Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “interactive data 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.

509 records · Page 29

Galaxy Zoo DECaLS: Detailed visual morphology measurements from volunteers and deep learning for 314,000 galaxies

We present Galaxy Zoo DECaLS: detailed visual morphological classifications for Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey images of galaxies within the SDSS DR8 footprint. Deeper DECaLS images (r = 23.6 versus r = 22.2 from SDSS) reveal spiral arms, weak bars, and tidal features not previously visible in SDSS imaging. To best exploit the greater depth of DECaLS images, volunteers select from a new set of answers designed to improve our sensitivity to mergers and bars. Galaxy Zoo volunteers provide 7.5 million individual classifications over 314 000 galaxies. 140 000 galaxies receive at least 30 classifications, sufficient to accurately measure detailed morphology like bars, and the remainder receive approximately 5. All classifications are used to train an ensemble of Bayesian convolutional neural networks (a state-of-the-art deep learning method) to predict posteriors for the detailed morphology of all 314 000 galaxies. We use active learning to focus our volunteer effort on the galaxies which, if labelled, would be most informative for training our ensemble. When measured against confident volunteer classifications, the trained networks are approximately 99 per cent accurate on every question. Morphology is a fundamental feature of every galaxy; our human and machine classifications are an accurate and detailed resource for understanding how galaxies evolve.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

Federal Emergency Management Agency Mobile Housing Unit Running Gear Testing (Final Report)

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stages manufactured housing units (MHUs) at key locations to be used during disasters when other housing accommodations cannot be arranged for individuals or families. Due to the unpredictability of natural disasters and the limitations of the manufactured housing industry to produce large numbers of MHUs in very short periods of time, it is necessary for FEMA to store a large number of units for many months or years. With these long storage periods come degradation issues with frames, tires, bearing, and braking systems. These types of issues are also of interest to the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) because regulated carriers normally transport these units and 49 CFR 393.75 Tires specifies tire loading restrictions for manufactured homes. To compare the running gear (tires, brakes, drums, bearings, axles, springs, and spring mounting hardware) currently specified in the 2014 Rugged Based Performance Requirements (RBPR) and the newly recommended running gear specified in the upcoming revision to the RBPR, the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) outlined a Longevity Test Plan, which focused on the assessment of component longevity (failure rates by component type). The Test Plan also studied the forces imparted to the MHU from the running gear from interaction with the roadway for both the running gear in the 2014 RBPR and the running gear specified in the upcoming RBPR revision. Since the assessment of component longevity and failures are also issues of concern for FMCSA, both agencies collaborated to support the research presented in this report. The tests and data collection were conducted at the Navistar Proving Grounds (NPG) in New Carlisle (near South Bend), Indiana, during the May-November 2018 period. Four alternatives for the suspension system of a typical three-bedroom MHU were considered in this test. Alternative 0 was the MHU that was selected from the FEMA staging area in Selma, Alabama. Empirical data had shown that, on average, this alternative experiences one tire failure every 150 miles (or 0.0067 tire failures per mile traveled). Before testing, Alternative 0 was equipped with similar running gear hardware, although in new condition and installed following the manufacturer’s specifications. This became the Baseline Unit, or Alternative 1. Another unit, also selected from the FEMA staging area in Selma, Alabama, was equipped with better axles (i.e., axles that were rated for 7,000lbs as opposed to 6,000lbs for the Baseline Unit) and better tires. This became the Upgrade Unit, or Alternative 2. At the end of the Longevity Test, the Upgrade Unit was mounted with radial tires. This became Alternative 3.Alternative 1 (Baseline Unit) had, on average, one tire failure every 251 miles (or 0.0040 tire failures per mile traveled). So, by simply following the correct manufacturer’s specifications for the assembly of the transportation system, a reduction of 41% in the per mile tire failure was achieved. In the same test, Alternative 2 (Upgrade Unit) showed, on average, one tire failure every 728 miles traveled (or 0.0014 tire failure s per mile traveled). When the Upgrade Unit was mounted with radial tires in the last part of the test, no tire failures were observed for the 2,400 miles tested. That is, in the case of the radial tires (Alternative 3) the tire failure was less than one per 2,400 miles traveled (or less than 0.0004 tire failures per mile traveled). The data collected for the Longevity Test showed that the maximum accelerations were registered in all cases at the center of the MHU in the vertical direction. The overall maximum was registered by the Baseline Unit, Alternative 1. If that value is normalized to 100%, then the Upgrade Unit (Alternative 2) showed, on average, 81% at the same location, and Alternative 3 (radial-tire test) 59%. That is, the upgraded transportation system showed a reduction of 19% and 41% in the vertical accelerations transmitted to MHU at its center when regular and radial tires, respectively, were used. As part of the Test Protocol, NPG conducted a visual inspection of the MHUs and transportation system at the end of each test day. ORNL reviewed all the inspection reports in an attempt to determine if there was any difference in the damage that the Baseline and Upgrade MHUs showed during the test. The Upgrade Unit always showed lower accelerations transmitted to the MHU than the Baseline Unit. In most cases, these differences were statistically significant. The FEMA inspection report, conducted by a FEMA certified inspector at the end of the tests, included a shorter list of damaged items for the Baseline Unit than for the Upgrade Unit, although similar type of damages was described for both units. This may be an indication that, although lower than those of the Baseline Unit, the accelerations transmitted by the Upgrade Unit were above the threshold at which MHU elements start to fail.

42 ENGINEERING↗

IDAES-PSE 2.6.0 Release

The Institute for the Design of Advanced Energy Systems (IDAES) Integrated Platform is a versatile computational environment offering extensive process systems engineering (PSE) capabilities for optimizing the design and operation of complex, interacting technologies and systems. IDAES enables users to efficiently search vast, complex design spaces to discover the lowest cost solutions while supporting the full process modeling lifecycle, from conceptual design to dynamic optimization and control. The extensible, open platform empowers users to create models of novel processes and rapidly develop custom analyses, workflows, and end-user applications. IDAES-PSE 2.6.0 Release Highlights Upcoming Changes IDAES will be switching to the new Pyomo solver interface in the next release. Whilst this will hopefully be a smooth transition for most users, there are a few important changes to be aware of. The new solver interface uses a different version of the IPOPT writer (“ipopt_v2”) and thus any custom configuration options you might have set for IPOPT will not carry over and will need to be reset. By default, the new Pyomo linear presolver will be activated with ipopt_v2. Whilst are working to identify any bugs in the presolver, it is possible that some edge cases will remain. IDAES will begin deploying a new set of scaling tools and APIs over the next few releases that make use of the new solver writers. The old scaling tools and APIs will remain for backward compatibility but will begin to be deprecated. New Models, Tools and Features New Intersphinx extension automatically linking Jupyter notebook examples to project documentation New end-to-end diagnostics example demonstrated on a real problem New complementarity formulation for VLE with cubic equations of state, backward compatibility for old formulation New solver interface with presolve (ipopt_v2) in support of upcoming changes to the initialization and APIs methods, with default set to ipopt to maintain backwards compatibility; this will deprecate once all examples have been updated New forecaster and parameterized bidder methods within grid integration library Updated surrogates API and examples to support Keras 3, with backwards compatibility for older formats such as TensorFlow SavedModel (TFSM) Updated costing base dictionary to include the 2023 cost year index value Updated ProcessBlock to include information on the constructing block class Updated Flowsheet Visualizer to allow visualize() method to return value and functions Bug Fixes Fixed bug in the Modular Property Framework that would cause errors when trying to use phase-based material balances with phase equilibria. Fixed bug in Modular Properties Framework that caused errors when initializing models with non-vapor-liquid phase equilibria. Fixed typos flagged by June update to crate-ci/typos and removed DMF-related exceptions Minor corrections of units of measurement handling in power plant waste/transport costing expressions, control volume material holdup expressions, and BTX property package parameters Fixed throwing >7500 numpy deprecation warnings by replacing scalar value assignment with element extraction and item iteration calls Testing and Robustness Migrated slow tests (>10s) to integration, impacting test coverage but also yielding a nearly 30% decrease in local test runtime Pinned pint to avoid issues with older supported Python versions Pinned codecov versions to avoid tokenless upload behavior with latest version Bumped extensions to version 3.4.2 to allow pointing to non-standard install location Deprecations and Removals Python 3.8 is no longer supported. The supported Python versions are 3.9 through 3.12 The Data Management Framework (DMF) is no longer supported. Importing idaes.core.dmf will cause a deprecation warning to be displayed until the next release The SOFC Keras surrogates have been removed. The current version of the SOFC surrogate model in the examples repository is a PySMO Kriging model.

AS↗

Size-resolved ice nucleating particle (INP) concentrations from the MOSAiC campaign

Sample collection: Ground-based immersion mode ice nucleation measurements were conducted on samples collected at the U.S. DOE ARM AMF2 onboard the R/V Polarstern P-deck during MOSAiC from 23 Oct 2019 to 01 Oct 2020. Samples were collected using a Davis Rotating-drum Unit for Monitoring (DRUM; DRUMAir, LLC) cascading impactor in 4 stages (i.e., size bins). Instrument information on the model used, the DA400, can be found at the DRUMAir website (http://www.drumair.com/). Stages A, B, C, and D had particle size cuts at 2.96, 1.21, 0.34, and 0.15 &micro;m in particle diameter, respectively. Strips of sample substrate (PFA, perfluoroalkoxy; McMaster) were adhered to each disc in each stage and coated with petrolatum to enable particles to stick on impact. The discs move slowly over time, such that aerosol loading is streaked onto the PFA. Every 24 hours, a blank is created on the PFA to separate daily samples. During MOSAiC, the pump typically pulled 20 &ndash; 35 lpm (average of 32 lpm) at the inlet with all the discs in place in each stage. Daily samples were collected for each of the four stages, equaling 28,800 &ndash; 50,400 total L of air (average of 46,080 L total L of air) per sample. Discs rotated for approximately 24 days before the sampling per strip was complete and changed to a new disc. Discs were stored frozen after collection. Sample preparation for analysis: Following collection and transport from MOSAiC to the Kreidenweis/DeMott laboratory, care of PI Creamean, in Fort Collins, CO, strips were removed from the discs and cut up to separate daily samples. Each daily portion of the strip was stored in separate sterile 15-mL centrifuge tubes and stored in a standard commercial freezer until analysis (approximately 4 &ndash; 12 months after collection). Sample analysis: Drop freezing assays (DFAs) were conducted on one daily sample set every 3 &ndash; 4 days of the study for all four stages using the Colorado State University (CSU) cold plate (CP). Sample set days were chosen to cover the entire year of MOSAiC and avoiding days where the AOS purge system was activated. Immediately after removal from the freezer, 2 mL of 0.1-&micro;m filtered deionized water was added with a single-use sterile syringe directly to the tubes, then mixed using a vortex mixer for at least 30 minutes at 500 rpm to resuspend particles from the PFA into the deionized water. Following sample preparation, another single-use syringe was used to create 100 aliquots on a 3-inch diameter copper plate, then covered with a transparent plastic dome. The drops were approximately the same volume (2.5 &micro;L each), though careful inspection. The plate was cooled at approximately 3 &ndash; 10 K min-1 from room temperature until all drops froze on the plate. Temperature was measured by an Omega thermocouple probes and meter. Drop freezing was visually detected but recorded through monitoring software to provide the time frozen, channel of the meter used, temperature, and cooling rate for each drop. Not all 100 drops were always detected; the total number of rows in each data file equals the number of drops recorded, which typically was > 80 %. Each sample was tested three times (i.e., a new set of 100 drops was created for each test). Data provided are files containing these parameters. From the freezing temperatures recorded, the fraction frozen was and INP concentrations were calculated per L of air using the equation from Vali (1971): [INPs] = &minus;(ln(f)/Valiquot)*(Vsuspension/Vair) where f is the proportion of droplets not frozen, Valiquot is the volume of each aliquot (i.e., 2.5e-6 L), Vsuspension is the volume of the suspension (i.e., 0.002 L), and Vair is the volume of air per sample (i.e., 36000 L). Data usage guidance: There are three files included with this dataset: (1) dumcp_inp_concentrations.csv which includes cumulative INP concentrations binned every 0.5 &deg;C from 0 to &ndash;30 &deg;C for all samples and size ranges (i.e., DRUM stages) processed via DFA using the CSU CP; (2) dumcp_inp_standard_deviation.csv which includes the standard deviations for all samples and temperatures in dumcp_inp_concentrations.csv; and (3) dumcp_blank_concentrations_standard_deviation.csv which includes the INP concentrations and standard deviations for the deionized water and PFA blanks binned every 0.5 &deg;C from 0 to &ndash;30 &deg;C. The first column in each file represents the freezing temperature in &deg;C binned every 0.5 &deg;C from 0 to &ndash;30 &deg;C (first cell in this column = header = &ldquo;temp&rdquo;). The second column in each file represents the standard deviation of each temperature bin in &deg;C (first cell in this column = header = &ldquo;temperr&rdquo;). For file (1) dumcp_inp_concentrations.csv, the remaining columns indicate the INP concentrations per L of air for each temperature bin. For each sample column, the header in the first row indicates the stage (i.e., size bin as &ldquo;A_&rdquo;, &ldquo;B_&rdquo;, &ldquo;C_&rdquo;, or &ldquo;D_&rdquo;) and date (&ldquo;_yyyymmdd) of collection. For file (2) dumcp_inp_standard_deviation.csv, the remaining columns indicate the INP concentration standard deviation per L of air for each temperature bin. For each sample column, the header in the first row indicates the stage (i.e., size bin as &ldquo;A_&rdquo;, &ldquo;B_&rdquo;, &ldquo;C_&rdquo;, or &ldquo;D_&rdquo;) and date (&ldquo;_yyyymmdd) of collection. For file (3) dumcp_blank_concentrations_standard_deviation.csv, the remaining columns indicate the INP concentrations and standard deviations for the deionized water blank (&ldquo;di_0.1&rdquo; and &ldquo;di_0.1sd&rdquo; for the concentrations and standard deviations, respectively) and PFA blank (&ldquo;pfa&rdquo; and &ldquo;pfasd&rdquo; for the concentrations and standard deviations, respectively). Please see Creamean et al. (2019a; 2018a; 2018b; 2019b) for additional details on DRUM sample collection and offline processing. For questions or help with data interpretation, contact Dr. Jessie Creamean (jessie.creamean@colostate.edu). References: Creamean, J. M., Mignani, C., Bukowiecki, N., and Conen, F.: Using spectra characteristics to identify ice nucleating particle populations during winter storms in the Alps, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 8123&ndash;8140, 2019a. Creamean, J. M., Kirpes, R. M., Pratt, K. A., Spada, N. S., Maahn, M., de Boer, G., Schnell, R. C., and China, S.: Marine and terrestrial influences on ice nucleating particles during continuous springtime measurements in an Arctic oilfield location, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 18, 18023-18042, 10.5194/acp-18-18023-2018, 2018a. Creamean, J. M., Primm, K. M., Tolbert, M. A., Hall, E. G., Wendell, J., Jordan, A., Sheridan, P. J., Smith, J., and Schnell, R. C.: HOVERCAT: A novel aerial system for evaluation of aerosol-cloud interactions, Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 11, 3969-3985, 10.5194/amt-11-3969-2018, 2018b. Creamean, J. M., Cross, J. N., Pickart, R., McRaven, L., Lin, P., Pacini, A., Hanlon, R., Schmale, D. G., Ceniceros, J., Aydell, T., Colombi, N., Bolger, E., and DeMott, P. J.: Ice nucleating particles carried from below a phytoplankton bloom to the Arctic atmosphere, Geophys. Res. Lett., 46, 8572-8581, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL083039, 2019b. Vali, G.: Quantitative Evaluation of Experimental Results an the Heterogeneous Freezing Nucleation of Supercooled Liquids, Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 28, 402-409, 10.1175/1520-0469(1971)028<0402:qeoera>2.0.co;2, 1971.

4-stage DRUM aerosol collector (DA400),Ice nuclei,↗

PipeSight: A High-Performance Computing Platform for Pipeline Integrity Management

The Phase I feasibility study completed as part of this project has led to a number of innovative technologies being developed and has laid the foundation for a successful Phase II effort to commercialize a platform for managing the integrity of pipelines for the damage mechanisms of the new, hybrid-energy based economy. To ground the development efforts and direction of the project, an extensive market research and customer discovery effort was undertaken early in Phase I. Through this effort, a number of pipeline owners and operators were interviewed, and the following key findings were discovered about the pipeline industry: • Small pipeline operators do not have the central engineering groups necessary to perform their own independent analysis of inspection data, but instead rely on summarized tally sheets provided to them by inspection service providers. • The time it takes to go from an inspection to a completed engineering assessment, even for small segments of pipeline, can take anywhere from 30-120 days. During this delay, critical threats can (and have been known to) cause failures. • Uncertainty is often not accounted for in the assessment of pipeline integrity. The tally sheets provided by third-party service providers are almost always deterministic in nature, identifying threats that present a concern only to the current (not the future) integrity of the pipeline. • It is uncommon to apply the latest technologies to perform advanced assessments of damaged pipelines. There is a desire to use more advanced analysis capabilities to assess threats. Many pipeline operators indicated that they would often excavate a pipeline to perform an inspection and find that the damage was not as bad as they anticipated, thus using limited resources unnecessarily. Companies are not consistent in their use of inspection data to determine corrosion rates, and those that do only calculate deterministic corrosion rates. • The industry has prominently relied on time-based inspections but has recently started to transition to risk-based inspections. However, there appears to be no uniform guidance on how to do so while properly accounting for all sources of uncertainty. • Companies are not storing inspection data in a manner that allows for the ready determination of temporal trends. • Predictive maintenance principles and practices are beginning to be used by early adopters • Some pipelines are being re-purposed to transport different process fluids than they were designed for, e.g., H 2 and CO 2 rich process streams to serve the new hybrid-energy based economy, which are presenting new integrity concerns for the existing pipeline network that crisscrosses the United States. As a result of these discoveries, we were able to target the development efforts in Phase I to best serve the needs of the industry. In Phase I, we developed a way to correlate multiple large-scale scans of the pipeline to determine a probabilistic corrosion rate that accounts for all sources of error and uncertainty in the inspection process. This probabilistic corrosion rate can be used to predict the future thickness distribution of the pipe wall. We demonstrate how this analysis may be performed in an analytical fashion and has been implemented in such a manner that it can be readily distributed using GPU computing through integration of the Kokkos programming model. We also make a very novel extension of the analytical corrosion rate model to Bayesian Networks (an explainable AI technique) that can account for non-parametric distributions of corrosion rates. With the predictions made above for the probabilistic corrosion rate and corresponding future distribution of the pipe wall thickness, we can assess the integrity of the pipeline through the use of a probabilistic engineering assessment. We developed a novel screening data analysis approach that can rapidly identify ‘hotspots’ (local thin areas) where the integrity of the pipeline is a concern. Once more, we implemented this screening approach in C++ to leverage GPU computing via the Kokkos programming model. After the critical hotspots are identified, we developed a program that can automatically generate an advanced finite element model of the damaged regions. Since the number of damaged regions that require advanced analysis can number in the thousands, we integrated an open-source container-native workflow engine for orchestrating parallel jobs on the cloud. Initially, these advanced numerical models were only designed to account for loading due to internal pressure. However, in a slight pivot from the initial Phase I proposal, we developed a complete pipe stress analysis program (called Simflex) which can simulate the complete pipeline and its response to thermal expansion, pressure, thermal bowing, weight, wind, earthquake, support displacement, support friction and external forces. This pipe stress analysis program was written generically, to handle any piping system, but contains the features needed to model long pipelines (i.e., it incorporates a model for soil mechanics and can account for the nonlinear boundary conditions necessary to simulate long underground pipelines). This pipe stress analysis program can simulate any segment of the pipeline (simple or complex) under any set of conditions and loads, to determine the supplemental loads (axial forces and bending moments) at the location of damage. This enables the most accurate state of stress to be accounted for in the pipeline, which can prove critical when evaluating the integrity of a damaged region. In the process of developing the technologies to perform the integrity assessment of the pipeline, we also extended one of the industry standard approaches for performing the assessment of local thin areas that extend more in the circumferential direction than the longitudinal direction of the pipeline. This approach was presented to the API 579-1/AS ME FFS-1 steering committee in November 2021 for consideration in the next edition of the industry standard for Fitness-For-Service (expected to be released in 2023). To help pipeline operators make decisions with the results on any integrity assessment, we developed a new approach to the life-cycle management of pipelines which uses a Bayesian Decision Network. The network is designed to help pipeline operators plan and prioritize inspection activities and ultimately make smarter, more cost-effective decisions. The Bayesian approach accounts for all sources of uncertainty and carries them through to the final optimal decisions, providing a probabilistic framework for optimizing inspection intervals. The proof-of-concept networks developed in the feasibility study are complete, verified, and are focused on a subset of the pipeline. To expand this novel approach to the scale necessary for an entire network of pipelines in Phase II, we will leverage the DOE-funded Bengi solver for industrial-scale decision making with Bayesian Networks [22]. Once implemented, we will be able to provide the pipeline industry with a much-needed tool for optimal inspection planning using truly explainable artificial intelligence (XAI). To handle all of these advanced capabilities into a cloud-based platform, the architecture of the Equity Engineering Cloud (EEC) was extended to include Argo Workflows, a framework capable of distributing and managing a massive number of jobs that consume their own resources, such that thousands of serial finite element simulations can be run in parallel. As part of this substantial undertaking, we also integrated Argo Continuous Delivery (CD) into the EEC, to aid with the rapid prototyping and iterations that will be imperative to the success of the PipeSight platform’s Agile development process in Phase II. As part of the pipe stress analysis program, we also developed a custom visualizer that leverages the DOE-funded VTK visualization library. We added custom contouring capabilities and a means for interacting visually with both the inputs and outputs of the pipe stress analysis program. We also developed routines for automating the post-processing of the finite element simulations to determine if any failure criteria are met and to visualize the deformations, stresses and strains in ParaView using the exodus II file format (a subset of netCDF).

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗