Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “spatial transferability”

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.

620 records · Page 35

NSFnets (Navier-Stokes flow nets): Physics-informed neural networks for the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations

In the last 50 years there has been a tremendous progress in solving numerically the Navier-Stokes equations using finite differences, finite elements, spectral, and even meshless methods. Yet, in many real cases, we still cannot incorporate seamlessly (multi-fidelity) data into existing algorithms, and for industrial-complexity applications the mesh generation is time consuming and still an art. Moreover, solving ill-posed problems (e.g., lacking boundary conditions) or inverse problems is often prohibitively expensive and requires different formulations and new computer codes. Here, we employ physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), encoding the governing equations directly into the deep neural network via automatic differentiation, to overcome some of the aforementioned limitations for simulating incompressible laminar and turbulent flows. We develop the Navier-Stokes flow nets (NSFnets) by considering two different mathematical formulations of the Navier-Stokes equations: the velocity-pressure (VP) formulation and the vorticity-velocity (VV) formulation. Since this is a new approach, we first select some standard benchmark problems to assess the accuracy, convergence rate, computational cost and flexibility of NSFnets; analytical solutions and direct numerical simulation (DNS) databases provide proper initial and boundary conditions for the NSFnet simulations. The spatial and temporal coordinates are the inputs of the NSFnets, while the instantaneous velocity and pressure fields are the outputs for the VP-NSFnet, and the instantaneous velocity and vorticity fields are the outputs for the VV-NSFnet. This is unsupervised learning and, hence, no labeled data are required beyond boundary and initial conditions and the fluid properties. The residuals of the VP or VV governing equations, together with the initial and boundary conditions, are embedded into the loss function of the NSFnets. No data is provided for the pressure to the VP-NSFnet, which is a hidden state and is obtained via the incompressibility constraint without extra computational cost. Unlike the traditional numerical methods, NSFnets inherit the properties of neural networks (NNs), hence the total error is composed of the approximation, the optimization, and the generalization errors. Here, we empirically attempt to quantify these errors by varying the sampling (“residual”) points, the iterative solvers, and the size of the NN architecture. For the laminar flow solutions, we show that both the VP and the VV formulations are comparable in accuracy but their best performance corresponds to different NN architectures. The initial convergence rate is fast but the error eventually saturates to a plateau due to the dominance of the optimization error. For the turbulent channel flow, we show that NSFnets can sustain turbulence at , but due to expensive training we only consider part of the channel domain and enforce velocity boundary conditions on the subdomain boundaries provided by the DNS data base. We also perform a systematic study on the weights used in the loss function for balancing the data and physics components, and investigate a new way of computing the weights dynamically to accelerate training and enhance accuracy. In the last part, we demonstrate how NSFnets should be used in practice, namely for ill-posed problems with incomplete or noisy boundary conditions as well as for inverse problems. We obtain reasonably accurate solutions for such cases as well without the need to change the NSFnets and at the same computational cost as in the forward well-posed problems. As a result, we also present a simple example of transfer learning that will aid in accelerating the training of NSFnets for different parameter settings.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

GeoThermalCloud: Cloud Fusion of Big Data and Multi-Physics Models using Machine Learning for Discovery, Exploration, and Development of Hidden Geothermal Resources

The primary goals of this project are exploring hidden geothermal resources in the U.S.A. and designing profitable enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Many processes and parameters control geothermal exploration and energy production from geothermal fields. Diverse datasets (e.g., geology, geochemistry, geophysics, satellite, airborne geophysics) are available to help characterize subsurface geothermal conditions. Sparse and multi-scale characteristics of these datasets prohibit properly leveraging these datasets for geothermal exploration and profitable EGS design. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) promise to resolve these issues. The tremendous challenges and risks of geothermal exploration and production bring the demand for novel ML methods and tools that can (1) analyze large field datasets, (2) assimilate model simulations (large inputs and outputs), (3) process sparse datasets, (4) perform transfer learning (between sites with different exploratory levels), (5) extract hidden geothermal signatures in the field and simulation data, (6) label geothermal resources and processes, (7) identify high-value data acquisition targets, and (8) guide geothermal exploration and production by selecting optimal exploration, production, and drilling strategies. To address these necessities, ML-based geothermal resources exploration and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) design tools have been developed. The exploration tool is called GeoThermalCloud and EGS design tool is called GeoDT-ML. GeoThermalCloud (https://github.com/SmartTensors/GeoThermalCloud.jl) utilizes a LANL unsupervised ML platform called SmartTensors (https://tensors.lanl.gov/) to automate data analyses and interpretations by extracting hidden signatures to identify geothermal prospects. Also, it enables the identification of critical measurements needed to identify geothermal resource signatures. Alternatively, GeoDT-ML (https://github.com/SmartTensors/GeoThermalCloud.jl/tree/master/EGS) is an ML-based alternative to GeoDT (https://github.com/GeoDesignTool/GeoDT.git), a fast, simplified multi-physics solver to evaluate EGS project designs in uncertain geologic systems. GeoDT-ML leverages recent advances in deep learning and high-performance computing. It is a faster and simpler version of GeoDT. To make this project a success, we used capabilities of LANL, PNNL, Google, Stanford, and Julia Computing. We analyzed eight datasets of the U.S.A. using GeothermalCloud and demonstrated potential highly prospective geothermal resources and identified key factors defining highly prospective sites. The first data set includes 44 locations in southwest New Mexico and 18 geological, hydrogeological, geophysical, geothermal, geochemical attributes. We defined low- and medium-temperature hydrothermal systems and discovered a new highly prospective site. The second data set analyzed 18 shallow water chemistry attributes at 14,342 locations in the Great Basin. It demarcated modestly, moderately, and highly prospective sites including key attributes for each type of prospectivity. The third data set analyzed Utah FORGE data including satellite (InSAR), geophysical (gravity, seismic), geochemical, and geothermal attributes. Here, we performed prospectivity analysis to identify future drilling locations using geological, geochemical, and geophysical attributes. Maps of temperature at depth and heat flow are constructed based on the available data. Prospectivity maps were generated, and drilling locations were proposed for future geothermal field exploration. The fourth data set analyzed 21 attributes at 120 locations in Tularosa Basin, New Mexico; data comes from past play fairway analyses in this region. ML analyses identified geothermal signatures associated with modestly, moderately, and highly hydrothermal systems. We also defined dominant attributes and spatial distribution of the geothermal signatures. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth datasets include Tohatchi Springs, New Mexico, Hawaii, Brady site, Nevada, and EGS Collab, respectively. Moreover, we coupled GeothermalCloud and magnetotellurics data to pinpoint drilling locations for developing geothermal projects in the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico. GeothermalCloud found potential prospective locations for geothermal resources near White Sands Missile Range and McGregor Range at Fort Bliss. Magnetotellurics data determined the potential depth (~1800m) of geothermal prospects at McGregor Range based on apparent resistivity structures/layers in the subsurface. The McGregor Range consists of three resistivity layers and two resistivity structures. Magnetotellurics data also helps identify that the western portion of the McGregor Range has thick and low-resistivity earth materials. The low resistivity to the west is most likely for a fault system. Assuming temperature is consistent with a geothermal reservoir, the west-central part of the McGregor Range has the highest geothermal potential because of the increase in porosity and associated permeability attributed to the interpreted fault system. Also, we devised a coupling strategy between a process model and GeothermalCloud to characterize hydrogeological conditions and geothermal conditions, respectively. The process model characterizes hydrogeological and geothermal conditions on highly prospective geothermal sites provided by GeothermalCloud. We developed a physics-informed neural network (PINN) version of the Burns equation that can be easily coupled with GeothermalCloud. Furthermore, we performed an optimal design decision maximizing the economic value of an EGS power plant. This study optimized the range of well spacing between injection and production wells maximizing net present value in dollars (NPV). For this task, we used the GeoDT to simulate the Utah FORGE EGS development cycle from the initial well design to the end of production. Next, we accomplished another crucial task, which is predicting permeability of geothermal reservoirs. Predicting permeability of geothermal reservoirs is a non-trivial task because of huge computational runtime of simulation and lack of measurements. To avoid these limitations, we used easy-to-measure chemical concentrations in the subsurface as measurement data and convolutional neural network based ML model of a high-fidelity model. Next, we predicted permeability using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. We found that Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation predicts permeability with a high certainty if the prediction zone in the simulation area has chemical concentration data. Finally, we analyzed the DOE funded INGENIOUS and GeoDAWN projects data. For discovering hidden geothermal systems in the Great Basin, the INGENIOUS project accumulated old data, collected new data, and released them in 2022. The dataset includes a total of 24 geological, geophysical, and geochemical attributes. Data resolution and scale significantly vary prohibiting an appropriate usage. To avoid such limitations, we brought all data in the same resolution and scale by applying the inverse distance weighting interpolation technique for predicting data in unsampled locations. Subsequently, we analyzed LiDAR data of the GeoDAWN project. We received data in tiles format. The DOE’s overarching goal is to use ML on LiDAR data for finding favorable geological structures (e.g., step up faults in Brady, Nevada). To serve the purpose, we need to label favorable geologic structures that correspond to LiDAR data. We wrote an algorithm to label the LiDAR data with the favorable geologic structures.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

TRAILS Output Files

Overview This data repository contains ZIP files that store compressed versions of the output of running the WaterPaths utility planning and management tool in the DU Re-Evaluation mode (to download the tool, please see this GitHub repository). The tool was used to simulate the six-utility North Carolina Research Triangle problem. Details on the contents of each ZIP file can be seen below. Data details Temporal range: Weekly data for 2,344 weeks from 2015 to 2060 (45 years). Spatial range: Six water utilities in the North Carolina Research Triangle region (0: Chapel Hil/OWASA, 1: Durham, 2: Cary, 3: Raleigh, 4: Pittsboro, and 5: Chatham) File types: CSV and OUT Different solutions available The solution numbers correspond to the different pathway strategies (henceforth referred to as "solutions") discussed in paper's main and supporting text (abstract and link to the paper here). They are as follows: Sol92: The Durham-focused pathway strategy Sol132: The Raleigh-focused pathway strategy Sol140: The regionally-robust pathway strategy Objectives files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Objectives_RDMXX_solsXX_to_XX.csv files. Each CSV file will consist of a row representing all the objective values for that specific solution, while every six columns represents the reliability, restriction frequency, infrastructure net present value ($ mil), peak financial cost, worst-case cost, and unit cost ($ per MG; in that order) for each of the six utilities. There will be 1,000 such files, denoting the performance of the six utilities across the 1,000 deeply uncertain states of the world (DU SOWs). Pathway files These files can be accessed by unzipping solXX_objectives_pathways.zip that contains 1,000 Pathways_sXX_RDMXX.out file. Each OUT corresponds to the set of infrastructure being triggered in a specific DU SOW, and each file will have the name file will consist of four tab-delimited columns that are described as follows: Realization: The realization in which an infrastructure options being triggered utility: The utility currently triggering infrastructure week: The week in which a specific infrastructure option is being triggered infra.: The infrastructure option being triggered If the OUT file contains only the header line, no infrastructure was triggered for that specific DU SOW. Policies files These files can be obtained by unzipping Policies.zip. Each of the 1,000 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly water use restriction policies for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: 0rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 0 (values between 0 and 1) 1rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 1 (values between 0 and 1) 2rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 2 (values between 0 and 1) 3rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 3 (values between 0 and 1) 4rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 4 (values between 0 and 1) 5rest_m: restriction multiplier for utility 5 (values between 0 and 1) 0transf: transfer volume for utility 0 (in MGD) 1transf: transfer volume for utility 1 (in MGD) 2transf: transfer volume for utility 2 (in MGD) 3transf: transfer volume for utility 3 (in MGD) 4transf: transfer volume for utility 4 (in MGD) 5transf: transfer volume for utility 5 (in MGD) Water Sources files These files can be obtained by unzipping WaterSources_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each water source for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xvolume: available water volume from source X (in MGD) Xs_area: surface area of source X (in ACF) Xdemand: demand drawn from a water source from source X (in MGD) Xup_spill: upstream spillage from source X (in MGD) Xww_inflow: wastewater inflow from source X (in MGD) Xcatch_inflow: upstream catchment inflow to source X (in MGD) Xevap: evaporation multiplier for source X (values between 0 and 1) Xds_spill: downstream spillage from source X (in MGD) X_Y_alloc_cap: the allocated capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) X_Y_alloc_dem: the allocated demand from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Xtrmt_alloc_Y: the allocated treatment capacity from source X to utility Y (values between 0 and 1) Utilities files These files can be obtained by unzipping Utilities_subset.zip. Each of the 100 CSV files within the unzipped folder will contain weekly state variables at each utility for all 1,000 hydroclimatic realizations within a specific DU SOW. The column structure is as follows: Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xcapacity: total storage capacity of utility X (in MG) Xnet_inf: : net inflow for all storage infrastructure for utility X (in MGD) Xst_rof: short term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_stor_rof: short-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xst_trmt_rof: short-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_rof: long-term ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_stor_rof: long-term storage ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xlt_trmt_rof: long-term treatment ROF for utility X (values between 0 and 1) Xrest_demand: restricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunrest_demand: unrestricted demand for utility X (in MGD) Xunfulf_demand: unfulfilled demand for utility X (in MGD) Xwastewater: wastewater return for utility X (in MGD) Xtreat_capacity: total treatment capacity for utility X (in MG) Xcont_fund: reserve (contingency) fund balance for utility X Xins_pout: insurance payout for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xins_price: insurance price for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xinfra_npv: infrastructure net present value for utility ($mil) Xst_vol: total available storage volume of utility X (in MG) Xdebt_serv: debt service for utility X (usually once per year if the infrastructure is triggered; % annual volumetric revenue) Xstor_vol: total stored volume (in MGD) Xobs_ann_dem: observed annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xproj_dem: projected annual demand for utility X (in MGD) Xpv_debt_serv: present value of debt service payments for utility X (% annual volumetric revenue) Xgross_rev: gross revenue for utility X ($mil) Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program.

Artificial Intelligence↗

Super-Resolution Photothermal Patterning in Conductive Polymers Enabled by Thermally Activated Solubility

Doping induced solubility control (DISC) patterning is a recently developed technique which uses the change in polymer solubility upon doping, along with an optical dedoping process, to achieve high resolution optical patterning. DISC patterning is remarkable because the process resolution exceeds the linear Abbe’s diffraction limit, however, no mechanism has been proposed to explain such high resolution. Here, we use diffraction to spatially modulate the light intensity and determine the dissolution rate, revealing a superlinear dependence on light intensity, which yields features that are sharper than the profile of the writing photomask. This rate law is independent of wavelength, indicating that patterning resolution is not dominated by an optical dedoping reaction, as was previously proposed. Instead we show here that the optical patterning mechanism is primarily controlled by the thermal profile generated by the laser. To quantify this effect, the thermal profile and dissolution rate are modeled using a finite-element model and compared against patterned line cross sections as a function of wavelength, laser intensity, and dwell time. Our model reveals that although the laser-generated thermal profile is broadened considerably beyond the lasers resolution, the highly temperature dependent dissolution rate results in selective dissolution near the peak of the thermal profile. Therefore, the key factor in achieving super-resolution patterning is a strongly temperature dependent dissolution rate|a common feature of many polymers. In addition to suggesting several routes to improved resolution, our model also demonstrates that doping is not required for optical patterning of conjugated polymers, as was previously believed. Instead, we demonstrate that superlinear resolution optical patterning is attainable in any conjugated polymer simply by tuning the solvent quality during patterning, thus extending the applicability of our method to a wide class of materials. Here, we demonstrate the generality of photothermal patterning by writing sub-400 nm features into undoped Pff-BT4T-2OD.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

C HIMERA : A Massively Parallel Code for Core-collapse Supernova Simulations

Herein we provide a detailed description of the C HIMERA code, a code developed to model core collapse supernovae (CCSNe) in multiple spatial dimensions. The CCSN explosion mechanism remains the subject of intense research. Progress to date demonstrates that it involves a complex interplay of neutrino production, transport, and interaction in the stellar core, three-dimensional stellar core fluid dynamics and its associated instabilities, nuclear burning, and the fundamental physics of the neutrino–stellar core weak interactions and the equations of state of all stellar core constituents—particularly, the nuclear equation of state associated with core nucleons, both free and bound in nuclei. C HIMERA , by incorporating detailed neutrino transport, realistic neutrino–matter interactions, three-dimensional hydrodynamics, realistic nuclear, leptonic, and photonic equations of state, and a nuclear reaction network, along with other refinements, can be used to study the role of neutrino radiation, hydrodynamic instabilities, and a variety of input physics in the explosion mechanism itself. It can also be used to compute observables such as neutrino signatures, gravitational radiation, and the products of nucleosynthesis associated with CCSNe. The code contains modules for neutrino transport, multidimensional compressible hydrodynamics, nuclear reactions, a variety of neutrino interactions, equations of state, and modules to provide data for post-processing observables such as the products of nucleosynthesis, and gravitational radiation. C HIMERA is an evolving code, being updated periodically with improved input physics and numerical refinements. We detail here the current version of the code, from which future improvements will stem, which can in turn be described as needed in future publications.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

Radiation and heat transport in divergent shock–bubble interactions

Shock–bubble interactions (SBIs) are important across a wide range of physical systems. In inertial confinement fusion, interactions between laser-driven shocks and micro-voids in both ablators and foam targets generate instabilities that are a major obstacle in achieving ignition. Experiments imaging the collapse of such voids at high energy densities (HED) are constrained by spatial and temporal resolution, making simulations a vital tool in understanding these systems. In this study, we benchmark several radiation and thermal transport models in the xRAGE hydrodynamic code against experimental images of a collapsing mesoscale void during the passage of a 300 GPa shock. We also quantitatively examine the role of transport physics in the evolution of the SBI. This allows us to understand the dynamics of the interaction at timescales shorter than experimental imaging framerates. We find that all radiation models examined reproduce empirical shock velocities within experimental error. Radiation transport is found to reduce shock pressures by providing an additional energy pathway in the ablation region, but this effect is small (∼1% of total shock pressure). Employing a flux-limited Spitzer model for heat conduction, we find that flux limiters between 0.03 and 0.10 produce agreement with experimental velocities, suggesting that the system is well-within the Spitzer regime. Higher heat conduction is found to lower temperatures in the ablated plasma and to prevent secondary shocks at the ablation front, resulting in weaker primary shocks. Finally, we confirm that the SBI-driven instabilities observed in the HED regime are baroclinically driven, as in the low energy case.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

LLNL Kimberlina 1.2 NUFT Simulations June 2018 (v2)

This dataset contains the output 6,000, 3-dimensional reactive multi-phase flow and transport aquifer simulations of brine and CO2 leakage into a protective aquiver in California’s San Joaquin Valley and input data files detailing the geologic mesh, aquifer physical properties and CO2 and brine injection rates. This data set was generated as an ongoing effort with the US DOE National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) to evaluate the effectiveness of monitoring techniques to detect brine and CO2 leakage from legacy wells into underground sources of drinking water overlaying a CO2 storage reservoir. Each simulation contains a unique set of input parameters, generated stochastically. The outputs consist of these upper three geologic layers (from top): the Etchegoin, Macoma-Chanac, Santa Margarita-McLure formations. These simulations span the several distances (1, 3 and 6 km or wells W31-0.2, W31-0.5 and W31-1.0, respectively) from the CO2 injector, initiated from bottom hole pressure and saturation to calculate wellbore leakage from the storage reservoir, with low and high regional groundwater gradients and wellbore leakage into 5 leaky nodes. The dataset includes 1,000 unique simulations for each distance, which each contain a unique aquifer heterogeneity, aquifer and caprock permeability, and two model generations are included with a high permeability (prod07) and hybrid permeability (prod09). The range of permeability distributions is listed in Table 1. Each model generation consists of 3,000 simulations. Included in the dataset are the leakage rates determined from 2D wellbore models which utilize the pressure and CO2 saturation from LBL's reservoir simulations, NUFT mesh files with distributed lithology, NUFT rocktab files which describe the material properties for the geologic layers and the NUFT input files and post-processed output 'ntab' files. Each ntab file contains spatial (rows) and temporal (columns) model output tables for each model cell, the locations (x,y,z) and dimensions for each cells (dx, dy, dz). Table 1. Permeability distribution ranges for prod07 and prod09 model generations Geologic Layer: Permeability Range (log10 m^2) prod07 prod09 Etchegoin -12.92 to -10.92 -13.70 to -11.44 Macoma-Chanac -12.72 to -10.72 -13.50 to -11.24 Santa Margarita-McLure -12.70 to -10.70 -13.48 to -11.22 The input files used to generate the model include which are included in the dataset are: Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Time series of CO2 leakage input into the model (ex: Q_CO2.W31-0.2.sim1000.layers123.tab) Physical properties of the aquifer materials detailing the aquifer porosity, solid density, partitioning coefficients, permeabilities and van-Genuchten parameters detailed in a NUFT rocktab file: (ex: sim1000.usnt.rocktab) Numerical mesh and geologic data assigned to each model cell detailed in a NUFT genmsh format (ex: sim1000.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh) The primary output parameters are: pH (use absolute value) Change in TDS (mg/kg) Change in Pressure (Pa) Change CO2 gas saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) for example, the directory /p/lscratchh/mansoor1/nrap/kimberlina/prod09/mainfiles/sim1000/W31- 0.2 contains: sim1000.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab sim1000.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab Each row in the NTAB files consist of model output per numerical grid cell. Each output file contains 33 columns (variables), including the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the ith grid of y-axis 4. k: the ith grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The remainder (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take Pressure as an example, are: 14. 0.0y: initial pressure per cell. 15. 10.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 10th year. 16. 20.0y: simulated pressure at the end of the 20th year. ... (repeated for every 10 years until 200 years)... The model extends 10,000 m, 5,000 m and 1,411 m in the x,y and z dimensions, respectively. The mesh consists of 164,832 cells with mesh dimensions of 101 x 51 x 32 (nx, ny, nz), with cell dimensions ranging from 100 m laterally (along x and y-axis) and model layers are as designated in the z-axis: Layer 1: atmosphere (1e-30 m thick) Layer 2: upper caprock (10 m thick) Layers 3-13: Etchegoin (536.23 m thck) Layers 14-27: Macoma-Chanac (679.04 m thick) Layers 28-32: Santa Margarita-McLure (185.94 m thick) The wellbore is placed along node i=51, j=26, and extends vertically along 5 nodes from the top to the bottom of the model. Special instructions when extracting files: Each Gzip archive (ex: prod07.sim1000-sim00099.tar.gz) contains 100 simulations. Gzip archives should be transferred into base directories (ie. In Linux: mkdir prod07; mv prod07.*.tar.gz prod07/.) before extracting, or files will be overwritten. Each sub-simulation tree should have the following file structure pattern (using the linux 'tree' command): |-- prod07 | |-- sim0001 | |-- W31-0.2 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.2.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.2.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-0.5 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-0.5.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-0.5.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- W31-1.0 | | |-- Q_brn.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- Q_co2.W31-1.0.sim0001.layers123.tab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.no_bg.trans.TDS.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.trans.pH.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.CO2_sat.deltabg.red.ntab | | |-- sim0001.W31-1.0.usnt.P.deltabg.red.ntab | |-- sim0001.mesh_k16.prod07.trans.genmsh Disclaimer This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is operated by Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. This report was reviewed and released as LLNL-MI-753464.

aquifer↗

On Alfvénic turbulence of solar wind streams observed by Solar Orbiter during March 2022 perihelion and their source regions

It has been recently accepted that the standard classification of the solar wind solely according to flow speed is outdated, and particular interest has been devoted to the study of the origin and evolution of so-called Alfvénic slow solar wind streams and to what extent such streams resemble or differ from fast wind. In March 2022, Solar Orbiter completed its first nominal phase perihelion passage. During this interval, it observed several Alfvénic streams, allowing for characterization of fluctuations in three slow wind intervals (AS1-AS3) and comparison with a fast wind stream (F) at almost the same heliocentric distance. This work makes use of Solar Orbiter plasma parameters from the Solar Wind Analyzer (SWA) and magnetic field measurements from the magnetometer (MAG). The magnetic connectivity to the solar sources of selected solar wind intervals was reconstructed using a ballistic extrapolation based on measured solar wind speed down to the (spherical) source surface at 2.5 R s below which a potential field extrapolation was used to map back to the Sun. The source regions were identified using SDO/AIA observations. A spectral analysis of in situ measured magnetic field and velocity fluctuations was performed to characterize correlations, Alfvénicity, normalized cross-helicity, and residual energy in the frequency domain as well as intermittency of the fluctuations and spectral energy transfer rate estimated via mixed third-order moments. A machine learning technique was used to separate proton core, proton beam, and alpha particles and to study v − b correlations for the different ion populations in order to evaluate the role played by each population in determining the Alfvénic content of solar wind fluctuations. The comparison between fast wind and Alfvénic slow wind intervals highlights the differences between the two solar wind regimes: The fast wind is characterized by larger amplitude fluctuations, and magnetic and velocity fluctuations are closer to equipartition of energy. In fact the Alfvénic slow wind streams appear to be on a spectrum of wind types, with AS1, originating from open field lines neighboring active regions and displaying similarities with the fast wind in terms of fluctuation amplitude and turbulence characteristics, but not with respect to the alpha particles and proton beams. The other two slow streams differed both in their sources as well as plasma characteristics, with AS2 coming from the expansion of a narrow coronal hole corridor and AS3 from a region straddling a pseudostreamer. The latter displayed the coldest and highest density but the slowest stream with the smallest fluctuation amplitude and greatest magnetic energy excess. It also showed the largest scatter in proton beam speeds and the greatest difference in speed between proton beam and alpha particles. This study shows how the old fast–slow solar wind dichotomy, already called into question by the observations of slower Alfvénic solar wind streams, should further be refined, as the Alfvénic slow wind, originating in different solar wind regions, show significant differences in density, temperature, and proton and alpha-particle properties in the inner heliosphere. The observations presented here provide the starting point for a better understanding of the origin and evolution of different solar wind streams as well as the evolving turbulence contained within.

magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)↗