Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Documentation”

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

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

At least 1,027 records · Page 57
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Annual Status Report (FY 2020): Performance Assessment for the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility

DOE O 435.1 and DOE M 435.1-1 require that a determination of continued adequacy of the performance assessment (PA) (CP-60089), composite analysis, and disposal authorization statement (DAS) be made annually, and these guidelines must be used to consider the results of data collection and analysis from research, field studies, and monitoring as well as provide the need to update any radioactive waste management basis documents. Beginning in 1996, the Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) started accepting low-level radioactive, hazardous, and mixed wastes generated during cleanup activities at the Hanford Site. ERDF is composed of a series of cells or disposal areas and can accommodate future design expansions as needed. Currently, there are 10 cells. During this reporting period (fiscal year 2020, which extended from October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020), approximately 3.39E+04 U.S. tons (3.07E+04 metric tons) of waste was disposed at ERDF. From ERDF inception through September 30, 2020, approximately 18.5 million U.S. tons of waste has been disposed at ERDF, which equates to the consumption of approximately 88% of the disposal volume. As a condition of the DAS, disposal operations within ERDF must be in accordance with the waste acceptance criteria (ERDF-00011) that provide specific radionuclide disposal limits, waste form restrictions, and descriptions of acceptable waste packages in compliance with DOE M 435.1-1 requirements. The ERDF waste acceptance criteria stipulate that waste destined for disposal at ERDF be controlled based on source, physical form, and contaminant concentration and activity levels. There have been no changes to the physical configuration of ERDF or to the waste forms (source, physical form, etc.). No new Unreviewed Disposal Question Screenings or Evaluations have been generated during this reporting period. Therefore, there are no noted impacts to the PA, composite analysis, DAS, or radioactive waste management basis documents resulting from the evaluations and screenings. Sum of fraction analysis shows that the disposed inventory meets both the concentration and inventory threshold requirements. A sum of fractions value is computed for ERDF sensitive radionuclides contributing to the all pathways and air pathway inventory limits. Computed values were 8.85E-02 and 1.78E-01, respectively. The disposed waste inventory remained well under the PA imposed limits. Required monitoring was satisfactorily completed during the fiscal year reporting period (fiscal year 2020). Compliance with performance objectives were met as each of the reported values were well below the established limit. Overall, there are no substantive changes to primary PA assumptions nor changes to the PA analysis conclusion; therefore, compliance with DOE O 435.1 and the DAS is maintained.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2021

CO 2 Source Assessment, Wabash CarbonSAFE Subtask 10.1 (Technical Report)

This document describes the CO 2 source at Wabash Valley Resources, namely the gasification process and configuration of the facility, and separation of the hydrogen product from the CO 2 byproduct which will be captured for subsurface storage. This document then presents a summary of CO 2 storage considerations and estimated project expenses for adding CO 2 capture and sequestration to the existing gasification plant.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Annual Status Report (FY 2020): Performance Assessment for the Disposal of Low Level Waste in the 200 East Area Burial Grounds

This annual review provides the projected dose estimates of radionuclide inventories disposed in the 200 East Area Low-Level Waste Burial Grounds (LLBGs) since September 26, 1988. These estimates are calculated using the original dose methodology developed in the performance assessment (PA) analysis (WHC-SD-WM-TI-730). The estimates are compared with requirements of DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 and performance objectives defined in companion documents DOE M 435.1-1 Chg 1and DOE-STD-5002-2017). All performance objectives are currently satisfied, and operational waste acceptance criteria (HNF-EP-0063) and waste acceptance practices continue to be sufficient to maintain compliance with performance objectives. Inventory estimates and associated dose estimates from future waste disposal actions are unchanged from previous years’ evaluations that indicate potential impacts well below performance objectives; therefore, future compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 is expected. A new PA study was initiated in fiscal year (FY) 2019 for evaluation of active disposal sites within the 200 East and 200 West Areas (Trench 94 in 200 East; Trenches 31 and 34 in 200 West) due to extended time elapsing between the current annual status report and the original PA for the active disposal sites. The new PA for the active disposal sites is expected to be completed in FY 2021. Within the active burial grounds in the 200 East Area, low-level waste and mixed low-level waste will continue to be disposed of in the dedicated U.S. Navy reactor compartment trench at the 218-E-12B Burial Ground (Trench 94). During this reporting period (FY 2020, from October 1, 2019, through September 30, 2020), two reactor compartments were disposed in Trench 94. Results from sorption experiments are summarized for this reporting period to quantify the efficacy of concrete waste forms in retaining key radionuclides (e.g., technetium-99 and iodine-129). The test durations ranged from 1 to 3 months. Continued groundwater monitoring of the 200 East Area LLBGs indicates no groundwater contamination due to LLBG waste. Current assumptions about future land use at the Hanford Site are consistent with PA analysis1 assumptions of a post-closure facility that will not be degraded by human activity. The LLBGs are located in an area identified for waste management and containment of residual contamination. This area will remain after final environmental remediation and the proposed shrinkage of Hanford Site boundaries to small sections within the 200 East and 200 West Areas in the Central Plateau (DOE/EIS-0391). The current closure plan for the LLBGs (DOE/RL-2000-707) estimates that the 200 East LLBGs will be closed in the 2050 timeframe. The Disposal Authorization Statement, other technical basis documents, and the radioactive waste management basis are of continued adequacy to meet the performance objectives of DOE O 435.1 Chg 1. Overall, there are no substantive changes to primary PA assumptions nor the PA analysis conclusion; therefore, compliance with DOE O 435.1 Chg 1 and the Disposal Authorization Statement is maintained.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Recommended Target Fields for Commissioning the Vera C. Rubin Observatory

The commissioning team for the Vera C. Rubin observatory is planning a set of engineering and science verification observations with the Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST) commissioning camera and then the Rubin Observatory LSST Camera. The time frame for these observations is not yet fixed, and the commissioning team will have flexibility in selecting fields to observe. In this document, the Dark Energy Science Collaboration (DESC) Commissioning Working Group presents a prioritized list of target fields appropriate for testing various aspects of DESC-relevant science performance, grouped by season for visibility from Rubin Observatory at Cerro Pachon. Our recommended fields include Deep-Drilling fields (DDFs) to full LSST depth for photo-$z$ and shape calibration purposes, HST imaging fields to full depth for deblending studies, and an $\sim$200 square degree area to 1-year depth in several filters for higher-level validation of wide-area science cases for DESC. We also anticipate that commissioning observations will be needed for template building for transient science over a broad RA range. We include detailed descriptions of our recommended fields along with associated references. We are optimistic that this document will continue to be useful during LSST operations, as it provides a comprehensive list of overlapping data-sets and the references describing them.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2021

Technical analysis of filter testing at the U.S. Department of Energy Filter Test Facility

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) technical standard DOE-STD-3020-2015 requires verification testing at the Filter Test Facility (FTF) of high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters to be installed in nuclear facility (Hazard Category 1, 2, 3, and radiological facilities) confinement ventilation systems, or to be installed in habitability systems (e.g., filters for protection of workers required to act for the control and mitigation of emergency situations). Filters in these applications perform a safety function in accident situations, are designated as important to safety, or are necessary for habitability systems. Different FTFs have operated for decades, and results of tests are available to examine the need for and benefits of continued execution of 100 percent QA verification testing. The objective of this study and resulting report was to assess the need for 100 percent QA testing at the current FTF in Maryland, based on an examination of a database of test results from 2013 to August 2020. Filters that require independent testing per DOE-STD-3020-2015 to be installed in nuclear facilities are sent to the FTF before being shipped to the facilities. The FTF examines the documentation (e.g., certificates of compliance, results of particle penetration and airflow resistance testing by the manufacturers, labels affixed to filters and packages, and other requirements specified in purchase orders by the nuclear facility operators), implements visual inspections of the physical state of the filters, and checks the dimensions of frames. Filters that meet the documentation and visual inspection requirements are subjected to particle penetration and airflow resistance testing. In case of rejections, the filters are shipped back to the manufacturers, at the cost of the manufacturers, for replacement. Filters that pass all tests are shipped to the nuclear facilities.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Coherent light propagation through variable-density gas domain

This document releases calculations on beam propagation through a turbulent gas domain to our collaborators at UCSD with an ultimate intent to become part of a scientific publication. Therefore, we are releasing this document for general public.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2021

REDC Process Instrumentation Modernization Project

Critical electronics used for isotopes production have become outdated and difficult to manufacture. In particular the alpha-particle and neutron detection electronics (commonly referred to as Q2809A-9 and -11) which are used to monitor effluent activity in ORNL Building 7920 were designed and deployed in 1966-67. These electronics are still used but some parts are no longer available for purchase. In addition, the printed circuit boards used in the Count Rate Monitor (CRM) module have no fabrication files or quality assurance documentation. In light of this, a project to modernize the modules for ability to manufacture with modern parts was undertaken. Both the preamplifier and CRM were modernized with new printed circuit boards and parts which are current catalog parts. In addition, QA documentation was generated which allows the manufacturer to assure proper operation prior to delivery.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Potential Infrastructure Cost Savings at Hybrid Wind Plus Solar PV Plants

This report documents the creation of NREL's Balance of System model for Hybrid Renewable Energy Systems (HybridBOSSE). Balance of System (BOS) costs account for approximately 30% of the capital expenditure required to install a land-based wind plant, and as much as 40% of the cost of installing a solar PV plant. Hybrid Renewable Energy systems present an opportunity to combine balance of system components to achieve cost savings, and HybridBOSSE aims to provide a component-level model to determine the associated BOS costs in a hybrid renewable energy system. Prior BOS models for hybrid systems (at NREL and elsewhere) have relied on empirical curve fits of legacy industry data, limiting their utility and their predictive ability for new technology combinations and configurations, such as those found in Hybrid Plants. Hybrid plants at the utility scale have considerably more interest in the last number of years, with ever-growing capacities in the interconnection queues, and many large developers pivoting to only consider hybrid plants going forward. As these plants become a commercial reality, the need for a detailed analysis of costs in a hybrid plant to fully exploit the available cost savings grows. The tool developed and documented in this work, HybridBOSSE, provides an open-source, python-based method of assessing the costs in hybrid plants. This analysis capability unlocks greater certainty in hybrid plant costs, as well as the ability to examine scenarios of hybridization and glean combinations that offer the greatest flexibility and cost reduction.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Physical Protection Recommendations for Small Modular Reactor Facilities

This recommendation document will provide international partners insight on physical protection systems (PPSs) for small modular reactors (SMRs). SMRs create many unique challenges for physical protection that must be addressed in design and implementation. This document will attempt to highlight possible challenges of SMRs and identify potential physical protection recommendations to mitigate these challenges. These recommendations are based on hypothetical SMR facilities and PPSs and their effectiveness against hypothetical adversaries.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.4 Capabilities in Development

This user’s guide documents capabilities in Sierra/SolidMechanics which remain “in-development” and thus are not tested and hardened to the standards of capabilities listed in Sierra/SM 5.4 User’s Guide. Capabilities documented herein are available in Sierra/SM for experimental use only until their official release. These capabilities include, but are not limited to, novel discretization approaches such as the conforming reproducing kernel (CRK) method, numerical fracture and failure modeling aids such as the extended finite element method (XFEM) and J-integral, explicit time step control techniques, dynamic mesh rebalancing, as well as a variety of new material models and finite element formulations.

74 ATOMIC AND MOLECULAR PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.4 User's Guide: Addendum for Shock Capabilities

This is an addendum to the Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.4 User’s Guide that documents additional capabilities available only in alternate versions of the Sierra/SolidMechanics (Sierra/SM) code. These alternate versions are enhanced to provide capabilities that are regulated under the U.S. Department of State’s International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) export control rules. The ITAR regulated codes are only distributed to entities that comply with the ITAR export control requirements. The ITAR enhancements to Sierra/SM include material models with an energy-dependent pressure response (appropriate for very large deformations and strain rates) and capabilities for blast modeling. This document is an addendum only; the standard Sierra/SolidMechanics 5.4 User’s Guide should be referenced for most general descriptions of code capability and use.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Universal Utility Data Exchange (UUDEX) Functional Design Requirements - Rev 1

This document provides a set of high-level functional design requirements for Universal Utility Data Exchange (UUDEX). These requirements include a set of use cases, data exchanges supported by UUDEX, both for grid operations and for cyber security data, functional requirements for data exchange, data models used by UUDEX, data exchange architectures, and security considerations. These functional design requirements are intended to be used in more detailed design documents.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Recommended Practices for Managing Induced Seismicity Risk Associated with Geologic Carbon Storage

The geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) is one method to help reduce or eliminate atmospheric CO 2 emissions. The sequestered CO 2 is originally captured from the atmosphere or from a stationary industrial source and subsequently injected into a deep subsurface porous rock formation. To facilitate the successful deployment of field scale carbon storage projects, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is developing tools and protocols for defensible, science-based frameworks to quantify and mitigate risks associated with the long-term storage of CO 2 . This protocol specifically addresses the risk of induced seismicity due to injection in a geologic carbon storage (GCS) site. This integrated and risk-based protocol is a product of the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP), a multi-year collaborative research effort of Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). These recommended practices describe a set of 7 steps to evaluate, manage, communicate, and mitigate the risk of induced seismicity at GCS sites. The base methodology of the recommended practices follows a framework similar to the $\textit{Protocol for Addressing Induced Seismicity Associated with Enhanced Geothermal Systems}$ (Majer et al., 2012), developed for the Geothermal Technology Office of the U.S. DOE. These recommended practices present a framework to systematically assess the induced seismicity risk and quantify the associated uncertainties. These recommendations are based on current research and are sufficiently general to allow for modification and application to a variety of different types of sites. The substance of the recommended practices contained herein includes both technical and non-technical issues, and covers all operational stages of the GCS project lifecycle. They start at the preliminary risk assessment phase, continue through site assessment and characterization, include best practice communication and seismic monitoring plan methodologies, discuss the evaluation and mitigation of seismic hazard and risk, and closes with an exploration of operational management plans, which conclude when the induced seismicity risk abates back to background level. The focus of these recommendations is on actively managing the risks associated with induced seismicity by developing an actionable risk management plan that starts at the project proposal stage and continues through site closure through an iterative assessment and improvement process. The audience of this document is expected to include all interested stakeholders (e.g., operators, project developers, regulators, and the general public) and is expressly written to be accessible to this broad range of partners. This document is intended to disseminate knowledge gained through recent advances in the science of induced seismicity hazard and risk assessments, to provide updates based on recent experience gained by similar corollary injection-induced seismicity cases, and most importantly to establish a uniform framework to carry out a successful induced seismicity risk management plan for carbon storage projects in the future. These recommendations do not directly address any domestic or international regulations or standards. A complementary NRAP report makes recommendations for the assessment and management of environmental subsurface risks associated with unwanted fluid migration at GCS sites (Thomas et al., 2021) and should be referred to in order to address those additional GCS site risks

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Report on High Energy Arcing Fault Experiments: Experimental Results from Open Box Enclosures

This report documents an experimental program designed to investigate High Energy Arcing Fault (HEAF) phenomena. The experiments focus on providing data to better characterize the arc to improve the prediction of arc energy emitted during a HEAF event. An open box experiment allow for direct observation of the arc, which allows diagnostic instrumentation to record the phenomenological data needed for better characterization of the arc energy source term. The data collected supports characterization of the arc and arc jet, enclosure breach, material loss, and electrical properties. These results will be used to better characterizing the hazard for improvements in fire probabilistic risk assessment (PRA) realism. The experiments were performed at KEMA Labs located in Chalfont, Pennsylvania. The experimental design, setup, and execution were completed by staff from the NRC, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) and KEMA Labs. In addition, representatives from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) observed some of the experimental setup and execution. The HEAF experiments were performed between August 22, 2020 and September 18, 2020 on near-identical 51 cm (20 in) cube metal boxes suspended from a Unistrut support structure. The three-phase arcing fault was initiated at the ends of the conductors oriented vertically and located at the center of the box. Either aluminum or copper conductors were used for the conductors. The low-voltage experiments used 1 000 volts AC, while the medium-voltage experiments used 6 900 volts AC consistent with other recently completed experiments. Durations of the experiment ranged from 1 s to 5 s with fault currents ranging from 1 kA to 30 kA. Real-time electrical operating conditions, including voltage, current and frequency, were measured during the experiments. Heat fluxes and incident energies were measured with plate thermometers, radiometers, and slug calorimeters at various locations around the electrical enclosures. The experiments were documented with normal and high-speed videography, infrared imaging and photography.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Demand Response in Industrial Facilities: Peak Electric Demand

The US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Better Buildings, Better Plants Program (Better Plants) is a voluntary energy efficiency leadership initiative for US manufacturers and water/wastewater entities. The program encourages organizations to commit to reducing the energy intensity of their US operations over a 10-year period, typically by 25%. Companies joining Better Plants are recognized by DOE for their leadership in implementing energy efficiency practices and for reducing their energy intensity. Better Plants Partners are assigned to a Technical Account Manager, who can help companies establish energy intensity baselines, develop energy management plans, and identify key resources and incentives from DOE, other federal agencies, states, utilities, and other organizations that can enable them to reach their goals. Better Plants Partners are expected to report their progress to DOE once a year. This involves establishing an energy intensity baseline upon joining the program and then tracking their progress over time. Demand Response in Industrial Facilities: Peak Electrical Demand is intended to help companies understand peak demand response programs offering by their local utility. Manufacturing industries can learn about time-varying rates and smart technologies they can use to help them reduce their energy bills. This guidance document is applicable to companies participating at either the program or challenge level. Although this guide is intended primarily to assist companies participating in Better Plants, the methodologies and guidance within the document are applicable to any organization interested in understanding peak demand response programs.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Results of Long-Term Analyses of the Salt (Macro) Batch 5 Tank 41h Qualification Sample (Resample)

Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) analyzed samples from Tank 41H in support of qualification of Salt Water Processing Facility (SWPF) Salt Batch 5. This document reports the long-term results of the analyses of samples of Tank 41H. Analysis of the Tank 41H Salt Batch 5 sample indicated that the material does not display any unusual characteristics or observations, such as floating solids, the presence of large amounts of solids, or unusual colors. This memo satisfies Deliverable 3 of the Technical Task Request (TTR). After a data review it was found that the original results reports in the revision 0 of this document were actually from Salt Batch 4 (Tank 21H). A new set of samples was sent for analysis to satisfy Deliverable 3 of the TTR. The results from the original analyses have been replaced with the recent analyses of the actual Salt Batch 5 sample.

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

Toward Forecasting Geomagnetic Storms

We present a selection of attempts to infer geomagnetic storm properties from time series data. Initially, we unsuccessfully attempt to predict the duration of a geomagnetic storm based on data preceding the onset of a geomagnetic storm. Similar techniques are also used to attempt to predict the maximum depth of a geomagnetic storm. Additionally, we present a case study in Gaussian Process regression, where we are able to accurately interpolate between geomagnetic storm parameters, but are unable to predict future storm behavior. Lastly, we describe attempts at using random forest regression with sliding windows to infer geomagnetic storm behavior at future times. These results did not provide robust forecasts of geomagnetic storm behavior, but did occasionally correctly predict a storm within the margin of error. Techniques presented in this paper include machine learning classification and regression, Gaussian Process regression, and machine learning regression with sliding windows. Many of the attempts presented in this document did not result in meaningful predictions of geomagnetic storm behavior. We hope this document can be used as a guide for future readers attempting to predict geomagnetic storm properties.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗