SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “VS”
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.
Ejecta properties: Gun vs. explosive drive comparisons (C2 data)
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Molten Salt vs. Liquid Sodium Receiver Selection Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
An international team led by NREL analyzed the favorability of two alternative liquid receiver designs for a 700+ degrees C receiver under the Gen3 CSP Liquid Pathway project. The competing liquid heat transfer fluids were a ternary chloride salt and liquid-metal sodium. The team applied a facilitated analytic hierarchy process to arrive at a recommended alternative and set a path forward for the project. The AHP criteria were formulated, weighted, and scored by the project leadership team and technical advisory committee consisting of energy industry and CSP experts. The six-month process culminated with a two-day workshop where the sodium alternative was deemed to have both a significantly higher benefit (19.3%) and a lower LCOE (11.4%), with only a slightly higher risk (~3%) than the salt alternative. Consequently, a sodium-receiver design was selected for the Liquid Pathway project, where it will be used to charge a two-tank chloride salt thermal energy storage system.
Image Compression: Sparse Coding vs. Bottleneck Autoencoders
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Mapping Cell Deflection inside PV Modules: The Case of Glass-Glass vs. Glass-Backsheet.
Abstract not provided.
Study of Forward J/ψ Production vs Event Multiplicity in p+p/A Collisions at PHENIX
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Cross-scale matching: Dislocation Dynamics vs Molecular Dynamics
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Power Loss and Safety Risks - Recoverable vs. Non-Recoverable?
This presentation presents an update to the PV fleet analysis on PV system degradation. A median system degradation of -0.7 %/year was found for almost 5000 inverter traces. No significant difference between silicon and CdTe technologies were found. Systems with trackers showed a slightly higher degradation. Silicon technologies such as PERC and heterojunction showed degradation similar to conventional technologies but also showed different degradation mechanisms. To achieve long lifetimes early failure must be minimized through qualification testing. Rapid detection during normal life is important as is the control of bill of materials in modules.
Current status of double differential cross section measurement for antineutrino DIS vs A at MINERvA
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Recommended vs. Actual Escalation Rates For ESPCs: Is the Guidance Good?
Escalation rates applied to the savings from energy savings performance contracts (ESPCs) and related financed energy projects play a large role in their scope and costs. The U.S. Department of Energy’sFederal Energy Management Program (FEMP) employs the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to package projections of real (uninflated) energy prices and general inflation forecasts developed by two other federal government entities. The main output from this exercise is NIST’s Energy Escalation Rate Calculator (EERC), which is strongly recommended by FEMP for use in performance contracts and relied on by federal agencies and others conducting performance contracts as an objective source for their projects’ escalation rates. This study investigated whether the rates prescribed by EERC (and a coarser NIST tool that preceded it) have provided users with estimates that approximate actual changes in energy prices over the years. The results are encouraging: the NIST tools slightly under-estimated actual electricity prices and somewhat over-estimated those for natural gas. Concern regarding the latter is mitigated, however, because a) it is seen as due primarily to the increasing surplus of natural gas from the “fracking revolution” in the 2010s, and b) natural gas savings were found to account for only 14.4% of the total savings from the largest population of federal ESPCs (FEMP’s indefinite quantity ESPC contract, representing roughly 430 projects), compared to almost four times that (56.8%) for electricity savings. Consequently, reliance on EERC appears to be a sound policy.
Portable Programming Model Exploration for LArTPC Simulation in a Heterogeneous Computing Environment: OpenMP vs. SYCL
The evolution of the computing landscape has resulted in the proliferation of diverse hardware architectures, with different flavors of GPUs and other compute accelerators becoming more widely available. To facilitate the efficient use of these architectures in a heterogeneous computing environment, several programming models are available to enable portability and performance across different computing systems, such as Kokkos, SYCL, OpenMP and others. As part of the High Energy Physics Center for Computational Excellence (HEP-CCE) project, we investigate if and how these different programming models may be suitable for experimental HEP workflows through a few representative use cases. One of such use cases is the Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber (LArTPC) simulation which is essential for LArTPC detector design, validation and data analysis. Following up on our previous investigations of using Kokkos to port LArTPC simulation in the Wire-Cell Toolkit (WCT) to GPUs, we have explored OpenMP and SYCL as potential portable programming models for WCT, with the goal to make diverse computing resources accessible to the LArTPC simulations. In this work, we describe how we utilize relevant features of OpenMP and SYCL for the LArTPC simulation module in WCT. We also show performance benchmark results on multi-core CPUs, NVIDIA and AMD GPUs for both the OpenMP and the SYCL implementations. Comparisons with different compilers will also be given where appropriate.
Supervised vs. unsupervised deep learning full waveform inversion: a case study at CCUS site, San Juan NM
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Detailed evaporation modelling for gasoline direct injection: iso-octane vs. E30.
Abstract not provided.
Introduction to the Real Space Model Validation Approach and Its Advantages vs. the ASME VV10 and VV20 Validation Approaches.
Abstract not provided.
Frequency-domain vs time-domain SP{sub N} equations to simulate neutron noise
Inside the reactor core mechanical vibrations of fuel assemblies can produce high fluctuations around a steady-state configuration, known as neutron noise. This effect can cause the triggering of power reduction measures. Classically, diffusion theory has been used to simulate this behavior. However, this equation has some limitations if the materials of the reactor have strong variations. In this work, we use the diffusive time-dependent simplified spherical harmonics equations that improve the previous results without the necessity of using high computational requirements. In particular, two types of analyses with these equations (SP{sub 3}) are made: a frequency-domain and a time-domain. A numerical neutron noise benchmark tests the methodology and compare both formulations. First, numerical results show a good agreement between the amplitudes and phases of the SP3 equations computed with the frequency-domain and time-domain. Therefore, as the frequency-domain computation only requires to solve a linear system, it is a recommendable option for neutron noise computations. Second, one can conclude that for this type of nuclear systems, where the assemblies are not homogenized, the SP{sub 3} approximation results improve considerably the accuracy of the diffusion theory.
Empirical Study of Molecular Dynamics Workflow Data Movement: DYAD vs. Standard I/O Systems
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
On Road vs. Off Road Low Load Cycle Comparison
Reducing criteria pollutants while reducing greenhouse gases is an active area of research for commercial on-road vehicles as well as for off-road machines. The heavy duty on-road sector has moved to reducing NOx by 82.5% compared to 2010 regulations while increasing the engine useful life from 435,000 to 650,000 miles by 2027 in the United States (US). An additional certification cycle, the Low Load Cycle (LLC), has been added focusing on part load operation having tight NOx emissions levels. In addition to NOx, the total CO2 emissions from the vehicle will also be reduced for various model years. The off-road market is following with a 90% NOx reduction target compared to Tier 4 Final for 130-560 kW engines along with greenhouse gas targets that are still being established. The off-road market will also need to certify with a Low Load Application Cycle (LLAC), a version of which was proposed for evaluation in 2021. Since the LLAC has not been finalized, this study is being conducted to compare and contrast the LLC for on-road with the LLAC for off-road as there might be some shared learnings. A US off-road production 2023 Fiat Powertrain 13L engine and aftertreatment system was chosen for this work. This engine is used in production for both off-road and on-road products, so it is a good choice for this study. The associated off-road aftertreatment system was aged for more relevant comparisons. The engine calibration was not altered for either of the low load cycles. This study shows that the cycles are quite different in nature as the market needs are different. The LLC includes a large fraction of operation at idle and lower speeds, representing products that use the engine primarily for motive power, where lower vehicle speed means a lower engine speed and load. The LLAC has more time and load spent at high speeds and slightly higher loads. The off-road products represented by this cycle often use the engine to drive auxiliary equipment which means higher parasitic loads and hand/fixed throttle. The comparison will include the use profiles, tailpipe NOx and greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, N2O).