Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Flow Visualization”

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.

764 records · Page 43
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Resilient U.S. Land Ports of Entry

The continued operation of Land Ports of Entry (LPOE), managed by the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and General Services Administration% is vital to the U.S. economy and security. Border faculties are included in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Government Facilities Sector2, one of the 16 critical infrastructures "whose assets, systems, and networks, whether physical or virtual, are considered so vital to the United States that their incapacitation or destruction would have a debilitating effect on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.'" Specifically, disruptions to the flow of border crossing traffic, in the form of closures or increased border crossing wait times, impact the economy and security of all countries involved. This paper describes a process for analyzing and improving the resilience of U.S. Land Ports of Entry. For LPOE, the team believes that energy resilience is the primary objective due to the complete reliance on the e-manifest system and the increasing use of Multi-Energy Portals (MEPs). Emanifests are part of CPB's Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). They document several key pieces of information about cargo vehicles wishing to cross the border into the United States and are submitted before arriving at the port. Vehicles can be flagged for more invasive inspection based on the content of the e-manifest. MEPs are a non-intrusive inspection (NII) technology used to scan the contents of the cargo. Together MEPs and ACE serve an important role in aiding CBP with their mission to protect "the public from dangerous people and materials", and "enabling legitimate trade and travel.'" To analyze resilience of a port, the team would need to understand the port's current energy usage, which systems depend on energy and what backup systems exist, and any emergency operation plans that dictate how systems are operated in the event of a power outage. The team would also need to determine the design basis threats (DBTs) for the LPOE which could include natural disasters, manmade events, and accidents. The magnitudes of the DBTs are calculated and are then translated to expected impacts on the infrastructure and systems at the port. With this information gathered, existing LPOE models developed here at Sandia National Laboratories could be extended to support decisions about resilience. Current models are implemented in FlexSim, a 3rd party discrete event simulator. FlexSim provides 3-D visuals of physical layout that can reveal valuable insights, allows input to be variable (e.g. time it takes to interact with the CBP officer at primary inspection can vary) so that a whole range of possibilities can be captured in the results, and can be used to collect user-defined output metrics. Current LPOE models focus on cargo vehicle traffic, and process changes caused by the installation of new drive-through MEPs. Extending them to address resilience questions would require the addition of key pieces of information learned during the resilience analysis including critical systems, failure rates, and process changes for when failures occur. The primary output metric for current models is border crossing wait time. Additional metrics would also be added to the model to gain a more complete understanding of impacts related to resilience, for example, MEP scan rate. Once complete, the model could be used to analyze the effectiveness of mitigation strategies representing some future state.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2013

Multiscale multiphysics and multidomain models—Flexibility and rigidity

The emerging complexity of large macromolecules has led to challenges in their full scale theoretical description and computer simulation. Multiscale multiphysics and multidomain models have been introduced to reduce the number of degrees of freedom while maintaining modeling accuracy and achieving computational efficiency. A total energy functional is constructed to put energies for polar and nonpolar solvation, chemical potential, fluid flow, molecular mechanics, and elastic dynamics on an equal footing. The variational principle is utilized to derive coupled governing equations for the above mentioned multiphysical descriptions. Among these governing equations is the Poisson-Boltzmann equation which describes continuum electrostatics with atomic charges. The present work introduces the theory of continuum elasticity with atomic rigidity (CEWAR). The essence of CEWAR is to formulate the shear modulus as a continuous function of atomic rigidity. As a result, the dynamics complexity of a macromolecular system is separated from its static complexity so that the more time-consuming dynamics is handled with continuum elasticity theory, while the less time-consuming static analysis is pursued with atomic approaches. We propose a simple method, flexibility-rigidity index (FRI), to analyze macromolecular flexibility and rigidity in atomic detail. The construction of FRI relies on the fundamental assumption that protein functions, such as flexibility, rigidity, and energy, are entirely determined by the structure of the protein and its environment, although the structure is in turn determined by all the interactions. As such, the FRI measures the topological connectivity of protein atoms or residues and characterizes the geometric compactness of the protein structure. As a consequence, the FRI does not resort to the interaction Hamiltonian and bypasses matrix diagonalization, which underpins most other flexibility analysis methods. FRI's computational complexity is of O(N{sup 2}) at most, where N is the number of atoms or residues, in contrast to O(N{sup 3}) for Hamiltonian based methods. We demonstrate that the proposed FRI gives rise to accurate prediction of protein B-Factor for a set of 263 proteins. We show that a parameter free FRI is able to achieve about 95% accuracy of the parameter optimized FRI. An interpolation algorithm is developed to construct continuous atomic flexibility functions for visualization and use with CEWAR.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2018

Improved Characterization and Modeling of Tight Oil Formations for CO 2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential and Storage Capacity Estimation

Tight oil formations such as those in the Bakken petroleum system are known to hold hundreds of billions of barrels of oil in place; however, the primary recovery factor for these plays is typically less than 10%. Tight oil formations, including the Bakken Formation, therefore, may be attractive candidates for enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using CO 2 . Multiphase fluid behavior and flow in fluid-rich shales can vary substantially depending on the size of pore throats, and properties such as fluid viscosity and density are much different in nanoscale pores than in macroscale pores. Thus it is critical to understand the nature and distribution of nano-, micro-, and macroscale pores and fracture networks. To address these issues, the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC) has been conducting a research program entitled “Improved Characterization and Modeling of Tight Oil Formations for CO 2 Enhanced Oil Recovery Potential and Storage Capacity Estimation.” The objectives of the project are 1) the use of advanced characterization methods to better understand and quantify the petrophysical and geomechanical factors that control CO 2 and oil mobility within tight oil formation samples, 2) the determination of CO 2 permeation and oil extraction rates in tight reservoir rocks and organic-rich shales of the Bakken, and 3) the integration of the laboratory-based CO 2 permeation and oil extraction data and the characterization data into geologic models and dynamic simulations to develop predictions of CO 2 storage resource and EOR in the Bakken tight oil formation. A combination of standard and advanced petrophysical characterization techniques were applied to characterize samples of Bakken Formation tight reservoir rock and shales from multiple wells. Techniques included advanced computer tomography (CT) imaging, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) techniques, whole-core and micro x-ray CT imaging, field emission (FE) SEM, and focused ion beam (FIB) SEM. Selected samples were also analyzed for geomechanical properties. X-ray CT imaging yielded information on the occurrence of fractures, bedding planes, fossils, and bioturbation in core, as well as data on bulk density and photoelectric factor logs, which were used to interpret porosity, organic content, and mineralogy. FESEM was used for characterization of nano- and microscale features, including nanoscale pore visualization and micropore and pore throat mineralogy. FIBSEM yielded micro- to nanoscale visualization of fracture networks, porosity and pore-size distribution, connected versus isolated porosity, and distribution of organics. Results from the characterization activities provide insight on nanoscale fracture properties, pore throat mineralogy and connectivity, rock matrix characteristics, mineralogy, and organic content. Laboratory experiments demonstrated that CO 2 can permeate the tight matrix of Bakken shale and nonshale reservoir samples and mobilize oil from those samples. Geologic models were created at scales ranging from the core plug to the reservoir, and dynamic simulations were conducted. The data from the characterization and laboratory-based activities were integrated into modeling research activities to determine the fundamental mechanisms controlling fluid transport in the Bakken, which support EOR scheme design and estimation of CO 2 storage potential in tight oil formations. Simulation results suggest a CO 2 storage resource estimate range of 169 million to 1.5 billion tonnes for the Bakken in North Dakota, possibly resulting in 1.8 billion to 16 billion barrels of incremental oil.

04 OIL SHALES AND TAR SANDS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Surface Properties of Double-Fin Generated Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions

Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction (SBLI) is ubiquitous in high-speed air vehicles. SBLI surface flowfield properties of crossing shocks induced by symmetric Double-Fins (DFs) at fin angles of 8° and 10° at Mach 2 are experimentally investigated; a 10° Single-Fin (SF) is also explored as a comparison. Surface visualization is used to capture distinct flowfield structures such as separation and upstream influence. Steady and unsteady Pressure-Sensitive Paints (PSPs) are used to obtain global surface pressure fields. Characteristics of DF-SBLI surface topology are discussed by comparing the corresponding SF-SBLI. Here, the effect of fin angle on DF-SBLI is characterized, and unsteady dynamics of the pressure field are examined. Spectral Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (SPOD) is performed on unsteady PSP, and traveling surface pressure waves and their frequency-dependent behavior are discussed. Dispersion relation of surface pressure waves is revealed by performing two-dimensional space–time Fourier transform on unsteady PSP, and the results are compared with the phase velocity distributions obtained from SPOD. Accompanying group velocity behavior is examined for distinct SBLI regions wherein wave propagation is found dependent on its frequency. Steady surface pressures along the centerline are compared with previous experimental data. Fin-tip spacing is found to be an essential parameter for scaling of upstream influence length.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2019

The Effect of Data Transformations on Scalar Field Topological Analysis of High-Order FEM Solutions

High-order finite element methods (HO-FEM) are gaining popularity in the simulation community due to their success in solving complex flow dynamics. There is an increasing need to analyze the data produced as output by these simulations. Simultaneously, topological analysis tools are emerging as powerful methods for investigating simulation data. Yet, most of the current approaches to topological analysis have had limited application to HO-FEM simulation data for two reasons. First, the current topological tools are designed for linear data (polynomial degree one), but the polynomial degree of the data output by these simulations is typically higher (routinely up to polynomial degree six). Second, the simulation data and derived quantities of the simulation data have discontinuities at element boundaries, and these discontinuities do not match the input requirements for the topological tools. One solution to both issues is to transform the high-order data to achieve low-order, continuous inputs for topological analysis. Nevertheless, there has been little work evaluating the possible transformation choices and their downstream effect on the topological analysis. We perform an empirical study to evaluate two commonly used data transformation methodologies along with the recently introduced L-SIAC filter for processing high-order simulation data. Our findings indicate diverse behaviors are possible. We offer some guidance about how best to consider a pipeline of topological analysis of HO-FEM simulations with the currently available implementations of topological analysis.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Models, data, and scripts associated with “Prediction of Distributed River Sediment Respiration Rates using Community-Generated Data and Machine Learning”

This data package is associated with the publication “Prediction of Distributed River Sediment Respiration Rates using Community-Generated Data and Machine Learning’’ submitted to the Journal of Geophysical Research: Machine Learning and Computation (Scheibe et al. 2024). River sediment respiration observations are expensive and labor intensive to obtain and there is no physical model for predicting this quantity. The Worldwide Hydrobiogeochemisty Observation Network for Dynamic River Systems (WHONDRS) observational data set (Goldman et al.; 2020) is used to train machine learning (ML) models to predict respiration rates at unsampled sites. This repository archives training data, ML models, predictions, and model evaluation results for the purposes of reproducibility of the results in the associated manuscript and community reuse of the ML models trained in this project. One of the key challenges in this work was to find an optimum configuration for machine learning models to work with this feature-rich (i.e. 100+ possible input variables) data set. Here, we used a two-tiered approach to managing the analysis of this complex data set: 1) a stacked ensemble of ML models that can automatically optimize hyperparameters to accelerate the process of model selection and tuning and 2) feature permutation importance to iteratively select the most important features (i.e. inputs) to the ML models. The major elements of this ML workflow are modular, portable, open, and cloud-based, thus making this implementation a potential template for other applications. This data package is associated with the GitHub repository found at Please see the file level metadata (flmd; “sl-archive-whondrs_flmd.csv”) for a list of all files contained in this data package and descriptions for each. Please see the data dictionary (dd; “sl-archive-whondrs_dd.csv”) for a list of all column headers contained within comma separated value (csv) files in this data package and descriptions for each. The GitHub repository is organized into five top-level directories: (1) “input_data” holds the training data for the ML models; (2) “ml_models” holds machine learning models trained on the data in “input_data”; (3) “scripts” contains data preprocessing and postprocessing scripts and intermediate results specific to this data set that bookend the ML workflow; (4) “examples” contains the visualization of the results in this repository including plotting scripts for the manuscript (e.g., model evaluation, FPI results) and scripts for running predictions with the ML models (i.e., reusing the trained ML models); (5) “output_data” holds the overall results of the ML model on that branch. Each trained ML model resides on its own branch in the repository; this means that inputs and outputs can be different branch-to-branch. Furthermore, depending on the number of features used to train the ML models, the preprocessing and postprocessing scripts, and their intermediate results, can also be different branch-to-branch. The “main-*” branches are meant to be starting points (i.e. trunks) for each model branch (i.e. sprouts). Please see the Branch Navigation section in the top-level README.md in the GitHub repository for more details. There is also one hidden directory “.github/workflows”. This hidden directory contains information for how to run the ML workflow as an end-to-end automated GitHub Action but it is not needed for reusing the ML models archived here. Please the top-level README.md in the GitHub repository for more details on the automation.

13C↗
DOE OSTI2019

Accounting for hydrological and microbial processes on greenhouse gas budgets from river systems (Final Report)

River systems have a disproportionately large impact on carbon and nitrogen cycling on this planet. For instance, despite their much smaller size in area, it is estimated that global carbon dioxide emission from river systems exceed the emission from lakes and reservoirs, and are on par with the estimated oceanic and land carbon sinks. Closing carbon and nitrogen budgets in river systems requires knowledge of end member greenhouse gas (GHG) products (e.g. carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane), which typically have not been measured in river systems. Moreover, while the production of these gasses is thought to be microbially derived, little is known about microbial activities in sediments of large rivers, despite their potentially high influence on biogeochemical budgets. Typically, when we think of rivers we visualize the channels that carve through the earth, but this only represents a small part of the hydrologic exchange that a river participates in. Rivers are more than conduits; they are dynamically exchanging water and materials with surrounding terrestrial and subsurface environments. In fact, 96% of the carbon dioxide produced within river systems occurs in hyporheic zones, or sediment regions beneath and alongside a river where groundwater and river water mix. In fact, it is widely recognized that microbial processes in hyporheic zones, also known as the river’s liver, strongly influence the fate of carbon, nutrients, and contaminants transported through watersheds. Despite this general knowledge, observational studies linking nitrogen and carbon gas production to microbial activity, and studies of overall gas emissions, are limited across river systems, but especially absent from larger rivers. To identify microbial processes responsible for GHG emissions from large rivers, and to quantify their environmental drivers and dependencies, we selected the Columbia River as a representative field site. This is the largest river west of the North American Continental Divide, and produces a drainage and discharge roughly double of the Nile in Egypt. This river is also an important source for agricultural irrigation and generates more hydroelectric power than any other North American river. Dams manage the release of water in the river, with these changes in river discharge patterns strongly impacting microbial activities in hyporheic zones. Specifically, we target a region down-river from the Priest Rapids Dam (WA) associated with the PNNL SFA, where water discharge from the dam is highly controlled, resulting in 1.5 m fluctuations in river stage daily. This dynamic river stage creates an ideal research opportunity for investigating hydrological perturbations in GHG production, uptake, and emission from large river systems. In this exploratory 1-year project, we conducted data-driven field research to provide observations needed to support predictions about GHG flux from river ecosystems. Using porewater dialysis and surface flux measurements, we observed where and when GHGs were produced and is the emission impacted by river stage. Using meta-omics tools, we determined what microbial processes control production and consumption of GHG in these systems. Finally, we provided key observations to parameterize models that could predict the effect of environmental conditions on GHG emission in the Columbia River near shore environment, at the scale that the modeled processes operate. Closing knowledge gaps in the linkages between river stage, microbial processes, and GHG production and emission, as well as the spatial distribution and ecosystem dependencies of these processes, is necessary to better parameterize land surface models. We provide some of the first, detailed GHG measurements paired microbial activity from large river systems. Our findings have direct relevance to many other large rivers with flows altered by hydroelectric energy, reservoirs, snowmelt, tides, or agriculture.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗