SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Section III”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

562 records · Page 32

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Runaway electron-induced plasma facing component damagein tokamaks

This Roadmap article addresses the critical and multifaceted challenge of plasma facing component (PFC) damage caused by runaway electrons (REs) in tokamaks, a phenomenon that poses a significant threat to the viability and longevity of future fusion reactors such as ITER and DEMO. The dramatically increased RE production expected in future high-current tokamaks makes it very difficult to avoid or mitigate REs in such devices when a plasma discharge terminates abnormally. Preventing damage from the intense localised heat loads they can cause requires a holistic approach that considers plasma, REs and PFC damage. Despite decades of progress in understanding the physics of REs and the thermomechanical response of PFCs separately, their complex interplay remains poorly understood. This document aims to initiate a coordinated, interdisciplinary approach to bridge this gap by reviewing experimental evidence, advancing diagnostic capabilities, and improving modelling tools across different scales, dimensionalities, and fidelities. Key topics include RE beam formation and transport, damage mechanisms in both brittle and metallic PFCs, and observed effects in major facilities such as JET, DIII-D, WEST and EAST. The Roadmap emphasises the urgency of predictive, high-fidelity modelling validated against well-diagnosed controlled experiments, particularly in the light of recent changes in ITER’s wall material strategy and the growing importance of private sector fusion initiatives. Each section of the Roadmap article is written to provide a concise overview of one area of this multidisciplinary subject, with an assessment of the status, a look at current and future challenges, and a brief summary. The ultimate goal of this initiative is to guide future mitigation strategies and design resilient components that can withstand the intense localised loads imposed by REs, thus ensuring the safe and sustainable operation of the next generation of fusion power plants.

Ratynskaia, Svetlana [KTH Royal Inst. of Technolog↗

DOE OSTI2020

Big Sky Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (Phase III Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The Big Sky Carbon Sequestration Partnership (BSCSP) pursued a Phase III demonstration project at Kevin Dome in north central Montana. Kevin Dome covers approximately 700 square miles and is a naturally occurring CO 2 reservoir that is flanked by oil and gas fields. The carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is in the upper Devonian Duperow (carbonate) formation and does not reach the spill point of the dome; therefore, the dome has potential as a CO 2 sequestration reservoir, a CO 2 supply, or as both if anthropogenic sources and enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations are associated with the dome. Kevin Dome could potentially act as a buffer to continue accepting anthropogenic CO 2 when EOR flooding operations are interrupted or completed. The project objective was to produce one million tonnes of CO 2 from the gas cap of Kevin Dome, pipe it laterally, inject, and re-store it in the brine leg of the same formation to test the hub / buffer storage concept. This was to be accomplished by drilling up to five production wells, building a short pipeline and compression facilities, and drilling an injection well and several monitoring wells. BSCSP commenced outreach and site characterization activities including acquiring baseline data for near-surface insurance monitoring, acquiring 3-dimensional, 9-component surface seismic over the project area, drilling two test wells (one in the production area and one in the injection area), coring key intervals, and performing comprehensive logging. Well tests of those wells revealed two barriers to the project. The production (Danielson 33-17) well was perforated in multiple zones but failed to produce any significant CO 2 . This was despite being drilled in the near vicinity of a historic well that had produced 3700 MCF per day in a drill stem test. Modeling indicated that this was likely due to a phase change during production causing a temperature drop resulting in hydrate and/or water ice formation that clogged the formation. Tests of the injection zone (Wallewein 22-1) well indicated total dissolved solids (TDS) slightly below the EPA required 10,000 parts per million (ppm) for a Class VI underground injection control permit. While the project was initiated before Class VI rules were promulgated, and this was an experimental project (seemingly qualified for a Class V permit), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) indicated that injection would require a Class VI permit. The low salinity result was unexpected as contours plotted based on regional formation water quality data indicated an expected TDS above 20,000 ppm, and wells between the recharge zone and the Wallewein well tested above 10,000 ppm. Faced with the inability to obtain an injection permit, the demonstration project could not proceed. However, the project had generated valuable samples and data on a large natural analog including 32 sq. mi. of 3-D, 9-C seismic, 430 ft. of carbonate core covering seven different depositional environments taken from areas with, and without the presence of CO 2 , 30 ft. of core of two caprocks, a tight carbonate and an anhydrite, a full set of modern logs on both wells, and well tests. DOE decided to re-scope the project around completing studies utilizing this data. This report covers both the initial scope and the re-scope (Task / Section numbers preceded with an R). While the report covers a wide range of project activities, highlights of this work include: Development of a geostatic model using neural nets to match well logs to facies and using multi-waveform seismic to inform reservoir heterogeneity; Unique mechanical testing of permeability – stress relationship in two caprock materials; Development of full waveform inversion to generate a high resolution velocity model; Model development for dual permeability (fracture and matrix) systems to better account for matrix-matrix interactions; Joint seismic wave inversion (including the first quadr-joint inversion) exhibiting better imaging of a challenging reservoir zone in stiff rock; Core flow and core flood results on a reactive carbonate; and Innovative laboratory measurements of seismic response of fractured core as a function of fluid fill.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Seasonal variations in fire conditions are important drivers in the trend of aerosol optical properties over the south-eastern Atlantic

Abstract. From June to October, southern Africa produces one-third of the global biomass burning (BB) emissions by widespread fires. BB aerosols are transported westward over the south-eastern Atlantic with the mid-tropospheric winds, resulting in significant radiative effects. Ascension Island (ASI) is located midway between Africa and South America. From June 2016 to October 2017, a 17-month in situ observation campaign on ASI found a low single-scattering albedo (SSA) as well as a high mass absorption cross-section of black carbon (MACBC), demonstrating the strong absorbing marine boundary layer in the south-eastern Atlantic. Here we investigate the monthly variations of critical optical properties of BB aerosols, i.e. SSA and MACBC, during the BB seasons and the driving factors behind these variations. Both SSA and MACBC increase from June to August and decrease in September and October. The average SSA during the BB seasons is 0.81 at 529 nm wavelength, with the highest mean ∼ 0.85 in October and the lowest ∼ 0.78 in August. The absorption enhancement (Eabs) derived from the MACBC shows similar trends with SSA, with the average during the whole of the BB seasons at ∼ 1.96 and ∼ 2.07 in 2016 and 2017, respectively. As the Eabs is higher than the ∼ 1.5 commonly adopted value by climate models, this result suggests the marine boundary layer in the south-eastern Atlantic is more absorbing than model simulations. We find the enhanced ratio of BC to CO (ΔBC/ΔCO, equal to BC/ΔCO as the BC background concentration is considered to be 0) is well correlated with SSA and MACBC, providing a simple way to estimate the aerosol optical characteristics in the south-eastern Atlantic. The exponential function we proposed can approximate SSA and MACBC with BC/ΔCO, and when BC/ΔCO is small it can capture the rapid growth of SSA as BC/ΔCO decreases. BC/ΔCO is influenced by combustion conditions and aerosol scavenging. From the analysis of the location of BB, the primary source fuel, the water content in the fuel, combined with the mean cloud cover and precipitation in the transport areas of the BB plume, we conclude that the increase in BC/ΔCO from June to August is likely to be caused by burning becoming more flaming. The reduction in the water content of fuels may be responsible for the change in the burning conditions from June to August. The decrease in BC/ΔCO in September and October may be caused by two factors, one being a lower proportion of flaming conditions, possibly associated with a decrease in mean surface wind speed in the burning area, and the other being an increase in precipitation in the BB transport pathway, leading to enhanced aerosol scavenging, which ultimately results in an increase in SSA and MACBC.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Combined Mesonet and Tracker

Title: Combined Mesonet and Trackers (UNL Mobile Mesonets) Authors University of Nebraska PI: Adam Houston, UNL Professor (ahouston2@unl.edu) Mailing Address: 126 Bessey Hall P.O. Box 880340 Lincoln, NE 68588-0340 CoMeT Overview The University of Nebraska-Lincoln operates three Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeTs). CoMeTs are Ford Explorers (model years 2015, 2017, and 2019) with forward-mounted suites of meteorological sensors and dual moonroofs, combining the capability of a mobile mesonet to collect near-surface observations with the capability of an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) tracker vehicle, which enables an observer in the second row of seats to see the aircraft and maintain compliance with Federal Aviation Administration policies on UAS operation. The CoMeTs collect observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155A, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass (Barbieri et al. 2019). The HMP155A and 109SS-L thermistor are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). This list of sensors is also included in the CoMeT data file metadata. Manufacturer specifications for these instruments are given in Table 1 of Hanft and Houston (2018). The reported measured quantities are summarized below.CoMeT-3 was funded through an equipment allocation included in the NSF TORUS award (AGS-1824649). Instrument Description The specific sensors included on each CoMeT are summarized in the table at the end of this section. In general each CoMeT collects observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210 barometer with a Gill pressure port, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, position using a Garmin 19x HVS receiver, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass. The HMP155 and 109SS are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). Fast temperature and corrected RH measurements (using sensors housed within the U-tube) have a time constant of 10-12 s based on data collected across a temperature and RH shock during the CLOUD-MAP 2017 calibration/validation tests on June 26, 2017. Vehicle speed was < 10 kts for this test. CoMeT-1 CoMeT-2 CoMeT-3 Slow Temperature Slow RH Vaisala HMP155A-L20-PT Part #: 22280-7 Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Fast temperature Campbell Scientific 109SS-L20-PT Part #: 21448-3 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-109 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-150 Pressure Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Wind RM Young 05103-L20-PT Part #: 18435-310 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 GPS Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Compass KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 Logger Campbell Scientific CR6-NA-XT-SW Part #: 28385-9 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Data Collection and Real-Time Processing The reported measured quantities are summarized in the table below. Quantity Units Source Epoch time Seconds GPS Latitude and longitude Degrees GPS Altitude m GPS Pressure hPa PTB210 Temperature (fast) deg C 109SS-L Temperature (slow) deg C HMP155 RH (slow) % HMP155 Vehicle speed m/s GPS Vehicle heading deg C-100 and GPS In addition to the measured variables, several derived variables are calculated. Corrected/fast relative humidity (%) Relative humidity is adjusted to the fast temperature following Richardson et al. (1998) and Houston et al. (2016). Water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) Dew point temperature (°C) Potential temperature (Kelvin) Virtual potential temperature (Kelvin) Equivalent potential temperature (Kelvin) Regular intercomparisons between all three CoMeTs were performed during TORUS 2019. Comparisons were also conducted between CoMeT-1 and CoMeT-2 during LAPSE-RATE (2018) on 14 July. In these intercomparisons, the vehicles were parked adjacent to each other aligned perpendicular to (and facing into) the wind. To minimize engine heating effects, intercomparisons were only conducted when the wind speed was >10 kts. Data Format Original data files for each deployment are saved as text files and then converted to NetCDF. NetCDF versions have units that are CF compliant and may not match the original units in the txt files. The naming convention for the NetCDF files is as follows: UNL.CoMeT3.{deployment date YYYYMMDD}.{start time of observation collection in UTC HHMM}.L2.{post-processing codes}.cdf example: UNL.CoMeT3.20190627.1931.L2.g1.f1.cdf Post-processing codes are included to track modifications to the raw data. These codes are closely connected to error flags associated with each record. Each letter corresponds to a particular instrument: g: GPS p: Barometer tf: Fast temperature ts: Slow temperature rh: Relative humidity f: Compass w: Wind monitor a: All instruments Each number corresponds to a particular post-processing action described more below. Measured and derived variables are included in the following table. Variable Heading Standard Name Units time Time seconds since 00:00:00, 01-01-1970 Alt Altitude meters lat Latitude degrees north lon Longitude degrees east fast_temp Air Temperature kelvin slow_temp Air Temperature kelvin pressure Air Pressure pascals logger_RH Relative Humidity percent calc_corr_RH Relative Humidity percent wind_speed Wind Speed meters per second wind_dir Wind From Direction degrees vehicle_dir Vehicle Direction degrees dewpoint Dew Point Temperature kelvin mixing_ratio Humidity Mixing Ratio g/g theta Air Potential Temperature kelvin theta_v Virtual Potential Temperature kelvin theta_e Equivalent Potential Temperature Kelvin error_flag The error_flag variable is a string that matches the post-processing codes listed above. All instruments will have an associated code, but will have a “0” if the datum is unchanged from the initial processed value. Error Codes The following table summarizes the error codes for data collected before 2020: Error Code Relevant CoMeT Description g1 1,2,3 Exact correction. GPS position and time reprocessed from raw data g2 1 As far as we can tell this is an exact correction to an error in the GPS time. During the correct time periods the time suddenly went backwards ~250s and stayed at this offset for 750s when it corrected itself. The offset was applied to the “time warp” period. p1 2 Approximate correction. Hole in the pressure tube connecting the pressure port to the barometer. Resulted in erroneously low air pressure measurements when the vehicle was in motion. Derived variables recalculated (dew point temperature [e depends on qv and p], water vapor mixing ratio, potential temperature, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) a1 3 Exact correction. Missing data reprocessed from raw data a2 1 Bug fix to bias correction for ts1, ts2, and rh1: water vapor mixing ratio was off by a factor of 10 and virtual potential temperature was wrong because of this. f1 3 No correction, missing data. Fluxgate compass inoperable. Wind speed and direction calculated using GPS-derived vehicle heading instead. rh1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.7% removed from relative humidity. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +0.6 K removed from slow temperature. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts2 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.0 K removed. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) References Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1046–1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1046:TCOEPT>2.0.CO;2. Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An Observational and Modeling Study of Mesoscale Air Masses with High Theta-E. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 2503–2524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.Wexler Houston, A. L., R. J. Laurence III, T. W. Nichols, S. Waugh, B. Argrow, and C. L. Ziegler, 2016: Intercomparison of unmanned aircraft-borne and mobile mesonet atmospheric sensors. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 33, 1569-1582, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0178.1. Lowe, P. R., 1977: An Approximating Polynomial for the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. J. Applied Meteorology, 16, 100–103. Richardson, S. J., S. E. Frederickson, F. V. Brock, and J. A. Brotzge, 1998: Combination temperature and relative humidity probes: Avoiding large air temperature errors and associated relative humidity errors. Preprints, 10th Symp. On Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 278–283. Waugh, S., and S. E. Frederickson, 2010: An improved aspirated temperature system for mobile meteorological observations, especially in severe weather. 25th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P5.2. [Available online at https://ams.confex.com/ams/25SLS/techprogram/paper_176205.htm.]

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗