SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “SCALE Code System”

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

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

713 records · Page 40

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2023

New Dimensions in the Theory of Excited States and X-ray Spectra (Final Report)

This Final Technical Report briefly summarizes the achievements during the lifetime of our DOE BES grant DE-FG02-97ER45623. The long-term goal of this project has been the development of quantitative theories of the interaction between radiation and matter, with a focus on x-ray spectroscopies. X-ray spectra have long been among the most important probes of atomic-scale structure and properties of matter, ranging from atoms and molecular systems to condensed matter and exotic states. These spectroscopies are widely used in investigations at the major DOE synchrotron x-ray facilities and related centers world-wide. In addition to fundamental theory, a major goal of our project has been the development of computational software that implements the theory for calculations of x-ray spectra of various materials throughout the periodic table. Due to the complex nature of x-ray spectra, quantitative theory is essential for its interpretation. The theory is challenging since it involves excited state electronic structure and many-body correlation effects that go beyond independent particle approximations like DFT or Hartree-Fock. Moreover, the experimental investigations typically involve a broad range of energy, time, and temperature scales, from the UV-Vis to hard x-ray energies of order 10 4 eV, and temperatures T from ambient up to the warm-dense-matter regime where the Fermi energy kBTF is of order a few eV, i.e., temperatures of order 105 Kelvin. This broad range of experimental conditions has fostered many novel theoretical approaches and computational techniques, many of which we have developed systematically over the duration of the grant. In contrast to the traditional wave-function approach of quantum theory and electronic structure methods, our theoretical approach is based on modern Green's function techniques. This approach is better suited for aperiodic structures, excited states, and broad spectral ranges, since it avoids the computational bottlenecks of sum-over-states approaches, as in the Fermi golden rule. This theoretical framework has been incorporated into efficient, user-friendly x-ray spectroscopy software which is now used routinely worldwide to simulate and analyze spectra. These theoretical tools provide an essential complement to synchrotron and next-generation light sources, which are used to investigate complex materials with ever increasing precision. Moreover, the synergism between theory, computation and experiment contributed by our research enhances scientific understanding and creates opportunities for innovations in materials and energy science and in many fields. As documented in this Report, this research grant has been remarkably successful in achieving these goals. In particular, this grant has supported the development of the x-ray spectroscopy software suite known as FEFF (named for an effective scattering amplitude f eff in the theory). The FEFF codes have become one of the premier tools for quantitative simulations of x-ray spectra as documented by many thousands of citations in the Web of Science and Google-Scholar.

75 CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND↗

DOE OSTI2023

Electric Vehicles at Scale (EVs@Scale) Laboratory Consortium Deep-Dive Technical Meetings: High Power Charging (HPC) Summary Report

Electric vehicle (EV) adoption will change the composition of EV charging load to higher-power charging as more medium- (MD) and heavy-duty (HD) applications are electrified, and as all vocations, including light-duty (LD) vehicles, are capable of faster charging. These shifts provide the opportunity for high-power charging (HPC) and facility equipment to evolve and improve efficiency, cost, and space. High-Power Electric Vehicle Charging Hub Integration Platform (eCHIP) project designs and develops a high-power, interoperable charging experimental platform to research, develop, and demonstrate the integration approaches and technology solutions. The project addresses (1) interconnection and management of a grid-tied inverter; (2) development of a DC distribution system that is responsible for system energy management, interoperability, and DC protection; (3) modular DC/DC conversion for vehicle charging; (4) EV charging interface and DC/DC integration; and (5) smart charge control and vehicle-to-edge (vehicle-to-building [V2B], vehicle-to-everything [V2X]) capability. This summary presentation is the first technical progress output of the project. It provides insight for the first deep-dive technical meeting outputs in terms of research presentations and also includes summary of the discussions occurred in the follow-up breakout sessions. The summary presentation covers three technical areas: (1) HPC: State of the art power architectures and the design of the power electronics, (2) Modeling, energy management, and power control in the HPC station, and (3) Next Generation Profiles for high power charging characterization.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Multi-Model and Multi-Scale Global Sensitivity Analysis for Identifying Controlling Processes of Complex Systems

An environmental model consists of multiple process level sub-models, and each sub-model represents a process that is key to the operation of the simulated system. Global sensitivity analysis methods have been widely used to identify important processes for system model development and improvement. The existing methods of global sensitivity analysis only consider parametric uncertainty, and are not capable of handling model uncertainty caused by multiple process models that arise from competing hypotheses about one or more processes. To address this problem, this project develops a new method to probe model output sensitivity to competing process models by integrating model averaging methods with variance-based global sensitivity analysis to address uncertainty in process models and parameters. The new method yields three process sensitivity indices. The first one is called first-order process sensitivity index, and it is derived as a single summary measure of relative process importance. Evaluating the index is computationally expensive, because it relies in a Monte Carlo scheme that requires thousands and even millions of model executions. To reduce computational cost, this project develops a computationally efficient, quasi Monte Carlo method, and this method is presented in Chapter 2 of this report with and a numerical example for demonstration. The numerical example shows that the results of the quasi Monte Carlo method are substantially close to those of the full Monte Carlo method, but the computational cost of the quasi Monte Carlo method is only 0.7% of that of the full Monte Carlo method. The second index is called total-effect process sensitivity index, and it measures interactions between different processes. Therefore, this sensitivity index includes the first-order process sensitivity index, and can be used to identify influential processes. On the other hand, the total-effect process sensitivity index can also be used to screen non-influential processes. This is demonstrated by two numerical examples using the Sobol-G* functions and groundwater flow models that consider recharge process, geological process, and snowmelt process. The numerical examples shows that the total-effect process sensitivity index is more informative than the first-order process sensitivity. The derivation of the process sensitivity index and the numerical examples are discussed in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 presents two computationally efficient methods for screening non-influential processes to exclude them from further investigation. The two methods are the multi-model difference-based sensitivity (MMDS) analysis method, which can be implemented using the Latin Hypercube Sampling. The second one is the implementation of MMDS method using a binning method. The numerical example for the Sobol-G* function indicates the two methods are capable of identifying non-influential models, and the numerical examples for the groundwater flow and reactive transport show that the two methods are effective for groundwater problems. However, it should be noted that the two methods are numerical approximations, and they can only be used for screening non-influential processes, not for ranking importance of system processes. All the sensitivity analysis methods are implemented by developing python codes, and the codes are in a software called SAMMPY: a python package for process sensitivity analysis under multiple models. The SAMMPY design and structure are discussed in Chapter 5, and the package is released to the public for free download.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Extended-MHD simulations of disruption mitigation via massive gas injection in SPARC

Recent developments to the M3D-C1 code enable higher fidelity modeling of disruptions, and can be applied in the design verification of reactor-scale tokamaks. Among these new capabilities is a method to mesh conducting vessel structures such as coils and passive plates, packing of the toroidal mesh around gas injectors, as well as anisotropic resistivity inside the vessel structures. We present extended-magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulations of disruption mitigation via massive gas injection (MGI) in SPARC. The goal of this study is to inform the disruption mitigation layout of SPARC and aid in the design of an effective gas injector configuration. Fully three-dimensional simulations with M3D-C1 are carried out for various injector configurations with the primary goal of determining the effect of different MGI parameters on heat loads and vessel forces. The simulations include a model for impurity ionization, recombination, advection and radiation, as well as spatially resolved conducting structures around the plasma. A localized mixture of deuterium and neon with a small toroidal and poloidal width is injected in up to six locations. We demonstrate that M3D-C1 can model a rapid shutdown via MGI using narrow and more realistic gas plumes than in previous simulations. As a result of the q = 1 surface in the SPARC baseline case a sawtooth is observed early in the simulations. Despite the sawtooth and the onset of edge MHD instabilities, the impurity distribution remains localized around the injector locations, but enables a radiative shutdown of the plasma. We find that using the maximum of six gas injectors results in a lower peaking factor and leads to a more even distribution of radiation toroidally than using two injectors.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2024 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for ground state atomistic materials modeling

We provide the ensemble of fifteen pre-trained graph foundation models (GFMs) for atomistic materials modeling applications. Each one of the fifteen GFMs has been trained on five open-source datasets that (once aggregated) amount to over 154 million atomistic structures, which cover over two-thirds of the natural elements of the periodic table and that comprises a broad set of organic and inorganic compounds. This vast set of atomistic structures comprises ground state configurations that are dynamically stable (i.e., equilibrated structures with atomic forces approximately close to zero values) as well as dynamically unstable structures (i.e., non-equilibrium structures with non-negligible non-zero values of atomic forces). The ensemble of datasets aggregated does NOT include excited states. The datasets have been curated to remove atomistic structures with spectral norm of the force tensor above 100 eV/angstrom. Moreover, a linear term of the energy was computed for each dataset using a linear regression model that uses the chemical concentration of each natural element as regressor. The linear term predicted by the linear regression model has been subtracted from each original energy value to perform a re-alignment of the energy values across different electronic structures approximation theories performed to generate the diverse multi-source, multi-fidelity datasets. The folder "ADIOS_files" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "ADIOS_files" directory contains 6 sub-directories named as follows: - ANI1x-v3.bp - MPTrj-v3.bp - OC2020-20M-v3.bp - OC2020-v3.bp - OC2022-v3.bp - qm7x-v3.bp Each sub-directory contains the pre-processed datasets converted in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used to the development, training, and performance testing of the ensemble go predictive graph foundation models. Each GFM was developed using HydraGNN (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN) as underlying graph neural network (GNN) architecture. The multi-task learning (MTL) capability of HydraGNN was used to simultaneously train the GFMs on labeled values for direct predictions of energy (a total system property of an atomistic structure that measures the chemical stability) and atomic forces (an atomic level property of an atomistic structure that measures the dynamical stability). The hyper parameters of the GFM have been tuned using scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) algorithms implemented in the software DeepHyper (https://github.com/deephyper/deephyper). The pre-training of each HPO trial was performed using distributed data parallelism (DDP) to scale the training across 128 compute nodes of the exascale OLCF supercomputer Frontier. Each HPO trial was trained only for 10 epochs and an early stopping was performed to avoid wasting significant computational resources on GNN architectures that were clearly underperforming. For each HPO trial, the 'omnistat' tool developed by (AMD Research - Advanced Micro Device) was used to measure the total energy consumption in kWh. The ensemble of GFMs was obtained by selecting the fifteen best performing HPO trials. Four models have been selected for their clear advantage in accuracy, and these are the GFMs with IDs 229, 156, 147, 260. Additional eleven models have been selected based on judicious balance between accuracy and energy consumption needed for training, and these are the GFMs with IDs 165, 78, 137, 1, 175, 171, 181, 67, 179, 167, 351. Each selected GFM of the ensemble was continued to cumulate a total of at most 30 epochs. In some cases, the total number of epochs actually performed was les than 30 due to two combined factors: (1) the size of the GFM (i.e., the number of model parameters to train) and (2) the total wall-clock time for which the computational resources could be allocated on OLCF-Frontier. The "Ensemble_of_models" directory contains 15 sub-directories named as follows: - gfm_0.229 - gfm_0.156 - gfm_0.147 - gfm_0.260 - gfm_0.165 - gfm_0.78 - gfm_0.137 - gfm_0.1 - gfm_0.175 - gfm_0.171 - gfm_0.181 - gfm_0.67 - gfm_0.179 - gfm_0.167 - gfm_0.351 Each one of these sub-directories refers to one of the fifteen HPO trials that have been selected to continue the pre-training with at most 30 epochs. With each sub-directory associated with a specific HPO trial, the following files can be found: - config.json: file for argument parsing to develop and train an HydraGNN architecture - gfm_0.ID_epoch_N.pk: file with model parameters for HPO ID trial after N epochs of training The ensemble of fifteen GFM architectures was used for (1) ensemble averaging to stabilize the predictions of energy and atomic forces after pre-training for post-processing analysis and (2) ensemble uncertainty quantification (UQ). The code used to develop, pre-train, and load the pre-trained models for post-processing analysis is available on the ORNL-GitHub at the following link: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/tree/Predictive_GFM_2024

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2020

Proposed guidance for preparing and reviewing a molten salt non-power production or utilization facility application

Development of non-power molten salt reactors (MSRs) are under consideration to further establish an MSR experience base, support the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.43(e), and provide any additional analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. Guidance provided in this report is based on MSRs operating with liquid fuel (i.e., fuel dissolved within a molten salt). These reactors, unless owned by the DOE or DOD, will require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Standard review plan (SRP) guidance for large light water reactors (LWRs) is available in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; Light Water Reactor (LWR) Edition. However, NRC staff observed that NUREG-0800 is very cumbersome to apply to non-power reactors “because of the great differences in complexity and hazards between non-power reactors and nuclear power plants.” Therefore, a program to develop performance-based guidance applicable to non-power reactors was initiated. In 1996, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, was published. Part 1, the format and content guide, suggests a uniform format for presenting information in non-power reactor applications that is acceptable to the NRC staff, but conformance with the format and content is not required. Part 2, the SRP, ensures the quality and uniformity of the staff review of an application. Unfortunately, the application guidelines and SRP do not provide adequate guidance for all advanced non-LWR technologies and applications. This discrepancy eventually led to the 2012 development of interim staff guidance (ISG) for NUREG-1537, which includes criteria for describing and reviewing aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs). Specifically, NUREG-1537 ISG, 2012 expanded the original document to address three areas: 1. updated criteria for heterogeneous non-power reactors, 2. criteria for licensing AHRs, and 3. criteria for licensing a Part 50-licensed isotope production facility. In 2015, the US Department of Energy (DOE) opted to build on the AHR NUREG-1537 ISG experience by performing a gap analysis of the guidance that would be used to license a non-power MSR. MSRs represent one of the advanced non-LWR technologies selected by DOE for development through a multiyear cost share award with Southern Company Services. Under this Advanced Reactor Concepts 2015 (DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts [ARC] 15) award program, the DOE tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate the guidance changes that the NRC may need to consider when licensing an MSR non-power reactor. ORNL staff, with support from Boston Government Services, LLC, focused on five system-related chapters in NUREG-1537 that were considered most relevant to inform the effort that would be required for a non-power MSR applicant. ORNL documented this review in a technical report, ORNL/TM-2018/834, Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Non-Power Reactor License Applications (NUREG-1537). The report was subsequently shared with industry and the NRC. The 2018 review was limited in scope, focusing on key system chapters based on the expected significance of each chapter relative to expected differences in addressing advanced non-LWR technologies, specifically non-power MSRs, compared with heterogeneously fueled non-power reactors. In the ORNL report, proposed generic adaptations were suggested for the following NUREG-1537 chapters: Chapter 4, “Reactor Description”; Chapter 5, “Reactor Coolant Systems”; Chapter 6, “Engineered Safety Features”; Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems”; Chapter 11, “Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management” The inclusion of Chapter 11 in the previous review effort was intended to provide guidance for categorizing the waste-handling process for an MSR operating with homogenous fuel. The introductions from Parts 1 and 2 of the 2012 NUREG-1537 ISG provide guidance for the application and review of production facilities. After a period of operation, non-power MSRs with homogenous fuel will include gaseous and soluble fission products. The gaseous fission products will be collected and held for decay in an off-gas system. There might also be an initiative to polish or filter the soluble fission products in the fuel salt by some mechanical or chemical means. The treatment and handling of fission products in the non-power MSR fuel salt and the description of this process in the safety analysis report (SAR) must be very precise to avoid the waste treatment facility being construed as a co-located special nuclear material (SNM) fuel cycle facility (see Section 2.3 of this report). Subsequent to the release of ORNL/TM-2018/834, NRC staff expressed a desire to continue the regulatory gap analysis that was begun in that report. This would provide additional clarity and information addressed in certain sections of the original report, while also providing new guidance on certain topics not addressed in the original report. This revision would benefit the NRC staff reviewing applications involving non-power MSR designs and would help developers understand how the NRC staff might approach the review of such applications. The focus of this report is to provide infrastructure support to the NRC staff for the regulatory review of non-power MSRs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2020

Distributed fiber sensing systems for 3D combustion temperature field monitoring in coal-fired boilers using optically generated acoustic waves (Final Report)

In this project, we have developed and tested three kinds of fiber optic sensing systems for real time monitoring of temperature variations within an industrial scale boiler furnace. The fiber optic sensing systems target spatial and temporal distributions of high temperature profiles in a boiler furnace in fossil power plants. The reconstructed temperature profile will provide critical input for the control mechanisms to optimize the combustion process. This temperature profile will address the essential problem for fossil power plants in achieving higher efficiency and fewer pollutant emissions. Acoustic pyrometer systems have been used to reconstruct temperature field of power plant boilers based on measuring TOF (times-of-flight) of sound waves along some straight paths in a 2D cross-section of the boiler. In this project, optically generated acoustic signals from a fiber optic sensing system have replaced the acoustic signals generated from an electrical transducer. A 3D reconstruction algorithm replaced the previous 2D model. In this project, three kinds of fiber optic sensing systems have been developed and tested. They are fiber optic sensing system I, fiber optic sensing system II (Distributed Sensing System I) and fiber optic sensing system III (Distributed Sensing System II). For fiber optic sensing system I, the fiber optic ultrasound generator acts as a signal generator. A microphone, hydrophone or other electronic devices serve as a signal receiver. In this system, there are one generator and one receiver. Distance test, water temperature test, air temperature test, air temperature reconstruction, and GE ISBF pilot test were performed by Fiber optic sensing system I. The fiber optic sensing system I successfully detected temperature in all these tests. We got 2D temperature reconstruction results by using the fiber optic sensing system I and it matched the reference data. The fiber optic sensing system I successfully survived in GE ISBF boiler environment (480 °F). For fiber optic sensing system II (Distributed Sensing System I), it is an all optical ultrasound system. The fiber optic ultrasound generator acts as a signal generator. Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) and Fabry-Perot (FP) sensor act as a signal receiver. In this system, there is one generator and one receiver. Aluminum plate temperature test, furnace high temperature test, and GE ISBF pilot test were performed by the fiber optic sensing system II. Fiber optic sensing system II successfully detected the temperature in all these tests. The fiber optic sensing system II successfully survived at up to 700 °C furnace environment and 320 °C GE ISBF boiler environment. For fiber optic sensing system III (Distributed Sensing System II), it is also an all optical ultrasound system. The fiber optic ultrasound generator acts as a signal generator. Multiple FP fiber sensors act as signal receivers. In this system, there is one generator and three receivers. Three GE ISBF pilot tests were performed by fiber optic sensing system III. The fiber optic sensing system III survived in the cold flow tests in GE’s ISBF pilot test facility. However, we didn’t get high temperature data by using this system since the nanosecond laser issues. During the period of the project, test trials, data simulation and algorithm optimization was performed successfully. For real time temperature field construction, the sampling rate must be fast enough to capture the field variations. The technology of Code-division multiple access (CDMA) is well studied which could allow parallel multiplexing, even if signals overlap in time or frequencies. Moreover, it has been known that extending the length of signal significantly improves SNR. For acoustic signals, these multiplexing techniques have also been widely used, mainly for sonar and acoustic communications. The CDMA modulation technique has been proposed and studied to guarantee high network throughput, low channel access delay and low energy consumption. We have studied the temperature field reconstruction using Gaussian Radial Basis Functions (GRBF)-based approximation approach. Reconstruction of 3D temperature field using Neural Networks with measured TOF and known propagation paths is feasible. 2D and 3D temperature field reconstruction simulation results are achieved. The milestone status is shown in Table 1. We finished milestone 1-8 and milestone 10. For milestone 9, we did three pilot tests by using the fiber optic sensing system III (Distributed Sensing System II) at GE Power. However, due to the failure of the ns laser, we did not get the temperature results. We conducted some additional tasks that were not originally proposed: 1) We fabricated a fiber optic sensing system I and did a pilot test based on this system. 2) In the proposal, we proposed two pilot tests at GE Power. In reality, we finished at least seven pilot tests at GE Power. GE Power has made a lot of efforts for supporting the pilot tests. 3) We got a simulation results based on CDMA. In summary, most of the tasks have been accomplished. The outcome of this project removed a few barriers that hinder the achievement of the final product of the distributed sensing systems. With the successful accomplishment of this project, a prototype of the fiber optic sensing system can be fabricated to attract more interests from companies and other funding agencies.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

DOE OSTI2020

RELAP5-3D Modeling of High Temperature Test Facility (HTTF) Test PG-26

The High Temperature Test Facility (HTTF) at Oregon State University (OSU) is a scaled integral effects experiment designed to investigate transient behavior in high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors with prismatic fuel and reflector blocks. Several tests have been completed, and more are still planned to at the HTTF, including depressurized conduction cooldown (DCC) and pressurized conduction cooldown (PCC) transients. This report analyses test PG-26, a progression of the Double Ended Inlet-Outlet Crossover Duct Break transient that is referred to as a DCC. PG-26 has been performed at the HTTF between May 30 and June 30, 2019. Core initial conditions (i.e., before the DCC started) have been met using low power (<100 kW) and two of ten available electric heaters. The DCC transient was initiated during the 50 th hour of the test. The break valves were opened, and hot helium from the core and cold helium from the reactor cavity simulation tank (RCST) started mixing. The gases flowed in a countercurrent fashion, where the top half of the hot duct contained hot helium that flowed in one direction and cold helium that flowed in the other direction in the bottom half of the duct. After the pressure and density reached equilibrium, the event entered a diffusion mode. The onset of a reverse natural circulation was not observed during the DCC period of the test. Version 4.4.2ie of the RELAP5-3D computer code has been used to model the HTTF PG-26 test, and results have been compared to available high-quality measured data. The model used in this study is the quality-controlled HTTF RELAP5-3D model (HTTF base 2018-04-19 QA), originally developed by P. Bayless. The report includes RELAP5-3D results of the “base calculations” as well as some sensitivities to important uncertain model inputs, such as primary helium mass flow rate, core ceramic thermal properties, as well as heat evacuation and loop friction models. Using the base RELAP5-3D model predicts a countercurrent helium flow in the hot duct observed at the beginning of the DCC, but instead of going into a molecular diffusion mode, the model predicts the onset of natural convection. Increasing friction in the core and hot duct prevents the natural convection from happening in some of the simulations. Although some temperatures are well predicted (and even overpredicted), the general tendency is to underpredict the ceramic and helium temperatures and heat removal rates during the DCC, resulting in many of the assessment findings being in minimal or insufficient agreement with the data. It is worth noting that the described discrepancies between measured data and RELAP5-3D predictions are not RELAP5-3D code limitations. More so, they reflect limitations in boundary condition and thermal property knowledge. While the RELAP5-3D calculations of the test provide some insights into what happens during the transient, and point to missing or potentially uncertain data to which the experimenters can direct their attention, the principal conclusion is that the PG-26 test data are insufficient for a system code assessment.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2024

NORTH DAKOTA CARBONSAFE PHASE III: SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND PERMITTING OF GEOLOGIC STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc. (Minnkota), SLB, and Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG), supported wide-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative Phase III. This phase included the acquisition, analysis, and development of information to fully characterize two storage complexes to demonstrate viable storage resources for commercial volumes of CO2 (defined by DOE as a minimum of 50 million tonnes [MMt] of CO2 within a 30-year period) (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2024). Phase III also involved the preparation, submission, and approval of North Dakota underground injection control (UIC) Class VI storage facility permits (SFPs)—required precursors to applications for Class VI injection well permits. The presumed viability of commercial-scale CCS, situated adjacent to Minnkota’s Milton R. Young Station (MRYS), is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of Project Tundra—an initiative to build the world’s largest lignite-based CCS project in central North Dakota (www.projecttundrand.com). Project Tundra comprises two scopes of work, Tundra Capture (installation of postcombustion CO2 capture at MRYS) and Tundra SGS (secure geologic storage). The efforts of North Dakota CarbonSAFE Phase III, Site Characterization and Permitting, supported Tundra SGS. Extensive site-specific characterization activities included a successful multimeasurement geophysical approach and drilling a stratigraphic test well (J-ROC 1, subsequently renamed Liberty-1) adjacent to MRYS. Core collection and analyses, downhole testing and fluid sampling, and geophysical logging were performed on J-ROC 1 and on a nearby stratigraphic test well (known as J-LOC 1), which was drilled, cored, and tested under a complementary project funded by the North Dakota Lignite Research Program. The injection tests performed on J-LOC 1 positively impacted the CarbonSAFE project, resulting in fewer proposed injection wells and significant construction, operations, and monitoring cost savings. The characterization data collected and analyses performed were integrated into geologic models, and successive numerical simulations were run to determine CO2 plume extent and subsurface pressure buildup associated with the planned CO2 injection rate of nearly 4 MMt per year. The latter doubles the CarbonSAFE Initiative goal with an estimated 100 MMt of CO2 stored in 20 years. Application of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) method for estimating the Class VI Rule area of review (AOR) to the overpressurized Broom Creek Formation inspired an alternative method of calculation, called risk-based AOR delineation. This peer-reviewed method was applied for the first time during the storage facility-permitting process. The two SFP applications submitted in 2021 successfully resulted in North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) orders in 2022 authorizing the creation of the storage facility areas and amalgamation of pore space as well as establishing financial responsibility requirements. After approval of the SFPs, Minnkota filed in 2022 applications for permits to reenter the J-ROC 1 well and to drill two new wells—all with the intended purpose to become Class VI injection wells. To establish eligibility under the Internal Revenue Code for Section 45Q tax incentives, a monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan was prepared and submitted by Minnkota to EPA in 2022, resulting in the first such plan approved in North Dakota. Also in 2022, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Minnkota prepared and submitted an environmental information volume (EIV) describing the proposed CCS project and associated potential environmental impacts. Based on the EIV, DOE determined that the proposed construction project required an environmental assessment, and Minnkota submitted the first draft in 2023 and a revised draft in 2024. Both submissions were followed by a public comment period. Subsequently, DOE issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on September 13, 2024. A successful outreach program, strongly based in the production, presentation, and dissemination of informational material, fostered an environment to aid stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding the planned project. Opportunities for public input were provided at various steps along the way, including at county planning and zoning meetings, before and during the SFP administrative hearing, and during environmental assessment public comment periods. In addition, land/pore space owners and mineral owners had various points of contact, including granting access rights, securing pore space leasing, and mineral owner notifications. Based upon the successful storage facility permitting issued by NDIC, approval of the MRV plan by EPA, and receipt of a FONSI under the NEPA, Minnkota is continuing its pursuit of Project Tundra. In December 2023, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations under its Carbon Capture Demonstrations Projects Program announced funding for the capture system (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023) and a proposal for CarbonSAFE Phase IV: Construction funding was submitted in March 2024 for the storage project. A go/no-go decision to proceed with construction and operations in the Broom Creek Formation is anticipated in 2024. References National Energy Technology Laboratory, CarbonSafe Initiative, https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/carbonsafe (accessed August 2024). Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023, OCED selects three projects in CA, ND, and TX to reduce harmful carbon pollution, create new economic opportunities, and advance carbon reducing technologies, December, www.energy.gov/oced/articles/oced-selects-three-projects-ca-nd-and-tx-reduce-harmful-carbon-pollution-create-new (accessed August 2024).

Peck, Wesley↗

DOE OSTI2024

Globally Gridded Groundwater Extraction Volumes and Costs under Six Depletion and Ponded Depth Targets

This repository contains simulated outputs from superwell – a hydro-economic tool for long-term assessment of groundwater cost and supply – providing globally gridded groundwater extractable volumes and associated unit costs ($/km³) for accessible groundwater production, based on a variety of user-defined depletion and ponded depth scenarios. Key model documentation: Niazi, H., Ferencz, S. B., Graham, N. T., Yoon, J., Wild, T. B., Hejazi, M., Watson, D. J., & Vernon, C. R. (2025). Long-term hydro-economic analysis tool for evaluating global groundwater cost and supply: Superwell v1.1. Geoscientific Model Development, 18(5), 1737-1767. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1737-2025 Find the source code of the superwell model on GitHub: https://github.com/JGCRI/superwell Repository Overview Main output: superwell_outputs.7z contains 6 files (4.5 GB) named as superwell_py_deep_all_0.*PD_0.*DL.csv. These files present superwell outputs of global groundwater extraction volumes and cost estimates on a 0.5° scale for six scenarios with different Ponded Depth (PD; 0.3 and 0.6 m) and Depletion Limit (DL; 5%, 25%, and 40% of available volume) targets over the entire pumping lifetime of a grid cell superwell_py_deep_all_0.3PD_0.25DL_sample_100.csv contains superwell outputs for 100 data points sampled to match the global inputs' distribution superwell_py_deep_all_0.3PD_0.25DL_Grid_72548.csv contains superwell output for a single grid cell concept_v5.png provides an overview of the superwell workflow Outputs Description year_number: year of pumping depletion_limit: set depletion limit (DL) as a volume fraction of total available groundwater Mappings: continent, country, gcam_basin_id, Basin_long_name, grid_id: geographic identifiers and basin information Inputs: grid_area (km²): area of the grid cell whyclass: hydrogeological classification of the aquifer permeability (m/day), porosity (%), total_thickness (m), depth_to_water (m): aquifer properties. The geo-processed input data has been published separately: https://doi.org/10.57931/2307831 Model outputs: orig_aqfr_sat_thickness (m), aqfr_sat_thickness (m): original and remaining/instantaneous saturated thickness of the aquifer hydraulic_conductivity (m/day), transmissivity (m²/day): hydraulic properties of the aquifer radius_of_influence (m), areal_extent (km²): well radius and area of influence from the center of the well number_of_wells (-): number of wells in a grid cell determined by a ratio of well area and grid area max_drawdown (m), drawdown (m), drawdown_interference (m): well and aquifer drawdown during extraction total_head (m): total lift for the groundwater (depth to water plus drawdown) total_well_length (m): total depth of wells drilled well_yield (m³/day): pumping rate or well yield power (kW), energy (kWh): power and energy required for pumping groundwater Volume Outputs: volume_produced_perwell (m³), cumulative_vol_produced_perwell (m³): production volume metrics per well volume_produced_allwells (m³), cumulative_vol_produced_allwells (m³): aggregate extraction volumes for all wells in a grid cell available_volume (m³): available groundwater in storage for the grid cell as determined by aquifer properties depleted_vol_fraction: fraction of total volume pumped over available volumes in a grid cell (same as depletion limit) Cost Outputs: well_installation_cost ($): well installation cost based on the hydrogeological complexity of the aquifer annual_capital_cost, maintenance_cost, nonenergy_cost ($): nonenergy costs energy_cost_rate ($/kWh): electricity rate energy_cost ($): energy cost of pumping groundwater total_cost_perwell ($), total_cost_allwells ($): total annual energy and non-energy cost for each and all wells in a grid cell a unit_cost ($/m³), unit_cost_per_km3 ($/km³), unit_cost_per_acreft ($/acre-ft): total cost of pumping a unit of groundwater, indicated for different spatial units Key Resources Model documentation: Niazi, H., Ferencz, S., Graham, N., Yoon, J., Wild, T., Hejazi, M., Watson, D., & Vernon, C. (2024; In-prep). Long-term Hydro-economic Assessment Tool for Evaluating Global Groundwater Cost and Supply: Superwell v1. Geoscientific Model Development. Input data: Niazi, H., Watson, D., Hejazi, M., Yonkofski, C., Ferencz, S., Vernon, C., Graham, N., Wild, T., & Yoon, J. (2024). Global Geo-processed Data of Aquifer Properties by 0.5° Grid, Country and Water Basins. MSD-LIVE Data repository. https://doi.org/10.57931/2307831 superwell source code: https://github.com/JGCRI/superwell Cite as Niazi, H., Ferencz, S., Yoon, J., Graham, N., Wild, T., Hejazi, M., Watson, D., & Vernon, C. (2024). Globally Gridded Groundwater Extraction Volumes and Costs under Six Depletion and Ponded Depth Targets. MSD-LIVE Data repository. https://doi.org/10.57931/2307832 Contact Reach out to Hassan Niazi or Stephen Ferencz or open an issue in the superwell repository for questions or suggestions.

Earth Systems↗

DOE OSTI2026

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗