SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “conditionally specified models”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 73 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2023

Principled Schedulability Analysis for Distributed Storage Systems Using Thread Architecture Models

In this article, we present an approach to systematically examine the schedulability of distributed storage systems, identify their scheduling problems, and enable effective scheduling in these systems. We use Thread Architecture Models (TAMs) to describe the behavior and interactions of different threads in a system, and show both how to construct TAMs for existing systems and utilize TAMs to identify critical scheduling problems. We specify three schedulability conditions that a schedulable TAM should satisfy: completeness, local enforceability, and independence; meeting these conditions enables a system to easily support different scheduling policies. We identify five common problems that prevent a system from satisfying the schedulability conditions, and show that these problems arise in existing systems such as HBase, Cassandra, MongoDB, and Riak, making it difficult or impossible to realize various scheduling disciplines. We demonstrate how to address these schedulability problems using both direct and indirect solutions, with different trade-offs. To show how to apply our approach to enable scheduling in realistic systems, we develop Tamed-HBase and Muzzled-HBase, sets of modifications to HBase that can realize the desired scheduling disciplines, including fairness and priority scheduling, even when presented with challenging workloads.

Computer Science↗

DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Nuclear's Role in the U.S. Electricity System: A Multi-Model Inter-Comparison Analysis

Multiple capacity expansion models (CEMs) for the U.S. power system represent the balance of options among generation, transmission, and storage assets that can satisfy electric loads, operating and planning reserves, and policy requirements. These models are typically set up to find the least-cost portfolio of assets that meet specified requirements, and model decisions can include both investments in new, and retirement of existing, resources. The scenarios explored by CEMs can help inform strategies for meeting future electricity and energy needs under a range of future conditions. However, projections can differ between models, sometimes dramatically, for a seemingly similar scenario. Differences in model coverage, structure, and input assumptions contribute to the range of model outcomes. Understanding what drives the biggest differences in model outputs improves model insights and provides context for interpreting results. This summary presents analysis that was performed through a forum of analysts who own, update, and apply CEMs, as well as nuclear experts from national laboratories, industry, and the research community. The following sections describe methods, results, and findings from an original, innovative inter-model comparison that provides insights into what drives the greatest differences in nuclear retirement and deployment projections across models and a range of technology, market, and policy conditions.

capacity expansion model↗

DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Creep and Fatigue Characterization of High Strength Alloy Thin Sections in Advanced CO2 Heat Exchangers

The objective of this work was to characterize and model elevated temperature creep and fatigue behavior for thin sheet and foil forms of gamma-prime strengthened alloys in wrought form and as-processed folded and brazed constructions. This work was motivated by the demanding temperature and pressure service conditions of the GEN3 Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) and supercritical CO2 (sCO2) power cycle working fluid. More specifically, the possibility of leveraging the superior creep strength of gamma-prime alloys in folded-fin and brazed-plate heat exchanger constructions. Gamma-prime alloys represent a step-change in raw-material strength over solid-solution strengthened alloys. And the folded-fin and brazed-plate heat exchanger architecture is lightweight and leverages cost-effective material stock forms. The investigation contained two parallel paths. (1) The first is referred to as a fundamental investigation where Oak Ridge National Laboratory conducts uniaxial creep testing on thin sheet and foil in wrought form. This effort aimed to serve as a benchmark against a relatively sparse existing database and a baseline comparison for path number 2. (2) The second path is referred to as the practical investigation where Brayton Energy manufactures plate-fin heat exchangers and performs pressurized creep and fatigue testing. This effort aimed to de-risk heat exchanger manufacturing process for service under sCO2 CSP conditions. A total of 14 uniaxial creep tests were completed using Haynes 282 thin sheet and foil. A variety of heat treatments were specified to coincide with path number 2. Baseline metallography of test samples and creep strength performance are contained. Benchmarks relatively to existing thick-form Haynes 282 are made, as well as to other thin-form Nickel-based superalloys. Description of a wrought-form modeling approach for thin gamma-prime alloys is also discussed. A total of 11 pressurized creep and fatigue tests were completed successfully with Haynes 282 heat exchanger prototypes. Manufacturing processing details, testing details, testing results, and failure analysis are discussed. Additionally, creep modeling techniques to predict failure are discussed, and modeling to support technological-to-market. In conclusion, Haynes 282 foils were demonstrated to yield rupture two-to-three orders of magnitude higher than Haynes 230 foils under similar conditions. And the manufactured heat exchanger prototypes demonstrated strength similar to the wrought constituents. Both of which contribute to elevated performance potential or cost savings in practice. Discussion is included.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Recommendation for Limiting Conditions for ASME BPVC Section III Division 5 Allowable Stress Criteria

Section III, Division 5 of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (BPVC) specifies rules for elevated temperature nuclear reactors. Time dependent allowable stresses are an important aspect of the high temperature design models and are related to the time to 1% strain, time to rupture, and time to onset of tertiary creep. The time to onset of tertiary creep criterion has an overly strong negative influence on the allowable stresses for some structural materials, likely due to very limited datasets and misidentification of microstructural changes rather than onset of significant creep damage, as tertiary creep is meant to represent. It is recommended that the onset of tertiary creep be determined through an alloy specific ratio between onset of tertiary creep and creep rupture time, which would give access to the significantly larger creep rupture time datasets.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

PV Inverter Testing for Momentary Cessation and Rate-of-Change-of-Frequency Events

To understand the power system stability and develop better electromagnetic transient (EMT) models of field deployed photovoltaic (PV) inverters, it is important to characterize inverters' response to abnormal voltage and frequency scenarios. Because EMT models are not typically available for small distribution-connected PV inverters, and because inerterconnection standards historically did not specify desired ride-through behaviors, we tested two such inverters in the lab to characterize their responses to severe undervoltage events and high rate-of-change-of-frequency (ROCOF) conditions. The inverters tested were pre-IEEE 1547-2018 residential PV inverters widely used in the Hawaiian Electric territory and many other areas. The testing results for undervoltage scenarios showed that the inverter from one vendor exhibited momentary cessation while the inverter from the other vendor did not exhibit momentary cessation behavior or tripping for most of the events below the 120 ms undervoltage trip threshold duration set by IEEE 1547-2003. The testing results for ROCOF scenarios showed that the inverter from one vendor temporarily lost synchronization during ROCOF conditions while the inverter from the other vendor did not lose synchronization or cease generation for any ROCOF conditions. Both the inverters were also tested for EMT-simulated grid events with severe changes in frequency and voltage. The observed responses of the inverters were different from the simulated response of PV inverters represented the best available assumptions from pre-existing information. The results from these experiments can be used to update the inverter models used in bulk power system studies.

aggregates↗

DOE OSTI2023

PV Inverter Testing for Momentary Cessation and Rate-of-Change-of-Frequency Events: Preprint

IEEE 1547 2018↗

DOE OSTI2020

TRITON

TRITON is a 2D hydraulic, digital elevation model (DEM)-based model that accepts a variety of flow inputs including point-based inflow hydrographs, external boundary conditions, and runoff (i.e., excess rainfall). It provides information of flood maps and temporal evolution of water depth at each grid cell point at user-specified output time. Its unique feature is that TRITON can run on single or multiple CPUs and GPUs, proving to be very flexible in terms of system architecture.

Morales-Hernandez, Mario↗

DOE OSTI2022

Wind Turbine Drivetrain Reliability [Slides]

Pitch bearings, main bearings, and gearboxes in conventional wind turbine drivetrains often do not meet their 20-year minimum specified lifetime, resulting in turbine downtime as well as expensive, time-consuming repairs or replacements. The dominant failure modes of the drivetrain components and the conditions that lead to their failure are not fully accounted for during product design or routinely modeled for life management. Drivetrain reliability improvements and O&M cost reductions remain top priorities for both land-based and offshore wind turbines, especially as wind turbines continue to be deployed in increasingly remote and offshore locations, continue to increase in size, and are becoming expected to be in service beyond their original design life, all of which correspond to an increase in the impact of any reliability issues on O&M costs. This presentation summarizes the most recent activities by NREL and ANL on drivetrain reliability.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Drivetrain Reliability Collaborative Update

bearing↗

DOE OSTI2021

Standards development for modules in high temperature micro-environments

Photovoltaic (PV) module qualification standards, IEC 61215 and IEC 61730, were designed to apply to “general open-air climates” and IEC 61730 specifically indicated applicability of ambient air temperature of 40°C. Additionally, these standards provided allowances for so-called “open rack mounted PV modules” without a clear definition of “open-rack.” These implied restrictions and allowances meant that hotter climates or thermally restrictive installation methods may not be covered by these often customer-mandated certification standards. This is particularly salient for the significant growth regions of the Middle East and India that would be expected to operate at significantly higher temperatures. The applicability of these documents raised issues over the definition of “open rack” and the fact that the geographic location is just as important as the mounting configuration in assessing the impact of the micro-environment of a PV module. This work summarizes the scientific background for IEC Technical Specification 63126:2020 ED1, titled “Guidelines for qualifying PV modules components and materials for operation at high temperatures.” This standard was recently published by the IEC and is the first step in a systematic effort to rework these standards to address the question of temperature more directly. Instead of specifying a mounting condition, we specify different suites of tests suitable for a system (PV module, mounting style, and location) defined by the 98th percentile cell temperature. With a defined temperature regime to work from, this allowed us to use existing literature research combined with additional modeling work to determine, which tests would need to be modified. This resulted in suggested changes to material thermal indices, thermal cycling temperatures, hot spot testing, ultraviolet testing, and bypass diode testing among other tests and characteristics described in this study.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

NeuroSEM: A hybrid framework for simulating multiphysics problems by coupling PINNs and spectral elements

Multiphysics problems that are characterized by complex interactions among fluid dynamics, heat transfer, structural mechanics, and electromagnetics, are inherently challenging due to their coupled nature. While experimental data on certain state variables may be available, integrating these data with numerical solvers remains a significant challenge. Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have shown promising results in various engineering disciplines, particularly in handling noisy data and solving inverse problems in partial differential equations (PDEs). However, their effectiveness in forecasting nonlinear phenomena in multiphysics regimes, particularly involving turbulence, is yet to be fully established. Here, this study introduces NeuroSEM, a hybrid framework integrating PINNs with the highfidelity Spectral Element Method (SEM) solver, Nektar++. NeuroSEM leverages the strengths of both PINNs and SEM, providing robust solutions for multiphysics problems. PINNs are trained to assimilate data and model physical phenomena in specific subdomains, which are then integrated into the Nektar++ solver. We demonstrate the efficiency and accuracy of NeuroSEM for thermal convection in cavity flow and flow past a cylinder. The framework effectively handles data assimilation by addressing those subdomains and state variables where the data is available. We applied NeuroSEM to the Rayleigh-B´enard convection system, including cases with missing thermal boundary conditions and noisy datasets. Finally, we applied the proposed NeuroSEM framework to real particle image velocimetry (PIV) data to capture flow patterns characterized by horseshoe vortical structures. Our results indicate that NeuroSEM accurately models the physical phenomena and assimilates the data within the specified subdomains. The framework’s plug-and-play nature facilitates its extension to other multiphysics or multiscale problems. Furthermore, NeuroSEM is optimized for efficient execution on emerging integrated GPU-CPU architectures. This hybrid approach enhances the accuracy and efficiency of simulations, making it a powerful tool for tackling complex engineering challenges in various scientific domains.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2021

Interpolation data transfer between the models before and after a partial drawdown leach in BH

It has been recognized that as cavern operations become more frequent due to oil sales, field conditions may arise which require a faster turnaround time of analysis to address potential cavern impacts. This letter describes attempts to implement a strategy of transferring an intermediate solution of a Big Hill (BH) geomechanical model from a previous finite element mesh with a specified cavern geometry, to a new mesh with a new cavern geometry created by leaching from an oil sale operation.

02 PETROLEUM↗

DOE OSTI2021

Coupling of CTF and TRACE for Modeling of Transients

This report documents the improvements that have been made to the capabilities for coupling CTF to systems codes-specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) TRACE code. An initial systems coupling capability had been set up previously using a nonoverlapping domain approach with the codes exchanging data at the core boundaries. The present work adds a new approach using overlapping domains, in which the system code models the core as well. A new input format has been added to allow the user to specify the physical quantities to be exchanged and their location in the system model, which gives the flexibility of applying one-way or two-way coupling between the codes using the desired data exchanges. In addition to applying thermal-hydraulics (T/H) boundary condition (BC) values obtained from TRACE, a capability was added to allow CTF to apply flow resistance feedback to TRACE to match the CTF core pressure drop. Support was added for executing parallel CTF models within the CTF-systems coupling. The system coupling capability was successfully applied to a parallel MSLB transient, demonstrating that both the one-way and two-way coupling behaved as expected and provided substantial improvements to numerical stability and routine compared to the previous nonoverlapping domain coupling. An initial capability was also developed for performing restart calculations in CTF which will be used in the future for restarting CTF-TRACE simulations at specific points in the transient simulation.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2022

Progress on Demonstration of a MOOSE-Based Coupled Capability for Hot Channel Factors in Fast Reactors

Hot channel factors (HCFs) are computed values that account for the impact on predicted peak fuel, cladding, and coolant temperatures due to uncertainties in the as-built reactor’s material properties and geometry as well as uncertainties due to modeling approximations. Reduction in computed HCF values via reduction or elimination of modeling approximations may translate to significant economic savings if the reactor power can be raised due to the extra temperature margin gained. While limited historical datasets exist for sodium-cooled fast reactors (SFRs), there are no available HCF data for lead-cooled fast reactors (LFRs) outside of work generated previously within NEAMS. The computation of HCFs involves insights from reactor physics, thermal fluids and heat conduction calculations to determine how the peak temperatures respond to various uncertainties in the design. Due to the significant advantages for multi-physics coupling offered by the MOOSE framework, Griffin (MOOSE-based reactor physics code), MOOSE Heat Conduction Module, and Cardinal (MOOSE-wrapped multi-physics application which includes the NekRS thermal fluids code) are being coupled together using the MOOSE MultiApp System to develop a highfidelity multi-physics modeling capability for HCF simulations. This high-fidelity coupling workflow may also be beneficial for other fast reactor applications in the future. In previous work, Griffin and NekRS were individually assessed to ensure the necessary capabilities were in place. This work describes initial efforts to couple the codes (including folding in the MOOSE Heat Conduction Module) and determining the workflow for the perturbed calculations which will leverage the Stochastic Tools Module (STM). To our knowledge, this is the first coupling of Griffin and NekRS as well as the first exploratory use of Stochastic Tools Module for Cardinal. In this report, the neutronics code Griffin, the heat conduction solver in MOOSE, and the MOOSE-wrapped application containing NekRS (Cardinal) are linked together to demonstrate the coupled capability. Griffin and Cardinal are linked dynamically by specifying shared libraries. Different coupling hierarchies are tested for selecting the most appropriate coupling strategy. A coupling scheme is selected based on the efficiency of calculation and ease of data communication. Multiple tests are performed to choose suitable mesh structure, model configurations, scheme setup and boundary conditions to avoid loss of energy due to data interpolation between different modules or weak imposition of fluxes in finite element codes. Computational experiments are performed to study the tolerance control of each type of iteration to avoid false convergence. The coupled capability is demonstrated in both single pin and 7-pin models based on LFR materials and geometry. The study finds that the use of too large a time step size in the heat conduction module can lead to temperature oscillation even though the heat conduction equation does not have a time-derivative kernel, but only the time-dependent boundary condition. A 7-pin model without duct region achieved good convergence in the coupled calculation while a 7 pin model with duct region experienced data communication issues which need to be resolved.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Testing to Evaluate Processes Expected to Occur during MSR Salt Spill Accidents

Obtaining a license for a new nuclear reactor requires the identification and assessment of the potential consequences of specified accident scenarios, which are achieved using accident progression models. Those models need to be parameterized and validated using experimental data, but existing experimental data addressing processes relevant to molten salt reactor accidents are sparse. Specifically, experimental data that quantify the sensitives of important processes to the initial conditions of the spill, the ambient environment, and the containment features are needed to parameterize individual process models. Integrated experiments that simulate accident scenarios are also needed to provide data for model validation, but these experiments will require the use of proven methods to quantify the processes under evaluation. The overarching objectives of this work are to develop the methods for simulating the targeted processes, to determine the effectiveness of the methods in producing the data required for model development, to generate data that can be used to parameterize individual process models, and to provide key insights into the behavior of spilled molten salt that should be considered in models. Experimental methods were designed to quantify aspects of individual processes expected to occur during or after a molten salt spill accident that will affect the fate of spilled molten salt and the radionuclides within. These processes include 1) molten salt spreading and heat transfer, 2) molten salt flowing and freezing in tubing, 3) stainless steel corrosion kinetics in molten salt, and 4) molten salt splashing and aerosol generation. The initial tests described in this report were conducted using eutectic FLiNaK to demonstrate the test methods, the data that are generated, and the analyses of the data to derive values needed for modeling. The primary variables that were tested include initial salt temperature and the presence of volatile surrogate fission products (e.g., cesium and iodine). The developed methods are shown to be effective in quantifying the desired processes and can be applied to study more complex salt compositions of interest to molten salt reactor developers, a wide range of environmental conditions of interest to modelers, and additional variables relevant to salt spill accidents. The developed methods and insights gained from laboratory tests can also be incorporated in future large-scale integrated tests used to simulate molten salt spill accidents.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗