Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “seismic response”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

On component isolation of conceptual advanced reactors

Implementation of component isolation in nuclear industry is challenging due to gaps in research and the lack of specific guidelines. In this study, parameters affecting component-level isolation of advanced reactor vessels are identified based on a representative numerical model with explicit consideration of nonlinear soil-structure interaction (SSI). The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of, and to identify potential limitations of using conventional friction pendulum and lead-rubber bearings to seismically isolate vessels. It is found that slender vessels or components are particularly vulnerable to rotational accelerations at the isolation interface, which are caused by rotation of the sub-structure and by excitation of higher modes in the horizontal direction of the seismically isolated system. Component isolation is found to be more effective for relatively stiffer vessels and at sites with stiff soil properties. Considering that conventional isolators are deficient in resisting axial tension, it is observed that the optimum location for supporting a component to achieve seismic isolation, is at a cross-sectional plane passing through the center of mass of the vessel. These findings are corroborated by numerous simulations of the response of seismically isolated reactor vessels at different nuclear sites subject to a variety of ground motions.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Final Seismic Shake Table Test Plan

The Spent Fuel Waste Disposition (SFWD) program is planning to conduct a full-scale seismic shake table test on the dry storage systems of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) to close the gap related to seismic loads on fuel assemblies in dry storage systems. This test will allow for quantifying the strains and accelerations on surrogate fuel assembly hardware and cladding during earthquakes of different magnitudes and frequency content. Full-scale testing is needed because a dry storage system is a complex and highly nonlinear system making it hard to predict (model) the responses to seismic excitations. The non-linearity arises from the multiple spatial gaps in the system – between fuel rods and the basket, between the basket and dry storage canister, between the dry storage canister and the storage cask (overpack), and ventilation gaps. The non-linearities pose significant limitations on the value of tests with scaled systems.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

Review of analytical studies on seismic fluid-structure interaction of base-supported cylindrical tanks

Analytical solutions for seismic fluid-structure interaction (FSI) of tanks are used by analysts and engineers for a number of purposes, including preliminary sizing, risk assessment, and verification of numerical models. Analytical solutions for seismic FSI of tanks were first developed in the 1930s and have been extended and/or modified in the following nine decades to accommodate different seismic inputs and boundary conditions. This report reviews published analytical solutions for rigid and flexible, base-supported, cylindrical tanks subjected to unidirectional horizontal motion of a small amplitude. The studies parsed the fluid-structure (FSI) response into an impulsive and a convective component, and addressed frequencies of lateral motions of the tank (i.e., impulsive frequencies), hydrodynamic pressures, frequencies of waves (i.e., convective frequencies), wave heights, and reactions at the base. The solutions were categorized into exact and approximate solutions based on the methodologies used. Herein, FSI responses are calculated and compared for a range of tank dimensions using the analytical solutions from the different studies. The responses presented here are normalized to be unitless, and can be used for tanks with different dimensions and mechanical properties, and subjected to different input motions. A sample steel water tank is analyzed using the normalized solutions for two earthquake ground motions with different frequency contents. Ignoring tank flexibility may significantly underestimate seismic responses of the tank and its contained fluid. The approximate solutions, which have been widely used for decades, may not be sufficiently accurate in the modern era. Calculation errors in the reviewed studies are identified and corrected, and differences are quantified for the sample tank.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Deep compressed seismic learning for fast location and moment tensor inferences with natural and induced seismicity

Fast detection and characterization of seismic sources is crucial for decision-making and warning systems that monitor natural and induced seismicity. However, besides the laying out of ever denser monitoring networks of seismic instruments, the incorporation of new sensor technologies such as Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) further challenges our processing capabilities to deliver short turnaround answers from seismic monitoring. In response, this work describes a methodology for the learning of the seismological parameters: location and moment tensor from compressed seismic records. In this method, data dimensionality is reduced by applying a general encoding protocol derived from the principles of compressive sensing. The data in compressed form is then fed directly to a convolutional neural network that outputs fast predictions of the seismic source parameters. Thus, the proposed methodology can not only expedite data transmission from the field to the processing center, but also remove the decompression overhead that would be required for the application of traditional processing methods. An autoencoder is also explored as an equivalent alternative to perform the same job. We observe that the CS-based compression requires only a fraction of the computing power, time, data and expertise required to design and train an autoencoder to perform the same task. Implementation of the CS-method with a continuous flow of data together with generalization of the principles to other applications such as classification are also discussed.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Validation of numerical models for seismic fluid-structure-interaction analysis of nuclear, safety-related equipment

Seismic design, qualification, and risk assessment of nuclear safety-related vessels filled with liquid will have to consider the interaction between the vessel (tank), the contained liquid, and submerged components, if any. Seismic fluid-structure-interaction (FSI) analysis of nuclear vessels will rely on numerical models, which are required to be verified and validated. This study validates previously-verified numerical models using test data generated from earthquake-simulator experiments involving a cylindrical tank. Two solvers in LS-DYNA for FSI simulations are used for the numerical analysis: Arbitrary-Lagrangian-Eulerian (ALE) and Incompressible Computational Fluid Dynamics (ICFD). Numerical and test results are compared for responses critical to seismic design of advanced reactor vessels: hydrodynamic pressures on the tank wall, reactions at the support, and wave heights of the contained liquid. Analysis is performed for one-, two-, and three-directional seismic inputs with a range of intensity, and rocking motions. The accuracy of the numerical results and different methods for outputting wave heights are discussed. Recommendations for validation of seismic FSI numerical models of advanced reactors are provided. As a result, the validation exercise presented in this study is broadly applicable to cylindrical tanks, regardless of industry sector.

98 NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, SAFEGUARDS, AND PHYSICAL P↗
DOE OSTI2025

Neural operators for stochastic modeling of nonlinear structural system response to natural hazards

Traditionally, neural networks have been employed to learn the mapping between finite-dimensional Euclidean spaces. However, recent research has opened up new horizons, focusing on the utilization of deep neural networks to learn operators capable of mapping infinite-dimensional function spaces. Here, in this work, we employ two state-of-the-art neural operators, the deep operator network (DeepONet) and the Fourier neural operator (FNO) for the prediction of the nonlinear time history response of structural systems exposed to natural hazards, such as earthquakes and windstorms. Specifically, we propose two architectures, a self-adaptive FNO and a fast Fourier transform-based DeepONet (DeepFNOnet), where we employ a FNO beyond the DeepONet to learn the discrepancy between the ground truth and the solution predicted by the DeepONet. To demonstrate the efficiency and applicability of the architectures, two problems are considered. In the first, we use the proposed model to predict the seismic nonlinear dynamic response of a six-story shear building subject to stochastic ground motions. In the second problem, we employ the operators to predict the wind-induced nonlinear dynamic response of a high-rise building while explicitly accounting for the stochastic nature of the wind excitation. In both cases, the trained metamodels achieve high accuracy while being orders of magnitude faster than their corresponding high-fidelity models.

DeepONet↗
DOE OSTI2021

Measuring Fault Zone and Host Rock Hydraulic Properties Using Tidal Responses

Pore pressure diffusion along faults influences induced seismicity and rupture mechanics. In situ hydraulic diffusivity measurements along faults are rare and generally lower than inferred from seismicity migration. Here we use the tidal response of deep geothermal boreholes to measure fault diffusivity and permeability. Initial interpretations of the observation with a homogeneous confined aquifer model result in diffusivities of 10 -3 –10 -1 m 2 /s. However, this model mixes signals from both the conduit and the host rock. We develop a model for tidal response with a fault passing through the aquifer based on the fault-guided fracture network and solve for hydraulic properties in both the fault and the host rock. The resulting fault permeability is 2 × 10 -14 –7 × 10 -14 m 2 (90% confidence interval[CI]) and fault diffusivity is 0.08–0.33 m 2 /s (90% CI), which is 2 orders of magnitude higher than the host rock diffusivity in some wells, thus highlighting the role of faults as fluid conduits.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Multi-Event Explosive Seismic Source for the 2022 M w 6.3 Hunga Tonga Submarine Volcanic Eruption

The eruption of the Hunga Tonga–Hunga Ha’apai submarine volcano on 15 January 2022 produced a variety of geophysical responses, including a significant seismic signal. We study the seismic source process of this event by inverting for moment tensors (MTs) using regional surface waves (Rayleigh, Love). By comparing inversion results for the eruption with eight nearby earthquakes, we show that it is possible to discriminate MT source types. Our inversion yields a shallow explosive source for the eruption and reveals the importance of trade-offs among depth, magnitude, and source type. We illustrate these trade-offs by representing the misfit variations over the eigenvalue lune. Finally, we invert for the source-time function of the sequence of explosions that occurred in the first minutes of the eruption. The multi-event source-time function comprises four subevents spanning ~270 s, with a total magnitude estimate of M w 6.34 ± 0.10.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Quantitative interpretation of time-lapse seismic data at Farnsworth field unit: Rock physics modeling, and calibration of simulated time-lapse velocity responses

Here, this study investigates the contribution of fluid saturation variation to the time-lapse velocity response by performing fluid substitution modeling. The methodology is exemplified by the time-lapse seismic monitoring of carbon dioxide at Farnsworth field unit (FWU). In order to evaluate the fluid distribution in a matured oil reservoir, the Southwest Regional Partnership (SWP) acquired multiple vertical seismic profile (VSP) surveys at different times during the CO 2 –water alternatinggas (WAG) injection period. In this work, we present a thorough methodology for computing the elastic response of the saturated rock for different fluid saturations using a site-specific petro-elastic model (PEM). The output from the PEM was combined with results from a fluid compositional model to compute the seismic velocities at times corresponding to each VSP survey. To produce a calibrated simulated response, the measured time-lapse seismic velocities were integrated into the numerical simulation model. The mismatches between the predicted and measured time-lapse velocities were minimized through an iterative calibration process using a trained artificial neural network proxy (ANN) coupled with a particle swarm optimizer (PSO). Our study indicates that the hybrid optimization workflow can effectively perform the history matching. With an accurate prediction of the hydrodynamic properties, the migration of CO 2 within the subsurface was modeled by predicting the spatial velocity distribution for a radius of 305 m around the injection well. The technology demonstrated and the expertise gained from this study can guide similar CO 2 -WAG projects.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Software Verification and Validation Guidelines for Non-Linear Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis

Seismic analysis of structures, systems, and components (SSCs), including the consideration of soil-structure interaction (SSI) effects, is an important and required step in the design and licensing of nuclear power plant SSCs important to safety. Historically, the SSI analysis of nuclear structures has been performed using equivalent linear methods. However, there has been considerable industry investment in alternative seismic design and analysis approaches to reduce the construction cost of new reactors. Toward that goal and in alignment with the Licensing Modernization Project (LMP) framework, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US NRC) has proposed a risk-informed, performance-based approach to seismic design that allows inelastic response in those nuclear plant structures not required for confinement. As a complementary effort, reactor designers are exploring nonlinear seismic analysis methods to optimize structural designs and reduce construction costs.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Kimberlina synthetic multiphysics dataset for CO 2 monitoring investigations

Abstract We present a synthetic multi‐scale, multi‐physics dataset constructed from the Kimberlina 1.2 CO 2 reservoir model based on a potential CO 2 storage site in the Southern San Joaquin Basin of California. Among 300 models, one selected reservoir‐simulation scenario produces hydrologic‐state models at the onset and after 20 years of CO 2 injection. Subsequently, these models were transformed into geophysical properties, including P‐ and S‐wave seismic velocities, saturated density where the saturating fluid can be a combination of brine and supercritical CO 2 , and electrical resistivity using established empirical petrophysical relationships. From these 3D distributions of geophysical properties, we have generated synthetic time‐lapse seismic, gravity and electromagnetic responses with acquisition geometries that mimic realistic monitoring surveys and are achievable in actual field situations. We have also created a series of synthetic well logs of CO 2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells. These were constructed by combining the low‐frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high‐frequency variations of actual well logs collected at the potential storage site. In addition, to better calibrate our datasets, measurements of permeability and pore connectivity have been made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit. These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic dataset to be as close to a real‐world situation as possible. This dataset consisting of the reservoir models, geophysical models, simulated time‐lapse geophysical responses and well logs forms a multi‐scale, multi‐physics testbed for designing and testing geophysical CO 2 monitoring systems as well as for imaging and characterization algorithms. The suite of numerical models and data have been made publicly available for downloading on the National Energy Technology Laboratory's (NETL) Energy Data Exchange (EDX) website.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Effect of Soil Properties and Input Motion on Site Amplification Using Validated Nonlinear Soil Model

Here, three-dimensional (3-D) nonlinear site response analyses are conducted using finite element models of actual soil profiles from ten nuclear power plant (NPP) sites in the United States to investigate the effects of soil properties and input motions on site amplification. The modeling approach developed in this study combines several novel elements, such as 3-D analysis (including vertical motions), nonlinear inelastic behavior of soil (strain-dependent shear modulus reduction and hysteretic damping), formulation of nonreflecting boundary conditions at the base, and generation of realistic outcrop ground motions for specific sites. All these elements of the modeling approach are first validated using actual data from five earthquakes at three downhole array stations recorded in the Kiban-Kyoshin network (KiK-net), Japan. The same approach is then used to develop site models of ten NPP sites in the United States and corresponding ground motions that are spectrally matched to the site hazard spectra. Eight sets of three-component input motions are used in the study and are categorized on the basis of presence or absence of a near-field pulse in the seed ground motions used for spectral matching. It is found that all sites retain a definite site amplification function regardless of the input motion, provided that the seed motion is spectrally matched to the site hazard spectra. The magnitude of site amplification and frequencies at which they occur depend upon soil properties, particularly the shear wave velocity profile and the constitutive relationship (strain-dependent shear modulus reduction and hysteretic damping) of soil. Amplification of spectral acceleration in the vertical direction (up-down motion) is found to be just as much as, if not more than, the amplification in the horizontal direction. Peak shear strain is found to be about 20% larger for near-field motions compared to far-field motions whereas maximum horizontal site amplification for far-field motions is found to be consistently larger than that of near-field motions, even though the differences between the two remain within the scatter resulting from individual ground motions.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE Project 3-2417: Meteorological Data During 2024 Stimulation

This preliminary data archive includes meteorological data recorded at the Utah FORGE facility over the period of time including the 16A/16B stimulation activities, largely March/April/May of 2024. This information may prove useful for understanding seismic and other instrumentation response during monitoring. The bulk of relevant stimulation activities occurred between March 25th and April 28th, 2024 and the included files span this period. All sensors were installed at the 78-16 pad and hence reflect weather state at the site. This dataset was acquired by the FOGMORE R&D project (Fiber Optic MOnitoring for Reservoir Evolution), Utah FORGE R&D Project 3-2417.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE Project 3-2417: Meteorological Data During 2023 Completion/Circulation

This preliminary data archive includes meteorological data recorded at the Utah FORGE facility over the period of time including the completion/cementing of well 78-16B and the initial 2023 circulation test, largely occurring in June/July/August of 2023. This information may prove useful for understanding seismic and other instrumentation responses during these activities. The meteorological station was installed June 23rd, 2023 during drilling; the circulation test occurred in mid July of 2023 (July 4-19). The included files span this period. All sensors were installed at the 16 pad and hence reflect weather state at the site. This dataset was acquired by the FOGMORE R&D project (Fiber Optic MOnitoring for Reservoir Evolution), Utah FORGE R&D Project 3-2417.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Wastewater Disposal Has Not Significantly Altered the Regional Stress State in Southern Kansas

Wastewater disposal is primarily responsible for the increased seismicity rate since ~2013 in southern Kansas. Previous work that used shear-wave splitting (SWS) in southern Kansas interpreted an ~90° temporal rotation in the fast polarization direction and attributed it to increased pore pressures resulting from fluid injection. However, this interpreted rotation coincided with a change in the stations used to make the SWS measurements. We investigate the temporal variability of fast azimuths in southern Kansas by making SWS measurements on earthquake families with similar source–receiver paths recorded on a stable local seismic network. We select high-quality SWS measurements by investigating the stability of results across 65 different frequency bands between 0.5 and 15 Hz. We find that the fast polarization direction in southern Kansas is relatively constant with an average east-northeast (~N79°E) orientation between 2014 and 2017. Our fast polarization measurements are primarily a reflection of the maximum principal horizontal stress direction (SHmax). We observe a slight spatial change in SHmax to the northeast (~N55°E) near the Nemaha ridge in Oklahoma. However, we do not observe any significant temporal rotation of SHmax or variation in delay time (i.e., crack density) in southern Kansas, contrary to the earlier study. The previously interpreted ~90° rotation may either be a reflection of a very local stress change or a misinterpretation of SWS results potentially due to the use of inconsistent source–receiver paths. Our SWS measurements cover the period of peak wastewater disposal and seismicity rates and suggest an absence of significant temporal rotations in the local anisotropy and stress orientations associated with wastewater disposal.

Geochemistry & Geophysics↗
DOE OSTI2022

NETL Plastic Pipes Project - June 2022 Progress Report

Plastic or composite pipelines have been the bane of the utility locating industry because conduits are neither conductive nor magnetic, which are the properties traditionally used to locate buried utilities. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is an effective geophysical tool for locating plastic/composite pipeline where the resistive cover allows for adequate penetration of radar energy. However, GPR cannot be used in areas where the soil cover is conductive due to significant clay and/or salt content. This study takes a comprehensive look at near-surface geophysical methods that potentially are useful for locating buried plastic/composite pipelines, either singly or in combination with other geophysical methods. Specifically, this modeling study uses computational numerical methods to forward model the response of GPR, resistivity, seismic, and gravity gradiometry methods to plastic/composite pipelines for various scenarios including: (1) pipe diameters ranging between 2 in. to 12 in.; (2) burial depths ranging between 3 ft to 4 ft; (3) various degrees in contrast in physical properties (i.e., permittivity, elasticity, electrical resistivity, density); and (4) various experimental acquisition choices (e.g., GPR radar frequencies, seismic source frequency, electrode spacing).

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2023

NETL Plastic Pipes Project (Final Report)

Plastic or composite pipelines have been the bane of the utility locating industry because they are neither conductive nor magnetic which are the properties traditionally used to locate buried utilities. Ground penetrating radar (GPR) is an effective geophysical tool for locating plastic/composite pipelines where resistive cover allows for adequate penetration of radar energy. However, GPR has limited applicability in areas where the soil cover is conductive due to significant clay and/or salt content. This study examines complementary near-surface geophysical methods that are potentially useful for locating buried plastic/composite pipelines, either singly or in combination. Specifically, this modeling study used computational numerical methods to forward model the response of GPR, resistivity, seismic, gravity gradiometry, and photoacoustic/thermoacoustic imaging methods to plastic/composite pipelines for various scenarios including: (1) pipe diameters ranging between 2 in. to 12 in.; (2) burial depths ranging between 3 ft. to 4 ft.; (3) various degrees in contrast in physical properties (i.e., electrical permittivity, elasticity, resistivity, density); and (4) various experimental acquisition choices (e.g., GPR radar and seismic source frequencies, electrode spacing). Numerical modeling performed herein reconfirmed that GPR is the preferred method for detecting/locating plastic pipelines. A caveat for GPR detection is that the material covering the plastic pipe (trench fill material and adjacent soil) must be sufficiently resistive to allow the two-way propagation to the required depth of investigation and back to the surface. GPR was the only method modeled in this study that can be used to directly detect plastic pipelines of 2-in.-diameter and larger when buried 3-ft-deep. GPR data processing and imaging also can determine pipe depth, pipe diameter, trench dimensions, and moisture conditions. Seismic modeling results suggest that direct detection of a 12-in.-diameter plastic pipe at 3-ft.-depth may be possible under favorable conditions; however, the associated signature would be weak (e.g., surface- to S-wave, backscattered surface-waves, and/or forward scattered surface-waves to S-wave). Direct pipe detection under field conditions with noise and strong lateral geologic heterogeneity is doubtful. Numerical modeling also suggests that plastic pipelines can be indirectly located by detecting the trench in which they are buried. GPR, direct current (DC) resistivity, and seismic methods have the potential to locate the pipeline trench if there is sufficient contrast between the trench-wall and trench-fill materials for the physical property being measured by each method (i.e., electrical permittivity for GPR; resistivity for DC resistivity; or density, compressional velocity, or shear velocity for seismic). Modeling also indicated that currently available (commercial) gravity gradiometers would be unable to directly detect/locate plastic pipelines ≤ 8-in.-diameter when buried 3-ft.-deep given the typical instrument noise floor for field surveying as well as the expected density variations due to geologic heterogeneity. The numerical modeling performed in this project did not identify a universal geophysical technology that can locate buried plastic pipelines in all parts of the United States (although GPR is suggested for all areas with resistive cover). However, the project results suggest that a towed land streamer simultaneously acquiring multiple geophysical data types including multi-offset GPR, multi-channel DC resistivity, seismic geophone- and/or distributed acoustic sensing (DAS), and potentially photoacoustic/thermoacoustic data would be an appropriate platform for locating buried plastic pipeline. Moreover, the complementary multiphysics data acquired by a towed land streamer would permit the use of joint and/or cooperative inversion frameworks for a more rigorous and consistent data interpretation.

42 ENGINEERING↗