Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “database for model validation”

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.

666 records · Page 37

The effect on soot and its gas precursors of doping ethylene with 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl-heptane in the nitrogen-fuel stream of a laminar non-premixed Planar Mixing Layer Flame (PMLF)

Synthetic Aviation Turbine Fuels (SATFs) are promising for reducing soot emissions from the aviation sector and diversifying Jet Fuel (JF) sources. Accurately predicting the combustion and emissions behavior of SATFs (and other JFs) necessitates robust experimental databases to elucidate the chemistry of long-chain iso-paraffins, which can compose up to two-thirds of SATF blends and whose behavior is considered to be well-represented by that of iso-dodecane isomers. Here, this study characterizes two laminar non-premixed Planar Mixing Layer Flames (PMLFs) with mild soot loads fueled by nitrogen-diluted ethylene, pure and doped with 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl-heptane, respectively. The two PMLFs have the same stoichiometric mixture fraction and total hydrocarbon mole fraction in the fuel stream (X F,F =X C2H4,F +X C12H26,F = 0.260), resulting in nearly the same maximum temperature (T max ≈1800 K) and simple identification of the effects of doping. Importantly, any horizontal PMLF cross-section has a self-similar structure that can be modeled as an equivalent One-Dimensional Counterflow Flame (1D-CF) with vanishingly small strain rate (a). The cross-section at a Height Above the Burner (HAB) of 50 mm is characterized in terms of C 0 -C 18 gas species using capillary sampling followed by GC-MS analyses. Laser-Induced Emission Spectroscopy (LIES) quantifies the soot volume fraction (ƒ v ) profiles at HAB=25 and 50 mm where Elastic Laser Light Scattering (E-LLS) is performed to determine the a of the equivalent 1D-CFs and the profile of the E-LLS equivalent diameter ( d 6,3 ) of soot. The substitution of 1500 ppm of ethylene with 2,2,4,6,6-pentamethyl-heptane causes an increase of ≈1.5 in the concentrations of several polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fv. Concurrently, the measured d 6,3 doubles in the oxidizer stream, yet remains the same in the fuel stream, at HAB=50 mm. Instead, at HAB= 25 mm, the iso-dodecane doping does not affect the d 6,3 profile in either stream. The experimental results partially validate the chemical reactions and soot formation kinetic model developed at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and provide directions to further improve its predictions.

Iso-dodecane (2,2,4,6,6-Pentamethyl-Heptane)↗

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗

Software to model AXAF image quality

This draft final report describes the work performed under this delivery order from May 1992 through June 1993. The purpose of this contract was to enhance and develop an integrated optical performance modeling software for complex x-ray optical systems such as AXAF. The GRAZTRACE program developed by the MSFC Optical Systems Branch for modeling VETA-I was used as the starting baseline program. The original program was a large single file program and, therefore, could not be modified very efficiently. The original source code has been reorganized, and a 'Make Utility' has been written to update the original program. The new version of the source code consists of 36 small source files to make it easier for the code developer to manage and modify the program. A user library has also been built and a 'Makelib' utility has been furnished to update the library. With the user library, the users can easily access the GRAZTRACE source files and build a custom library. A user manual for the new version of GRAZTRACE has been compiled. The plotting capability for the 3-D point spread functions and contour plots has been provided in the GRAZTRACE using the graphics package DISPLAY. The Graphics emulator over the network has been set up for programming the graphics routine. The point spread function and the contour plot routines have also been modified to display the plot centroid, and to allow the user to specify the plot range, and the viewing angle options. A Command Mode version of GRAZTRACE has also been developed. More than 60 commands have been implemented in a Code-V like format. The functions covered in this version include data manipulation, performance evaluation, and inquiry and setting of internal parameters. The user manual for these commands has been formatted as in Code-V, showing the command syntax, synopsis, and options. An interactive on-line help system for the command mode has also been accomplished to allow the user to find valid commands, command syntax, and command function. A translation program has been written to convert FEA output from structural analysis to GRAZTRACE surface deformation file (.dfm file). The program can accept standard output files and list files from COSMOS/M and NASTRAN finite analysis programs. Some interactive options are also provided, such as Cartesian or cylindrical coordinate transformation, coordinate shift and scale, and axial length change. A computerized database for technical documents relating to the AXAF project has been established. Over 5000 technical documents have been entered into the master database. A user can now rapidly retrieve the desired documents relating to the AXAF project. The summary of the work performed under this contract is shown.

Ahmad, Anees↗

Recent Upgrades to NASA SPoRT Initialization Datasets for the Environmental Modeling System

The NASA Short-term Prediction Research and Transition (SPoRT) Center has developed several products for its National Weather Service (NWS) partners that can initialize specific fields for local model runs within the NOAA/NWS Science and Training Resource Center (STRC) Environmental Modeling System (EMS). In last year's NWA abstract on this topic, the suite of SPoRT products supported in the STRC EMS was presented, which includes a Sea Surface Temperature (SST) composite, a Great Lakes sea-ice extent, a Green Vegetation Fraction (GVF) composite, and NASA Land Information System (LIS) gridded output. This abstract and companion presentation describes recent upgrades made to the SST and GVF composites, as well as the real-time LIS runs. The Great Lakes sea-ice product is unchanged from 2011. The SPoRT SST composite product has been expanded geographically and as a result, the resolution has been coarsened from 1 km to 2 km to accommodate the larger domain. The expanded domain covers much of the northern hemisphere from eastern Asia to western Europe (0 N to 80 N latitude and 150 E to 10 E longitude). In addition, the NESDIS POES-GOES product was added to fill in gaps caused by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) being unable to sense in cloudy regions, replacing the recently-lost Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS with negligible change to product fidelity. The SST product now runs twice per day for Terra and Aqua combined data collections from 0000 to 1200 UTC and from 1200 to 0000 UTC, with valid analysis times at 0600 and 1800 UTC. The twice-daily compositing technique reduces the overall latency of the previous version while still representing the diurnal cycle characteristics. The SST composites are available at approximately four hours after the end of each collection period (i.e. 1600 UTC for the nighttime analysis and 0400 UTC for the daytime analysis). The real-time MODIS GVF composite has only received minor updates in the past year. The domain was expanded slightly to extend further west, north, and east to improve coverage over parts of southern Canada. Minor adjustments were also made to the manner in which GVF is calculated from the distribution of maximum Normalized Difference Vegetation Index from MODIS. The presentation will highlight some examples of the substantial inter-annual change in GVF that occurred from 2010 to 2011 in the U.S. Southern Plains as a result of the summer 2011 drought, and the early vegetation green up across the eastern U.S. due to the very warm conditions in March 2012. Finally, the SPoRT LIS runs the operational Noah land surface model (LSM) in real time over much of the eastern half of the CONUS. The Noah LSM is continually cycled in real time, uncoupled to any model, and driven by operational atmospheric analyses over a long-term, multi-year integration. The LIS-Noah provides the STRC EMS with high-resolution (3 km) LSM initialization data that are in equilibrium with the operational analysis forcing. The Noah LSM within the SPoRT LIS has been upgraded from version 2.7.1 to version 3.2, which has improved look-up table attributes for several land surface quantities. The surface albedo field is now being adjusted based on the input real-time MODIS GVF, thereby improving the net radiation. Also, the LIS-Noah now uses the newer MODIS-based land use classification scheme (i.e. the International Biosphere-Geosphere Programme [IGBP]) that has a better depiction of urban corridors in areas where urban sprawl has occurred. STRC EMS users interested in initializing their LSM fields with high-resolution SPoRT LIS data should set up their model domain with the MODIS-IGBP 20-class land use database and select Noah as the LSM.

Case, Jonathan L.↗

Community recommendations on cryoEM data archiving and validation

In January 2020, a workshop was held at EMBL-EBI (Hinxton, UK) to discuss data requirements for the deposition and validation of cryoEM structures, with a focus on single-particle analysis. The meeting was attended by 47 experts in data processing, model building and refinement, validation, and archiving of such structures. This report describes the workshop's motivation and history, the topics discussed, and the resulting consensus recommendations. Some challenges for future methods-development efforts in this area are also highlighted, as is the implementation to date of some of the recommendations.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

High Yield, Economical and Environmentally Benign Production of Rare Earth Elements from Coal Ash (Phase II Final Summary Report)

Fly ash stored in landfills and ponds across the United States is an attractive, abundant domestic resource for the cost-effective recovery of rare earth elements (REE) and other critical minerals (CM). Physical Sciences Inc. (PSI) and its team members, Winner Water Services (WWS) and University of Kentucky/Center for Applied Energy Research (UK/CAER) successfully executed a multiphase program that developed technologies and their implementation in a pilot plant. We demonstrated plant operations for cost-effective and environmentally-friendly production of rare earth element oxide (REO) concentrates, and the critical minerals scandium and aluminum (in the forms of salts or oxide products), from coal ash. We also constructed and demonstrated a research-scale (0.5 kg/day) micropilot facility to validate the key physical and chemical processing operations, predict yields, and troubleshoot process bottlenecks. The project team then designed, constructed and operated two decoupled pilot plants: (1) an operational pilot plant for physical separation processes with capacity of 0.4 metric tons per day (tpd), where we optimized processes to produce selected ash fractions as the feedstock for chemical processing and as valuable byproducts such as cenospheres, magnetic ash, and secondary fuel carbon, and (2) an operational pilot plant for chemical ash processing with a capacity of 0.5 tpd that developed optimized processes for the production of: (a) REO concentrates, (b) critical minerals (Sc, Al), and (c) beneficiated ash as a valuable byproduct suitable for cement applications. In Phase I, the project team (with Equinox Chemicals in place of WWS) developed and demonstrated the feasibility of the physical and chemical separation processes, developed the design of a pilot plant, and began the development of a preliminary techno-economic model. In the baseline (initial) Phase II program, the project team developed and demonstrated the above pilot scale plant, producing salable REE concentrates, including Y and Sc (REYSc), plus commercially viable byproducts, using environmentally safe and high-yield physical and chemical enrichment processes. The team successfully demonstrated chemical pilot design, construction, shakedown, and operations of the plant. We produced the Phase II deliverable REYSc concentrate ((50 g of >60 wt.% purity REYSc salts on elemental basis), generated the feed for the Phase II follow-on program, identified processing challenges for future optimizations, and refined the techno-economic model. In the Phase II follow-on program, the project team: (1) developed and demonstrated processes to increase the REE amount by 3X (content basis) and convert the Phase II REE salt mixture to an oxide mixture, (2) produced/delivered >38 g of REO mixture with >85 wt.% purity (elemental basis); (3) developed processes to recover critical minerals scandium and aluminum from intermediate streams; (4) produced/delivered > 1 g of scandium salt mixture with >85 wt. % purity (elemental basis); (5) produced/delivered > 100 g of aluminum oxide type material with >70% wt. purity (elemental basis); and (6) updated the techno-economic model from the baseline Phase II program to assess CAPEX and OPEX of a commercial operation. This program has developed extensive databases on process chemistry, unit operations, plant engineering, and techno-economics that will enable further scale-up toward commercial plant design. Specific future developments will be focused on achieving dramatic savings in energy, reagent usage, and operating costs. The combined results will contribute significantly for maturing the technologies of REE recovery from coal byproducts and promote the establishment of domestic REE and CM supply chains.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

Accomplishments of the Advanced Reusable Technologies (ART) RBCC Project at NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center

The focus of the NASA / Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) Advanced Reusable Technologies (ART) project is to advance and develop Rocket-Based Combined-Cycle (RBCC) technologies. The ART project began in 1996 as part of the Advanced Space Transportation Program (ASTP). The project is composed of several activities including RBCC engine ground testing, tool development, vehicle / mission studies, and component testing / development. The major contractors involved in the ART project are Aerojet and Rocketdyne. A large database of RBCC ground test data was generated for the air-augmented rocket (AAR), ramjet, scramjet, and ascent rocket modes of operation for both the Aerojet and Rocketdyne concepts. Transition between consecutive modes was also demonstrated as well as trajectory simulation. The Rocketdyne freejet tests were conducted at GASL in the Flight Acceleration Simulation Test (FAST) facility. During a single test, the FAST facility is capable of simulating both the enthalpy and aerodynamic conditions over a range of Mach numbers in a flight trajectory. Aerojet performed freejet testing in the Pebble Bed facility at GASL as well as direct-connect testing at GASL. Aerojet also performed sea-level static (SLS) testing at the Aerojet A-Zone facility in Sacramento, CA. Several flight-type flowpath components were developed under the ART project. Aerojet designed and fabricated ceramic scramjet injectors. The structural design of the injectors will be tested in a simulated scramjet environment where thermal effects and performance will be assessed. Rocketdyne will be replacing the cooled combustor in the A5 rig with a flight-weight combustor that is near completion. Aerojet's formed duct panel is currently being fabricated and will be tested in the SLS rig in Aerojet's A-Zone facility. Aerojet has already successfully tested a cooled cowl panel in the same facility. In addition to MSFC, other NASA centers have contributed to the ART project as well. Inlet testing and parametrics were performed at NASA / Glenn Research Center (GRC) and NASA / Langley Research Center (LaRC) for both the Aerojet and Rocketdyne concepts. LaRC conducted an Air-Breathing Launch Vehicle (ABLV) study for several vehicle concepts with RBCC propulsion systems. LaRC is also performing a CFD analysis of the ramjet mode for both flowpaths based on GASL test conditions. A study was performed in 1999 to investigate the feasibility of performing an RBCC flight test on the NASA / Dryden Flight Research Center (DFRC) SR-71 aircraft. Academia involvement in the ART project includes parametric RBCC flowpath testing by Pennsylvania State University (PSU). In addition to thrust and wall static pressure measurements, PSU is also using laser diagnostics to analyze the flowfield in the test rig. MSFC is performing CFD analysis of the PSU rig at select test conditions for model baseline and validation. Also, Georgia Institute of Technology (GT) conducted a vision vehicle study using the Aerojet RBCC concept. Overall, the ART project has been very successful in advancing RBCC technology. Along the way, several major milestones were achieved and "firsts" accomplished. For example, under the ART project, the first dynamic trajectory simulation testing was performed and the Rocketdyne engine A5 logged over one hour of accumulated test time. The next logical step is to develop and demonstrate a flight-weight RBCC engine system.

Nelson, Karl W.↗

Probabilistic Modeling of the Renal Stone Formation Module

The Integrated Medical Model (IMM) is a probabilistic tool, used in mission planning decision making and medical systems risk assessments. The IMM project maintains a database of over 80 medical conditions that could occur during a spaceflight, documenting an incidence rate and end case scenarios for each. In some cases, where observational data are insufficient to adequately define the inflight medical risk, the IMM utilizes external probabilistic modules to model and estimate the event likelihoods. One such medical event of interest is an unpassed renal stone. Due to a high salt diet and high concentrations of calcium in the blood (due to bone depletion caused by unloading in the microgravity environment) astronauts are at a considerable elevated risk for developing renal calculi (nephrolithiasis) while in space. Lack of observed incidences of nephrolithiasis has led HRP to initiate the development of the Renal Stone Formation Module (RSFM) to create a probabilistic simulator capable of estimating the likelihood of symptomatic renal stone presentation in astronauts on exploration missions. The model consists of two major parts. The first is the probabilistic component, which utilizes probability distributions to assess the range of urine electrolyte parameters and a multivariate regression to transform estimated crystal density and size distributions to the likelihood of the presentation of nephrolithiasis symptoms. The second is a deterministic physical and chemical model of renal stone growth in the kidney developed by Kassemi et al. The probabilistic component of the renal stone model couples the input probability distributions describing the urine chemistry, astronaut physiology, and system parameters with the physical and chemical outputs and inputs to the deterministic stone growth model. These two parts of the model are necessary to capture the uncertainty in the likelihood estimate. The model will be driven by Monte Carlo simulations, continuously randomly sampling the probability distributions of the electrolyte concentrations and system parameters that are inputs into the deterministic model. The total urine chemistry concentrations are used to determine the urine chemistry activity using the Joint Expert Speciation System (JESS), a biochemistry model. Information used from JESS is then fed into the deterministic growth model. Outputs from JESS and the deterministic model are passed back to the probabilistic model where a multivariate regression is used to assess the likelihood of a stone forming and the likelihood of a stone requiring clinical intervention. The parameters used to determine to quantify these risks include: relative supersaturation (RS) of calcium oxalate, citrate/calcium ratio, crystal number density, total urine volume, pH, magnesium excretion, maximum stone width, and ureteral location. Methods and Validation: The RSFM is designed to perform a Monte Carlo simulation to generate probability distributions of clinically significant renal stones, as well as provide an associated uncertainty in the estimate. Initially, early versions will be used to test integration of the components and assess component validation and verification (V&V), with later versions used to address questions regarding design reference mission scenarios. Once integrated with the deterministic component, the credibility assessment of the integrated model will follow NASA STD 7009 requirements.

kidney stones↗

INTEX-NA: Intercontinental Chemical Transport Experiment - North America

INTEX-NA is an integrated atmospheric chemistry field experiment to be performed over North America using the NASA DC-8 and P-3B aircraft as its primary platforms. It seeks to understand the exchange of chemicals and aerosols between continents and the global troposphere. The constituents of interest are ozone and its precursors (hydrocarbons, NOX and HOX), aerosols, and the major greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O). INTEX-NA will provide the observational database needed to quantify inflow, outflow, and transformations of chemicals over North America. INTEX-NA is to be performed in two phases. Phase A will take place during the period of May-August 2004 and Phase B during March-June 2006. Phase A is in summer when photochemistry is most intense and climatic issues involving aerosols and carbon cycle are most pressing, and Phase B is in spring when Asian transport to North America is at its peak. INTEX-NA will coordinate its activities with concurrent measurement programs including satellites (e. g. Terra, Aura, Envisat), field activities undertaken by the North American Carbon Program (NACP), and other U.S. and international partners. However, it is being designed as a 'stand alone' mission such that its successful execution is not contingent on other programs. Synthesis of the ensemble of observation from surface, airborne, and space platforms, with the help of global/regional models is an important It is anticipated that approximately 175 flight hours for each of the aircraft (DC-8 and P-3B) will be required for each Phase. Principal operational sites are tentatively selected to be Bangor, ME; Wallops Island, VA; Seattle, WA; Rhinelander, WI; Lancaster, CA; and New Orleans, LA. These coastal and continental sites can support large missions and are suitable for INTEX-NA objectives. The experiment will be supported by forecasts from meteorological and chemical models, satellite observations, surface networks, and enhanced O3,-sonde releases. In addition to characterizing Atlantic-outflow and Pacific-inflow, INTEX-NA will characterize air masses transported between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. INTEX-NA will be the first continental scale inflow, outflow, and transformation experiment to be performed over North America. It will provide the most comprehensive observational data set to date to understand the O3/NOX/HOX/aerosol photochemical system and the carbon cycle. One of the critical needs of the carbon cycle research is to obtain large-scale vertical and horizontal concentration gradients of CO2, throughout the troposphere over continental source/sink regions. INTEX-NA is ideally suited to perform this role. Coastal and continental operational sites will allow us to develop a curtain profile of greenhouse gases (e. g. CO2,) and other key pollutants across North America. Such information is central to our quantitative understanding of chemical budgets on the continental scale. We expect to provide a number of satellite under-flights over land and water to test and validate observations from the appropriate satellite platform (e. g. Aura). We plan to develop strong collaborations with other national and international observational programs. Results from INTEX-NA should directly benefit the development of environmental policy for air quality and climate change.

Singh, Hanwant B.↗

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to included within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state.

Economics↗

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗

Noise of Embedded High Aspect Ratio Nozzles

A family of high aspect ratio nozzles were designed to provide a parametric database of canonical embedded propulsion concepts. Nozzle throat geometries with aspect ratios of 2:1, 4:1, and 8:1 were chosen, all with convergent nozzle areas. The transition from the typical round duct to the rectangular nozzle was designed very carefully to produce a flow at the nozzle exit that was uniform and free from swirl. Once the basic rectangular nozzles were designed, external features common to embedded propulsion systems were added: extended lower lip (a.k.a. bevel, aft deck), differing sidewalls, and chevrons. For the latter detailed Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations were made to predict the thrust performance and to optimize parameters such as bevel length, and chevron penetration and azimuthal curvature. Seventeen of these nozzles were fabricated at a scale providing a 2.13 inch diameter equivalent area throat." ! The seventeen nozzles were tested for far-field noise and a few data were presented here on the effect of aspect ratio, bevel length, and chevron count and penetration. The sound field of the 2:1 aspect ratio rectangular jet was very nearly axisymmetric, but the 4:1 and 8:1 were not, the noise on their minor axes being louder than the major axes. Adding bevel length increased the noise of these nozzles, especially on their minor axes, both toward the long and short sides of the beveled nozzle. Chevrons were only added to the 2:1 rectangular jet. Adding 4 chevrons per wide side produced some decrease at aft angles, but increased the high frequency noise at right angles to the jet flow. This trend increased with increasing chevron penetration. Doubling the number of chevrons while maintaining their penetration decreased these effects. Empirical models of the parametric effect of these nozzles were constructed and quantify the trends stated above." Because it is the objective of the Supersonics Project that future design work be done more by physics-based computations and less by experiments, several codes under development were evaluated against these test cases. Preliminary results show that the RANS-based code JeNo predicts the spectral directivity of the low aspect ratio jets well, but has no capability to predict the non-axisymmetry. An effort to address this limitations, used in the RANS-based code of Leib and Goldstein, overpredicted the impact of aspect ratio. The broadband shock noise code RISN, also limited to axisymmetric assumptions, did a good job of predicting the spectral directivity of underexpanded 2:1 cold jet case but was not as successful on high aspect ratio jets, particularly when they are hot. All results are preliminary because the underlying CFD has not been validated yet. An effort using a Large Eddy Simulation code by Stanford University predicted noise that agreed with experiments to within a few dB.

Bridges, James E.↗

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.

Economics↗

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html 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. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, 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 any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html 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. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, 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 any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗

Residential Building Energy Efficiency Field Studies: Low-Rise Multifamily

In recent years, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has conducted a series of research studies to validate energy efficient building technologies in the field. Much of the work has focused on single-family construction, and some has also addressed commercial energy codes. The work detailed in this DOE-funded study (EE0007616) focuses on low-rise multifamily buildings (three stories or fewer above grade) in various regions of the United States, and reports on how state-level building codes are being implemented, both in terms of observed characteristics and also in terms of estimated energy impacts. Nearly 100 buildings across four states—Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington—were sampled, which represent a range of climate types from mild temperature to very cold continental. Both common entry and outdoor entry buildings were included, and a parallel research project evaluated envelope air tightness and current still-evolving air tightness testing methods. Finally, a set of structured interviews of building designers and other relevant professionals was carried to out to gain more insight into this market. To the greatest extent possible, the methodology developed under the project for low-rise multifamily buildings mirrored the approach established by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) for single-family residential buildings (https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/residential-building-energy-code-field-study). This included the general approach to sampling, recruitment, and data collection, as well as data analysis and presentation. The range of permitting dates for the sites encompassed two energy code cycles in most regions. All states in the study had adopted a variation of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) for the structure of their state code. The low-rise multifamily occupancy presents a hybrid building type: most of the building’s conditioned floor area was covered by the residential chapter of the code while portions of the building (such as corridors and common spaces) fell under the commercial code chapter. The key items assessed in this work were: Building Shell—exterior wall insulation, ceiling insulation, foundation insulation, windows. Common Areas—HVAC and lighting. Living Units—lighting, ventilation. A few items were not assessed in detail, given their relative paucity in this occupancy type; these included duct leakage, pipe insulation, and hot water circulation controls. Building characteristics were collected via a combination of architectural, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing plan reviews and field inspections, and entered into a spreadsheet-based tool that was later queried to build a database. Data went through quality control both upon arrival and via a later semi-automated review and assurance process. Most of the data are presented graphically so that the reader can quickly assess compliance with the applicable energy codes (both by state and by code year). As a final step, EnergyPlus™ simulations were created for all buildings in the study to estimate both the as-found energy use intensity (EUI) and the energy and CO 2 that could be saved if features that were found to not meet code minimums were brought up to code. The savings estimates were tabulated for each of the four states in the study. The research team found that the single-family approach was largely applicable to low-rise multifamily buildings. This applies to both the data collection and the prototype EUI analysis. Most of the occupied space is living units and falls under residential energy codes, and many characteristics use similar envelope construction and relatively straightforward mechanical systems and lighting. One of the most challenging aspects of this work was to build an effective spreadsheet-based data collection instrument that could allow efficient collection of both building plan and field data. The research team is of the view that other methods could be equally effective if the work is done carefully with diligent quality control. The primary findings for the work center around the thermal envelope and mechanical systems and lighting at the sites: For thermal envelope components, the majority of buildings met or were better than the prescriptive code.This suggests that building designers and builders are aware of code requirements. In some cases, surveyed buildings were designed to qualify for energy efficiency certification programs. These buildings made up at least 20% of sampled buildings in each state. Almost all buildings met mechanical system efficiency requirements (for both living units and common areas). In some cases, sites employed systems that were considerably more efficient than required by the applicable energy code. Dwelling units had a majority of high-efficacy lighting, often in excess of the state’s residential code requirements. While high-efficacy fixtures were also typical in common areas (corridors and stairwells), lighting power densities (LPDs) in these areas were sometimes higher than levels dictated by the applicable part of the state commercial energy code. The simulation models run on a series of low-rise multifamily prototypes, informed by a composite of the field data collected, calculated annual EUIs of between 20 and 50 kBtu/ft2-yr, with the range representing the effects of both building characteristics and building location (climate zone). A detailed process (based on simulations of prototype buildings) was used to estimate the amount of avoided energy use that would occur if 100% adherence to energy codes were attained. The results indicated modest savings are attainable for items such as window thermal performance and common area lighting. The result is overall only a modest potential for additional energy savings, averaging about 10% of EUI.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

State-of-the-Art: Small Spacecraft Technology

When the first edition of NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology State-of-the-art report was published in 2013, 247 CubeSats and 105 other non-CubeSat small spacecraft under 50 kilograms (kg) had been launched worldwide, representing less than 2% of launched mass into orbit over multiple years. In 2013 alone, around 60% of the total spacecraft launched had a mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 83% were under 200 kg and 37% were nanosatellites (1). Of the total 1,849 spacecraft launched in 2021, 94% were small spacecraft with an overall mass under 600 kg, and of those under 600 kg, 40% were under 200 kg, and 11% were nanosatellites (1). Since 2013, the fight heritage for small spacecraft has increased by over 30% and has become the primary source to space access for commercial, government, private, and academic institutions. The total number of spacecraft launched in the past 10 years is 5,681 and 45% of those had a mass. As with all previous editions of this report, the 2022 edition captures and distills a wealth of new information available on small spacecraft systems from NASA and other publicly available sources. This report is limited to publicly available information and cannot reflect major advances in development that are not publicly disclosed. We encourage any opportunity to publish mission outcomes and technology development milestones (e.g., via conference papers, press releases, company website) so they can be reflected in this report. Overall, this report is a survey of small spacecraft technologies sourced from open literature; it does not endeavor to be an original source, and only considers literature in the public domain to identify and classify devices. Commonly used sources for data include manufacturer datasheets, press releases, conference papers, journal papers, public filings with government agencies, news articles, presentations, the compendium of databases accessed via NASA’s Small Spacecraft Systems Virtual Institute (S3VI) Information Search, and engagement with companies. Data not appropriate for public dissemination, such as proprietary, export controlled, or otherwise restricted data, are not considered. As a result, this report includes many dedicated hours of desk research performed by subject matter experts reviewing resources noted above. Content in this 2022 edition is based on data available by October 2022. This report should not be considered as a comprehensive overview of all the technologies but a great reference for the current state-of-the-art SmallSat technologies. The organizational approach for each chapter is relatively consistent with previous editions and includes an introduction of the technology, current development status of the technology’s procurable systems, and summary tables of technologies surveyed. The content in each chapter is uniquely organized to present a mini-stand-alone report on spacecraft subsystems. As in previous years, chapters include information from previous editions but are updated with new and maturating technologies and reference missions. Tables in each section provide a convenient summary of the technologies discussed, with explanations and references in the body text. The authors have attempted to isolate trends in the small spacecraft industry to point out which technologies have been adopted after successful demonstration missions. Lastly, the authors tried to use the terms “SmallSat,” “microsatellite,” “nanosatellite,” and “CubeSat” in a consistent manner, even as these terms are often used interchangeably in the space industry. Every subsystem chapter contains updated information to reflect the growth in the small spacecraft market. Significant changes are included in several chapters. The “Complete Spacecraft Platforms” chapter now includes information on the two main market options, hosted payload services and dedicated buses. The “Power” chapter provides information on the development of solid-state batteries with significantly higher energy than the current state-of-theart lithium-ion batteries. A large effort was made to update the “Communications” chapter to appropriately capture the recent technology maturation of optical communications for SmallSats. The “Ground Data Systems and Mission Operations” chapter was updated to reflect the recent establishment of the Near Space Network and influx of SmallSat Optical Ground Stations. The “Guidance, Navigation and Control” chapter was updated to include Lidar sensor technology. The “Deorbit Systems” chapter includes a discussion of recently proposed changes by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to limit a spacecraft’s lifetime to no longer than 5 years after end-of-mission. The “Identification and Tracking” Chapter includes updated information on the progress of SmallSat tracking. Finally, this report now encompasses technology funded by NASA’s Small Spacecraft Technology (SST) program’s SmallSat Technology Partnerships (STP) initiative which is described further in this Introduction. The reader can find the included SST technology in the “On the Horizon” section of the “Thermal Systems”, “Communications”, and “Guidance, Navigation, and Control” chapters. A central element of this report is to list state-of-the-art technologies by NASA standard Technology Readiness Level (TRL) as defined by the 2020 NASA Engineering Handbook, found in NASA NPR 7123.1C NASA Systems Engineering Processes and Requirements. The authors have endeavored to independently verify the TRL value of each technology by reviewing and citing published test results or publicly available data to the best of their ability. Where test results and data disagree with vendors’ own advertised TRL, the authors have attempted to engage the vendors to discuss the discrepancy. Readers are strongly encouraged to follow the references cited in the literature describing the full performance range and capabilities of each technology. Readers of this report should reach out to individual companies to further clarify information. It is important to note that this report takes a broad system-level view. To attain a high TRL, the subsystem must be in a flight-ready configuration with all supporting infrastructure—such as mounting points, power conversion, and control algorithms—in an integrated unit. An accurate TRL assessment requires a high degree of technical knowledge on a subject device, and an in-depth understanding of the mission (including interfaces and environment) on which the device was flown. There is variability in TRL values depending on design factors for a specific technology. For example, differences in TRL assessment based on the operating environment may result from the thermal environment, mechanical loads, mission duration, or radiation exposure. If a technology has flown on a mission without success, or without providing valid confirmation to the operator, such claimed “flight heritage” was discounted. The authors believe TRLs are most accurately determined when assessed within the context of a program’s unique requirements. While the overall capability of small spacecraft has matured since the 2021 edition of this report, technologies are still being developed to make deep space SmallSat missions more routine and more cost effective. Future editions of this report may include content dedicated to the rapidly growing fields of assembly, integration, and testing services, and mission modeling and simulation–all of which are now extensively represented at small spacecraft conferences. Many of these subsystems and services are still in their infancy, but as they evolve and reliable conventions and standards emerge, the next iteration of this report may also evolve to include additional chapters.

Bruce Yost↗

ORNL_AISD-Ex: Quantum chemical prediction of UV/Vis absorption spectra for over 10 million organic molecules

We performed calculations of electronic excitation energies and associated oscillator strengths based on the time-dependent density-functional tight-binding (TD-DFTB) method [1]. The SMILES (Simplified molecular-input line-entry system) strings of the molecules from the AISD HOMO-LUMO database [2] were converted to a 3D atomistic structure and stored in a PDB file after preliminary geometry optimization using the Merck Molecular Force Field (MMFF94) in RDKit [3,4]. The primary information stored in the PDB file archive consists of Cartesian coordinates for each atom of the molecule in their 3D location in space, along with summary information about the structure, sequence, and experiment. We then performed molecular geometry optimization using the density-functional tight-binding (DFTB) method [5] in the electronic ground state, followed by single-point excited states calculations, as described below. We note that, since RDKit employs a random choice for the generation of molecular conformers, the molecular geometries obtained in this dataset could be different from the ones that were generated when the AISD HOMO-LUMO dataset was generated. The computed excitation energies and associated oscillator strengths can be converted to predict UV/Vis absorption spectra, where excitation energies correspond to absorption peak positions, and oscillator strengths are a good measure of the probability of absorption of visible or UV light in transitions between electronic ground and excited states. The conversion of SMILES strings to 3D Cartesian coordinates of fully DFTB-optimized molecules was successful for 10,502,904 out of 10,502,917 molecules. For these molecules, both geometry optimizations and excited states calculations were successful. The DFTB calculations did not complete for 13 molecules of the original AISD HOMO-LUMO dataset. We still provide information about the geometry of these molecules. The molecules are diverse for chemical compositions (which span 5 non-hydrogen elements: oxygen, carbon, nitrogen, fluorine, sulfur) and molecular size (the smallest molecule contains 5 non-hydrogen atoms, and the largest molecule contains 71 non-hydrogen atoms). The DFTB method [5] is an approximation to density functional theory (DFT), utilizing a minimal basis set in conjunction with a two-center approximation to the electronic Hamiltonian and overlap matrix elements. The DFTB total energy is the sum of an electronic and a repulsive energy contribution, and their calculation requires optimized electronic parameters and diatomic repulsive potential energy functions. All DFTB calculations were performed using the DFTB+ code [6] (version 21.2) and the wrapper for DFTB+ in the Atomic Simulation Environment (ASE) (version 3.22.1) [7], which performed an internal conversion of Cartesian coordinates from PDB to the .gen file format. For the geometry optimizations on the electronic ground state potential energy surface of the molecules, we have chosen the third-order DFTB (DFTB3) method [5c] and employed the matching 3ob set of electronic parameters and repulsive potentials [8]. The empirical γ-damping for hydrogen bond correction, and Grimme's D3 empirical dispersion correction with Becke-Johnson damping (D3(BJ)) [9] dispersion correction was included to improve the description of non-covalent interactions. For excited states single-point energy calculations, we employed the TD-DFTB method in conjunction with the DFTB2 method [5b] and the matching mio [5b,10] and halorg [11] parameter sets. We opted to request the simultaneous calculation of 50 excited states for singlet transition to investigate sufficient number of excited states, based on linear response theory using the Casida equation [Ref: T. A. Niehaus, S. Suhai, F. Della Sala, P Lugli, M. Elstner, G. Seifert, and Th. Frauenheim. Tight-binding approach to time-dependent density-functional response theory. Phys. Rev. B, 63:085108, 2001] and the ARPACK diagonalizer [R. B. Lehoucq, D. C. Sorensen, and C. Yang. Arpack users guide: Solution of large-scale eigenvalue problems by implicitly restarted arnoldi methods, 1997. 46, 51]. The dataset contains 1001 tar.gz files. Tar files are named as “ornl_aisd_ex_1.tar.gz†through “ornl_aisd_ex_1000.tar.gzâ€. Additionally, the 13 failed molecules are in “ornl_aisd_ex_unprocessed.tar.gzâ€. Except for the tar files listed below, each tar file contains 10,500 molecules. Tar files numbered 34, 121, 128, 352, 360, 429, 495, 509, 518, 627, 676, 668, and 862 contain 10,499 molecules each. The last tar file numbered 1000 contains 13,417 molecules. The total size of the uncompressed dataset is over 283 Gigabytes. The code for calculating the electronic excitation energies and statistical analysis of the dataset is provided at the following GitLab repository: https://github.com/ORNL/Analysis-of-Large-Scale-Molecular-Datasets-with-Python Calculating the UV spectrum of a molecule requires performing 3 main operations: 1. Converting the smiles string representation of a molecule into a geometric structure where each atom is assigned XYZ coordinates. The geometric structure is written to the file smiles.pdb. 2. Using smiles.pdb to compute the relaxed geometry of the molecule, which corresponds with the position of the atoms at the position of equilibrium at the ground state. This generates the files band.out, detailed.out, and geo_end.gen. 3. Using geo_end.gen to calculate the UV spectrum of the molecule which is written into the file EXC.DAT. Every molecule in the dataset has its own directory. The files contained in each molecule directory are as follows: 1. geo_end.gen 2. detailed.out 3. band.out 4. EXC.DAT 5. smiles.pdb REFERENCES [1] Niehaus, T. A.; Suhai, S.; Della Salla, F.; Lugli, P.; Elstner, M.; Seifert, G.; Frauenheim, Th. Tight-binding approach to time-dependent density-functional response theory. Phys. Rev. B, 2001, 63, 085108/1-9. [2] Blanchard, A.; Gounley, J.; Metha, K.; Yoo, P.; Irle, S. AISD HOMO-LUMO. DOI: 10.13139/ORNLNCCS/1869409 [3] RDKit: Cheminformatics and Machine Learning Software. 2013, [http://www.rdkit.org] [4] Tosco, P.; Stiefl, N. and Landrum, G. Bringing the MMFF force field to the RDKit: implementation and validation. J Cheminform. 2014, 6, 1–4. [5] a) Porezag, D.; Frauenheim, T.; Kohler, T.; Seifert, G.; Kaschner, Construction of tight-binding-like potentials on the basis of density-functional theory: Application to carbon, R. Phys. Rev. B 1995, 51, 12947-12957; b) Elstner, M.; Porezag, D.; Jungnickel, G.; Elsner, J.; Haugk, M.; Frauenheim, Th.; Suhai, S.; Seifert, G.; Phys. Rev. B 1998, 58, 7260-7268; c) Gaus, M.; Cui, Q.; Elstner, M. DFTB3: Extension of the Self-Consistent-Charge Density-Functional Tight-Binding Method (SCC-DFTB), J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2011, 7, 931-948; d) Cui, Q.; Elstner, M. Density functional tight binding: values of semi-empirical methods in an ab initio era, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 2014, 16, 14368-14377. [6] Hourahine, B. et al. DFTB+, a software package for efficient approximate density functional theory based atomistic simulations, J. Chem. Phys. 2020, 152, 124101/1-19. [7] Larsen, A. H. et al. The atomic simulation environment—a Python library for working with atoms. J. Phys.: Cond. Matter 2017, 29, 273002. [8] Kubillus, M.; Kubar, T.; Gaus, M.; Rezac, J.; Elstner, M. Parameterization of the DFTB3 Method for Br, Ca, Cl, F, I, K, and Na in Organic and Biological Systems, J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2015, 11, 332-342. [9] Brandenburg, J. G.; Grimme, S. Accurate Modeling of Organic Molecular Crystals by Dispersion-Corrected Density Functional Tight Binding (DFTB), J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2014, 5, 1785−1789. [10] a) Niehaus, T. A.; Elstner, M.; Frauenheim, Th.; Suhai, S. Application of an approximate density-functional method to sulfur containing compounds. J. Mol. Struct.: THEOCHEM 2001, 541, 185-94; b) Elstner, M.; Hobza, P.; Frauenheim, Th.; Suhai, S.; Kaxiras, E. Hydrogen bonding and stacking interactions of nucleic acid base pairs: A density-functional-theory based treatment. J. Chem. Phys. 2001, 114, 5149-55. [11] Kubar, T.; Bodrog, Z.; Gaus, M.; Köhler, C.; Aradi, B.; Frauenheim, Th.; Elstner, M. Parametrization of the SCC-DFTB Method for Halogens. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2013, 9, 2939-49.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗