r0088 and #r0090 were collected from SASE mode. The run number is shown in the file name as "ue_191027_SFX_runnumber-c00.cxi.". To understand the effect of self-seeded XFEL source, we used the datasets from run numbers #r0102 to #r0112. Datasets used were randomly chosen. - SS1 is from #r0102~#r0112. - SS2 is from #r0102~#r0105 and #r0109. - SS3 is from #r0104 and #r0105. To compare self-seeded mode and SASE mode, we also used corresponding three SASE datasets labeled as SASE1, SASE2, and SASE3 from run numbers #r0079 to #r0089. Datasets used were randomly chosen. - SASE1 is from #r0079~#r0089. - SASE2 is from #r0080, #r0081, #r0085, #r0087. - SASE3 is composed of #r0079, #r0080.

Lysozyme↗

BioC2G Tool v1

The BioC2G tool provides an interface for running technoeconomic analyses and life-cycle assessments of biofuel and bioproduct production pathways. Models for the pathways are currently built into the tool: limonene, limonane, bisabolene, bisabolane, ethanol, isoprenol, DMCO, and HEFA. Additionally, a "Custom" option is available for analyzing a bioproduction pathway not included among the built-in examples. Users must supply key product properties and process parameters. Three types of model runs are available in the tool: minimum selling price (MSP), water consumption, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Running the MSP model yields a breakdown of MSP by major process stage of production, along with a a table of estimated capital expenditures (CAPEX) and annual operating expenditures (OPEX). Running the water consumption and GHG models yields a breakdown of water consumed and carbon emissions respectively, per unit of end product. A breakdown of these metrics by major process stage is also provided. Model run results can be viewed in the web interface numerically and graphically, as well as downloaded in CSV format. Detailed documentation on model methodology and assumptions is also available for download.

Huntington, Tyler↗

matsim-agents v1.0

matsim-agents is a multi-agent AI framework for atomistic materials simulation and discovery. It orchestrates large language models (LLMs), machine-learned interatomic potentials (MLIPs), and DFT codes into a single agentic loop running on laptops and DOE leadership-class supercomputers. MULTI-AGENT ORCHESTRATION A LangGraph state machine with three nodes: a Planner that converts a natural-language research objective into structured tasks; an Executor that dispatches atomistic tools and loops until the queue is empty; and an Analyst that summarizes results into a human-readable report. State is checkpointed after every step and human-in-the-loop gates can be inserted at any edge. HYPOTHESIS-DRIVEN DISCOVERY CHAT An interactive REPL (matsim-agents chat) that couples LLM dialogue with atomistic simulation. Chemical formulas are automatically detected in conversation turns and trigger a full crystal-phase exploration: structure generation → relaxation → stability scoring → result injection back into the conversation, creating a closed hypothesis-refinement loop. CRYSTAL PHASE ENUMERATION Given a composition, the phase explorer enumerates prototypes by stoichiometry: elemental (fcc/bcc/hcp/sc/diamond), binary 1:1 (rocksalt/CsCl/zincblende/ wurtzite/fluorite/rutile), ternary 1:1:3 (cubic perovskite), ternary 1:2:4 (perovskite + spinel), quaternary 1:1:2:6 (Fm-3m double perovskite). 2-D prototypes (graphene, h-BN, MoS2 2H/1T) and multilayer stacking are also supported via --include-2d and --num-layers. SUPERCELL GENERATION AND SITE DECORATION Auto-tiling to a minimum atom count (--min-atoms), explicit NxNxN tiling (--supercell), symmetry-distinct site decorations (--n-orderings), and isotropic lattice-scale sweeps (--lattice-scales) for volume bracketing. MLFF RELAXATION AND STABILITY SCORING HydraGNN (multi-headed GNN) drives structure relaxation via ASE with FIRE, BFGS, or BFGSLineSearch. Stability output: delta-E/atom ranking across phases and a max-residual-force dynamical-stability proxy. Other MLIPs (MACE, NequIP, Orb) can be plugged in through the same interface. DFT BACKENDS Quantum ESPRESSO pw.x and VASP 6.6 are first-class labellers. Both have validated GPU builds and SLURM/PBS launchers for three DOE platforms: Frontier (AMD MI250X, ROCm), Aurora (Intel PVC, oneAPI), Perlmutter (NVIDIA A100, CUDA). QE produces ~100 binaries (pw.x, ph.x, epw.x, ...). VASP supports scf, relax, vc-relax, and vc-relax-shape run types. ACTIVE-LEARNING LOOP matsim-agents al run CONFIG.yaml drives an iterative HydraGNN-DFT loop: MD generates candidates → ensemble/MC-dropout uncertainty selects the most informative → DFT labels them in parallel inside one allocation → dataset grows → HydraGNN retrains → repeat. DFT backend is a single YAML toggle (dft.backend: vasp | qe). LLM-generated seed structures are supported (no curated POSCAR library needed). Config uses ${VAR}, ${VAR:-default}, ${VAR:?msg} shell-style substitution for cross-user/cross-site portability. LLM BACKENDS Ollama (local, default), vLLM (HPC multi-GPU serving), OpenAI, Anthropic, HuggingFace Transformers+Accelerate. Selected at runtime via flag or env var with no code changes. HPC PORTABILITY Same Python entry points run on Frontier (ROCm 7.2), Aurora (oneAPI), and Perlmutter (CUDA 12). DFT and ML stacks are never co-loaded in the same shell; they couple through the scheduler and filesystem. Advanced multi-node launchers (serve, discovery-chat, single-relaxation, active-learning, QE warm-start) are provided for all three platforms. CODABENCH COMPETITION BUNDLE A self-contained benchmark: 159 atomistic test structures across 11 material classes, 5 tasks (formation energy, forces, ML relaxation, AI-DFT relaxation, phase stability ranking), public/private leaderboard split (30/70), and four ready-to-run baselines: MACE-MP-0, HydraGNN, UMA, AllScAIP.

Lupo Pasini, Massimiliano [Oak Ridge National Labo↗

Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition for Electrochemical Separation Experimentation

The Python-based program is a laboratory automation tool designed to control and monitor electrochemical systems. The tool was developed for capacitive deionization (CDI) experiments, but it can be used for any system that requires controlled voltage or current segments and multi-parameter monitoring. The program integrates hardware components to run user-defined experimental parameters, providing operational control of a programmable power supply, peristaltic pump, and data acquisition devices. Currently, the program is structured with a workflow that includes an initialization (or pre-run) phase, a main loop, and a post-experiment stabilization (or post-run) phase. The initialization phase prepares and stabilizes the cell, ensuring that the electrodes and solution reach a baseline state before the experiment begins. The main loop consists of multiple voltage segments that repeat, controlling the experiment while recording key parameters such as time, voltage, current, pH, and conductivity. Finally, the post-experiment stabilization phase allows the system to stabilize after the experiment, returning the cell and solution to equilibrium conditions before ending the sequence. The program is designed with four variations, each tailored to different experimental needs. All variations include both the initialization and post-experiment stabilization stages, which run for a set amount of time, voltage, current, and flow rate before and after the main experiment block. The main loop runs for a set number of cycles, as defined by the user input, and each cycle is composed of 2 or 4 segments. The 4 program variations are described as follows: Program 1: The main program includes 2 segments. Each segment is defined to have a set duration, flow rate, voltage, and current. This program measures conductivity, flow rate, voltage, and current. Program 2: The main program expands Program 1 to include 4 segments. Each segment has a specified duration, flow rate, voltage, and current. Like Program 1, it measures conductivity, flow rate, voltage, and current. Program 3: The main program consists of 2 segments, each defined by time, flow rate, voltage, and current. In addition to conductivity, flow rate, voltage, and current, Program 3 collects pH and temperature data through a 4-channel data acquisition device. Program 4: This program independently controls two channels of a multi-channel power supply simultaneously. While conductivity can only be measured for one cell at a time, the dual-channel control makes it possible to operate two cells simultaneously under different voltage/current conditions. The main program includes 2 segments.For each program, all measurements are automatically logged and integrated into a single Excel output file. Data are displayed in numerical format and plotted, both in real time, to track system performance. A key feature of the program is its ability to synchronize all outputs so that every measurement shares a single timestamp, ensuring accurate alignment of voltage, current, pH, conductivity, and pH data.By combining hardware control, real-time monitoring, and unified data collection, this program significantly reduces manual workload and minimizes errors, making it a reliable platform for researchers, engineers, and laboratory technicians conducting CDI experiments, among other electrochemical tests.

Valentino, Lauren [Argonne National Laboratory (AN↗

The Application of a Genetic Algorithm to the Optimization of a Mesoscale Model for Emergency Response

Besides solving the equations of momentum, heat, and moisture transport on the model grid, mesoscale weather models must account for subgrid-scale processes that affect the resolved model variables. These are simulated with model parameterizations, which often rely on values preset by the user. Such “free” model parameters, along with others set to initialize the model, are often poorly constrained, requiring that a user select each from a range of plausible values. Finding the values to optimize any forecasting tool can be accomplished with a search algorithm, and one such process—the genetic algorithm (GA)—has become especially popular. As applied to modeling, GAs represent a Darwinian process: an ensemble of simulations is run with a different set of parameter values for each member, and the members subsequently judged to be most accurate are selected as “parents” who pass their parameters onto a new generation. At the U.S. Department of Energy’s Savannah River Site in South Carolina, we are applying a GA to the Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) mesoscale weather model, which supplies input to a model to simulate the dispersion of an airborne contaminant as part of the site’s emergency response preparations. An ensemble of forecasts is run each day, weather data are used to “score” the individual members of the ensemble, and the parameters from the best members are used for the next day’s forecasts. As meteorological conditions change, the parameters change as well, maintaining a model configuration that is best adapted to atmospheric conditions. Significance Statement We wanted to develop a forecasting system by which a weather model is run over the Savannah River Site each day and repeatedly adjusted according to how well it performed the previous day. To run the model, a series of values (parameters) must be set to control how the model will calculate winds, temperatures, and other desired variables. Each day the model was run several times using different combinations of these parameters and later compared with observed meteorological conditions. Parameters that produced the most accurate forecasts were preferentially reused to create the forecasts for the next day. The process was tested for the summer of 2020 and exhibited lower errors than forecasts produced by the model using default values of the parameters.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

HERO WEC V1.0 - WEC-Sim Model (July 2024)

**This submission supersedes submission MHKDR-483** This submission file contains the files that are needed to simulate NREL's HERO WEC (hydraulic and electric reverse osmosis wave energy converter). This requires the user to have already installed WEC-Sim. In addition to the standard toolboxes that are required to run WEC-Sim the user will also need the Simscape Fluids and Simscape Driveline packages. The zip file (HERO_V1_WECSim_2024.zip) contains the following: - HERO_HPTO_2024.slx: Simulink-based WEC Sim model of the first gen (V1.0) Hydraulic PTO (power take-off) that was designed for the HERO WEC. This model has been updated since submission #483 based on in-laboratory experimental results. - wecSimInputFile.m: Input file needed to run the model - userDefinedFunctionsMCR.m: MCR (multi condition run) script that is needed if a use wants to simulate multiple wave conditions. - geometry (folder): Includes the geometry file that is needed for visualization - hydroData (folder): Includes the required WAMIT data to run WEC-Sim -HydVisualization.mlx: Visualization script to plot simulation results (not needed to run)

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

Total metals, sulfur and organic carbon data; Slate River floodplain, Crested Butte, CO; March 2021-October 2021

This data package includes processed and undiluted measurements for metal, sulfur and organic carbon concentrations from pore water (groundwater) samples from the Slate River floodplain of Crested Butte, CO, a focus field site for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? Samples were collected between March and October of 2021. These measurements were all recorded at the Environmental Measurements Facility (EM-1) at Stanford University in Stanford, CA. Groundwater samples were extracted from a network of installed rhizon (Rhizosphere Research Products, part no. 19.60.21F, 0.6 micrometer mesh size) and piezometer wells within the river floodplain. All water samples were shaded from sun exposure during extraction from the subsurface and preserved at 2C until measured at EM-1.Analysis by ICP-MS:Measurements for total metals were performed on an inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometer (ICP-OES; iCAP 6300, Thermo Scientific, Cambridge, U.K.). Calibration standards were prepared from the mulit element stock solution (Sigma-Aldrich Multielement standard for ICP, St. Louis, MO) using matrix matched to sample solutions (2% HNO3). Calibration curves included 5 points with correlation coefficients of >0.99. The QC protocol includes a continuing calibration blank and quality control samples that are analyzed just after calibration and again every 20 samples and at the completion of the run. Acceptable QC responses must be between 90-110% of the certified value. Analysis by Total Organic Carbon:Dissolved organic carbon concentrations were quantified on a total organic carbon (TOC) analyzer (TOC-L, Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) running the NPOC method. Standard curves were developed using an Organic Carbon Standard from RICCA Chemical Company (Arlington,TX). A series of 4 to 6 standards were automatically diluted by the instrument in a concentration range that spans that of the samples. A blank sample was run just after the calibration curve and at the end of the run. A QC sample was run every 25 samples. Acceptable QC responses must be between 90-110% of the certified value.All files are in csv format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Earth System Model Simulations of Ameriflux sites using dynamic roots and dynamic leaf to root allocation

This data package contains point-scale Earth System Model simulations run with DOE's E3SM Model. The package includes four sets of simulations, one set of simulations run in the default configuration, a second set of simulations run with the dynamic root module enabled, the third set with dynamic leaf to fine root allocation, and the fourth with the combination of dynamic roots and dynamic allocation. These simulations were run in point mode a Ameriflux sites, US-MMS, US-Moz, US-Syv, and US-NR1. These datasets can be used to assess the impact that dynamic roots have on Land Surface fluxes such as carbon and water. The simulations were run with atmospheric forcing from the Global Soil Wetness Project. We provide specifically here Gross Primary Production, Transpiration, relative root fraction per soil layer as well as Air Temperature, Precipitation and all the parameterizations used for the simulations. Our purpose for generating and analyzing these simulations was to assess the role that root dynamics and foraging for water has in the recovery timescale of ecosystems following climate perturbation. All data provided are in the "netcdf" format using standard CF-1 (Climate and Forecast) Convention. The data are all machine readable using various software platforms including Matlab, NCO, Panoply and R.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

A Comparison of High Intensity Proton Efficiencies for Rf Harmonics 1 and 2

There have been many changes to the Booster setup over the past seven years, but the most fundamental physical change is probably the change from an Rf harmonic of 2 to 1. By looking at the intensity data over this period it is possible to compare the running efficiencies in each case. The harmonic change occurred at the beginning of the 1998 run. Another fundamental, though administrative, change that occurred after the 1998 run was the advent of ALARA alarms that limit the amount of beam loss that is allowed to occur during different parts of the cycle. These ALARA alarm limits also depend on the AGS repetition period since it is the amount of beam energy lost per unit time that is used as the criterion for these alarms. The 1998 h=1 run did not have an ALARA constraint, but subsequent h=1 runs did have that constraint. The highest Booster proton intensity was obtained in the h=2 mode (about 23 Tp). At best, the h=1 mode only yielded about 20 Tp per cycle. Is it because the h=2 setup can produce higher intensity than the h=1 setup that the h=2 intensity was higher, or is it because other factors are responsible? This note seeks to shed some light on this question. In order to compare the two setups (h=1 vs. h=2) intensity scaler data was taken from the setup books over the past seven years. In general, this data was taken when the Booster was in an optimized state. What ‘optimized’ means is not so clearly defined, but would typically mean that the Booster configuration was ‘optimized’ so that it yields the highest intensity late in the AGS given physical and other constraints.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗

BEE - FY20 P6-3: Release BEEWorkflowManager, BEETaskManager, and client application 2.3.6.01 – LANL ATDM ST / STNS01-4 P6 Milestone Completion Documentation

Release BEEWorkflowManager, BEETaskManager, and client software. The BEEWorkflowManager daemon runs on the HPC cluster login node. It accepts workflows submitted by the BEE client. These workflows are specified using the Common Workflow Language (CWL) standard. The BEEWorkflowManager loads workflows into the Neo4j graph database to create the workflow directed acyclic graph (DAG), and submits the workflow tasks to the BEETaskManager for execution. The BEEWorkflowManager records the state of the workflow and its tasks, and communicates this state to the BEE client. The BEEWorkflowManager will start, pause, and cancel a running workflow and its tasks at the command of the BEE client. The BEETaskManager daemon runs on the HPC cluster login node. It accepts tasks from the BEEWorkflowManager, turns those tasks into HPC resource manager jobs (e.g. a slurm job script), and submits the job to the cluster resource manager. The BEETaskManager then tracks the status of the job (pending, running, complete) and updates the BEEWorkflowManager. The BEETaskManager will also cancel a queued or running job when commanded to do so by the BEEWorkflowManager. The first release of the BEETaskManager will support the Slurm resource manager and the Charliecloud linux container runtime.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Current Magnitude and Frequency Response of SIPROTEC Relays

This project examined the current magnitude and frequency response of 7SJ61 and 7SJ62 SIPROTEC relays. The measured sample frequencies for the 7SJ61 and 7SJS62 relays were 800 and 960 Hz, respectively. The relays were tested at frequencies of up to 1 and 20.16 kHz. Two experiments were run in a lab environment. The first experiment was run at frequencies of up to 1 kHz every 10 Hz. The second one was run at frequencies of up to 20.16 kHz every 200 and 240 Hz (common factors of sample rate frequency) for the 7SJ61 and 7SJ62 SIPROTEC relays, respectively. Both experiments were set at a current magnitude of 0.1 and 0.5 Arms. A testbed with a Relay Test Equipment (RTE) was set to run the experiment at frequencies of up to 1 kHz, while a testbed with a RTE and High Frequency Power Source/ Amplifier (HFPS/A) was set to run at frequencies of up to 20.16 kHz. Currents of 0.1 and 0.5 Arms at different frequencies were connected at Phase A of the relays, and a current of 1 Arms (60 Hz) was connected at Phase B of relays. The 1 Arms current allowed the relays to trip and saved their record events by setting both relays at a definite-time overcurrent protection function. The record events were collected after the 7SJ61 and 7SJ62 relays tripped, and the current magnitude and frequency were plotted. The record events from the relays were collected using the DIGSI® 4 software. The SYNCHROWAVE® Event and MATLAB® software were then used to plot the current magnitude and frequency, respectively, from the relay record events. The current magnitude and frequency were plotted at time and frequency domain, respectively.The 7SJ61 and 7SJ62 relays measured source frequencies of up to 400 and 480 Hz, respectively. The percentage error of frequency for the relays increased after 400 and 480 Hz, respectively. The 7SJ62 relay with 0.1 and 0.5 Arms measured the alias frequency up to 1440 Hz. The 7SJ61 relay with 0.1 and 0.5 Arms measured the alias frequency up to 1000 and 1200 Hz, respectively. At frequencies higher than the alias frequency, the relays measured a DC amplitude current instead of an AC amplitude current. In the DC amplitude current zone, non-desired frequencies were measured by both relays. The current magnitude intensity (dB) for the 7SJ61 and 7SJ62 relays from 1 to 20.16 kHz were plotted. The current magnitude intensity for the 7SJ61 relay decreased up to 2600 and 1200 Hz for 0.5 and 0.1 Arms tests, respectively. However, the current magnitude intensity for the 7SJ62 relay decreased up to 4800 and 2640 Hz for 0.5 and 0.1 Arms tests, respectively. The current magnitude and frequency response study for the 7SJ61 and 7SJ62 relays was performed satisfactorily, observing the source, alias, and non-desired measured frequency zones for both relays.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Data and Insights for the KRUSTY Nuclear-Powered Tests

This document, and the associated files, describe all of the data from the KRUSTY warm criticals and the KRUSTY nuclear system test. The warm criticals were a group of tests where fission power heated the core and the feedback response was studied. There were 3 experiments, the 15-cent run (which was a true “free run”), followed by 30-cent and 60-cent runs, where reactivity was added to heat the core to higher temperatures. The nuclear system test (often referred to as the full-run or the final-run), engaged the power conversion system and evaluated system performance. These experiments are described in a pair of NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY papers, which includes plots of the data that this document-set includes. Note that a lot of information in this document is based on my interpretation and could be wrong, but I’ve included it to potentially save some people a lot of time and headaches by trying to figure out which instrumentation to believe, but beware treating anything I say as fact. I’ve also included several post-irradiation photos, to show some thermocouple locations and indicate possible changes in emissivity and/or geometry (although no changes in geometry were indicated).

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

A Scalable Process for Upcycling Carbon Dioxide (CO 2 ) and Coal Combustion Residues into Construction Products

Anthropogenic sources of carbon dioxide are generated from a number of sources, but the key among these are ordinary Portland cement (OPC) production and combustion of fossil fuels. Cement production is the largest global CO 2 source from the mineral decomposition of carbonates. Combination of the limestone decomposition and thermal requirements of the clinkering process causes cement production to contribute 8-9% of annual global CO 2 emissions. Combustion of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) was shown to contribute a much larger portion of global CO 2 emissions. As of 2018, combustion of fossil fuels accounted for 65% of global CO 2 , where 41% was derived from stationary sources for electricity and heat generation and the other 24% was related to transport. To reduce these contributions, key steps forward in CO 2 utilization technologies are required. The purpose of this project is to demonstrate the feasibility of the Reversa process evolving from a TRL-3 technology at the bench-scale up to TRL-6 technology at the pilot-scale. The reliability of the Reversa technology was tested to prove the effective production of concrete masonry units (CMUs) at bench scale, where the units exceeded the required 13.8 MPa compressive strength requirements. The overall goal of this project was to accelerate the development of a CO 2 mineralization process that synergistically utilizes CO 2 in flue gas and coal combustion residues (CCRs) to synthesize carbonated concrete, a functional replacement for traditional concrete. The culmination of this work resulted in 12 successful production runs at the Integrated Test Center (ITC), Gillette, WY using coal flue gas as a CO 2 source. This was followed by 6 production runs which were completed at the National Carbon Capture Center (NCCC), Wilsonville, AL, using coal-fired and natural gas (NG) flue gas as the CO 2 source. Over the course of the production runs at NCCC and ITC, the CO 2 utilization as a function of time, 24-h CO 2 uptake, electricity usage, and 28-d net area compressive strength recorded for each run. The ITC and NCCC demonstrations achieved an average of 0.19 and 0.1 g CO 2 /g reactant, respectively. Both demonstrations exceeded the project’s target goals of uptake > 0.05 g CO 2 /g reactant. Average compressive strength of the ITC blocks was 18.24 MPa at 28-days. This exceeded the target strength of 13.8 MPa specified by ASTM C90. ITC and NCCC produced an average CO 2 utilization efficiency of 74.9 and 57.9%, respectively. Both demonstration averages were within the target range of 50 to 90% utilization efficiency. For some production runs the NCCC demo did exceeded the a CO 2 utilization efficiency of 75%. An LCA of the Reversa process compared to an industry standard product revealed a net CO 2 reduction of 39% to 42%. This exceeded the target requirement of >25% net CO 2 reduction. Collection of this data was used to determine that the project was successful as the demonstration goals were achieved: (1) achieving in excess of 75% CO 2 utilization efficiency, (2) utilizing greater than 250 kg of CO 2 per production batch/run, and (3) ensuring compliance of carbonated blocks with industry standard specifications (ASTM C90).

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

Defense Waste Processing Facility Nitric-Glycolic Flowsheet Chemical Process Cell Chemistry: Part 2

The conversions of nitrite to nitrate, the destruction of glycolate, and the conversion of glycolate to formate and oxalate were modeled for the Nitric-Glycolic flowsheet using data from Chemical Process Cell (CPC) simulant runs conducted by Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) from 2011 to 2016. The goal of this work was to develop empirical correlation models to predict these values from measurable variables from the chemical process so that these quantities could be predicted a-priori from the sludge or simulant composition and measurable processing variables. The need for these predictions arises from the need to predict the REDuction/OXidation (REDOX) state of the glass from the Defense Waste Processing Facility (DWPF) melter. This report summarizes the work on these correlations based on the aforementioned data. Previous work on these correlations was documented in a technical report covering data from 2011-2015. This current report supersedes this previous report. Further refinement of the models as additional data are collected is recommended. The glass REDOX depends on the concentrations of nitrate and manganese (oxidants), and of glycolate, formate, oxalate, carbon, and antifoam (reductants) in the melter feed. The waste sludge contains nitrite, nitrate, manganese (Mn), and oxalate. Virtually all of the nitrite is converted to nitrate or NO+NO 2 +N 2 O gases in the CPC. The portion of the nitrite converted to nitrate increases the amount of nitrate in the sludge. The amount of glycolate in the final melter feed depends on the amount of the glycolic acid feed that is destroyed. Similarly, the amounts of formate and oxalate formed during the decomposition of glycolic acid are required. The material balance on carbon was found to not close in most cases. Generally, there was less carbon at the end of testing compared to the inputs. The most uncertain product variable was glycolate, so material balances were performed where the glycolate concentration was adjusted, usually upward, to close the balance. Correlation versus the original, as-measured, data was generally poor, but correlation against the material balance adjusted values was greatly improved. It was also shown that the correlation of the measured REDOX versus the predicted REDOX was much better when the material balance adjusted glycolate values were used. Three data series were primarily used during the regressions of the data; these series were 1) Sludge Batch 9 NG flowsheet simulant runs NG51-62 (SB9-NG); 2) Scaled Runs + Bounding Hydrogen Runs (SR+BH); and 3) Runs GN43-50 and 57 (43-50,57). The glycolate destruction was found to correlate with acid stoichiometry (AS), percent reducing acid (PRA), and for some data series, headspace to simulant volume ratio (HSV), mercury (Hg), and nitrate. Although glycolate destruction for pairs of data series (e.g., [SB9-NG] and [SR+BH]) were found to depend on HSV, the combination of all three data series was not found to have significant dependence on this variable. The best model for glycolate destruction depended on AS, nitrate, and Hg. This model predicted the product glycolate compositions of the data to within 92-106%. The conversion of glycolate to formate was high when noble metals and Hg were not present, with values up to 100%. When noble metals and Hg were present, this conversion ranged from zero to 7%, and was dependent on AS. Lower AS gave higher conversions to formate. The conversion to oxalate was found to depend on the AS and the initial concentration of nitrite. An alternative fit versus AS and the form of ruthenium (Ru) used is a possible alternative. This fit was somewhat less statistically significant. This second model predicts that more oxalate is formed when Ru-nitrosyl nitrate is used rather than Ru chloride. The conversion of glycolate to oxalate ranged from zero to 6%. The conversion of nitrite to nitrate depended primarily on AS and PRA, with HSV and Hg being significant when these variables were varied. For multiple series of data, nitrite was also needed to SRNL-STI-2017-00172 5HYLVLRQ viL distinguish between data series, and the effect of HSV became insignificant. The best model for nitrite to nitrate conversion depended on AS, PRA, nitrite, and Hg. The 95% confidence intervals on the predicted values of glycolate destruction, glycolate to oxalate conversion, and nitrite to nitrate conversion were used to determine the uncertainty in the predicted REDOX when starting with only the composition of the sludge, AS, and PRA. Using the 95% confidences on an individual value (that is the confidence in getting a particular value for one single test as opposed to what the mean would be for multiple tests), the uncertainty in the predicted REDOX was calculated. The uncertainty in the actual product composition glycolate, oxalate, formate, and nitrate concentrations translated to an uncertainty in the REDOX value of ±0.1,which is approximately the uncertainty claimed in the REDOX model itself.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

Integrated System and Application Continuous Performance Monitoring and Analysis Capability

Scientific applications run on high-performance computing (HPC) systems are critical for many national security missions within Sandia and the NNSA complex. However, these applications often face performance degradation and even failures that are challenging to diagnose. To provide unprecedented insight into these issues, the HPC Development, HPC Systems, Computational Science, and Plasma Theory & Simulation departments at Sandia crafted and completed their FY21 ASC Level 2 milestone entitled "Integrated System and Application Continuous Performance Monitoring and Analysis Capability." The milestone created a novel integrated HPC system and application monitoring and analysis capability by extending Sandia's Kokkos application portability framework, Lightweight Distributed Metric Service (LDMS) monitoring tool, and scalable storage, analysis, and visualization pipeline. The extensions to Kokkos and LDMS enable collection and storage of application data during run time, as it is generated, with negligible overhead. This data is combined with HPC system data within the extended analysis pipeline to present relevant visualizations of derived system and application metrics that can be viewed at run time or post run. This new capability was evaluated using several week-long, 290-node runs of Sandia's ElectroMagnetic Plasma In Realistic Environments ( EMPIRE ) modeling and design tool and resulted in 1TB of application data and 50TB of system data. EMPIRE developers remarked this capability was incredibly helpful for quickly assessing application health and performance alongside system state. In short, this milestone work built the foundation for expansive HPC system and application data collection, storage, analysis, visualization, and feedback framework that will increase total scientific output of Sandia's HPC users.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Integrated System and Application Continuous Performance Monitoring and Analysis Capability (Final)

Scientific applications run on high-performance computing (HPC) systems are critical for many national security missions within Sandia and the NNSA complex. However, these applications often face performance degradation and even failures that are challenging to diagnose. To provide unprecedented insight into these issues, the HPC Development, HPC Systems, Computational Science, and Plasma Theory & Simulation departments at Sandia crafted and completed their FY21 ASC Level 2 milestone entitled "Integrated System and Application Continuous Performance Monitoring and Analysis Capability." The milestone created a novel integrated HPC system and application monitoring and analysis capability by extending Sandia’s Kokkos application portability framework, Lightweight Distributed Metric Service (LDMS) monitoring tool, and scalable storage, analysis, and visualization pipeline. The extensions to Kokkos and LDMS enable collection and storage of application data during run time, as it is generated, with negligible overhead. This data is combined with HPC system data within the extended analysis pipeline to present relevant visualizations of derived system and application metrics that can be viewed at run time or post run. This new capability was evaluated using several week-long, 290-node runs of Sandia’s ElectroMagnetic Plasma In Realistic Environments (EMPIRE) modeling and design tool and resulted in 1TB of application data and 50TB of system data. EMPIRE developers remarked this capability was incredibly helpful for quickly assessing application health and performance alongside system state. In short, this milestone work built the foundation for expansive HPC system and application data collection, storage, analysis, visualization, and feedback framework that will increase total scientific output of Sandia’s HPC users.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗