Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “volume distribution”

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.

1,113 records · Page 62
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

HERO CarbonSAFE Phase 2 Project in the Columbia River Basalt Group

The Hermiston, Oregon Basalt CarbonSAFE Phase II project (HERO CarbonSAFE) seeks to accelerate the deployment of commercial carbon dioxide (CO2) storage projects in basaltic rocks. Basalt CO2 storage has several advantages to conventional saline storage reservoirs including 1. The potential for rapid mineralization of CO2, 2. Associated decreases in pressure and CO2 migration risks, 3. Reduced long-term monitoring requirements with respect to plume tracking, 4. Widespread geographic distribution and, 5. Large storage potential due to thickness, porosity, and CO2 interactions with basalt. And for locations such as the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, Iceland, India and Japan, basalts may offer the only economically feasible option for local CO2 storage. However, there are limited field-scale assessments of CO2 storage in basalt, and current carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) permitting and regulatory frameworks were developed for conventional saline reservoirs. HERO CarbonSAFE is designed to address research gaps and uncertainties associated with basalt storage. Specifically, the project will assess the feasibility of CO2 injection in the deep layered basalts, long-term storage (mineralization), practical approaches for large-scale implementation (50+ million metric tons of CO2 over 30 years), lithology-specific risks, and the technoeconomic potential for CO2 storage in basalts. The HERO CarbonSAFE project will assess feasibility of developing a commercial-scale (50+ million metric tons of CO2) geological storage complex within the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG), a layered continental flood basalt complex that underlies Calpine’s natural gas-fired Hermiston Power Project (HPP) in Hermiston, OR (Figure 1). Under this 2-year CarbonSAFE Phase II project, the HERO team will conduct a data acquisition campaign that includes drilling a stratigraphic well to a total depth of ~1,500 m into the thick layered basalts proximal to HPP. A comprehensive well logging and hydrologic testing program will be augmented with new core collected from flow zones and sealing units, and comprehensive laboratory testing to help refine the kinetic rates of mineralization. The newly acquired information will be integrated with existing data from regional wells to correlate basalt injection zone properties to develop storage hub/commercial-scale models. Using these models, the project team will evaluate injection scenarios to define the technical and economic potential for storing a minimum of 50 million metric tons of CO2 over a 30-year period, along with a robust sensitivity analysis on key parameters governing reservoir viability for sustainable injection over a commercial project lifetime. Specific technical objectives of HERO are: (1) assessing the reservoir response of a series of stacked layered reservoir flowtop sequences occurring in this area of the CRBG to commercial-scale injection volumes; (2) extending prior efforts by the project team to characterize the deep layered basalts encountered in regional studies, to leverage prior investments by U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Carbon Storage program; (3) leveraging DOE’s mineralization characterization efforts to advance model parametrization for commercial scale injection of CO2 in basalts; (4) conducting risk assessments associated with scaling up to commercial storage hub injection goals, while validating DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) tools, to identify potential constraints that would prevent the CRBG from serving as a commercial-scale storage complex; (5) developing mitigation plans to address identified risks; (6) developing a commercial-scale injection and monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA) strategy; (7) utilizing computational models to define and minimize, if possible, the Area of Review (AoR) under Class VI regulations; and (8) developing a robust CO2 management strategy for CRBG that also considers a regional source/sink approach that is responsive to stakeholder needs and industrial demand. Specific institutional objectives are: (1) identifying and developing plans to mitigate the nontechnical challenges associated with the build-out of a commercial-scale storage complex within the CRBG with integrated CO2 sources; (2) implementing the community outreach plan; (3) conducting regulatory research, including a survey of issues related to pore space ownership, MVA and long-term assurance of mineralization-based storage, to support an eventual application for a UIC Class VI permit; (4) advancing the project’s plan for CO2 liability management; and (5) continuing to refine and update the project’s economic model. The final objective is the preparation of a comprehensive Site Characterization Plan that draws upon the technical and institutional feasibility assessments to prepare the project for future commercialization efforts.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Dose Rate Analysis of the WCS Consolidated Interim Storage Facility

This report describes a confirmatory calculation for a proposed consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) to support the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s review of the license application submitted by the Interim Storage Partners. The scope of this report is limited to an assessment of the annual dose from direct radiation associated with Phase 1 of the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) CISF and the determination of the minimum controlled area boundary based on the 10 CFR 72.104 limit of 25 mrem annual dose to the whole body. The confirmatory dose rate calculations used the source term and shielding calculation capabilities of the SCALE 6.2.3 computer code system. The calculation method employed in the confirmatory calculations uses a detailed Monte Carlo radiation transport simulation from source to dose rate. This method differs from the two-step method used in the safety analysis report (SAR), which requires determination of the photon and neutron energy and angular distributions on the cask external surface and then the use of this surface source in a new radiation transport calculation to determine dose rate as a function of distance from the storage facility. A simulation was made using the complete site geometry (all casks present) but with only one cask containing source, and a total of 467 independent calculations were performed to obtain the dose rate maps produced by each storage cask. Basic input data and assumptions used in the SAR (e.g., cask design parameters and design basis assembly characteristics) were used in this confirmatory calculation for consistency with the SAR. Local atmospheric conditions for skyshine calculations were simulated using US standard atmosphere data, which describe average air temperature, pressure, and density as a function of altitude. The determined minimum required distances from the WCS Phase 1 CISF to a contour defined by the 25 mrem annual dose limit were approximately 623 m (0.387 miles) in the N-NE direction, 594 m (0.369 miles) in the SSW direction, and 533 m (0.331 miles) in the E-SE direction and the W-NW direction. The annual dose results of the confirmatory calculation are in relatively good agreement with the annual dose values presented in the WCS SAR. The annual dose produced by the Phase 1 CISF at the nearest site boundary, 0.75 miles away from the CISF, was estimated by this study to be approximately 6.02E-02 ± 2.0E-04 mrem, which is significantly smaller than the 25 mrem annual dose limit provided in 10 CFR 72.104. The SAR annual dose rate value for the nearest site boundary was 7.52E-2 mrem, which included 7.73E-03 mrem due to postulated leakage of the FO-, FC-, and FF-canisters. A comparison with the dose rate values reported in the SAR for 16 detector locations, D1 through D16, on the protected area boundary is also included in this report. This comparison shows that the SAR determined higher annual dose values for detectors D1 through D14 by 12% to 45% and lower annual dose values for detectors D15 and D16 by 18% and 8%, respectively, as compared with this ORNL confirmatory calculation. Sensitivity studies have been performed to support a comprehensive review of the application. In these studies, the effects on dose rate of the modeled air volume, density, and humidity were analyzed. The sensitivity calculations showed that the air volume used in the Monte Carlo simulations was adequate and that a larger air volume would not further increase the dose rate due to skyshine contributions. The sensitivity analysis showed that simulation of local atmospheric conditions is important for the accuracy of dose rate estimates at large distances from the facility. Air humidity was demonstrated to have negligible effects on dose rate values for the simulated local atmospheric conditions.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Integrated Methane Monitoring Platform Extension, Volume I: Final Technical Report

The IMMPE project, DE-FE0032284, was to enhance methane monitoring technologies and their applications across various natural gas asset classes. The scope included deploying advanced methane detection and monitoring technologies to identify and mitigate fugitive methane emissions, measuring emission rates, and assessing impacts. The findings included the successful mitigation of identified emissions and quantification of emission rates. A key outcome was the development of a comprehensive template and summary of recommendations for methane emissions monitoring, which is replicable for both upstream and downstream applications. Furthermore, the project emphasized the importance of education by providing training opportunities for technicians and regulators, thereby fostering awareness and promoting the adoption of cost-effective methane emissions monitoring and management techniques.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Federated learning for 2D synchrotron x-ray diffractometry: a cross-institutional approach for phase quantification of Ti–6Al–4V alloy

High-energy Two dimensional (2D) synchrotron x-ray diffractometry provides important insights into the atomistic structure and phase evolution of materials, yet traditional analysis methods remain complex, knowledge-intensive, and computationally demanding. Deep-learning models offer a powerful alternative for automating their analysis. Institutions that hold these datasets may be unwilling to share their data due to privacy and security policies, as well as the challenges associated with large-scale data transfer. As a result, models trained on local datasets often perform well only on their own data but exhibit bias and poor generalization across different instruments or facilities. To overcome these limitations, we explore federated learning (FL) for 2D synchrotron diffractograms, enabling collaborative model training without exchanging raw data. In this study, 2D synchrotron diffractograms of Ti–6Al–4V alloy collected from two independent facilities are used to train convolutional neural networks for predicting the β-phase volume fraction. Experimental results show that federated global models significantly outperform locally trained models in terms of generalization and achieve accuracy comparable to centralized trained models. These findings demonstrate the potential of FL to enable secure, cross-institutional collaboration and enhance the scalability of deep-learning-based materials characterization.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Sub-pilot-scale Production of High-Value Products from U.S. Coals

Investigators from the University of Utah, University of Wyoming and Marshall University pursued a program to study the conversion of raw coal to high-value products of carbon fiber and silicon carbide. Team members also developed an initial framework for a data portal that can incorporate laboratory data on coal processing and product quality, and also work with tools for machine learning for data analysis, data visualization and economic assessment. Experimental R&D efforts focused on the conversion of raw coal to coal tar and other byproducts, and the resulting tar intermediates were upgraded to form anisotropic and isotropic pitch materials. These pitch materials were produced from coal using both thermal (pyrolysis) and chemical (mild solvolysis liquefaction) decomposition of raw coal. Four different coals were studied: Utah bituminous coal (Sufco), Wyoming PRB coal (Black Thunder), Illinois bituminous coal (Illinois #6), and West Virginia bituminous coal (Flying Eagle). Both metallurgical-grade coking coals and lower-grade steam coals were investigated, and controlled secondary gas-phase reactions were used during a two-stage pyrolysis process to induce cracking and condensation reactions among the pyrolytic tar species. This approach successfully improved the performance of the lower grade coals for yielding pitch materials, with properties more consistent with a commercial-grade pitch that had previously demonstrated success for quality carbon fiber production. The use of waste plastic materials was also studied, to help improve physical and chemical characteristics of the intermediate tars and final pitch product; in particular, for lowering the pitch softening point to an acceptable level for melt spinning carbon fiber. Mild solvolysis liquefaction was also used as a method for producing pitch for carbon fiber production. As expected, significantly higher pitch yields were obtained using this approach, and waste plastic materials were also successfully used to reduce pitch softening point to an acceptable level. The plastic materials were also utilized to create a solvent for the mild solvolysis process, and this plastic-derived solvent was shown to provide results consistent with more expensive commercial chemical solvents, and could thus avoid the need for costly recovery and recycle of a liquefaction solvent. Additional experimental R&D focused on the production of silicon carbide (β-SiC) from the residual char byproduct from pitch production, and also on the production of carbon fiber from the anisotropic pitch. SiC was successfully synthesized using a mixture of residual char and sandstone at a ratio of 1:1. Reaction temperature and residence time were optimized and yielded a product purity of 81%. For carbon fiber production, the most successful pitch samples were obtained from the mild solvolysis liquefaction approach, combined with the use of a plastic (HDPE)-derived solvent. Fiber properties improved over time as laboratory fiber production methodologies improved, and final yields of carbon fiber were obtained with a diameter of 12.14 ± 1.10 um, Modulus of 173.73 ± 15.25 GPa, and Tensile Strength of 1.04 ± 0.10 GPa. A proof-of-concept Modern Community Research Data Portal (MCRDP) was developed and deployed for coal and coal-derived pitch characterization, with the full support of (i) remote web-based access, (ii) distributed analysis, (iii) interactive visualization and exploration, (iv) shared and long-term data access, (v) advanced query capabilities and (vi) real-time collaboration. The Coal to Products Data Portal “coaltoproducts.org” provides researchers with space to store and share data within a project, tools for analyzing and understanding data for scientific investigation, and the ability to publish data to the broader community for reproducibility. The portal leverages the Material Commons 2.0 (MC) platform developed by the Center for PRedictive Integrated Structural Materials Science (PRISMS) of the University of Michigan, to achieve long-term longevity of data collections and, more importantly, collaborative science. A number of data visualization tools were also assessed and implemented for interrogating the experimental and modeling data. The machine learning portion of this project analyzed datasets from two different coal conversion processes performed on a diverse set of coal samples from both the coal pyrolysis experiments and the solvent liquefaction experiments. The work was initiated by exploring standard regression models on the pyrolysis data, aiming to understand the impact of sample characteristics and processing conditions on key product metrics. Over the course of the project, the focus expanded to include a variety of machine learning tools, delving into both supervised and unsupervised learning methods. Models tested on the pyrolysis data included linear, ridge, lasso, elastic-net, Gaussian process, random forest regression, and AutoSklearn, and the approach was continually refined to enhance predictive accuracy and model interpretability. Similar techniques were applied to the liquefaction data with an additional focus on feature engineering. Along with mesophase content, additional outputs of interest were the pitch yield, softening point, and QI content. Insights derived from these analyses are crucial in determining the factors influencing the quality and yield of coal-derived products. As the work progressed, the research evolved from foundational model comparisons to analyses of random forests, decision paths, and feature importance scores. A thorough market analysis was performed to examine the prospects of coal-based carbon fibers. The best opportunities for coal come from its lower and more stable price relative to petroleum, particularly for subbituminous coals, which is the primary advantage that a coal refinery may have over a petroleum refinery. Before a commercial CTP production facility can be modeled, however, several things need to be understood regarding the nature of the would-be coal refinery. These include the technology to be deployed, the size of facility, the volume(s) of co-product(s), and the waste and emissions profile of the plant. The volume of co-products and waste may be substantial and will require separate market analysis to ensure viability. In the near-term, the importance of coal tar pitch, in the form of carbon pitch, to the aluminum and steel industries is likely to overshadow the alternative use of this material as an input for carbon fiber. The importance of steel and aluminum in building materials, and the need for carbon materials in their manufacturing, will ensure that demand for these products remains for the long run. In addition, carbon fiber may also be the best substitute for steel and aluminum well into the future. While society will eventually be able to shift production of much of its electricity needs to renewables, it will not be able to shift away from fossil fuels for production of high-strength construction and vehicular materials. Demand for carbon fiber is expected to increase quickly, but the volume of carbon fiber and the amount of coal that would be needed to produce even a sizeable share of this market may still be relatively small compared to current coal production. Thus, other coal-based products like graphene, graphite, carbon foams, resins, and carbon-based building products will play important roles in sustaining coal production as coal-fired power generation continues to decline.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2020

Oil and Natural Gas Development near and beneath Uranium Tailings Cells and Other Remediated Sites - 20358

DOE LM is responsible for maintaining remedies at more than 50 remediated sites that require active long-term surveillance and maintenance (LTS and M). Institutional controls (ICs) were established to limit human and environmental exposures to residual contamination by controlling land use, restricting access to potential hazards, and making the public aware of potential dangers from the residual contamination. ICs for each site were developed based on current and foreseeable conditions; however, these controls should evolve to mitigate potential human health and other environmental risks from unanticipated changes in activities or site conditions. Activities conducted beyond the DOE long-term care boundaries by non-DOE parties may impact the effectiveness of ICs or even the long-term stability of disposal cells and groundwater remedies. Several sites that LM manages or that will transfer to LM for LTS and M are in active oil and gas production basins. The sites are associated with uranium ore milling or nuclear test sites and have been remediated or are in the process of remediation and have no ongoing DOE mission. Particularly since 2005, hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') combined with directional drilling has dramatically increased oil and natural gas (oil/gas) production in the United States, now making it the number one hydrocarbon-producing country. Fracking has allowed production from shale and other rocks of low natural permeability that were historically not considered viable oil/gas resources. Also, because wellbores can now be drilled as many as 5 kilometers or more horizontally, hydrocarbons can be recovered from zones without having access to the surface above them. Drilling activity near Rulison, Colorado, the location of an underground nuclear detonation managed by LM, has raised public concerns that remnant radioactivity in the detonation zone could migrate to producing wells and enter the natural gas distribution system. At sites like the Falls City, Texas, Disposal site, transitioned to LM with a split estate, increased production in the region has resulted in wellbores beneath the long-term care boundary of the site. While the DOE license for Falls City was approved by the NRC in 1997 without the acquisition of the subsurface rights, NRC has raised concerns on whether this activity impacts the integrity of the cell and/or groundwater remedies. In Wyoming, LM is anticipating receiving the license for the Bear Creek site and manages the Spook site, both locations of uranium mill tailings disposal cells. These Wyoming sites are in an active region of major oil and gas development. This change in surrounding land use will require LM to work collaboratively with NRC to address these concerns. At several DOE sites radioactive waste, and often intermixed nonradioactive constituents, is permanently isolated in engineered disposal cells. At other sites, residual contamination can be present in groundwater, blast cavities, and infinite amounts within soil. Areas targeted for oil and gas development at the Texas and Wyoming sites range from depths of 2440 to 3350 meters (8000-11000 feet) below ground surface. When most site remedies were designed, oil and gas development was not considered to be an issue within the site boundary. With the more recent uses of directional drilling, fracking, and associated wastewater injections, the evaluative criteria for incoming sites and ICs for managing long-term protectiveness and regulatory compliance are changing. Although DOE surface ownership was previously thought to be a robust IC to prevent surface and subsurface development, particularly at disposal sites, that may no longer be the case. Whereas the subsurface development at Texas and Wyoming sites is currently occurring at thousands of meters beneath the surface, shallower and direct onsite development would be more of a concern for LM. The energy introduced when a well is hydraulically fractured causes microseismic events (magnitude -2 to 1.0) as the fractures propagate but does not directly cause seismic events (earthquakes) of sufficient magnitude to damage surface structures. Additionally, the extent of the hydraulic fractures is limited to the targeted depths, which are far below the surface. However, earthquakes of sufficient magnitude to damage surface structures have been attributed to the injection of wastewater into disposal wells. States that have experienced these effects have enacted regulations that limit the rate and pressures that wastewater can be injected into disposal wells. Items LM may consider are the need for monitoring the volume of water injected into nearby disposal wells and possibly installing seismic stations at sites most susceptible to damage. While the need to demonstrate that no impact from oil and gas extraction activities on a site groundwater remedy or disposal cells will vary from site to site, LM is assessing risk criteria for this activity. Though LM has not experienced an issue yet at a uranium tailings disposal site, it cannot assume that there will be none, and must address NRC concerns. LM is building on past experiences at other sites and beginning to form new processes with the hope that these concepts can be applied for other future sites. (authors)

04 OIL SHALES AND TAR SANDS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Characterization of Contaminants and Mobility in WMA A-AX Boreholes D0006 and D0008

This study was initiated to determine if subsurface contaminants in the A-AX vadose zone at the Hanford site (boreholes D0006 and D0008) caused corrosion of nearby stainless steel well casings (299-E-24-19, 299-E25-46, and 299-E25-236) and, based on the type and distribution of contaminants, determine if contaminants are from one or more sources including a) the A-104 and/or A-105 tanks, b) the 242A evaporator, and c) the 200-E-286 ditch. A tiered approach was used for characterizing contaminants in vadose zone sediments starting with mobile and total contaminant concentrations (Tier 1), characterizing contaminant speciation (Tier 2), and measuring contaminant leaching (Tier 3). Total and mobile contaminant measurements at seven depths showed elevated sulfate and nitrate in all samples (130 to 280 ft depth), elevated chloride in five depths, and no elevated radionuclides except I-129 in D0006 at 206 to 208 ft depth. If these contaminants were initially acidic, stainless-steel corrosion would occur. However, because sediments likely have a high acid neutralization capacity, an acidic spill would have been neutralized within tens of feet, so casing corrosion would likely occur in shallow sediments. GEL labs data also shows low (but above natural) chromate from shallow to 170 ft depth, then higher chromate to 280 ft, suggesting a surface Cr spill or casing corrosion. GEL labs data also showed evidence of more than one plume, with deep nitrate, sulfate, and chloride migration, but only shallow tritium migration. Tritium should migrate nearly unretarded in the subsurface like nitrate and chloride. Elevated aqueous cations and anions in the D0006 206 to 208' depth pore water (SO 4 2- , NO 3 - , Na + , K + , Ca 2+ , Mg 2+ , Si) could be the result of acid disposal and calcite dissolution at shallow depth, with deeper migration of SO 4 2- , NO 3 - from acids and Ca 2+ and Mg 2+ from calcite. Elevated Si (160 mg/L) indicates dissolution of clays or other silicates, which can also occur in acids. Acid extractable metals did show elevated Cr (but not Fe, Ni, Mo, and Mn) above natural levels, which may indicate stainless-steel well corrosion or transport of metals from a shallow spill. The elevated I-129 in D0006 at 206 to 208' depth was low with 0.34 μg/g in pore water and 1.5 μg/g total extractable I-129 in the sediment, which indicates significant fraction of I-129 was bound in one or more precipitates. Although total I-129 was below detection limits in most extractions due to high molybdate interference, I-127 analysis provided some insight into potential precipitate phases. Total I-127 was mainly extracted by acetate or acetic acid (67%), which may be iodine in calcite. Inorganic carbon measurement identified 1.65% calcite, and total organic carbon (TOC) was below detection limits, so iodine was not associated with organic matter. Nearly all the I-127 was present as iodide. In 1-D leach experiments, I-127 as iodide leached from the sediment within 2 pore volumes. Due to high and dynamic molybdate leaching from the sediment and interference with I-129 analysis, there were few quantifiable I-129 measurements. The calculated molybdate release rates from the sediment suggested Mo was being released from the same precipitate phase, such as molybdate incorporated into calcite. Overall, because there was little radioactive contamination measured in D0006 and D0008 boreholes, potential releases from A-104 and A-105 did not reach this location south of the A tank farm. Elevated cations and anions found in D0006 and D0008 at depth as the result of acidic disposal could cause shallow stainless steel casing corrosion. The nearby 242A evaporator generally contained alkaline waste and tritium, but the nearby 200-E-286 ditch generally contained high Cl - liquid effluent, so these are unlikely to be acidic sources.

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

Do Machine Learning Approaches Offer Skill Improvement for Short-Term Forecasting of Wind Gust Occurrence and Magnitude?

Abstract Wind gusts, and in particular intense gusts, are societally relevant but extremely challenging to forecast. This study systematically assesses the skill enhancement that can be achieved using artificial neural networks (ANNs) for forecasting of wind gust occurrence and magnitude. Geophysical predictors from the ERA5 reanalysis are used in conjunction with an autoregressive term in regression and ANN models with different predictors, and varying model complexity. Models are derived and assessed for the warm (April–September) and cold (October–March) seasons for three high passenger volume airports in the United States. Model uncertainty is assessed by deriving models for 1000 different randomly selected training (70%) and testing (30%) subsets. Gust prediction fidelity in independent test samples is critically dependent on inclusion of an autoregressive term. Gust occurrence probabilities derived using five-layer ANNs exhibit consistently higher fidelity than those from regression models and shallower ANNs. Inclusion of the autoregressive term and increasing the number of hidden layers in ANNs from 1 to 5 also improve the model performance for gust magnitudes (lower RMSE, increased correlation, and model standard deviations that more closely approximate observed values). Deeper ANNs (e.g., 20 hidden layers) exhibit higher skill in forecasting strong (17–25.7 m s −1 ) and damaging (≥25.7 m s −1 ) wind gusts. However, such deep networks exhibit evidence of overfitting and still substantially underestimate (by 50%) the frequency of strong and damaging wind gusts at the three airports considered herein. Significance Statement Improved short-term forecasting of wind gusts will enhance aviation safety and logistics and may offer other societal benefits. Here we present a rigorous investigation of the relative skill of models of wind gust occurrence and magnitude that employ different statistical methods. It is shown that artificial neural networks (ANNs) offer considerable skill enhancement over regression methods, particularly for strong and damaging wind gusts. For wind gust magnitudes in particular, application of deeper learning networks (e.g., five or more hidden layers) offers tangible improvements in forecast accuracy. However, deeper networks are vulnerable to overfitting and exhibit substantial variability with the specific training and testing data subset used. Also, even deep ANNs reproduce only half of strong and damaging wind gusts. These results indicate the need for future work to elucidate the dynamical mechanisms of intense wind gusts and advance solutions to their prediction.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

High concentrations of ice: Investigations using polarimetric radar observations combined with in situ measurements and cloud modeling (Final Report)

This DOE-funded joint project had the over-arching goal of understanding the reasons for observed size distributions of ice particles in cold clouds. Its approach involves the use of cloud models and field observations by radar and aircraft of real storms. The project addresses three major research objectives: (1) Utilize a novel polarimetric radar technique to retrieve size distributions and amounts of ice from radar data collected during the previous DOE ARM field campaigns; (2) Evaluate the results of ice microphysical retrievals using available in situ aircraft measurements and other remote sensors (e.g., vertically pointing cloud radars and wind profilers); (3) Improve the treatment of microphysical processes leading to cloud glaciation and ice multiplication in numerical cloud models. The study was performed by three research organizations: University of Oklahoma, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel, and Lund University, Sweden. The Israel and Swedish partners were funded by the sub-awards from the University of Oklahoma. Cloud modeling studies have been performed by the research teams at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (HUJ) and Lund University to identify the origins of high concentrations of cloud ice in areas of high ice water content (HIWC). The Hebrew University Cloud Model (HUCM) with full spectral bin microphysics and the Lund University aerosol-cloud (AC) model with a hybrid bin / bulk microphysics scheme complementing HUCM were utilized for simulations. Both research teams had particular focus on secondary ice production (SIP) as one of the possible sources of enhanced ice concentration. The HUJ group suggested a novel concept of ice multiplication during droplet freezing. It is assumed that splintering and droplet fragmentation during droplet freezing takes place because of dendritic growth within a supercooled drop. The resulting simulations of SIP generated small ice in concentrations exceeding hundreds per liter similar to what was observed in the HIWC regions of the tropical storms. The Lund team explored the SIP mechanisms such as breakup of ice particles due to ice-ice collisions and ice sublimation that are expected to dominate the continental storms. They also quantified the impact of homogeneous nucleation of cloud droplets on the total number concentration of ice at very low temperatures near the tops of the clouds. Additionally, the Lund AC model is able to simulate the effect of aerosols of various types (including biological) on the cloud life cycle and the corresponding ice production. The HUCM / AC model was used to simulate one of the “golden” cases of the DOE MC3E campaign on 20 May 2011. The model output was converted into the fields of polarimetric radar variables using the polarimetric radar forward operator developed at the University of Oklahoma and compared with radar observations and in situ microphysical measurements onboard research aircraft. It was demonstrated that specific differential phase KDP is the best radar parameter to identify the HIWC areas and quantify the corresponding ice parameters. For the first time, the shape of the vertical profile of KDP was realistically reproduced by the cloud model with the KDP maximum in the dendritic growth layer (DGL) centered at the -15°C isotherm. The University of Oklahoma team has developed a methodology for polarimetric radar retrievals of such microphysical parameters of ice as ice water content (IWC), mean volume diameter (Dm), and total number concentration (Nt) of ice particles. These retrievals have been validated using in situ aircraft measurements during 6 field campaigns and proved to be quite robust and reliable. This allowed to build the first climatology of the vertical profiles of polarimetric radar variables and retrieved microphysical parameters for the three types of weather systems: continental MCSs, maritime MCSs, and tropical cyclones / hurricanes (Hu and Ryzhkov 2022). The data were collected by a multitude of the WSR-88D radars in 13 continental and 10 maritime MCSs and 11 landfalling hurricanes. The HIWC areas were identified within the examined storms and the corresponding “HIWC statistics” was compared with the “background” one without HIWC. An overarching conclusion of the study is that maritime tropical storms (MCSs and hurricanes) are characterized by smaller size ice in higher concentration compared to the continental MCSs. High ice water content in the HIWC areas is primarily caused by a strong jump in a number concentration of ice particles rather than the increase of their size compared to the “background” environment. This may point to the homogeneous nucleation of excessive amounts of supercooled droplets and / or secondary ice production as the possible origins of HIWC. Such a climatology provides a good observational reference for the modelers to evaluate the performance of their models. As an example, the in-depth analysis of the 20 May 2011 MC3E case shows that the advanced cloud models developed in the course of this study still tend to underestimate the number concentration of ice in the HIWC areas although they succeed in reproducing realistically looking vertical profiles of IWC and Nt. The results of the project research are summarized in 13 journal papers.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Integrated Monitoring Volume: A Summary of Monitoring Studies Conducted in Niagaran Carbonate Pinnacle Reefs During Enhanced Oil Recovery with CO 2

The Midwest Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) was founded in 2003 as part of the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership initiative. Since its founding, MRCSP has made significant strides toward making CCUS a viable option for states in the region. The public/private consortium, funded through the DOE Regional Carbon Sequestration Initiative, brings together nearly 40 industry partners and 10 states. Battelle, as the project lead, oversees research, development and operations and coordinates activities among the partners. The incremental, phased approach has built a valuable knowledge base for the industry and paved the way for commercial-scale adoption of CCUS technologies. From 2008 to 2020, MRCSP Phase III focused on the development of large-scale injection projects. This report is part of a series of reports prepared under the Midwestern Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnership (MRCSP) Phase III (Development Phase). These reports summarize and detail the findings of the work conducted under the Phase III project. During the MRCSP Phase III monitoring period, over 1 million metric tons of CO 2 was injected into ten Silurian-age (Niagaran) pinnacle reef reservoirs in Otsego County, Michigan that are operated by Core Energy, LLC. There are over 800 pinnacle reefs in northern Michigan, and collectively, these geologic features have sufficient capacity to store several hundred million metric tons of CO 2 . Moreover, most of the reefs are oil-bearing and went through primary production in the 1970s and 1980s; therefore, by injecting CO 2 into the reefs, there is a real opportunity to realize additional (enhanced) oil recovery (EOR) and to permanently store CO 2 after EOR. A key objective of the MRCSP Phase III project is to evaluate the effectiveness of various technologies for monitoring CO 2 that has been injected into deep geologic formations. Monitoring may be required at CO 2 storage sites for a variety of reasons, including to meet UIC Class II (EOR sites) or Class VI (storage only sites) permit requirements or EPA greenhouse gas reporting rule requirements or to qualify for tax credits under the 45Q tax credit rule. The results of this monitoring study should prove useful to operators considering using carbonate pinnacle reefs of Northern Michigan for CO 2 storage.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
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 OSTI2020

Evaluating the Effectiveness of an Ultrasonic Acoustic Deterrent in Reducing Bat Fatalities at Wind Energy Facilities

This project was designed to use thermal video cameras and fatality monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of an ultrasonic acoustic deterrent (UAD) on bat activity and mortality, respectively. Our goals were to redesign the UAD device and installation infrastructure, determine the placement on wind turbines to optimize safety, compatibility and functionality, and to compare the mortality among the following conditions: Control (deterrents off and turbines feathered up to the manufacturer’s cut-in speed of 3.5 m/s), Deterrent (deterrents on and turbines feathered up to the manufacturer’s cut-in speed of 3.5 m/s), Curtailment (deterrents off and turbines feathered up to 5/ m/s), and combination (deterrents on and turbines feathered up to 5 m/s). The project was divided into a Feasibility Study and Comparative Study. The objectives for the Feasibility Study were to develop an installation strategy, redesign a previous iteration of a UAD to improve performance and weatherization, and test the effectiveness of the deterrents on bat activity. The Feasibility Study was intended to work out potential issues using a relatively small number of devices prior to manufacturing and installing numerous devices for a larger-scale comparative study. The division of the project into these separate studies was based on previous experience and the challenges of assessing the capabilities of an untested UAD. During the initial development and manufacturing of the UAD, NRG Systems decided to use a piezoelectric transducer rather than an electrostatic transducer, which was used by a previous device (i.e. Deaton UAD). NRG Systems conducted lab testing (i.e., IP67 or Ingress Protection) to ensure no water or dust ingress. In addition, shock/drop trials and variations in temperature exposure were conducted as part of the reliability testing. NRG Systems also developed a communications system to allow for continuous performance monitoring of the UADs. For the Feasibility Study, we installed 6 UADs on each of 2 Gamesa G90 2-MW wind turbines (Turbine 14 and 8) at the South Chestnut Wind Energy Facility, Pennsylvania and monitored activity under control and treatment (i.e. Deterrent) conditions using thermal video monitoring. There are two major sources of variation in bat activity (beyond the anticipated treatment effect): 1) environment around the turbines might inherently favor more activity at one than the other; 2) weather conditions on any given night or within season difference (e.g., migration later during the study period) might favor more activity on some nights than on other nights. Because we could only monitor two turbines on any night, we sought to control the potential influences of these two sources by alternating the turbine on which deterrents were activated each night. If there were no loss of data due to technical failures, this design would result in an equal number of deterrent and control nights at each turbine through the monitoring period, balancing the effects of both sources of variation. We compared the time bats spent and the number of events that occurred in overlapping cameras FOV as an indicator of risk, since 80% of the overlapping FOV of the cameras was in the RSA. Equipment failures, majority due to lightning, resulted in only 17 nights with useable data, with unbalanced treatment assignment within turbines and uneven distribution of treatment assignment throughout the observational period. This resulted in a confounding of treatment assignment and seasonal change. Deterrent treatment was measured at Turbine 14 on only 2 of the first 8 usable nights (spanning the period from 8/18-9/17), whereas 6 times on Turbine 8. From 9/18-927, deterrent was on at Turbine 14 on 6 of the remaining 10 nights, and 4 on Turbine 8. We recorded a total of 1,057 bats and observed a reduction in number of events and duration of events at the UAD-activated turbine when it was Turbine 14. When Turbine 8 had the UAD activated, we observed no difference in number or duration of events. Variation between turbines is not unusual and can cause issues when study designs have no true replication, i.e., multiple turbines per treatment. Within-turbine differences suggested a trend for reduced activity when UADs were activated, particularly for Turbine 14. These results may be caused by the overall higher bat activity at Turbine 8 and confounding of treatment assignment and seasonal trends. We mapped 58 bat events in 3-dimensional space (3D), 30 and 28 events during control and treatment conditions, respectively. We observed bats crossing the rotor plane under both control and treatment conditions and observed a total of 40 confirmed or near-collisions (i.e., target close to blade but no visual confirmation of a strike) out of a total of 1,491 medium and high confidence bat observations (880 control, 611 at treatment). Twice as many collisions/possible collisions were observed during control conditions. Given the challenges with the equipment and potential confounding of the data (i.e., different activity levels at the two wind turbines), we were unable to determine whether this initial turbine placement and orientation was optimal. Given no new information on how best to install the devices, we elected to use the same placement and orientation for the comparative study. For the Comparative Study, the objectives were to investigate the relative mortality rates among 4 treatments. We searched the area within 90 m of each turbine daily to recover the highest number of fresh fatalities possible. We were unable to detect a clear reduction in mortality from deterrents alone for any individual species. Surprisingly, mortality rate of the eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis) was estimated to be 1.3–4.2 times as much when turbines were operating normally and UADs were on than when UADs were off. Reduction in mortality of all bat species combined due to curtailment of turbines was estimated to be between 0%–38%. This effect was nullified when, in addition to curtailment, UADs were on, with 95% confidence interval ranging from a 45% reduction to a 36% increase in mortality. This was likely due to the large proportion of eastern red bats in the total carcass population. Mortality of all low-frequency echolocating bats combined (i.e. hoary bat [L. cinereus], big brown bat [Eptesicus fuscus], silver-haired bat [Lasionycteris noctivagans]) relative to control was lower when curtailed (95% CI: 0%–74%), but the addition of UADs had no detectable effect (95%CI: 13%–79%). The combined treatment reduced mortality in silver-haired bats relative to control by 11%–99%, compared to curtailment (81% reduction–67% increase) or deterrent (82% reduction–67% increase) alone. Because silver-haired bats comprised a large proportion of low-frequency calling bats found during this study, a similar effect was seen for that group. The higher mortality observed for eastern red bats at UAD compared to control could have been caused by several factors, such as the effective range of the UAD, particularly at higher frequencies, behavior, positioning of the devices on the nacelle, or a combination of these. We used 3D thermal videography to compare control and UAD bat behavior from two turbines using a total of 203 3D bat-tracks across 34 nights. We recorded a similar number of bat-tracks between treatment groups, with 51% and 49% for control and UAD, respectively. Due to potential differences in bat behavior around spinning vs stationary turbine blades, we examined UAD effectiveness separately for non-operating turbines (feathered below cut-in speed of 3.5 m/s) and operating (normal operation above wind speed of 3.5 m/s). We found a higher proportion of bat-tracks at operating turbines (82%) compared to non-operating turbines (18%), although this does not account for overall time turbines were operating versus not. At non-operating turbines the UAD appears to be effective at reducing the amount of time, flight length, and number of passes through the rotor plane, compared to control. In addition, we found bats approached turbines similarly between control and treatment turbines, with 61% of control and 63% of UAD bat-tracks originating leeward of the hub. In contrast, at operating turbines, we saw little change in bat behavior in response to UADs. For example, we found an increase in the average duration of bat-tracks between non-operating and operating turbines for UAD but at control turbines we found average duration decreased once turbines became operational. Both control and UAD had a high proportion of bat-tracks that crossed the rotor plane (i.e., collision risk) originate from the windward side when turbines were operational 65% to 92%, respectively. Given that the UAD devices closest to the blades were orientated parallel to the blades, its possible bats were not exposed to the signal until they were close to the turbine blades, as suggested by the slightly higher mean duration within 5 meters of the blades for UAD turbines. Future research should consider concentrating UAD intensity on the areas of risk (i.e. blades) with enough buffer to allow bats to react to the sound before entering the rotor-swept area (RSA). In addition, investigating the potential of installing UAD units windward of the turbine blades (e.g. a hub-mounted UAD), particularly since even under control conditions, a relatively high proportion (65%) of crosses through the blade plane originated windward. 3D thermal videography provided valuable information on future testing strategies (e.g. device placement, UAD orientation) to improve UAD effectiveness when bats are at risk (i.e., operating wind turbines). Across the entire project we experienced issues with the operation and communication with the UADs. Most of the issues occurred during the Feasibility Study and were resolved prior to the Comparability Study. Additional challenges surfaced during the Comparability Study but were remedied immediately and are thought to have little impact on the results. We had logistical constraints at the project that limited our ability use traditional methods in our camera calibration. Several calibrations showed inaccurate scales, which may have been related to inadequate spatial coverage of “points” in the camera calibration volume. Because we were using actual video recordings of bats at a wind turbine, the behavior of bats could have concentrated “points” in specific areas of the turbine (i.e. leeward of nacelle), and limited “points” in other areas, resulting in camera calibration issues. We have plans to address these inconsistencies and improving the software and related methodologies by early 2020.

17 WIND ENERGY↗