Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Location”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on these DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for each of the LAB stacks are 625 to 47,237 scfm for LB-C2, 1,704 to 103,131 scfm for LB-S1, and 467 to 18,088 scfm for LB-S2. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10 degrees, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 17.6 degrees; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 3.5% COV, which were all within the range of the target %COV values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

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

Sensor Impact Evaluation at Different Sensor Locations in a Multi-zone Office Building

FY 2022 Q1 deliverables include the development of an emulator that can evaluate the sensor impacts at different sensor locations (i.e., thermostat locations) in a multizone office building. This report presents the detailed procedure of developing the emulator and using the emulator for preliminary sensor impact analysis. In designing new multizone buildings or retrofitting existing buildings, the room thermostat locations or subzoning design has been often determined by best practices without considering the effects of this design in terms of energy or thermal comfort. In subzoning design, the total number of thermostats is usually smaller than the total number of rooms. As a result, one thermostat in one room often controls the indoor temperature of several other adjacent rooms. For example, five zones might share one thermostat located in one of the zones. Because the demands for thermal load in different zones could be different for the multizone buildings, this subzoning design can compromise control performance and waste building energy consumption. Furthermore, for multizone buildings, subzoning could introduce thermal discomfort for zones. This issue has not be thoroughly investigated in simulation/field studies, and the US Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory explored the impacts of subzoning design through modeling and experimental study.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant LAB Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Waste Treatment Plant laboratory (LAB) facility stack monitor locations were qualified using scale model stacks to mitigate the risk of identifying that sampling locations do not meet the qualification criteria on the full-scale stack. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale model and its sampling location were geometrically similar to the actual stack, and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the LAB stacks were performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing, determines the range of conditions for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. A practical range for the full-scale stack qualification uses the average DV through 6 DV from the scale model tests to compute the corresponding flow rates. Table S1 lists the operating flow rates along with the average and maximum qualified stack flow rates for each of the LAB facility stacks. For each stack, the operating flow is below the maximum qualified stack flow, which means that the scale model test results are acceptable for stack qualification. The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be ≤20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be ≤20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack tests at the LAB facility. Flow angle results were primarily less than 10°, except for the LB-C2 Fan A results, which were an average of 13.7°; all flow angle results were within the ≤20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition averaged between 1.5 and 4.1% COV, which were all within the range of the target percent coefficient of variation values from the scale model tests. Based on these stack verification test results, the three LAB filtered exhaust stack sampling locations meet the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes single-fan as well as dual-fan operations for LB-C2, each of the dual-fan operating conditions for LB-S1, and each single-fan operating condition for LB-S2. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the bounds described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Rock Valley Direct Comparison Relocation Working Group Location Results and Recommendations

Work accomplished: Collected and compared historic data for the 1993 Rock Valley earthquake sequence; Compared preliminary and prior location work from different location algorithms, phase pick sets, station constellations, and velocity models; Selected a common set of stations that could be used across all location methods for consistency; Reviewed 8 different sets of phase picks and converged on a single, reviewed set of picks for all common stations; Evaluated four pre-existing regional velocity models and incorporated new and preliminary results for five new velocity models that provide information on the very shallow (< 2km) structure near station RTPP; Compared location results from different methods while using the common sets of picks, stations, and velocity models

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Adaptive Determination of the Optimal Exchange Location in Wall-Modeled Large-Eddy Simulation

Wall-modeled large-eddy simulation introduces a modeling interface (or exchange location) separating the wall-modeled layer from the rest of the domain. The current state-of-the-art is to rely on user expertise when choosing where to place this modeling interface, whether this choice is tied to the grid or not. This paper presents a postprocessing algorithm that determines the exchange location systematically. The algorithm is based on a model for the error in the predicted wall shear stress and a model for the computational cost, and then finds the exchange location that minimizes a combination of the two. Here, the algorithm is tested both a priori and a posteriori using an equilibrium wall model for the flow over a wall-mounted hump, a boundary layer in an adverse pressure gradient, and a shock/boundary-layer interaction. The algorithm produces exchange locations that mostly agree with what an experienced user would suggest, with thinner wall-modeled layers in nonequilibrium flow regions and thicker wall-modeled layers where the boundary layer is closer to equilibrium. This suggests that the algorithm should be useful in simulations of realistic and highly complex geometries.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Tracking Robot Location for Non-Destructive Evaluation of Double-Shell Tanks

(1) Background: Non-destructive evaluation of double-shell nuclear-waste storage tanks at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Hanford site requires a robot to navigate a network of air slots in the confined space between primary and secondary tanks. Situational awareness, data collection, and data interpretation require continuous tracking of the robot’s location. (2) Methods: Robot location is continuously monitored using video image analysis for short distances and laser ranging for absolute location. (3) Results: The technique was demonstrated in our laboratory using a mockup of air slot and robot. (4) Conclusions: Location tracking and display provide decision support to inspectors and lay the groundwork for automated data collection.

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

Random Forest Regressor-Based Approach for Detecting Fault Location and Duration in Power Systems

Power system failures or outages due to short-circuits or “faults” can result in long service interruptions leading to significant socio-economic consequences. It is critical for electrical utilities to quickly ascertain fault characteristics, including location, type, and duration, to reduce the service time of an outage. Existing fault detection mechanisms (relays and digital fault recorders) are slow to communicate the fault characteristics upstream to the substations and control centers for action to be taken quickly. Fortunately, due to availability of high-resolution phasor measurement units (PMUs), more event-driven solutions can be captured in real time. In this paper, we propose a data-driven approach for determining fault characteristics using samples of fault trajectories. A random forest regressor (RFR)-based model is used to detect real-time fault location and its duration simultaneously. This model is based on combining multiple uncorrelated trees with state-of-the-art boosting and aggregating techniques in order to obtain robust generalizations and greater accuracy without overfitting or underfitting. Four cases were studied to evaluate the performance of RFR: 1. Detecting fault location (case 1), 2. Predicting fault duration (case 2), 3. Handling missing data (case 3), and 4. Identifying fault location and length in a real-time streaming environment (case 4). A comparative analysis was conducted between the RFR algorithm and state-of-the-art models, including deep neural network, Hoeffding tree, neural network, support vector machine, decision tree, naive Bayesian, and K-nearest neighborhood. Experiments revealed that RFR consistently outperformed the other models in detection accuracy, prediction error, and processing time.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2022

Snowflake: An Adaptive Energy and Delay Efficient Scheme for Source Location Privacy in Wireless Sensor Networks

Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs) consist of a number of resource-constrained sensor nodes and a designated node called a sink, which collects data from the sensor nodes. A WSN can be used in numerous applications such as subject tracking and monitoring, where it is often desirable to keep the location of the subject private. In these types of applications, an adversary can locate the monitored subject, if a location privacy protection scheme is not applied. In this paper, we propose an adaptive energy and delay efficient scheme, called Snowflake, that conceals the location of subjects from a global adversary. Snowflake can be adapted to make the delivery delay smaller, or to make the packet overhead low. The simulation results show that Snowflake performs better than an existing algorithm.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Co-located temperature and electrical resistivity measurements for permafrost mapping, Teller 27, Teller 47 and Kougarok 64, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, late summers of 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2022

This data set contains co-located shallow soil (0.8m below ground level) and electrical resistivity at various depth extracted from Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT) measurements. Data were acquired at three watersheds on the southern Seward Peninsula during the late summers of 2018, 2019, 2021, and 2022. The three watersheds are located along the Nome-Teller Highway at mile markers 27 and 47, and along Kougarok Road mile marker 64. The co-located temperature and electrical resistivity data were used to (1) map the spatial extend of near surface permafrost, and (2) for supervised classification of permafrost bodies. This dataset contains .csv, .txt, .srv files and flmd reporting format with data dictionary. Find information about the .srv files at "https://e4d-userguide.pnnl.gov/e4d_guide/elec/e4d_e4d-survey.html". The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Waveform emission location determination systems and associated methods

Waveform emission location determination systems and associated methods are described. According to one aspect, a waveform emission location determination system includes a plurality of detectors configured to receive a waveform emitted by a source and to generate electrical signals corresponding to the waveform, processing circuitry configured to access data corresponding to the electrical signals generated by the detectors, use the data to determine a plurality of spheres, and wherein a surface of each of the spheres contains a location of the source when the waveform was emitted by the source, determine an intersection of the spheres, and use the intersection of the spheres to determine the location of the source when the waveform was emitted by the source.

Hughes, Michael S.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Characteristics of locational uncertainty marginal price for correlated uncertainties of variable renewable generation and demands

With the rapid increase of variable renewable energy sources in power systems, how to manage and price the uncertainty of renewable resources’ power outputs is becoming an urgent issue. Current market designs considering the uncertainties are mainly based on the probabilistic scenario set of demand and renewable energy resources power outputs. This consideration makes market designs vulnerable to three significant challenges when put into practice. First, the accurate probability distribution of renewable generation is hard to obtain in real-time. Second, it is challenging to clear the market timely with many scenarios to guarantee accuracy. Third, generation cost recovery cannot be guaranteed for some scenarios. To overcome these challenges, this paper proposes a locational uncertainty marginal price model to price the uncertainty explicitly based on a scenario-free stochastic market-clearing model. Instead of using the probabilistic scenario set, the uncertainty of renewable energy sources and loads is modeled with distributionally-robust chance constraints. The correlation of uncertainties can be endogenously modeled in both the market-clearing and the locational uncertainty marginal price formation. Furthermore, this paper proves that generation cost recovery, revenue adequacy, and partial market equilibrium can be achieved using the locational uncertainty marginal price model. Numerical results from both the small and large systems simulations validate that the generation cost recovery is maintained no matter the generation participates in uncertainty mitigation or not. The transmission congestion surplus is also allocated appropriately among loads, renewable energy sources, and financial transmission right owners.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2023

Evaluation of thermostat location for multizone commercial building performance

In multi-zone buildings, it is often found that a single shared thermostat controls more than one conditioned zones. Although these shared zones are supposed to have similar thermal needs (e.g., cooling and heating load), in reality, they are not mainly due to different orientations, sizes of windows, occupancy, space types, etc. This can cause unnecessary energy waste or thermal discomfort for the occupants. How to quantify this impact in multizone buildings remains a research gap. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the impact of different sensor (i.e., thermostat) locations for multizone commercial buildings through a comprehensive modeling study. Here, two different scenarios for the sensor locations were selected to evaluate the impact in terms of energy and thermal comfort. The scenario (1) is that one to five sensors distributed among the five zones, but the sensor readings from selected zones will be used for no-sensor zones, which is no-mean sensor scenario. The scenario (2) is that one to five sensors distributed among the five zones, but the average temperature from the shared zones will be used for each of the shared zones, which is a mean sensor scenario. The uncertainty analysis was performed for different sensor location scenarios.(a)The major findings from an energy perspective, for scenario (1), the differences of cooling energy go as high as 17% more or 12% less, compared with the baseline. For heating energy consumption, the discrepancies go as high as 51% more or 52% less, compared with baseline. For site energy consumption, the discrepancies go as high as 3.2% more or 3.2% less, compared with baseline. For fan energy consumption, the discrepancies go as high as 3.2% more or as low as 1.0% less, compared with baseline. For scenario (2), the discrepancies of cooling energy go as high as 3% more, or 0.5% less, compared with the baseline. For heating energy consumption, the discrepancies, are go as high as 10.1% more or as low as 3.0% less, compared with baseline. For site energy consumption, the discrepancies go as high as 1.3% more or 0.3% less, compared with baseline. For fan energy consumption, the discrepancies go as high as 3.1% more or as low as 1.0% less, compared with baseline.(b) In terms of the indoor thermal comfort, for the no-mean-sensor scenarios, the discrepancies of unmet hours for cooling mode can be as high as 1,200 h, compared with the baseline. The discrepancies of unmet hours for heating mode can be as high as 740 h, compared with the baseline. For the mean-sensor scenarios, the discrepancies of unmet hours for cooling mode can be as high as 750 h, compared with the baseline. The discrepancies of unmet hours for heating mode can be as high as 50 h, compared with the baseline.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Ensemble voting-based fault classification and location identification for a distribution system with microgrids using smart meter measurements

This study presents an ensemble learning approach for fault classification and location identification in a smart distribution network containing photovoltaics (PV)-based microgrid. Lack of available data points and the unbalanced nature of the distribution system make fault handling a challenging task for utilities. The proposed method uses event-driven voltage data from smart meters to classify and locate faults. The ensemble voting classifier is composed of three base learners; random forest, k-nearest neighbours, and artificial neural network. The fault location (FL) task has been formulated as a classification problem where the fault type is classified in the first step and based on the fault type, the faulty bus is identified. The method is tested on IEEE-123 bus system modified with added PV-based microgrid along with dynamic loading conditions and varying fault resistances from 0 to 20 Ω for both unbalanced and balanced fault types. A further sensitivity analysis has been done to test the robustness of the proposed method under various noise levels and data loss errors in the smart meter measurements. The ensemble method shows improved performance and robustness compared to some previously proposed FL methods. Finally, the proposed method has been experimentally validated on a real-time simulation-based testbed using a state-of-the-art digital real-time simulator, industry standard DNP3 communication protocol and a cpu-based control centre running the FL algorithm.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Q1 2020)

The US. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2020 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2020. Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the second report in a new series. The first report for the first calendar quarter of 2020 can be found in the publication databases of the Alternative Fuels Data Center and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Third Quarter 2020

The U.S. Department of Energy’s Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2020. Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the amount projected to meet charging demand by 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the third report in a new series. Reports for the first two calendar quarters of 2020 can be found in the publication databases of the Alternative Fuels Data Center and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2021 (Q2). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the target infrastructure volume for 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the sixth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Third Quarter 2021)

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2021 (Q3). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the seventh report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗