Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “surface codes”

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 OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Code-verification techniques for the method-of-moments implementation of the magnetic-field integral equation

For computational physics simulations, code verification plays a major role in establishing the credibility of the results by assessing the correctness of the implementation of the underlying numerical methods. In computational electromagnetics, surface integral equations, such as the method-of-moments implementation of the magnetic-field integral equation, are frequently used to solve Maxwell's equations on the surfaces of electromagnetic scatterers. These electromagnetic surface integral equations yield many code-verification challenges due to the various sources of numerical error and their possible interactions. In this paper, we provide approaches to separately measure the numerical errors arising from these different error sources. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these approaches for cases with and without coding errors.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2024

Level 2 Milestone: Develop and Incorporate Novel Code Verification of Fundamental Equations in Gemma and Set Up Appropriate Tests

For computational physics simulations, code verification plays a major role in establishing the credibility of the results by assessing the correctness of the implementation of the underlying numerical methods. In computational electromagnetics, surface integral equations, such as the method-of-moments implementations of the electric-, magnetic-, and combinedfield integral equations, are frequently used to solve Maxwell’s equations on the surfaces of electromagnetic scatterers. These electromagnetic surface integral equations yield many code-verification challenges due to the various sources of numerical error and their possible interactions. In this report, we provide approaches to separately measure the numerical errors arising from these different error sources. We demonstrate the effectiveness of these approaches in Gemma.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Numerical Analysis of Liquid Metal MHD Flow and Heat Transfer for Open-Surface Li Divertor in FNSF

Within the ongoing U.S.-based program on the development of liquid metal plasma-facing components, numerical simulations and analyses are performed to address the feasibility of the open-surface Li divertor. In the previous scoping studies (Smolentsev, 2021), heat-removal capabilities of the divertor were assessed using a simplified flow model for a slug-type velocity profile and constant flow thickness. Here, new analyses take into account forces acting on the flowing Li layer. Three reduced-order mathematical models are applied under the conditions of the U.S. Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF) to access magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) flow development effects, velocity distribution, and surface waves: 1) fully developed MHD flow; 2) quasi-2-D developing MHD flow; and 3) multiphase MHD flow. The obtained results for MHD flows and the surface heat flux computed with the plasma code scrape-off layer plasma simulation for ITER (SOLPS-ITER) are then used as input data to compute the temperature distribution in the divertor by solving the convection–diffusion energy equation.

Smolentsev, Sergey↗
DOE OSTI2022

Reassessing energy deposition for the ITER 5 MA vertical displacement event with an improved DINA model

The beryllium (Be) main chamber wall interaction during a 5 MA/1.8 T upward, unmitigated VDE scenario, first analysed in [J. Coburn et al., Phys. Scr. T171 (2020) 014076] for ITER, has been re-evaluated using the latest energy deposition analysis software. Updates to the DINA disruption model are summarized, including an improved numerical convergence for the 0D power balance, limitations on the safety factor within the plasma core, and the choice to maintain a constant plasma +halo poloidal cross-section. Such updates result in a broad halo region and higher radiated power fractions compared to previous models. The new scenario lasts for ~75 ms and deposits ~29 MJ of energy, with the radial distribution of parallel heat flux q‖(r)resembling an exponential falloff with an effective λ_q=75-198 mm. A maximum halo width w_h of 0.52 m at the outboard midplane is observed. SMITER field line tracing and energy deposition simulations calculate a q_{⊥,max} of ~83 MW/m^2 on the upper first wall panels (FWP). Heat transfer calculations with the MEMOS-U code show that the FWP surface temperature reaches ~1000 K, well below the Be melt threshold. Variations of this 5 MA scenario with Be im-purity densities from 0 to 3∙10^19 m^-3 also remain below the melt threshold despite differences in energy deposition and duration. These results are in contrast to the early study which predicted melt damage to the first wall [J. Coburn et al., Phys. Scr. T171 (2020) 014076], and emphasize the importance of accurate models for the halo width w_h and the heat flux distribution q‖(r)within that halo width. The 2020 halo model in DINA has been compared with halo current experiments on COMPASS, JET, and Alcator C-Mod, and the preliminary results build confidence in the broad halo width predictions. Results for the 5 MA VDE are compared with those for a 15 MA equivalent, generated using the new DINA model. At the higher current, significant melting of the upper FWP is to be expected.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Dataset, Code, and Models for Training Deep Learning Potentials for Low Temperature Plasma-Surface Interactions

This repository contains datasets, training scripts, and finished models, and test simulations used in the development of DeepREBO— a machine-learned interatomic potential trained to emulate the REBO2 empirical potential. The data was generated to study deep potential development for simulations of plasma-surface interactions. It uses an active learning framework, starting from a minimal dataset and iteratively expanding it. Included are those generated datasets, the trained models, and simulations used to evaluate the performance of the training process. This resource supports reproducibility and provides a reference framework for training deep potentials in plasma-surface interaction studies.

active learning↗
DOE OSTI2024

Spherical time-encoded radiation imaging simulations

Radiation source localization is important for nuclear nonproliferation and can be obtained using time-encoded imaging systems with unsegmented detectors. A scintillation crystal can be used with a moving coded-aperture mask to vary the detected count rate produced from radiation sources in the far field. The modulation of observed counts over time can be used to reconstruct an image with the known coded-aperture mask pattern. Current time-encoded imaging systems incorporate cylindrical coded-aperture masks and have limits to their fully coded imaging field-of-view. This work focuses on expanding the field-of-view to 4π by using a novel spherical coded-aperture mask. A regular icosahedron is used to approximate a spherical mask. This icosahedron consists of 20 equilateral triangles; the faces of which are each subdivided into four equilateral triangle-shaped voxels which are then projected onto a spherical surface, creating an 80-voxel coded-aperture mask. Furthermore, these polygonal voxels can be made from high-Z materials for gamma-ray modulation and/or low-Z materials for neutron modulation. In this work, we present Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) simulations and simple models programmed in Mathematica to explore image reconstruction capabilities of this 80-voxel coded-aperture mask.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2022

MCNP6.3 Unstructured Mesh Verification: GodivR and CANDU Models

A geometric cell of the Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP)1 transport code is traditionally created by using Boolean operators on defined surfaces. This constructive solid geometry (CSG) capability has been available in the MCNP code since its beginning. However, a CSG model approach is limited when it comes to constructing a representative geometry for a complex model in its ability to capture a correct model representation. Starting with the version 6.0, the MCNP code has the ability of embedding an unstructured mesh (UM) model into a CSG cell to create a hybrid geometry [1]. The MCNP UM feature provides the flexibility of defining very complex geometries because computer aided design (CAD) and mesh generation software packages can be utilized to construct UM models for MCNP simulations.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Surface water nitrogen and sediment potential nitrate reduction rates, nutrient stocks, and stable isotopes from nine wetlands at the Tanglewood Biological Station, Alabama

This dataset supports a broader study investigating wetland hydrologic and biogeochemical responses to inundation disturbances. Bimonthly surface water and sediment sampling events were conducted at nine wetland sites situated within the Tanglewood Biological Station in Alabama from April 2023 to February 2024. The contents included in the data package include surface water nitrogen (nitrogen oxides and ammonium) and sediment potential nitrate reduction rates (measured as potential denitrification and dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium processing), nutrient stocks (total carbon, total nitrogen, and organic matter), and stable isotopes (carbon and nitrogen). Water level data related to each wetland location can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/2530253 (Kirker et al., 2024) and related water geochemistry data can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/3001967 (Forbes et al., 2025). In addition to a readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. This dataset is comprised of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata and international generic sample numbers (IGSNs); (4) readme; (5) the field protocol; and (6) a subfolder with sample data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) sediment potential denitrification rate, (2) sediment potential dissimilatory nitrate reduction to ammonium (DNRA) rate, (3) sediment total carbon and nitrogen content, (4) sediment stable isotopes (delta nitrogen-15 and delta carbon-13), (5) sediment percent organic matter, (6) surface water nitrous oxides, (7) surface water ammonium, and (8) methods codes. All files are .csv or .pdf.

Ammonium↗
DOE OSTI2023

LLNL Automized Surface Titration Model

The LLNL Automized Surface Titration Model (L-ASTM) is a community data-driven surface complexation modeling workflow for simulating potentiometric titration of mineral surfaces. The model accepts raw experimental potentiometric titration data formatted in a findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) structure. The workflow was coded in Python and coupled to PHREEQC for surface complexation modeling and PEST for data fitting and parameter estimation.

Solchan, Han↗
DOE OSTI2024

Parcel scale land cover and land use for Arizona’s urbanized areas, Flagstaff, Phoenix-Mesa, Tucson, Dec 2023

The health impacts of heat exposure are unequally experienced, with certain subpopulations particularly vulnerable to the effects of rising global temperatures. Manufactured Housing (MH) – transportable residential units constructed off-site before being moved to a parcel, organized either in Parks or Non-Parks tenure types – presents a diverse housing type that is hypothesized to be more vulnerable to extreme heat. This dataset contains land cover and housing type for 1.7 million parcels in three of Arizona’s urbanized areas. The data supports research confirming the hypothesis that residents of MH are more likely to experience heat vulnerability than those in single-family housing, multifamily housing, and condos/townhouses due to an average lack of proximate vegetation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Global stellarator coil optimization with quadratic constraints and objectives

Most present stellarator designs are produced by costly two-stage optimization: the first for an optimized equilibrium, and the second for a coil design reproducing its magnetic configuration. Few proxies for coil complexity and forces exist at the equilibrium stage. Rapid initial state finding for both stages is a topic of active research. Most present convex coil optimization codes use the least square winding surface method by Merkel (NESCOIL), with recent improvements in conditioning, regularization, sparsity, and physics objectives. While elegant, the method is limited to modeling the norms of linear functions in coil current. We present QUADCOIL, a global coil optimization method that targets combinations of linear and quadratic functions of the current. It can directly constrain and/or minimize a wide range of physics objectives unavailable in NESCOIL and REGCOIL, including the Lorentz force, magnetic energy, curvature, field-current alignment, and the maximum density of a dipole array. QUADCOIL requires no initial guess and runs nearly $10$ 2 x faster than filament optimization. Integrating it in the equilibrium optimization stage can potentially exclude equilibria with difficult-to-design coils, without significantly increasing the computation time per iteration. QUADCOIL finds the exact, global minimum in a large parameter space when possible, and otherwise finds a well-performing approximate global minimum. It supports most regularization techniques developed for NESCOIL and REGCOIL. We demonstrate QUADCOIL’s effectiveness in coil topology control, minimizing non-convex penalties, and predicting filament coil complexity with three numerical examples.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Mesh-based multiphysics coupling acceleration for fusion neutronics through clustering for fusion blanket applications

Accurate modeling of particle transport within fusion blankets is essential for predicting performance metrics such as heat deposition and the tritium breeding ratio (TBR). However, high-fidelity coupling of thermal fluids from computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to neutronics simulations often incurs significant computational costs due to the complexity of surface intersection calculations in Monte Carlo codes. This paper presents an accelerated multiphysics coupling method for neutronics that utilizes hierarchical agglomerative clustering to map complex material property distributions to a neutronics model. Implemented within the fusion reactor design and assessment (FREDA) framework, the method leverages existing Python packages to automate the creation of clustered geometries for OpenMC. The approach is demonstrated on a sector model of an ARC-class tokamak with an immersion molten salt blanket, and an simple geometry with varying isotopic concentrations. Results show that the clustering method significantly reduces computational burden without compromising fidelity, providing a foundation for agile iteration of neutronics simulations involving multiple coupled material properties.

Bae, Jin Whan [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000326548907)↗
DOE OSTI2022

Stellarator coil design using cubic splines for improved access on the outboard side

In recent years many efforts have been undertaken to simplify coil designs for stellarators due to the difficulties in fabricating non-planar coils. Additionally, the FOCUS code removes the need for a winding surface and represents the coils as arbitrary curves in 3D. In the following work, the implementation of a spline representation for the coils in FOCUS is described, along with the implementation of a new engineering constraint to design coils with a straighter outer section. The new capabilities of the code are shown as an example on HSX, NCSX, and a prototype quasi-axisymmetric reactor-sized stellarator. The flexibility granted by splines along with the new constraint will allow for stellarator coil designs with improved accessibility and simplified maintenance.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

GPU-friendly surface model for Monte-Carlo detector simulations

The demands for Monte-Carlo simulation are drastically increasing with the Large Hadron Collider’s high-luminosity upgrade, and are expected to exceed the currently available compute resources. At the same time, modern high-performance computing has adopted powerful hardware accelerators, particularly GPUs. The AdePT and Celeritas projects aim to address the demanding computational needs by leveraging these heterogeneous computing architectures. While both have successfully ported realistic detector simulations to GPUs using the VecGeom library, the complexity of geometry modeling emerged as a bottleneck. Thread divergence and high register usage were degrading the GPU performance. Therefore, a new, GPU-friendly surface-based model has been introduced in the VecGeom library that decomposes the divergent code of the 3D primitive solids into simpler and more balanced surface algorithms. In this work, we present the latest developments, focusing on the additions required to efficiently model complex setups like the CMS Phase-2 geometry. This includes memory reduction techniques, and adding accelerating structures for faster traversal.

Diederichs, Severin [CERN]↗
DOE OSTI2022

Computational investigation of incident ion angles and material erosion at rough graphite and silicon carbide divertor surfaces

We present a computational investigation of the dependence of material erosion on the incident ion angle at rough graphite and silicon carbide divertor surfaces. Ion angle distributions (IADs) for D plasmas at NSTX-U and DIII-D divertors were calculated by an equation-of-motion model that traces the ion trajectories in the sheath. Then, the effective sputtering yields and ion shadowed area fractions were calculated by a Monte Carlo micro-patterning and roughness code that applied the calculated IADs to surface topographic data that were obtained from optical confocal microscopy of rough graphite and SiC divertor surfaces from NSTX-U and DIII-D experiments. The calculations found that the effective sputtering yields, the sputtering pattern, and the shadowed area are determined by the detailed surface topology rather than the root mean square roughness R RMS , which represents deviations from a flat surface. The suppression of the effective sputtering yields for rough surfaces compared to the yield for a smooth surface was accounted for by the change of the mean local incident ion angle (LIIA) (θ'). The mean surface inclination angle distribution (SIAD) (δ) was found to be a useful parameter to estimate the LIIA from the calculated IADs. We report global empirical formulas for the mean LIIA and fraction of the area shadowed from the main ions for D plasmas for rough surfaces with B-field incident angles α = 85°–89° as a function of the mean SIAD (δ). We propose the use of the mean LIIA (θ') to estimate the sputtering yield for rough surfaces from the angular dependence of the sputtering yield.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Code Description for "Brief Communication: Monitoring snow depth using small, cheap, and easy-to-deploy ground surface temperature sensors"

Temporally continuous snow depth estimates are vital for understanding changing snow patterns and impacts on permafrost in the Arctic. We train a random forest machine learning model to predict snow depth from variability in ground surface temperature. To our knowledge, this is the first time that small ground surface temperature sensors have been used to estimate snow depth. The model performs well at sites where the model was trained and at pan-arctic evaluation sites (RMSE <= 0.15 m). Small temperature sensors are cheap and easy-to-deploy, so this technique enables spatially distributed and temporally continuous snowpack monitoring to an extent previously infeasible. The model is flexible and can be applied to datasets retroactively to retrieve snow depth estimates at additional sites. This code package includes a *.joblib file of the trained random forest model and a *.ipynb file showing how to clean input data, train the random forest model, and apply the model.

Bachand, Claire↗
DOE OSTI2024

Analysis and design of fast flow liquid Li divertor for fusion nuclear science facility (FNSF) using coupled plasma boundary and LM MHD/heat transfer codes *

The SOLPS-ITER code is utilized to analyze the boundary plasma associated with a fast-flow lithium (Li) divertor configuration in the fusion nuclear science facility (FNSF) tokamak and identify operational regimes with acceptable divertor and core conditions. Plasma transport from the SOLPS-ITER code has been coupled with a liquid metal (LM) MHD/heat transfer code to model a Li open-surface divertor design and assess its impact on the scrape-off-layer (SOL) and core plasma performance. Simulations with only Neon (Ne) impurity seeding have been conducted to evaluate its impact on meeting FNSF design demands for the divertor and upstream plasma parameters. Simulation results indicate that Ne seeding significantly mitigates divertor heat flux but potentially reduces both upstream electron and main ion density due to fuel dilution. The combined application of Ne seeding and deuterium (D 2 ) puffing is required to satisfy the FNSF design requirements on upstream density ($n^{OMP}_{e,sep}$~1× 10 20 m -3 ) and divertor energy flux ($q^{Odiv}_{\bot,max}$<10 MW m -2 ). D 2 puffing plays a role in counteracting upstream density drops and augmenting energy and momentum losses through atomic and molecular processes. The inlet Li flow velocity is systematically varied across a wide range to identify acceptable flows and corresponding LM surface temperatures. This comprehensive analysis identifies the acceptable Li flow parameters, LM surface temperature, and emitted Li fluxes necessary to meet the major design constraints. The emitted Li fluxes exhibit minimal impact on the main plasma at surface temperatures up to approximately ~525 °C, corresponding emitted Li fluxes of up to φ Li ~2X10 23 atoms s -1 . Uncertainties in the Li emission processes from the surface are also investigated, primarily influencing Li loss in the lower surface temperature range (<525 °C), with simulation results indicating a minor impact on the divertor and upstream plasma. Conversely, evaporation predominantly drives the Li loss processes at higher surface temperature ranges (>525 °C), contaminating both the divertor and upstream plasma.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗