Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “parallel machines”

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.

1,070 records · Page 60
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

A physics-informed and hierarchically regularized data-driven model for predicting fluid flow through porous media

This paper presents a new deep learning data-driven model for predicting structure dependent pore-fluid velocity fields in rock. The model is based on a Convolutional Auto-Encoder (CAE) artificial neural network capable of learning from image data generated by direct numerical simulations of fluid flow through pore-structures, such as by Lattice Boltzmann or molecular dynamics methods. The main novelty of the model in comparison to previous CAE-based data-driven approaches consists of three parts. The first is a methodology for decomposing the full-domain of the porous media into sub-regions, or “sub-domains”, in order to reduce the overall size of the CAE, batch process the sub-domains in parallel, and enable the CAE to learn local and generalizable nonlinear mappings of pore-fluid velocities. The second consists of embedding the finite difference solutions of the incompressible Navier-Stokes and continuity equations into convolutional layers prior to the CAE in order to provide the CAE with knowledge of fluid dynamics physics (PhyFlow). The third main novelty is that the training of the CAE is regularized with a hierarchical loss function that encourages the learning of fluid flow patterns (in a way similar to ranked modes in principal component analysis), ranking from most to least important. This is shown to increase the stability in learning, reduce over-fitting, and promote interpretability of the CAE neural network layers (HierCAE). The comprehensive new data-driven model, which we call the PhyFlow-HierCAE model, is shown to exhibit improved accuracy and generalizability of flow field predictions over conventional CAE models, attributable to the embedded physical knowledge and the hierarchical regularization, as well as realize orders of magnitude speed-ups in computation times as a surrogate for the direct numerical simulations. Examples of training and forward predictions on unseen pore-structures are provided and evaluated for data from Lattice Boltzmann and molecular dynamics simulations of pore-fluid flow. The model is shown to be a fast and accurate emulator (or “surrogate”) for predicting effective permeability of unseen pore-structures based on learning from relatively small direct numerical simulation datasets.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2024

Overview of ASDEX upgrade results in view of ITER and DEMO

Experiments on ASDEX Upgrade (AUG) in 2021 and 2022 have addressed a number of critical issues for ITER and EU DEMO. A major objective of the AUG programme is to shed light on the underlying physics of confinement, stability, and plasma exhaust in order to allow reliable extrapolation of results obtained on present day machines to these reactor-grade devices. Concerning pedestal physics, the mitigation of edge localised modes (ELMs) using resonant magnetic perturbations (RMPs) was found to be consistent with a reduction of the linear peeling-ballooning stability threshold due to the helical deformation of the plasma. Conversely, ELM suppression by RMPs is ascribed to an increased pedestal transport that keeps the plasma away from this boundary. Candidates for this increased transport are locally enhanced turbulence and a locked magnetic island in the pedestal. The enhanced D-alpha (EDA) and quasi-continuous exhaust (QCE) regimes have been established as promising ELM-free scenarios. Here, the pressure gradient at the foot of the H-mode pedestal is reduced by a quasi-coherent mode, consistent with violation of the high-n ballooning mode stability limit there. This is suggestive that the EDA and QCE regimes have a common underlying physics origin. In the area of transport physics, full radius models for both L- and H-modes have been developed. These models predict energy confinement in AUG better than the commonly used global scaling laws, representing a large step towards the goal of predictive capability. A new momentum transport analysis framework has been developed that provides access to the intrinsic torque in the plasma core. In the field of exhaust, the X-Point Radiator (XPR), a cold and dense plasma region on closed flux surfaces close to the X-point, was described by an analytical model that provides an understanding of its formation as well as its stability, i.e., the conditions under which it transitions into a deleterious MARFE with the potential to result in a disruptive termination. With the XPR close to the divertor target, a new detached divertor concept, the compact radiative divertor, was developed. Here, the exhaust power is radiated before reaching the target, allowing close proximity of the X-point to the target. No limitations by the shallow field line angle due to the large flux expansion were observed, and sufficient compression of neutral density was demonstrated. With respect to the pumping of non-recycling impurities, the divertor enrichment was found to mainly depend on the ionisation energy of the impurity under consideration. In the area of MHD physics, analysis of the hot plasma core motion in sawtooth crashes showed good agreement with nonlinear 2-fluid simulations. This indicates that the fast reconnection observed in these events is adequately described including the pressure gradient and the electron inertia in the parallel Ohm’s law. Concerning disruption physics, a shattered pellet injection system was installed in collaboration with the ITER International Organisation. Thanks to the ability to vary the shard size distribution independently of the injection velocity, as well as its impurity admixture, it was possible to tailor the current quench rate, which is an important requirement for future large devices such as ITER. Progress was also made modelling the force reduction of VDEs induced by massive gas injection on AUG. The H-mode density limit was characterised in terms of safe operational space with a newly developed active feedback control method that allowed the stability boundary to be probed several times within a single discharge without inducing a disruptive termination. Regarding integrated operation scenarios, the role of density peaking in the confinement of the ITER baseline scenario (high plasma current) was clarified. The usual energy confinement scaling ITER98(p,y) does not capture this effect, but the more recent H20 scaling does, highlighting again the importance of developing adequate physics based models. Advanced tokamak scenarios, aiming at large non-inductive current fraction due to non-standard profiles of the safety factor in combination with high normalised plasma pressure were studied with a focus on their access conditions. A method to guide the approach of the targeted safety factor profiles was developed, and the conditions for achieving good confinement were clarified. Based on this, two types of advanced scenarios (‘hybrid’ and ‘elevated’

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Developing And Scaling an OpenFOAM Model to Study Turbulent Flow in a HFIR Coolant Channel

Improving the understanding of how computational fluid dynamics (CFD) direct numerical simulations (DNS) of flows in the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) perform when run in parallel using the high performance computing (HPC) platform Summit at the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility (OLCF) is of particular importance to boost the computational tools used to support HFIR conversion to low enriched fuel (LEU). Evaluation of scaling performance was driven by the increasing importance of graphics processing unit (GPU) usage in HPC, which is becoming the standard for modern supercomputers such as Summit. The desired results are to obtain a strong positive correlation between the computational resources dedicated to a problem and the relative speed-up of the simulation in comparison to a benchmark. This capability will allow substantially improvement in HFIR flow analytical capabilities, specifically when predicting turbulence properties at high Reynolds numbers. The study leverages previous simulation results performed with code PHASTA (finite element) on HPC platforms Cori (NERSC) and Theta (ALCF) [1] with computing options provided in the computing platform OpenFOAM (finite volume) at OLCF. Transitioning from PHASTA to OpenFOAM will (1) eliminate dependence on third-party software for mesh generation and manipulation, (2) reduce resource needs by employing modern architectures, and (3) build expertise for future modeling of HFIR-specific problems like heat transfer in involute geometry, entrance effects, flow structure in channel corners, and so on—all important issues when defining the available thermal margins in the transition to LEU. CPUs and GPUs differ significantly in their architecture and utilization, as discussed in the literature [2]. The most important differences are in the approach to computations and their memory. A single GPU contains a large quantity of cores, enabling it to perform with a much higher throughput than a CPU, but execution requires a different approach. GPU codes execute instructions using the Single-Instruction Multiple-Thread (SIMT) approach in which a single instruction is used for groups of threads called warps. A warp typically consists of 32 threads which must execute the same set of instructions, although on separate threads. Alternately, a CPU has far fewer cores that are much more flexible in their operation, excelling at quickly performing more complex serial computations. This is why GPUs have greater throughput when properly utilized. The second important difference is seen when comparing their memory spaces. Limited memory allocations and CPU–GPU communications cause a significant bottleneck in GPU-accelerated programs. Further study was required to properly take advantage of GPU resources. A comprehensive analysis of code performance and the model-specific features of turbulence constitutes the core of this work. In this study, a DNS simulation of HFIR channel turbulence was performed with the finite volume CFD code OpenFOAM v2112 and CUDA v11.0 on Red Hat Enterprise Linux v8.2. The OpenFOAM installation had AMGx integrated to enable GPU acceleration and utilizes the PETSc4FOAM library. The computational resources and the problem size were scaled on CPU and CPU + GPU architectures to gain a better understanding of the performance of a DNS problem on modern computing hardware. The study aimed to analyze the scaling of the code exclusively on CPUs and then to examine the scaling of the codes with GPU acceleration enabled. Scaling studies included CPU and GPU acceleration on a mesh of varying resolution to analyze the impact of problem size relative to computational resources. In the course of preparing the GPU configuration on Summit, mainly using the AMGX solvers, difficulties were encountered stemming from constant changes resulting from extensive ongoing development activities and the changing environment. This resulted in the inability to complete the GPU portion of the work. The code was compiled and tested, but production runs to assess acceleration were not performed because the used discretional compute time allocation expired as year-end approached. The Summit HPC platform is scheduled for decommissioning in 2024, making it unattractive for future use with Nvidia-based GPUs. Therefore, the work will be moved onto NERSC machines in FY24. An application was prepared and submitted, and sufficient node-hours were awarded to continue the research in the next calendar year. This report summarizes work performed thus far, which mostly focused on CPU OpenFOAM computing.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

A Machine Learning Approach to Improve Air Traffic Management Initiatives

Collaborating closely with commercial air carriers and related organizations, the Federal Aviation Administration(FAA) regulates air traffic and ensures the safety and efficiency of air operations. Air traffic controllers make strategic decisions, such as delaying, rerouting, or canceling flights, partly based on guidance provided by the FAA’s Air TrafficControl System Command Center (ATCSCC). The guidance includes, among other things, control measures known asTraffic Management Initiatives (TMIs) designed to enhance safety and improve operational efficiency. TMIs play a crucial role in managing the demand and capacity within the U.S. National Airspace System (NAS). Two major TMIs that are routinely used (primarily to mitigate the adverse effects of bad weather) are Ground Delay Programs (GDPs) andGround Stops (GSs). In a GDP, flights destined for airports facing thunderstorm activity experience delays at their origin airports. This proactive approach minimizes the risk of routing aircraft through hazardous weather conditions and also replaces (fuel burning) airborne delays with ground delays. In a GS, a temporary restriction is imposed on the departure or arrival of aircraft at a specific airport or within a designated airspace. Although other TMIs (e.g., miles-in-trail) are also implemented as part of (air) traffic flow management in the NAS, the focus of this work is on GDPs and GSs. Since TMIs, by design, lead to flight delays or cancellations, it is crucial to put in place the right set of parameters(e.g., scope and duration of the GDP). For example, when the end time of a GDP extends beyond what is necessary, it imposes unnecessary delays on departing flights. This situation could occur as a result of inaccurate prediction of the(required) duration of the GDP based on the weather forecast. On the other hand, if a GDP ends prematurely before the underlying capacity constraints are resolved at the destination airport, it may result in airborne holding. The delicate balance lies in matching the termination of the GDP precisely with the resolution of capacity constraints, avoiding both the imposition of unnecessary ground delays and the need for airborne holding due to premature program termination.Failing to specify the right parameters for TMIs also leads to flight delays, creating a significant obstacle in managing the increasing traffic volumes causing increased work load for the controllers. To address this issue, we propose the integration of Machine Learning (ML) models in the traffic flow management(TFM) pipeline. In current operations, decisions are made by human experts based on extensive training, historical patterns, available traffic and weather data. Since we have an abundance of data from past events that tell us the likely impact of various TMIs, by ingesting historical data, properly trained ML models can offer valuable insights and aid human decision-making. With the FAA increasingly exploring advanced analytics, ML emerges as a focal point for enhancing TFM within the National Airspace System (NAS). As a first step, this study aims to provide traffic controllers with decision-making support for the issuance and adjustment of TMIs. Data analytics and machine learning have been previously employed to address some of the challenges associated with TMIs. Numerous studies have concentrated on various facets of TMI issuance, exploring factors influencing TMI parameters, including arrival rate, airport capacity, and delay prediction. For example, using weather forecasts, several statistical methods were used to produce probabilistic capacity profiles which in conjunction with deterministic models provided insights into the GDP planning process [1–4]. The downside of using deterministic models is that they rely on fixed inputs and predetermined rules, which lack the ability to account for the inherent uncertainty and variability present in real-world scenarios. In a separate series of studies, researchers aimed to predict the occurrences of GDPs and GSs. The majority of these studies utilized various supervised learning methods, including Decision Trees, Naive Bayes, Support VectorMachines, and Random Forests to analyze the influence of weather conditions and arrival demand on TMI incidents[5–8]. However, these studies primarily focused on predicting the incidence of TMIs without explicitly addressing the scope of TMIs, including their duration and their geographical coverage. Furthermore, the emphasis of these studies was largely on GDPs, given their higher frequency and longer duration when compared to GSs. A limited number of studies focused on predicting the parameters of TMIs, specifically addressing their duration and extent. In one such study focusing on optimizing the TMI parameters at San Francisco International Airport (SFO),the authors utilized a probabilistic forecast of fog [9]. They simulated various capacity scenarios based on the (fog)burn-off forecasts, selecting GDP parameters that minimized airborne and overall ground delays. However, this approach exclusively emphasizes stratus (fog) burn-off as the primary determinant of GDP and GS, neglecting other influential factors like severe weather events, runway closures, lower capacity than traffic demand, and other important variables. Given the complexity of predicting the TMI and determining its scope, we seek a more holistic approach. We aim to consider all significant factors that could impact TMIs and their parameters. What sets this research apart is the fusion of all data sources relevant to the issuance and adjustment of TMIs and it represents the first comprehensive attempt to optimize TMIs in this manner. Since this comprehensive solution involves various aspects, we break down the problem into smaller components and input all parameters into a unified model called the “TMI Adjuster”. Figure 1 shows the overall framework and the list of datasets used in each model. The objective of the TMI Adjuster module is to deliver reliable, consistent and expedited recommendations for the progression, adjustment, and termination of TMIs. The ML solution entails developing a pipeline capable of predicting the necessity of a TMI (e.g., GS or GDP) along with its various parameters. For example, in the case of a GS, this includes the scope of the GS either in terms of distance from the destination airport or based on pre-defined airspace sectors. Here, scope refers to those regions and departing airports that are subject to the GS. In this paper, we concentrate on the issuance of GSs in the three major airports in the New York area — LaGuardia(LGA), John F. Kennedy International (JFK), and Newark Liberty International (EWR). We fuse traffic, weather and other relevant aviation data from years 2017 to 2019 to train and validate the ML models. In particular, we use the following datasets: •Terminal Aerodrome Forecast (TAF): meteorological forecasts specific to each airport, issued four times a day, covering predefined time periods. •TMI data: includes all GSs and GDPs along with their respective parameters. •Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM): includes traffic related data such as aircraft delays, arrival, and departure rates. •Notices to Airmen (NOTAMs): utilized to extract runway closure data and manage interdependencies between terminals in close proximity. •Flight cancellation data •Airspace Flow Programs (AFP): includes information on flight airborne holdings caused by TMIs. The data preprocessing entails transforming ASPM, TMI, AFP, NOTAMs, and weather data into an hourly format and consolidating all datasets by merging them based on date and time as the primary key. The TMI Adjuster framework comprises two parallel models: one dedicated to GS and a second model focused on GDP. As previously mentioned, our specific focus is on the GS model as a multi-classification problem. In this framework, each data point of the GS model input summarizes ten hours of data. Specifically, the data loader for the GS model generates the input and output of the model as follows: at a given time step, the input includes the actual traffic, weather, and TMI data from the two-hour window before the time step, alongside the weather forecast and scheduled traffic for the next 8 hours starting from the time step. Based on this information, the output of the GS model for each time interval consists of three dimensions. The first dimension represents a binary decision on whether there should be a GS in place for the next hour or not. The second dimension is related to the scope of the GS in the United States, and the third dimension is related to the scope of the GS in Canada (i.e., to determine if the GS impacts airports in Canada).One of the challenges with TMI modeling is the sparsity of TMI events, particularly regarding its scope. To address this challenge in the scope of the GS model output, we implement grouping. The GS scope for the US region is defined based on a list of centers that should be included when the GS is in place. With 20 centers in the US, we utilized historical data to group them into 4 categories. In particular, we summarized our historical data in a graph format where nodes represent centers, and link weights are defined based on the co-occurrence of centers in the scope parameter ofTMIs. By identified strongly connected components in this graph, we were able to partition the centers into four groups. We consider two model structures for the GS Model. Firstly, a hierarchical classification model [10], where the human decision-making for a GS is of hierarchical nature. The decision-maker first decides whether there is a need fora GS, and if the answer is yes, determines the scope. A hierarchical classification model organizes the problem into a class hierarchy, typically a tree or a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) structure, and considers the dependency of the decision in the previous step to the next component [10]. Here, we employ the local classifier per level approach, which involves training one multi-class classifier for each level of the class hierarchy. The second structure is the independent structure. In this setting, as the name suggests, we do not consider the dependency of the decisions in the different dimensions of the output of the model. Instead, for each dimension, we train a multi-class classifier independently. Table 1 summarizes GS model statistics for training, validation and testing. The table documents the effect of limiting data to the time steps when there was actually a TMI in place or when a TMI had just terminated. This resulted in a more balanced distribution of the GS class(GS positive class)versus “No GS”(GS negative class), which might help the training process. While JFK and LGA follow very similar distributions, with 40% and 42% GS positive class respectively, EWR has proportionally fewer GS incidents at 28%. Our subsequent phase involves evaluating the performance of both hierarchical structure and independent structure using different state-of-the-art multi-class classifier models such as Random Forest, Decision Trees, K-nearest Neighbors, and Logistic Regression and forecast the duration and scope of the GSs.

Farzan Masrour Shalmani↗
DOE OSTI2026

KRAS4a and KRAS4b show distinct lipid-dependent regulation of RAS-RAF membrane dynamics

KRAS4a and KRAS4b are important regulators of signaling, and their interactions with the plasma membrane are dynamic and influenced by lipid composition. KRAS 4a and 4b have nearly identical globular domains but differ in their membrane-associated hyper variable region (HVR). The functional distinctions between these isoforms remain unclear, particularly with regards to their dependence on specific lipids and the membrane environment. Previous work showed that the membrane orientation of KRAS4b affects its ability to bind to RAF kinase RBDCRD and that the KRAS–RBDCRD complex adopts different poses on the membrane as well as influences the size and composition of the lipid environment. To model differences between KRAS 4a and 4b protein–lipid interactions, we extended the Multiscale Machine-Learned Modeling Infrastructure (MuMMI) to incorporate continuum simulations in the grand canonical ensemble, enabling sampling across macroscopic, coarse-grained, and all-atom resolutions. Using this framework, we systematically altered PIP2 concentrations, KRAS 4a versus 4b, and RAF RBDCRD complexation to assess impacts on membrane–protein interactions and dynamics. Our results reveal that reducing PIP2 shifts and broadens the membrane orientational preference of both KRAS 4b and 4a, with stronger effects on 4b HVR localization versus 4a. We demonstrate that with depletion of the strong negatively charged PIP2 lipid, the less charged phosphatidylserine replaces PIP2. Our findings highlight similarities and distinctions in the dynamics and lipid dependency of KRAS isoforms and suggest that ordering of the local lipid composition by HVRs is a shared property and key modulator of RAS-mediated signaling at the plasma membrane.

Biological and medical sciences↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗