SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This dataset includes large-eddy simulation (LES) output from a convective atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) simulation of observations at the SWIFT tower near Lubbock, Texas on July 4, 2012. The dataset was used to assess the LES models for simulation of canonical convective ABL. The dataset can be used for comparison with other LES and computational fluid dynamics model outputs.
This dataset includes large-eddy simulation (LES) output from a neutrally stratified atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) simulation of observations at the SWIFT tower near Lubbock, Texas on Aug. 17, 2012. The dataset was used to assess LES models for simulation of canonical neutral ABL. The dataset can be used for comparison with other LES and computational fluid dynamics model outputs.
This dataset includes large-eddy simulation (LES) output from a convective atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) simulation of observations at the SWIFT tower near Lubbock, Texas on July 4, 2012. The dataset was used to assess the LES models for simulation of canonical convective ABL. The dataset can be used for comparison with other LES and computational fluid dynamics model outputs.
This dataset includes large-eddy simulation (LES) output from a neutrally stratified atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) simulation of observations at the SWIFT tower near Lubbock, Texas on Aug. 17, 2012. The dataset was used to assess LES models for simulation of canonical neutral ABL. The dataset can be used for comparison with other LES and computational fluid dynamics model outputs.
This dataset includes large-eddy simulation (LES) output from a convective atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) simulation of observations at the SWIFT tower near Lubbock, Texas on July 4, 2012. The dataset was used to assess the LES models for simulation of canonical convective ABL. The dataset can be used for comparison with other LES and computational fluid dynamics model outputs.
This dataset includes large-eddy simulation (LES) output from a neutrally stratified atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) simulation of observations at the SWIFT tower near Lubbock, Texas on Aug. 17, 2012. The dataset was used to assess LES models for simulation of canonical neutral ABL. The dataset can be used for comparison with other LES and computational fluid dynamics model outputs.
This dataset includes large-eddy simulation (LES) output from a neutrally stratified atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) simulation of observations at the SWIFT tower near Lubbock, Texas on Aug. 17, 2012. The dataset was used to assess LES models for simulation of canonical neutral ABL. The dataset can be used for comparison with other LES and computational fluid dynamics model outputs.
This dataset includes large-eddy simulation (LES) output from a convective atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) simulation of observations at the SWIFT tower near Lubbock, Texas on July 4, 2012. The dataset was used to assess the LES models for simulation of canonical convective ABL. The dataset can be used for comparison with other LES and computational fluid dynamics model outputs.
This dataset includes large-eddy simulation (LES) output from a convective atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) simulation of observations at the SWIFT tower near Lubbock, Texas on July 4, 2012. The dataset was used to assess the LES models for simulation of canonical convective ABL. The dataset can be used for comparison with other LES and computational fluid dynamics model outputs.
This dataset includes large-eddy simulation (LES) output from a convective atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) simulation of observations at the SWIFT tower near Lubbock, Texas on July 4, 2012. The dataset was used to assess the LES models for simulation of canonical convective ABL. The dataset can be used for comparison with other LES and computational fluid dynamics model outputs.
This dataset includes large-eddy simulation (LES) output from a convective atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) simulation of observations at the SWIFT tower near Lubbock, Texas on July 4, 2012. The dataset was used to assess the LES models for simulation of canonical convective ABL. The dataset can be used for comparison with other LES and computational fluid dynamics model outputs.
These data were collected by Kirincich as part of the DOE Wind Forecast Improvement Project, based on support from NOAA-IOOS, WHOI, and DOE. The data consist of estimates of the near-surface horizontal (East and North) ocean currents made via High Frequency (HF) radar-based remote sensing of the Ocean backscatter spectrum. The effective measurement depth of the WHOI HF radars is 0.5 m below the ocean surface. The WHOI HF radar system, as operated during the experiment, consisted of 4 land-based sites spaced at 30-40km intervals along the area spanning from Nantucket,MA to Narragansett,RI that operate at 16 MHz and 25 MHz systems (see Kirincich et al, 2019 and Kirincich et al 2022 for details). Received doppler spectra from each were processed using the advanced methods of Kirincich et al. 2012, and Kirincich et al 2019, and unpublished work Kirincich, 2024) into radial or elliptical velocity estimates every 30 min based on a 30 min averaging window.
HILARRI is a database of links between major datasets of operational hydropower dams and powerplants, and inland water bodies. These connections are critical for conducting large-scale analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated natural and engineered water systems. Features include: – Dams from the National Inventory of Dams (2024) and the Global Reservoir and Dam Database (GRanD v1.3) – Hydropower plants from the Existing Hydropower Assets dataset (EHA 2024) These hydropower infrastructure features are linked to several major datasets that provide hydrologic and hydraulic information relevant for analysis of hydropower systems that includes the integral water resources. That information comes from: – Products from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) – NHDPlusV2 Medium Resolution river network flowlines, – NHD waterbodies (limited to lakes and reservoirs), – NHD Watershed Boundary Dataset (HUC12-level for the Conterminous United States (CONUS)) – NHD High Resolution waterbodies – HydroLAKES water bodies (lakes and reservoirs) – LAGOS-US lakes and reservoirs – EPA National Lakes Assessment (2007, 2012, 2017, and 2022) – The Reservoir Sedimentation Database (RESSED) Unique identifiers are used to facilitate joining to the original full datasets. For example, characteristics of NHD flowlines such as estimated average flow rate can be joined from the NHDPlusV2 dataset to a dam or power plant listed in HILARRI based on the ID field, “COMID”, that is common to both datasets. HILARRI only includes basic information about identifiers, location, and data quality or usage notes. It does not contain the attributes or time series data associated with these sites. The HILARRI dataset incorporates information from several datasets to facilitate more effective and accurate analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated waterbodies. For example, dams were checked against the most recent American Rivers Dam Removal Database to identify and flag facilities that may no longer exist. Additionally, dams that are listed multiple times in the NID are identified and flagged to avoid double-counting when analyzing and summarizing information. Other quality flags include certainty of operational hydropower (i.e., if one or more datasets indicates hydropower at a particular location), whether an associated water body is accurate or composed of multiple polygons, or whether there is a known issue with reported characteristics in one of the underlying datasets. These additional data flags are designed to increase confidence in data usage for individual to large-scale analyses.
We collected a time series of Russian River infiltration rates to parameterize stochastic model development of infiltration conditions as a function of bioclogging. The time series of infiltration were collected from the Russian River Riverbank Filtration site located in Sonoma County California. Infiltration datasets are shown in units of m/day and were obtained using a seepage meter in 2012. To address the combined effects of bioclogging and disconnection on infiltration, we developed numerical representations of bioclogging processes based on these datasets using a within a one-dimensional, variably saturated flow model representing losing-connected and losing-disconnected rivers. All models and bioclogging formulations were used to create synthetic test cases for bioclogging.This research was supported by the Jane Lewis Fellowship from the University of California, Berkeley, the Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA), the Roy G. Post Foundation Scholarship, the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science Graduate Student Research (SCGSR) Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research under award DE-AC02-05CH11231, and the UFZ-Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, Germany.
Gate set tomography (GST) is a protocol for detailed, predictive characterization of logic operations (gates) on quantum computing processors. Early versions of GST emerged around 2012-13, and since then it has been refined, demonstrated, and used in a large number of experiments. This paper presents the foundations of GST in comprehensive detail. The most important feature of GST, compared to older state and process tomography protocols, is that it is calibration-free . GST does not rely on pre-calibrated state preparations and measurements. Instead, it characterizes all the operations in a gate set simultaneously and self-consistently, relative to each other. Long sequence GST can estimate gates with very high precision and efficiency, achieving Heisenberg scaling in regimes of practical interest. In this paper, we cover GST's intellectual history, the techniques and experiments used to achieve its intended purpose, data analysis, gauge freedom and fixing, error bars, and the interpretation of gauge-fixed estimates of gate sets. Our focus is fundamental mathematical aspects of GST, rather than implementation details, but we touch on some of the foundational algorithmic tricks used in the pyGSTi implementation.
This dataset contains environmental and soil measurements from 18 different locations across the globe including the SPRUCE experiment site and multiple sampling depths, with 17 of these locations having samples processed between 2012-2013 and one location (SPRUCE) collected in 2021 and processed in 2022. Environmental measurements include: mean annual temperature, mean annual precipitation, and 30-day presampling temperature. Soil physicochemical measurements include: particle size analysis (PSA), pH, gravimetric moisture content (GMC), bulk soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N), total organic C and N, C:N ratio, and dissolved organic carbon (DOC). Soil biological measurements include: microbial biomass carbon (MBC) measured through chloroform fumigation extraction (CFE), gene copy numbers (GCN) of bacteria, fungi, and archaea measured through quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR), DNA yield measured through Nanodrop spectrophotometry, and phospholipid fatty acids (PLFA) of bacteria and fungi measured through PLFA analysis. This data set contains one file in comma separate (*.csv) format.
This narrative presents a demonstration of RWRtools methods to the important bioenergy feedstock Panicum virgatum (Switchgrass) by leveraging networks from the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana. We used a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with Switchgrass shoot biomass. We then assigned these SNPs to Switchgrass genes, and using Phytozome (Goodstein et al., 2012), assigned these 38 Switchgrass GWAS genes to 32 Arabidopsis orthologs. These 32 genes are the starting set of genes (i.e. the seed gene set) for this demo narrative.
We extracted the genomic DNA of 400 randomly selected isolates using a Quick-DNA Microprep Kit (Zymo Research D3020) according to the manufacturer’s protocol. We then submitted the extracted gDNA samples for short-read Illumina sequencing (200 Mbp) at SeqCoast Genomics (Portsmouth, NH, USA). After preprocessing the sequences using Trimmommatic (Bolger et al. 2014), we assembled the genomes using SPADES (Bankevich et al. 2012) and checked the quality of each assembly using QUAST (Gurevich et al. 2013). We processed the genome assemblies using a KBase (v1.4.0) pipeline (Allen et al. 2017; Arkin et al. 2018). Briefly, we used DRAM (v0.1.2) with default settings to annotate the genome assemblies. We then evaluated genome quality and possible contamination levels using CheckM (v1.0.18) (Parks et al. 2015) and retained genomes with completeness above 98% and contamination below 5% (n = 354), following the authors' guidelines. We then obtained taxonomic assignments for all remaining isolates using the Genome Taxonomy Database tool GTDB-Tk (v2.3.2, database version r214) (Chaumeil et al. 2019). We constructed a phylogenetic tree using the tool SpeciesTree (v2.2.0). We then trimmed the tree (using Trim SpeciesTree to GenomeSet- v1.4.0), retaining only tips within our collection with measured thermal performance.