Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “sub scale”

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.

1,247 records · Page 70
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

DECOVALEX-2023: Task C Final Report

The Full-scale Emplacement (FE) heater experiment at the Mont Terri Underground Rock Laboratory (URL) was designed and conducted by Nagra to replicate an emplacement tunnel of Nagra’s reference repository design at 1:1 scale. Alongside testing the technical feasibility of constructing disposal tunnels, emplacing waste containers in the tunnels and then backfilling them, the main goals of the FE experiment are (1) to obtain a better understanding of the coupled effects of induced thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) processes that may occur and (2) to validate existing coupled THM models (Müller et al., 2017). A key aspect of ensuring safety for repositories located in low-permeability rock involves minimizing any damage to the rock itself, thereby preserving its integrity and promoting a stable environment Amongst a number of processes that could damage the rock is the increase in pore pressure due to thermal loading caused by heat emitted from the waste. To reduce the potential damage of the rock, it is important to analyse the evolution of heat over time due to the heat load of the containers and assess possible consequences by coupled THM models. The aim of Task C of DECOVALEX-2023 was to build 3D numerical models of the FE experiment, focussing in particular on the heating induced pore pressure change in the Opalinus Clay. Data from a large number of sensors were available from the FE experiment for model comparison. These sensors measured temperature and relative humidity in the bentonite around the heaters, and temperature, pressure and displacement/strain in the surrounding Opalinus clay. Data were available from the start of excavation (April 2012) up to August 2020 for most sensors (more than 5 years from the start of heating in December 2014). To fulfil the overall aim of the task, the work was broken down into a number of steps, starting with simpler models to build confidence in each team’s approach and then moving to more complex models that better represent the FE experiment. Step 0 consisted of 2D benchmark models, gradually increasing the number of processes that are represented from thermal (T) only models in Step 0a, to coupled thermal hydraulic (TH) models in Step 0b with a representation of changing porosity, to coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) models in Step 0c, where porosity changes are calculated by the mechanical model. A detailed specification of processes, parameters, initial and boundary conditions was provided for this step, with the ambition that all teams would work towards close agreement in their model results, thus building confidence in the model implementations. vi It was not straightforward to achieve agreement between the teams, so additional steps (Step 0b2, 0b3, 0c2, 0c3) were added along with derivation of some analytical solutions against which the models could be compared. The reasons for the differences between teams were investigated and found to be caused primarily by different conceptual model assumptions (including temperature dependence of the thermal expansion of water), different model formulations (including porosity evolution) and differences in modelled domain sizes, boundary conditions and grid discretisation. This demonstrates that comparisons between multiple modelling teams and/or comparison with analytical results and experimental data are highly beneficial in providing an indication of uncertainty in model predictions. At the conclusion of Step 0, almost all teams had achieved a close agreement in model results and those that had not achieved an agreement knew the reason for this. Step 1 moved from 2D models to 3D models of the FE experiment without adding technical features like shotcrete or EDZ, and only considering the heating phase. Initially the 3D model was tightly specified to continue to build confidence in the model implementations (Step 1a). The results of Step 1a were compared to the data from the FE-experiment without the teams seeing the data. The teams were then provided with a sub-set of the data from the FE-experiment and invited to consider how best to use the large dataset for model comparison (Step 1b). Teams were then asked to use the data provided to calibrate their models, only changing material property values rather than adding features or processes to their models (Step 1c). In Step 1, teams were asked to only model the heating phase of the experiment, so pressure in the Opalinus Clay was reported as change in pressure since the initial conditions were specified rather than modelled. The change from 2D to 3D models was accompanied by an increase in the dispersion of results between the teams. Some of this was resolved during the task, but some remained and is potentially due to model discretisation. Calibration of parameters was useful in improving the fit of the models to the data but the remaining differences indicated that the models were missing features or processes. In Step 2, the teams were asked to update their models with additional features and processes as well as calibrating parameters to try and improve the fit of the models to the data. Teams were encouraged to represent ventilation of the open FE tunnel prior to backfilling with heaters and bentonite and in Step 2, the absolute pressure in the Opalinus Clay was compared between the teams. Teams took different approaches, but there was consideration of adding shotcrete and an EDZ into the model, representing stress change during excavation and different approaches to modelling ventilation of the FE tunnel. Overall, the documented results showed a very good agreement for temperature. The results for porewater pressure evolution showed a significant improvement for most teams compared to Step 1c with a good agreement to the measurements for several teams whereas some teams overpredicted the pressure increase and others overpredicted the drainage effect especially for the sensors close to the heater. Step 3 was an opportunity for teams to use the models developed in Step 1 and Step 2 to make predictions about the temperature and pressure changes that will be expected at the FE experiment over the next few years in light of the planned changes in thermal output of the heaters.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Degradation of Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Water via High Power, Energy-Efficient Electron Beam Accelerator

The goal of the 2-year workplan was to see if electron beam (EB) could be used to break down a sub-set of the larger chemical family of per and polyfluoroalkylated substances (PFAS) in an energy efficient and economical manner when compared to conventional water treatment technologies. Year one (Y1) work focused on sample EB treatment work in the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory’s (FNALs) Accelerator Applications Demonstration and Development (A2D2) EB accelerator. While there are reportedly thousands of types of PFAS, for the point of most of the work herein, a small subset was examined, typically perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoate (PFOA). PFOA and PFOS are two of the most well studied PFAS and are studied for baseline evaluations and are considered most useful. The work from Y1 provided information about the optimal operating parameters and additives to use when treating PFOS and PFOA via EB. The data were then used to see where in a water treatment system an EB accelerator would be best suited to treat PFAS. A conventional water treatment technology, GAC, was then compared to e-beam treatment technology with respect to energy and costs for treatment. In year two (Y2), several conventional e-beam accelerator designs, and FNAL’s developmental compact SRF accelerator design, were evaluated for their suitability in PFAS treatment, from an energy efficiency and cost standpoint. Several EB parameters were evaluated and optimized for the removal of PFOA and PFOS from water at normal pressure and temperature, measured as total PFAS removal. Under the optimized test conditions both PFOA showed complete destruction to inorganic fluoride, and PFOS to inorganic fluoride and sulfate, with mass balance. The effect on PFAS removal relative to solution pH, total EB dose, EB dose rate, dissolved oxygen concentration (DO), temperature, and initial PFAS concentration were evaluated. In general, PFOA was easier to destroy than PFOS. Degradation products, typically observed under less-than-optimal EB conditions, provided insight to degradation mechanisms. Products were identified to rule out possible deleterious biproduct formation. The water radiolysis radical reaction kinetics with PFOS and PFOA were not dependent on the initial concentration over 5-orders of magnitude from 2 μg/L to 20 mg/L. This is thought to be because there was an overabundance of the reactive water radiolysis radicals relative to PFAS molecules and largely attributed to aqueous electrons. The reaction rates appeared to be diffusion limited. Testing at higher concentrations (100-200 mg/L) showed a decrease in removal efficiency, suggesting alternative kinetics, possibly second order rates, at higher concentrations. In all, we successfully defined a set of optimal EB parameters to treat PFOA and PFOS at concentrations of 20 mg/L in water with destruction efficiencies near 100%. We further tested the optimized EB parameters with other types of PFAS, including shorter and longer fluorocarbon chain homologs of PFOA and PFOS, and PFAS with alternative functional groups such as sulfonamides. Based on our results EB can be optimized as an effective destructive technology for removing PFAS from water. The conditions optimized for PFOA and PFOS were less effective with ultra-short fluorocarbon compounds like TFMS, PFES, PFPS and PFBS, and likely require re-optimization of parameters to them. In all, it was determined that from a cost and energy efficiency standpoint, EB would be best applied to waste streams with relatively high concentrations of PFOS and PFOA and is not as cost effective as GAC treatment for removing low concentrations of PFAS from water. Higher concentrations of PFAS can be found in the wastewater of conventional treatment processes such as RO and IE and therefore EB may be used to supplement such treatment technologies. Some real-world IE regeneration wash water and RO reject water containing higher concentrations of PFAS and obtained from pilot scale industrial wastewater treatment system at a fluorochemical manufacturing facility, showed that EB could remove PFAS from such types of wastewaters. The IE regenerant wash water appeared to be the most efficient of the two types of wastewaters tested. However, some further optimization of the EB parameters for the specific PFAS types present in those wastewaters may be required. Also, the effects of co-present TOC and mineral salts should be considered during such optimization efforts. From the experimental Y1 results it was seen that the aqueous electron drives degradation of the PFAS. In a hypothetical water treatment skid using EB for PFAS destruction the parameters of the system should be optimized to promote aqueous electron production. Before EB treatment, the PFAS should be preconcentrated when possible, the pH should be raised to pH 10 or higher to enhance aqueous electron production, and the water should be nitrogen purged to remove dissolved oxygen to minimize aqueous electron scavenging. An excel spreadsheet was created that calculates optimal conditions based on inlet PFAS concentration and desired outlet concentration, by optimizing the accelerator power, dose rate, water treatment rate, pH and dissolved oxygen levels to reach the desired endpoint. Given this information on accelerator operating conditions five different EB accelerator systems were compared. One EB system was a continuous-wave, linear superconducting accelerator being designed at Fermilab. Three other EB systems (IMPELA at 5% and 25% duty factor and the ILU-14) were normal conducting pulsed linear accelerators. The fifth system was an IBA Rhodotron which is a normal conducting, circular, continuous-wave accelerator. The accelerator efficiency (% of the incoming power that is used in water treatment) was the dominating factor in accelerator choice. The radio frequency (RF) power supply and the accelerator design (superconducting versus warm technology) drive the accelerator efficiency. The IBA Rhodotron was seen to be the most energy efficient commercially available technology with a wall-plug (total) power efficiency of 43% at 400 kW. The Fermilab design, with a prototype for a different application currently being fabricated, was the most energy efficient at 55% when driven by a Klystron RF power supply and as high as 77% when powered by a magnetron. As the Fermilab design was the most energy efficient by approximately 10-30%, further design work was done on the accelerator and beam delivery system specific to the destruction of PFAS in water. The Fermilab design is unique from industrial accelerators in that is superconducting. Superconducting technology allows for the acceleration of electrons without losses. The accelerator must be cooled to below the point where it is superconducting and is operated around 4 degrees Kelvin. The bulk of the design work for the accelerator is on making the accelerator as energy efficient as possible so that it does not require liquid helium and can be cooled with conduction cooling via cryocoolers. Final design work resulted in an EB accelerator that would operate at minimally 200 kW and 10 MeV. Prototype construction would cost $\$ $7.8 million dollars when driven by a Klystron power supply. A second version of the same accelerator would cost $\$ $5.5 million dollars when driven by a magnetron that is still under development. The commercially available 300 kW IBA Rhodotron cost was estimated at approximately $\$ $9 million. While it is hard to directly compare, an operational GAC system used by 3M for groundwater treatment capital cost (2022 dollars) was estimated to cost $\$ $3.3 million. While the capital expense of the EB accelerator systems was higher than GAC, the accelerator EB treatment would result in destruction of the PFAS and not just sequestration of PFAS to form a new waste stream that requires further treatment or disposal. The operating cost to destroy the PFAS via 400 kw EB system was less than $\$ $1000/kg of PFAS destroyed when treating at a 20 mg/L PFAS concentration, compared to GAC with operating costs that calculated at $\$ $27,530 per kg of PFAS sequestered when treating 100 μg/L PFOA and PFOS combined concentration.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2026

Locating the missing large-scale emission in the jet of M87* with short EHT baselines

In very-long baseline interferometric arrays, nearly co-located stations probe the largest scales and typically cannot resolve the observed source. In the absence of a large-scale structure, closure phases constructed with these stations are zero and, since they are independent of station-based errors, they can be used to probe data issues. Here, we show how these trivial closure phases become nonzero with a brightness distribution on smaller scales than their short baseline would suggest. When applied to sources that are made up of a bright compact and large-scale diffuse component, the trivial closure phases directly measure the centroid relative to the compact source and higher-order image moments. We present a technique to measure these image moments with minimal model assumptions and validate it on synthetic Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) data. We then apply this technique to 2017 and 2018 EHT observations of M87* and find a weak preference for extended emission in the direction of the large-scale jet. We also apply it to 2021 EHT data and measure the source centroid about 1 mas northwest of the compact ring, which is consistent with the jet observed at lower frequencies.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Probing jet base emission of M87* with the 2021 Event Horizon Telescope observations

We investigate the presence and spatial characteristics of the jet base emission in M87* at 230 GHz, enabled by the significantly enhanced (u,v) coverage in the 2021 Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) observations. The integration of the 12−m Kitt Peak Telescope (USA) and NOEMA (France) stations into the array introduces two critical intermediate-length baselines to SMT (USA) and IRAM 30−m (Spain), providing sensitivity to emission structures at spatial scales of ∼250 μas and ∼2500 μas (∼ 0.02 pc and ∼ 0.02 pc). Without these new baselines, previous EHT observations of the source in 2017 and 2018 lacked the capability to constrain emission on large scales, where a “missing flux” of order ∼1 Jy is expected to reside. To probe these scales, we analyzed closure phases–robust against station-based gain calibration errors–and model the jet base emission using a simple Gaussian component offset from the compact ring emission at spatial separations > 100 μas. Our analysis revealed a Gaussian feature centered at (ΔRA ≈ 320 μ as, ΔDec. ≈ 60 μ as), projected separation of ≈ 5500 AU, with an estimated flux density of only ∼60 mJy, implying that most of the missing flux identified in previous EHT studies had to originate from different, larger scales. Brighter emission at the relevant spatial scales is firmly ruled out, and the data do not favor more complex models. This component aligns with the inferred position of the large-scale jet and is therefore physically consistent with the emission of the jet base. While our findings point to detectable jet base emission at 230 GHz, the limited coverage provided by only two intermediate baselines limits our ability to robustly reconstruct its morphology. Consequently, we treated the recovered Gaussian as an upper limit on the jet base flux density. Future EHT observations with expanded intermediate baseline coverage will be essential to constrain the structure and nature of this component with higher precision.

accretion, accretion disks↗