Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “reference site conditions”

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.

At least 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Environmental DNA Detection in Marine Macrophyte Ecosystems as a Potential Blue Carbon Source in Sediments

“Blue carbon” refers to the carbon sequestered by the world’s oceanic and coastal ecosystems, particularly through coastal vegetation such as mangroves, salt marshes, seagrasses, and marine macroalgae. These ecosystems play a crucial role in the global carbon cycle by serving as significant carbon sinks, absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and storing it in biomass and sediments over long periods. This study explores the use of environmental DNA (eDNA) to detect marine macrophytes and microalgae assemblages contributing to blue carbon in sediments across various coastal ecosystems. The research addresses the challenges of traditional monitoring methods by utilizing high-throughput sequencing of the 18S-V9 region amplified using eDNA from sediment samples collected at eight locations in the United States and South Korea. The results reveal a diverse array of taxa, underscoring the variability in community composition across different conditions. Notably, sites with seagrass beds and Ulva blooms showed distinct patterns in microalgal community structure. This study underscores the potential of eDNA analysis in providing comprehensive insights into the biodiversity of marine macrophyte ecosystems, thus informing conservation efforts and enhancing the understanding of marine ecological dynamics.

Xing, Qikun (ORCID:0000000206179027)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Worldwide benchmarking of cost-effective radiometers for direct and diffuse irradiance

Solar energy projects can benefit from direct normal irradiance (DNI) and diffuse horizontal irradiance (DHI) measurements during all project phases. Several commercial measurement systems for DNI and DHI are available. Sun trackers with pyranometers and pyrheliometers can provide highly accurate measurements but are often impractical in solar energy applications. For less expensive and more robust sensors, it is often unclear which accuracy can be expected under a project site's specific atmospheric conditions. We address this challenge through our dedicated experimental comparison of relevant sensor systems (rotating shadowband irradiometer [short RSI], Delta-T SPN1, EKO MS-90, PyranoCam, Sunto CaptPro, Kipp & Zonen CSD3) at up to six sites worldwide. The RSI systems (rRMSD 3 to 8.6%, DNI; 4.8 to 7.6%, DHI) and PyranoCam (rRMSD 2.6 to 5.2%, DNI; 4.4 to 5.8%, DHI) exhibit similar error metrics and are the most accurate systems in the test. Delta-T SPN1 and EKO MS-90 (rRMSD 6.8 to 15%, DNI; 10.6 to 20.1%, DHI) but especially Kipp & Zonen CSD3 and Sunto CaptPro show significant deviations (rRMSD 17.7 to 20%, DNI; 33 to 58%, DHI). We evaluate the influence of relevant atmospheric parameters on the sensors' accuracies by a rather unique measurement setup. MS-90's DNI errors depend on DNI itself, with overestimations for low reference DNI. The deviations of SPN1's DHI and DNI measurements increase sharply in situations with high circumsolar irradiance. Also CaptPro and CSD3's increased measurement errors are related to circumsolar irradiance. For RSI and PyranoCam, only moderate influences on the measurements are identified, indicating a general applicability of these instruments.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Conceptual Design of a Tension Leg Platform With 22.3 MW Vertical Axis Turbine

Here, this paper presents the conceptual design of a tension leg platform (TLP) for the ARCUS “towerless” vertical-axis wind turbine (VAWT). VAWTs are ideal for floating offshore sites and have several advantages over horizontal-axis wind turbines (HAWT) including reduced top mass, lower center of gravity, increased energy capture, and in turn lower cost. The towerless ARCUS VAWT drives these advantages further through increased structural efficiency and by enabling more optimized TLP designs with simplified installation procedures. For hull sizing, we have studied three turbine sizes with corresponding power ratings of 5.1 MW, 10.4 MW and 22.3 MW. The largest turbine was identified as having the greatest potential to reduce the levelized cost of energy (LCOE) and is the reference size used for the further detailed design process. The conceptual design of the VAWT TLP has been awarded with an ABS Approval in Principle Certificate. This paper contains brief analysis results and design findings for a TLP designed to house a VAWT, including the following topics: • Applicable Design Codes • Metocean Conditions • ARCUS Turbine Loads • Design Load Cases and Requirements - Pre-service TLP Stability - In-place TLP Global Performance • Platform Configurations, Hull Structure Scantling Design, Weight and CG Estimation, and General Arrangement Drawings • Hull Ballast Plan for both Pre-service and In-place Conditions • Pre-service Quayside Integration, Transportation and Wet Tow Stability Analysis • Global Performance Analysis for Motions and Tendon tensions • Summary of cost components and system levelized cost of energy

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Experimental study of the partitioning of some platinum group elements (Pd and Ir) between orthopyroxene and silicate melt

Past experiments and observations on natural samples have largely focused on the roles of olivine and chromite in controlling the behaviour of the platinum-group elements (PGE) during melting and solidification, whereas other phases, such as pyroxene, have gone largely uncharacterized. Here, to address this, experiments have been done to measure the partitioning of Pd (with a subset of results for Ir), between orthopyroxene and silicate melt at 1340 °C, 0.1 MPa and log fO 2 of FMQ - 1 to FMQ + 6 (FMQ = Fayalite-Magnetite-Quartz). The X-ray Absorption Near-Edge Structure (XANES) was measured in a subset of experiment glasses. Glass concentrations of Pd (corrected to unit Pd activity) increase from ~6 to ~650 ug/g over the fO 2 range of experiments. The slope of the solubility-fO 2 relation is consistent with Pd 1+ as the dominant oxidation state, with evidence for Pd 0 and Pd 2+ at the lowest and highest experiment fO 2 , respectively. Consistent with this result, the XANES reveal spectral features similar to Pd 0 and Pd 2+ spectral reference materials (specRM) at the most reduced and oxidized synthesis conditions, respectively. Other lines of evidence require the presence of a third melt species, here interpreted to be Pd 1+ . Values of orthopyroxene/melt partition coefficients for Pd (D Pd Opx/melt ) are 0.0051 (+/-0.006) at log fO 2 < ΔFMQ + 3, increasing with fO 2 to a maximum of 0.013 at ~FMQ + 6. Sodium partition coefficients, expected to be similar to Pd, range from 0.0061 (+/-0.00061) at FMQ + 3, increase to 0.007–0.009 at higher fO 2 , but with no clear systematic trend. A value for D Ir Opx-melt of ~0.6 was measured at ~FMQ + 4, indicating significantly more compatible behaviour for Ir relative to Pd. Partitioning results are interpreted in the context of the Blundy-Wood elastic strain model in which the variation in partitioning is related to ionic radius mismatch to an optimal crystallographic site size. Based on the trend in ionic radius with oxidation state, the estimated ionic radius of Pd 1+ in octahedral coordination is similar to Na 1+ , and comparison to previous orthopyroxene-melt partitioning experiments suggests D Pd1+ opx/melt and DNaopx/melt should be nearly identical, consistent with the results of this study. The ionic radius of VI-fold Pd 2+ is close to the optimal M2 site size, so an increased proportion of this species with fO 2 accounts for the larger values of D Pd opx/melt at the highest fO 2 investigated. The much larger partition coefficient for Ir is consistent with the presence of Ir 2+ , whose estimated ionic radius is close to Fe 2+ and Mg 2+ , as well as predictions for the optimal M1 site size. With the assumption that D Pd opx/melt = D Na opx/melt , combined with a revised value for the Pd content of the primitive mantle, a melting model is presented that better reproduces the Pd concentration of high degree melts from sulfide-free mantle sources.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Central Hanford Ecological Integrity Assessments: Final Report

The Hanford Site is comprised of an expanse of shrub-steppe habitats that provides exceptional ecological value to plants and animals located on the site and in the surrounding greater Columbia Basin. The U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford Field Office (HFO)-managed portion of the Hanford Site, referred to herein as Central Hanford, has been the focus of various ecological monitoring efforts, such as vegetation monitoring. The scope and goals of vegetation surveys have varied greatly since the Hanford Site was established, but studies have documented a rapidly changing landscape, making it clear that routine vegetation monitoring is integral to understanding ecological changes and preserving the ecological value of the Hanford Site. A new vegetation monitoring effort was initiated in calendar year (CY) 2023 and continued through CY 2025 using methods based on ecological integrity assessments (EIA) (NHR-2024-04, Field Manual for Applying Rapid Ecological Integrity Assessments in Upland Plant Communities of Washington State ) developed by the Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP), a division of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), and NatureServe.® The methods were modified and supplemented to meet monitoring goals at the Hanford Site. The EIA monitoring effort consisted of field surveys to evaluate vegetation and soil conditions for upland habitats throughout Central Hanford. Vegetation cover estimates were used to score a variety of metrics for vegetation condition. This report summarizes monitoring methods, monitoring results, and provides management recommendations.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

FY24 Task 5: Leachate Disposition

Directly feeding sludge solids to the high-level waste (HLW) Waste Treatment Plant represents an alternative flowsheet seeking to initiate sludge processing as soon as possible. Key processing functions previously captured during baseline pretreatment operations include leaching and washing prior to solids concentration. These operations should be considered in the potential direct feed flowsheets to maximize waste feed loading, minimize HLW volume, and mitigate corrosion challenges associated with vitrification of high phosphate and fluoride concentrations. Additionally, single-shell tank (SST) retrievals and waste transfers to double-shell tanks (DSTs) in a direct feed flowsheet would likely also benefit from some level of leaching, washing, and solids concentration in order to reduce DST space and mission duration. These operations could occur in a new facility or potentially in available DSTs. If washing and leaching are utilized, an effective disposition pathway for the wash water and leachate solutions are needed. Three target species that benefit significantly from leaching and washing are phosphate, fluoride and aluminum. Phosphate (PO 4 3- ) and fluoride (F - ) can contribute substantially to the amount of carrier fluid needed for dissolution, and the resulting volume of liquid generated. Disposition of this retrieval solution should be evaluated in order to prevent crystallization of these anions throughout system processing. Since there is a high probability that any retrieval solutions will be at or near their PO 4 3- and F - solubility limits, evaporation or blending with a high Na supernate (>3.5 M) is not recommended for the wash water streams without a method to remove precipitants prior to solution disposal. Additionally, aluminum present in the southeast quadrant of the Hanford site represents roughly 60% of the waste solids in the initial processing tanks. These aluminum solids are in the form of gibbsite (Al(OH) 3 ) and can pose significant challenges for processing due to the fast-settling times and high solids loading associated with these materials. Easily remediated by caustic addition to the solids, these wash solutions could be processed through crystalline silicotitanate (CST) ion exchange columns to prepare the supernate solutions for disposition. The current target for feed conditions to the Low Activity Waste (LAW) melter are waste streams that contain nominally 5-6 M Na. Fractions within the tanks contain upwards of 0.2 M phosphate and fluoride in solution at 3.5 M Na. Concentrating these solutions above 5 M Na would result in an exceedance of the solubility limits, and potential for uncontrolled precipitation of the phosphate and fluoride crystal material. The resulting crystalline salt material is typically sodium fluoride phosphate, also referred to as natrophosphate (Na 7 FPO 4 ·19H 2 O). Salt phases are of importance in tank waste due to their chemical reactivity, which can result in precipitation, dissolution, or transformation, impacting any downstream processes (Bolling et al. 2020, Russell, Snow, and Peterson 2010). Salt generation and precipitation could pose challenges by causing system plugging and melter corrosion if left in the supernate stream, or limit sodium molarity of the supernate that would be accepted without incident in waste operations. To understand the impact of this salt generation, the crystallization of natrophosphate in multiple simulant feed matrices was studied to understand the implications of various tank waste supernate chemistries. Three matrices were examined: high PO 4 3- /low F - , low PO 4 3- /high F - , and an average matrix. Subsequent testing was performed with the average matrix with the inclusion of CsNO 3 , and a final run with the average matrix including CsNO 3 and a 137 Cs spike for tracer purposes.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2026

One Earth Energy FEED Process Design Basis

This report establishes the process design basis for the front-end engineering design (FEED) of a carbon capture and injection facility at One Earth Energy's (OEE) ethanol production plant in Gibson City, Illinois, developed as part of the Illinois Storage Corridor CarbonSAFE Phase III project. The facility is designed to compress and dehydrate up to approximately 458,000 metric tonnes of CO 2 per year, sourced directly from OEE's ethanol fermenters, for permanent injection into a saline aquifer approximately four miles from the plant. At normal operating conditions, the system will process 1,290 metric tonnes of CO 2 per day, assuming 355 operating days per year and an ethanol production rate of 160 million gallons per year. The proposed process trains a multistage centrifugal blower with a five-stage reciprocating compressor, delivering CO 2 to the injection wellhead at up to 1,500 psig. Triethylene glycol (TEG) dehydration, applied after the fourth compression stage, reduces water content to a target of 10 lb/MMscf, well within the 30 lb/MMscf injection limit. Beyond dehydration, no additional treatment is required; trace impurities including oxygen and nitrogen will remain in the injected stream. Key design considerations include the absence of spare cooling tower capacity at the site, necessitating new cooling infrastructure, and the need for a new electrical substation to support large motor loads. The facility is designed for continuous, largely unattended operation, monitored around the clock by existing OEE operations staff. This document serves as the foundational reference for all subsequent detailed engineering activities associated with the OEE CO 2 injection facility.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
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 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 OSTI2023

End-Use Savings Shapes Measure Documentation: Variable Refrigerant Flow with Heat Recovery and Dedicated Outdoor Air System

Building on the successfully completed effort to calibrate and validate the U.S. Department of Energy's ResStock™ and ComStock™ models over the past 3 years, the objective of this work is to produce national data sets that empower analysts working for federal, state, utility, city, and manufacturer stakeholders to answer a broad range of analysis questions. The goal of this work is to develop energy efficiency, electrification, and demand flexibility end-use load shapes (electricity, gas, propane, or fuel oil) that cover a majority of the high-impact, market-ready (or nearly market-ready) measures. "Measures" refers to energy efficiency variables that can be applied to buildings during modeling. An end-use savings shape is the difference in energy consumption between a baseline building and a building with an energy efficiency, electrification, or demand flexibility measure applied. It results in a time-series profile that is broken down by end use and fuel (electricity or on-site gas, propane, or fuel oil use) at each time step. ComStock is a highly granular, bottom-up model that uses multiple data sources, statistical sampling methods, and advanced building energy simulations to estimate the annual subhourly energy consumption of the commercial building stock across the United States. The baseline model intends to represent the U.S. commercial building stock as it existed in 2018. The methodology and results of the baseline model are discussed in the final technical report of the End-Use Load Profiles project. This documentation focuses on a single heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) end-use savings shape measure - a variable refrigerant flow with heat recovery (VRF HR) heating and cooling system coupled with a dedicated outdoor air system (DOAS) for ventilation. This measure replaces existing multi-zone variable air volume (VAV) systems or single-zone rooftop units (RTU) with a VRF HR system coupled with a DOAS that includes an energy/heat recovery ventilator (E/HRV). The measure covers 53% of exisiting building stock's floor area and is not applicable to HVAC system types using district heating or cooling or buildings/spaces that include high-ventilation spaces such as kitchens where the amount of exhaust air is large. A DOAS with E/HRV is used to provide required outdoor ventilation air to spaces since ventilation air is generally not supplied by a VRF HR system. An exhaust air energy recovery ventilator (ERV ) with sensible and latent heat exchange is added to humid climate zones while a heat recovery ventilator (HRV ) with sensible only exchange is added to drier climate zones. The ERV is modeled as a fixed membrane plate counterflow heat exchanger, while the HRV is modeled as a sensible-only fixed aluminum plate counterflow heat exchanger. Both systems include a bypass (for temperature control and economizer lockout) and minimum exhaust temperature control for frost prevention.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

EERC Final Topical Report – Findings on Subtask 3.2 – Produced Water Management Through Geologic Homogenization, Conditions, and Reuse

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) was awarded a contract by the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) Oil and Gas Research Program (NDIC No. G-051-101) to conduct a study on the recycling of water used in oil and gas operations, also known as produced water, from oil- and gas-producing regions of North Dakota as directed by Section 19 of North Dakota House Bill 1014. This final report provides a compilation of results of the study, which include regulatory, scientific, technological, and feasibility methods and considerations associated with North Dakota produced water management. The report provides a synopsis of this project’s previously submitted produced water assessment report entitled “Produced Water Management and Recycling Options in North Dakota” (Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020), with updated values provided as appropriate. The report provides the results from the investigation of a novel produced water management strategy, referred to as geologic homogenization, conditioning, and reuse (GHCR), which aims to use a subsurface geologic formation as a natural medium for managing produced water recycling and reuse. Water management is a significant technical and economic challenge for sustainable oil and gas production, and water volumes are intrinsically linked to oil production volumes. North Dakota oil production rose to over 1.5 million barrels (MMbbl)/day in 2019, and despite a downturn in oil price in early 2020, North Dakota oil production has recovered to 1.1 MMbbl/day as of August 2021. Bakken petroleum system development between 2008 and 2020 has resulted in a nearly fourfold increase in produced water volumes to 642 MMbbl/yr in 2020 after peaking at 740 MMbbl/yr in 2019 and a fivefold increase in saltwater disposal (SWD) volumes to 565 MMbbl/yr in 2020 after a peak of 682 MMbbl/yr in 2019. Produced water and SWD volumes are forecasted to double by 2030. SWD is the primary method of produced water management used in North Dakota, with approximately 95% of the SWD volume occurring through subsurface injection into sandstones of the Dakota Group (Dakota). Localized pressurization of the Dakota resulting from SWD and projected increases in produced water volumes could impact the economics of North Dakota oil production. As a result, there is an emerging need to pursue alternative produced water management approaches, including recycling and reuse. While produced water recycling is not yet widespread, commercial operators are making strides in overcoming the technical challenges of using high salinity produced water in completion operations (Marathon Oil, 2020). As water management continues to be a key focal point in companies’ environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives, focus on water management, including recycling, will likely continue to increase. Laboratory column testing, field sample collection, geologic modeling and numerical simulation, and techno-economic analysis all indicate that GHCR could feasibly be implemented as a potential water management option. Laboratory column testing and field sample collection indicate that the Inyan Kara sandstone and native formation fluid are capable of homogenizing with the Bakken produced water to a point where the fluid composition appears to stabilize. Extracting that stabilized fluid could be considered homogeneous and capable of providing individual batches of hydraulic fracturing fluid. Numerical simulation results indicate that extraction of fluids from the Inyan Kara in a GHCR implementation scenario is capable of reducing formation pressure, which would help ease localized pressurization of the Inyan Kara and extend the available capacity for nearby existing SWD wells. Economic analysis indicates that there are scenarios where GHCR implementation can be a competitive or even lower-cost option than a conventional water management approach. Site-specific conditions will dictate the economic potential of GHCR, but potentially attractive sites for GHCR implementation will be those that are located above a pressurized zone of the Inyan Kara, need six or more Bakken infill wells, and face high costs for conventional SWD and/or freshwater. Based on the regulatory review, drilling into the Inyan Kara for SWD and to harness as a source water for industrial use have precedent in North Dakota, and a workable regulatory solution for GHCR seems likely. However, restrictions in the state regarding surface storage and transport of produced fluids may limit some activities, which will affect how GHCR could ultimately be implemented. In summary, this study reveals pursuing GHCR can be a viable approach to water management in North Dakota. The GHCR concept addresses some of the challenges that hinder the more traditional approaches to recycling in the industry. Furthermore, an assessment of the current landscape of water management within the state reveals the ongoing trend of increasing volumes of produced water and SWD. Projections reveal that the volumes of produced water that need to be managed are expected to double over the next decade (Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020). With the continued development of the Bakken and continuing driving factors related to ESG initiatives, implementing a practice such as GHCR is a feasible approach to adding recycling of produced water to industry within the state. This subtask was cofunded through the EERC–U.S. Department of Energy Joint Program on Research and Development for Fossil Energy-Related Resources Cooperative Agreement No. DE-FE0024233. Nonfederal funding was provided by the North Dakota Industrial Commission Oil and Gas Research Program. References Energy & Environmental Research Center, 2020, Produced water management and recycling options in North Dakota: Final Report for North Dakota Legislative Management Energy Development and Transmission Committee and North Dakota Industrial Commission. Marathon Oil, 2020, Sustainability report: https://cdn.sanity.io/files/ghcnw9z2/website/ 91744eb6ef8fbe59505a911c6b8d2e8dd9a537fa.pdf?dl (accessed November 2021).

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2024

DRDMannTurb: A Python package for scalable, data-driven synthetic turbulence

Synthetic turbulence models (STMs) are used in wind engineering to generate realistic flow fields and are employed as inputs to industrial wind simulations. Examples include prescribing inlet conditions in large eddy simulations that model loads on wind turbines and tall buildings. We are interested in STMs capable of generating fluctuations based on prescribed second-moment statistics since such models can simulate environmental conditions that closely resemble on-site observations. To this end, the widely used Mann model (see Mann, 1994, 1998) is the inspiration for DRDMannTurb. The Mann model is described by three physical parameters: a magnitude parameter influencing the global variance of the wind field and corresponding to the Kolmogorov constant multiplied by the rate of viscous dissipation of the turbulent kinetic energy to the two-thirds, αϵ 2/3 , a turbulence length scale parameter L, and a nondimensional parameter Γ related to the lifetime of the eddies. A number of studies, as well as international standards (e.g., those by the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)), include recommended values for these three parameters with the goal of standardizing wind simulations according to observed energy spectra. Yet, having only three parameters, the Mann model faces limitations in accurately representing the diversity of observable spectra. This Python package enables users to extend the Mann model and more accurately fit field measurements through flexible neural network models of the eddy lifetime function. Following Keith et al. (2021), we refer to this class of models as Deep Rapid Distortion (DRD) models. DRDMannTurb also includes a general module implementing an efficient method for synthetic turbulence generation based on a domain decomposition technique. This technique is also described in Keith et al. (2021).

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

A minor respiratory process with major global implications: is atmospheric methane oxidation in tree stems driven by stem respiration rather than microbial methanotrophy?

Tree stem surfaces are widely recognized as sites of carbon dioxide (CO₂) efflux and oxygen (O₂) influx, reflecting the dynamics of aerobic respiration of photosynthate substrates, such as sugars, delivered via the phloem. Stems are also largely considered passive conduits for methane (CH₄) produced in anoxic soils via microbial methanogenesis, where CH₄ is thought to be transported upward through the transpiration stream and/or diffusion and emitted through stem surfaces and the canopy. However, recent observations from dynamic stem chambers suggest that stems may also act as active sinks for atmospheric CH₄. Despite these findings, the extent and drivers of stem CH₄ consumption remain poorly characterized across biomes, species, and environmental gradients, and its quantitative relationship to stem respiration has not been established. Moreover, previous studies captured only snapshot fluxes, leaving diurnal patterns of CH₄ exchange uncharacterized. Here, we address these limitations by combining real-time measurements of stem CH₄ and O₂ uptake under ambient conditions in a California cherry tree, using a dynamic stem gas exchange system with three chambers receiving a continuous flow of ambient air and automated chamber and reference air sampling every 10 min. Our results confirm that stems of upland trees can actively consume both atmospheric CH₄ and O₂, but with decreasing temperature sensitivity as daily temperatures increase. Early mornings were marked by rapid influxes of both gases, followed by declining uptake as temperatures rose further. Methane uptake was tightly coupled with O₂ influx and represented a minor (0.012% ± 0.002%) fraction of stem respiratory activity, as determined by concurrent O₂ uptake. These findings suggest that while atmospheric CH₄ oxidation is a minor respiratory process in stems, it is strongly linked with stem physiological activity. This challenges the current assumption that terrestrial CH₄ uptake is driven solely by microbial methanotrophy and raises the possibility that living stem tissues may contribute to CH₄ oxidation through an as-yet-unidentified plant-based mechanism.

Atmospheric greenhouse gases↗
DOE OSTI2021

Vitrification of Hanford Tank Wastes for Condensate Recycle and Feed Composition Changeover Testing

During the vitrification of Hanford Site nuclear waste at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), which is a part of the safe and efficient retrieval, treatment, and disposal mission of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of River Protection, the offgas condensate generated from the waste-to-glass conversion is currently planned to be concentrated by evaporation in the Effluent Management Facility (EMF). This concentrated condensate can then be recycled back to the incoming waste and vitrified. To test the recycle process, an apparatus was designed and built to mimic the EMF evaporator and was then used to concentrate a volume of condensate produced during the vitrification of a sample of Hanford tank 241-AP-107 (referred to herein as AP-107) waste in a continuous laboratory-scale melter (CLSM). The concentrated condensate was added to an additional sample of AP-107 waste, to mimic one round of the recycle process, and the combined solution was vitrified, producing a second round of recycle condensate. In the current study, the EMF test apparatus was used to concentrate the second-round recycle condensate under evaporation conditions (at 45 °C and 1.4 psia) designed to emulate EMF operation. The condensate was successfully concentrated by a factor of ~10 while retaining over 95 % of the technetium-99 ( 99 Tc), Cs, and I inventories in the concentrate. Another portion of AP-107 waste was retrieved by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS) and transferred to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), where it was pretreated and then combined with the second-round recycle AP-107 condensate concentrate and glass-forming chemicals (GFCs) to form the two-time recycle AP-107 melter feed, approximating a second round to the recycling action to be performed at the WTP. A portion of AP-105 waste was also retrieved by WRPS and provided to PNNL for pretreatment and combining with GFCs to form AP-105 melter feed. The two-time recycle AP-107 and AP-105 melter feeds were processed consecutively in the CLSM. The CLSM run proceeded for 13.63 hours, producing 9.70 kg of glass for an average glass production rate of 1464 kg m 2 d -1 during the two-time recycle AP-107 feed charging and 1568 kg m 2 d -1 during the AP-105 feed charging. The rate during AP-107 charging was essentially equivalent to the rate when processing no-recycle AP-107 feed and lower than that achieved when processing one-time recycle AP-107 feed. However, all rates were within the potential range of variability when processing melter feeds with similar composition in the CLSM. Likewise, the rate during AP-105 charging was higher than the previous rate processing AP-105, but within the potential CLSM range. The cold-cap characteristics changed from the typically thin AP-107 cold cap to a foamy-edged cold cap as previously seen with AP-105 shortly after transitioning to the AP-105 melter feed. The glass produced during the CLSM run was within 10 % of its target composition for the primary glass components. The CaO and Li 2 O targets varied by more than 1 wt% between the two-time recycle AP-107 and AP-105 glass targets and it took about 2 turnovers of the CLSM glass inventory to reach a relative chemical steady state in the glass for CaO and Li 2 O after the melter feed inputs were switched. The 99 Tc and total cesium content in the melter feeds were maintained at concentrations expected to be experienced at the WTP. During the CLSM run, while processing the two-time recycle AP-107 melter feed at a relative chemical steady state, the 99 Tc/Cs ratio was 10, and 34% of 99 Tc and 74% of Cs were retained in the glass. These values were higher than those measured in the CLSM run with one-time recycle AP-107 melter feed. After the transition to processing the AP-105 melter feed, when the production reached a relative chemical steady state, the 99 Tc/Cs ratio was 77 while 44% of 99 Tc was retained in the glass. The C's retention during this time frame reached 200% due to the excess C's in the glass after the target content decreased to 15% of its initial level in the two-time recycle AP-107 melter feed to the lower target in the Ap-105 melter feed. While iodine was below inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry analytical reporting limits in the melter feed and glass samples, it was detected in quantities above the analytical reporting limits in the liquid and filter samples collected from the CLSM offgas treatment system. The behavior of iodine in the CLSM offgas treatment system followed a similar pattern to those of 99 Tc and Cs.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Vitrification of Hanford Tank Wastes for Condensate Recycle and Feed Composition Changeover Testing (Rev. 1)

During the vitrification of Hanford Site nuclear waste at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP), which is a part of the safe and efficient retrieval, treatment, and disposal mission of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of River Protection, the offgas condensate generated from the waste-to-glass conversion is currently planned to be concentrated by evaporation in the Effluent Management Facility (EMF). This concentrated condensate can then be recycled back to the incoming waste and vitrified. To test the recycle process, an apparatus was designed and built to mimic the EMF evaporator and was then used to concentrate a volume of condensate produced during the vitrification of a sample of Hanford tank 241-AP-107 (referred to herein as AP-107) waste in a continuous laboratory-scale melter (CLSM). The concentrated condensate was added to an additional sample of AP-107 waste, to mimic one round of the recycle process, and the combined solution was vitrified, producing a second round of recycle condensate. In the current study, the EMF test apparatus was used to concentrate the second-round recycle condensate under evaporation conditions (at 45 °C and 1.4 psia) designed to emulate EMF operation. The condensate was successfully concentrated by a factor of ~10 while retaining over 95 % of the technetium-99 (99Tc), Cs, and I inventories in the concentrate. Another portion of AP-107 waste was retrieved by Washington River Protection Solutions, LLC (WRPS) and transferred to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), where it was pretreated and then combined with the second-round recycle AP-107 condensate concentrate and glass-forming chemicals (GFCs) to form the two-time recycle AP-107 melter feed, approximating a second round to the recycling action to be performed at the WTP. A portion of AP-105 waste was also retrieved by WRPS and provided to PNNL for pretreatment and combining with GFCs to form AP-105 melter feed. The two-time recycle AP-107 and AP-105 melter feeds were processed consecutively in the CLSM. The CLSM run proceeded for 13.63 hours, producing 9.70 kg of glass for an average glass production rate of 1464 kg m 2 d -1 during the two-time recycle AP-107 feed charging and 1568 kg m 2 d -1 during the AP-105 feed charging. The rate during AP-107 charging was essentially equivalent to the rate when processing no-recycle AP-107 feed and lower than that achieved when processing one-time recycle AP-107 feed. However, all rates were within the potential range of variability when processing melter feeds with similar composition in the CLSM. Likewise, the rate during AP-105 charging was higher than the previous rate processing AP-105, but within the potential CLSM range. The cold-cap characteristics changed from the typically thin AP-107 cold cap to a foamy-edged cold cap as previously seen with AP-105 shortly after transitioning to the AP-105 melter feed. The glass produced during the CLSM run was within 10 % of its target composition for the primary glass components. The CaO and Li 2 O targets varied by more than 1 wt% between the two-time recycle AP-107 and AP-105 glass targets and it took about 2 turnovers of the CLSM glass inventory to reach a relative chemical steady state in the glass for CaO and Li 2 O after the melter feed inputs were switched.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Design of Nuclear Criticality Safety Framework for Hands-on Construction of Fast Systems Over Ranges of Multiplication

Since 1945, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has performed critical experiments, primarily at the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility (LACEF) at Technical Area 18 (TA-18). Since 2011, these experiments have been conducted by the National Criticality Experiments Research Center (NCERC), operated by LANL, at the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) in the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS). These experiments utilize various types of Special Nuclear Material (SNM). Some of these experiments utilize what is referred to as the Rocky Flat Shells, which are called such as they came from the Rocky Flats Plant. These concentric hemi-shells are made of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU), which is 93 w/o 235U. Fig. 1. Subset of the Rocky Flat Shells LANL is designing a new subcritical hands-on experiment with the goal of achieving a neutron multiplication in the range of 50 to 200, which correlates to Keff values of 0.98 to 0.995. ANSI/ANS-1 is the standard for Conduct of Critical Experiments which governs critical operations at NCERC. Section 3.9 of ANSI/ANS-1 states that when manipulating a critical assembly by hand, the predicted k eff of a known configuration should not exceed 0.95 (a neutron multiplication of 20). This presents a challenge, as this system would have a higher multiplication than 20 and the assembly would have to remain subcritical in normal and credible accident scenarios. To ensure the safety of such an assembly, the different normal and abnormal conditions that could alter the criticality 1 MCNP® and Monte Carlo N-Particle® are registered trademarks owned by Triad National Security, LLC, manager and operator of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Any third party use of such registered marks should be properly of the system must be considered and analyzed. If such a condition is deemed to be credible, it will be further investigated using the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) transport code. If the results of these simulations show that a k eff larger than one could be possible, modifications to the assembly will be made until such an event is deemed no longer possible.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
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 OSTI2024

End-Use Savings Shapes Measure Documentation: Console Water-to-Air Geothermal Heat Pump

Executive Summary Building on the successfully completed effort to calibrate and validate the U.S. Department of Energy’s ResStock™ and ComStock™ models over the past several years, the objective of this work is to produce national datasets that empower analysts working for federal, state, utility, city, and manufacturer stakeholders to answer a broad range of analysis questions. The goal of this work is to develop energy efficiency, electrification, and demand flexibility end-use load shapes (electricity, gas, propane, or fuel oil) that cover most of the high-impact, market-ready (or nearly market-ready) measures. An end-use savings shape is the difference in energy consumption between a baseline building and a building with an energy efficiency, electrification, or demand flexibility measure applied. It results in a time series profile that is broken down by end use and fuel (electricity or on-site gas, propane, or fuel oil use) at each time step. ComStock is a highly granular, bottom-up model that uses multiple data sources, statistical sampling methods, and advanced building energy simulations to estimate the annual sub-hourly energy consumption of the commercial building stock across the United States. The baseline model intends to represent the U.S. commercial building stock as it existed in 2018. This measure models the conversion of an existing heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning (HVAC) system to a series of “console” water-to-air heat pumps served by a ground heat exchanger. Console water-to-air geothermal heat pumps (GHP) are all-in-one packages that have no or minimal ductwork and serve individual spaces. Properly designed ground heat exchanger-coupled systems can offer benefits in energy efficiency relative to “conventional” HVAC systems, as well as facilitating beneficial electrification. Console GHPs can be coupled to a ground loop on the source side and can directly replace electric baseboard heaters or air-source packaged terminal heat pumps. Console GHPs can also bring in outdoor air for ventilation. This measure will be referred to throughout the document as the “Console GHP” upgrade.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗