SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
This dataset is intended to be a public resource for anyone conducting wind turbine noise research. It contains noise spectra and equivalent sound pressure levels at 11 measurement stations. The dataset also contains wind turbine operational data and meteorological data from a met mast directly upstream of the wind turbine.
An analysis description language is a domain specific language capable of describing the contents of an LHC analysis in a standard and unambiguous way, independent of any computing framework. It is designed for use by anyone with an interest in, and knowledge of, LHC physics, i.e., experimentalists, phenomenologists and other enthusiasts. Adopting analysis description languages would bring numerous benefits for the LHC experimental and phenomenological communities ranging from analysis preservation beyond the lifetimes of experiments or analysis software to facilitating the abstraction, design, visualization, validation, combination, reproduction, interpretation and overall communication of the analysis contents. Here, we introduce the analysis description language concept and summarize the current efforts ongoing to develop such languages and tools to use them in LHC analyses.
DRAM example narrative DRAM on KBase let's anyone run annotations using DRAM in the cloud. DRAM is an annotation tool that can annotate bacterial, archaeal and viral genomes and distills those annotatios into represetations of the functional genomic potential of those organisms. If you want to read more about DRAM you can check out the GitHub, wiki and journal article. DRAM annotate assemblies In KBase Assembly objects contain nucleotide sequences from genomes or metagenomes. DRAM can predict genes and annotate their function from KBase Assembly objects which may be microbial isolate genomes, metagenome assembled genomes or metagenomes. This is done with the Annotate and Distill Assemblies with DRAM app. This app can also anntoate AssemblySet objects which contain collection of Assembly objects. It also generates a Genome object and a GenomeSet object which can be used for further analysis with other KBase apps. The full annotations and other DRAM files are also available for download in the app.
Over the past year, biology educators and staff at the Department of Energy Systems Biology Knowledgebase (KBase) initiated a collaborative effort to develop a curriculum for bioinformatics education. KBase is a free and easily accessible data science platform that integrates many bioinformatics resources into a graphical user interface built upon reproducible analysis notebooks. KBase held conversations with college and high school instructors to understand how KBase could potentially support their educational goals. These conversations morphed into a working group of biological and data science instructors that adapted the KBase platform to their curriculum needs, specifically around concepts in Genomics, Metagenomics, Pangenomics, and Phylogenetics. The KBase Educators Working Group developed modular, adaptable, and customizable instructional units. Each instructional module contains teaching resources, publicly available data, analysis tools, and markdown capability to tailor instructions and learning goals for each class. The online user interface enables students to conduct hands-on data science research and analyses without requiring programming skills or their own computational resources (these are provided by KBase). Alongside these resources, KBase continues to work with instructors, supporting the development of additional curriculum modules. For anyone new to the platform, KBase, and the growing KBase Educators Organization, provides a community network, accompanied by community-sourced guidelines, instructional templates, and peer support to use KBase within a classroom whether virtual or in-person.
Introduction We previously developed a PBPK model template that consists of a single model “superstructure” with equations and logic found in many physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models. Using the template, one can implement PBPK models with different combinations of structures and features. Methods To identify factors that influence computational time required for PBPK model simulations, we conducted timing experiments using various implementations of PBPK models for dichloromethane and chloroform, including template and stand-alone implementations, and simulating four different exposure scenarios. For each experiment, we measured the required computational time and evaluated the impacts of including various model features (e.g., number of output variables calculated) and incorporating various design choices (e.g., different methods for estimating blood concentrations). Results We observed that model implementations that treat body weight and dependent quantities as constant (fixed) parameters can result in a 30% time savings compared with options that treat body weight and dependent quantities as time-varying. We also observed that decreasing the number of state variables by 36% in our PBPK model template led to a decrease of 20–35% in computational time. Other factors, such as the number of output variables, the method for implementing conditional statements, and the method for estimating blood concentrations, did not have large impacts on simulation time. In general, simulations with PBPK model template implementations of models required more time than simulations with stand-alone implementations, but the flexibility and (human) time savings in preparing and reviewing a model implemented using the PBPK model template may justify the increases in computational time requirements. Conclusion Our findings concerning how PBPK model design and implementation decisions impact computational speed can benefit anyone seeking to develop, improve, or apply a PBPK model, with or without the PBPK model template.
The atmospheric dynamics that occur near the intersection of land and water offer exciting and challenging opportunities for wind energy deployment in coastal locations. New models and tools are continually being developed in support of wind resource assessment, and three recent products are explored in this work for their performance in representing characteristics of the wind resource at coastal locations: the Global Wind Atlas 3 (GWA3), the 2023 National Offshore Wind dataset (NOW-23), and the wind climate simulations that are a component of the Wind Integration National Dataset (WIND) Toolkit Long-Term Ensemble Dataset (WTK-LED Climate). These relatively new products are freely available and user-friendly so that anyone – from a utility-scale developer to a resident or business owner – can evaluate the potential for wind energy generation at their location of interest. The validations in this work provide guidance on the accuracy of wind resource assessments for coastal customers interested in installing small or midsize wind turbines (≤ 1 MW in capacity) to support energy needs at the residential, business, or community scale, such as the island and remotely located participants of the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Transitions Initiative Partnership Project. At 23 coastal locations across the United States, dataset performance varies according to different evaluation metrics. All three recent datasets tend to overestimate the observed coastal wind resource. GWA3 produces the smallest annual average wind speed relative errors, whereas WTK-LED Climate is in best agreement in terms of representing diurnal wind speed cycles. NOW-23 is the highest performing of the datasets for representing seasonal and interannual trends in the coastal wind resource. While GWA3 and WTK-LED Climate are relatively insensitive to the dataset output heights selected for wind resource assessment at small and midsize wind turbine hub heights (20–60 m), significant variation in the NOW-23 representation of wind shear across the wind profile in the lowest 100 m of the atmosphere leads to notable differences in wind speed estimates according to the dataset output heights selected for evaluation. GWA3 exhibits challenges in the representation of observed wind speed diurnal cycles at small and midsize turbine hub heights, likely due to the dataset's consistent treatment of hourly wind speed trends regardless of altitude.
A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category
The guide provides information for anyone dealing with a lighting energy code or standard. It provides background and development information to help readers understand the basis for requirements and their intent. The guide also provides detailed explanations of the major types of requirements such that users can more effectively design to meet compliance while applying the most flexibility possible.
This is a collection of spectral data files obtained from AMS flights over areas in and around Las Vegas and the Nevada National Security Site. These are being made available for anyone to analyze and compare results with those in the accompanying report. The data files are attached to the PDF as Excel CSV format files.
In 2020, the Joint Institute for Strategic Energy Analysis (JISEA) completed several ongoing studies, published many reports and journal articles, and continued remote dialogue and analysis with research partners. The 2021 annual report captures the work completed the past year, highlights key findings across diverse studies, and shows the people behind the research, offering a great window into JISEA for anyone wanting to know more about the institute.
Reliable electricity access is vital for everything from hospitals to national security. When grid disturbances occur, it is crucial to minimize the amount of time it takes to recover. Grid resiliency considers both the preparation for and recovery from high-impact low-frequency disturbances (HILF) such as weather events and cyber attacks. The Department of Energy (DOE) Wind Energy Technologies Office (WETO) funds the multi-laboratory Microgrids, Infrastructure Resilience, and Advanced Control Launchpad (MIRACL) project to investigate technologies to support and grow distributed wind. Researchers at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) contribute to resilience and cybersecurity efforts for the project, and have produced a resilience framework to evaluate system resilience based on individual system specifications. In order to make this framework easy for anyone to apply, I have coded a web application that allows users to input their power system qualities, goals, and perceived risks and then receive suggestions on how to improve their grid resiliency. The web application follows the seven steps in the planning stage of the framework process, allowing the user to input information about their grid and select from common goals, metrics, and hazards, as well as add their own. The application currently provides information about how to complete each step, requiring minimal prior knowledge of the framework. Future work for this application will include allowing the user to submit line drawings of their system and incorporate modeling tools so that the hazard simulations of applying the framework is completed for the user.
The COVID-19 pandemic has by-and-large prevented in-person meetings since March 2020. While the increasing deployment of effective vaccines around the world is a very positive development, the timeline and pathway to "normality" is uncertain and the "new normal" we will settle into is anyone's guess. Particle physics, like many other scientific fields, has more than a year of experience in holding virtual meetings, workshops, and conferences. A great deal of experimentation and innovation to explore how to execute these meetings effectively has occurred. Therefore, it is an appropriate time to take stock of what we as a community learned from running virtual meetings and discuss possible strategies for the future. Continuing to develop effective strategies for meetings with a virtual component is likely to be important for reducing the carbon footprint of our research activities, while also enabling greater diversity and inclusion for participation. This report summarizes a virtual two-day workshop on Virtual Meetings held May 5-6, 2021 which brought together experts from both inside and outside of high-energy physics to share their experiences and practices with organizing and executing virtual workshops, and to develop possible strategies for future meetings as we begin to emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic. This report outlines some of the practices and tools that have worked well which we hope will serve as a valuable resource for future virtual meeting organizers in all scientific fields.
We study the simulation of the Kitaev spin model on quantum computers. In particular we focus on the models defined on the honeycomb, and square-octagon lattices. Using a fermionic language to describe these models reveals a region of the parameter space that is exactly solvable. We explore an ansatz that is capable of expressing the ground state in the exactly solvable region of the parameter space and extend it outside this region with good accuracy. Doing the calculation using fermions, while requiring the introduction of a non-local map from the fermionic Hilbert space to that of qubits, offers the potentially interesting application of realizing non-abelian anyons on quantum computers, and can also lead to a reduction in the number of qubits required by half.
Web archive collections are created with a particular purpose in mind. A curator selects seeds, or original resources, which are then captured by an archiving system and stored as archived web pages, or mementos. The systems that build web archive collections are often configured to revisit the same original resource multiple times. This is incredibly useful for understanding an unfolding news story or the evolution of an organization. Unfortunately, over time, some of these original resources can go off-topic and no longer suit the purpose for which the collection was originally created. They can go off-topic due to web site redesigns, changes in domain ownership, financial issues, hacking, technical problems, or because their content has moved on from the original topic. Even though they are off-topic, the archiving system will still capture them, thus it becomes imperative to anyone performing research on these collections to identify these off-topic mementos. Hence, we present the Off-Topic Memento Toolkit, which allows users to detect off-topic mementos within web archive collections. The mementos identified by this toolkit can then be separately removed from a collection or merely excluded from downstream analysis. The following similarity measures are available: byte count, word count, cosine similarity, Jaccard distance, Sørensen-Dice distance, Simhash using raw text content, Simhash using term frequency, and Latent Semantic Indexing via the gensim library. We document the implementation of each of these similarity measures. We possess a gold standard dataset generated by manual analysis, which contains both off-topic and on-topic mementos. Using this gold standard dataset, we establish a default threshold corresponding to the best F1 score for each measure. We also provide an overview of potential future directions that the toolkit may take.
We use the variational quantum eigensolver (VQE) to simulate Kitaev spin models with and without integrability breaking perturbations, focusing in particular on the honeycomb and square-octagon lattices. These models are well known for being exactly solvable in a certain parameter regime via a mapping to free fermions. We use classical simulations to explore a novel variational ansatz that takes advantage of this fermionic representation and is capable of expressing the exact ground state in the solvable limit. We also demonstrate that this ansatz can be extended beyond this limit to provide excellent accuracy when compared to other VQE approaches. In certain cases, this fermionic representation is advantageous because it reduces by a factor of two the number of qubits required to perform the simulation. We also comment on the implications of our results for simulating non-Abelian anyons on quantum computers.
This project is part of a broader effort focused on geothermal heating and cooling with the purpose of demonstrating the multi-faceted value of integrating GHC/GHX into national decarbonization plans and community energy plans. Currently, there is a need to better define and evaluate low-temperature geothermal resource potential to provide the basis for supporting private sector investment. For shallow GHC/GHX fields, there is no formal compilation of subsurface characteristics shared among industry practitioners that can improve system design and operations. Alaska is specifically noted in this work, because heretofore, it has not received a similar focus in geothermal potential evaluations as the contiguous United States. The methodology consists of leveraging relevant data generate a baseline low-temperature resources (< 150 degrees C) geospatial dataset to compare and analyze information accessible to anyone trying to understand the potential of GHC/GHX and small-scale low-temperature geothermal power in Alaska (e.g., energy modelers, communities, planners, and policymakers). Importantly, this project is identifying data related to (1) the evaluation of GHC/GHX in the shallow subsurface, and (2) the evaluation of low-temperature geothermal resource availability. Additionally, data is being compiled to assess repurposing of oil and gas wells to contribute co-produced fluids toward the geothermal direct use and heating and cooling resource potential. The goal of this project is facilitating future deployment of GHC/GHX analysis and community-led programs and update the low-temperature geothermal resources assessment of Alaska. A better understanding of shallow potential for geothermal heat exchange (GHX) will improve design and operations of highly efficient GHC systems. The deployment and impact that can be achieved for low temperature geothermal resources will contribute to decarbonization goals and facilitate widespread electrification by shaving and shifting grid loads.
Sensors, controls, and data can add value to energy systems, but there are millions of touchpoints to consider and harness. It all depends on the right integration strategy, and through the National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) research into Autonomous Energy Systems (AES), we are creating options that work for anyone.
The Department of Energy's (DOE) Geothermal Data Repository (GDR) has implemented improvements to both its data lakes and its data standards and automated data pipelines. The GDR data lakes have reduced storage and compute-related barriers to using large geothermal datasets, enabling these large datasets to be accessed by anyone with a modern computer and internet access. More recently, the GDR has been working to further reduce barriers through streamlining the data intake process, educating users on the process and requirements, and aiding users in accessing data from the data lakes. These improvements have augmented the quantity of datasets the GDR is able to accept into its data lakes and have enabled users who are new to cloud tools to access these datasets more easily, overall increasing the accessibility of big geothermal data for use in machine learning and other projects. In addition, the GDR now has built-in data standards and pipelines for drilling data, geospatial data, and distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) data. These standardization efforts aim to enhance the real-world applicability of geothermal machine learning outcomes by improving the quality of training data. Specifically, through standardizing high-value datasets, the GDR is reducing project-specific data curation requirements, thus allowing more time for actual research. By automating this process, the burden of standardization is lifted from the user, ultimately increasing the availability of standardized data.