Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “reference”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Reference Fuel Development for NonAluminum Spent Nuclear Fuel Management

Background – The L Area Facility was initially constructed as a nuclear reactor for nuclear material production in the 1950s – The reactor was shut down in the late 1980s: in the 1990s the mission changed to storing nuclear material • Current Mission – L Area provides for the safe receipt, storage, handling, and shipping of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and other nuclear materials – Received more than 47,000 SNF assemblies since 1964 from power and research reactors (domestic and foreign)

Sifuentes, Christian A. [Savannah River Nuclear So↗
DOE OSTI2026

Reference Hardware and Software Architecture for a Solenoid Pulser for Scientific Instrumentation at the National Ignition Facility

High current, high voltage solenoid pulser power systems for the generation of magnetic fields in a solenoid is not a radical or new concept. Despite being a cornerstone of scientific and weapons research for over 100 years, a commercial off the shelf unit easily configurable for a broad set of applications has yet to appear on the open market. Pulser systems are instead designed for specific target requirements. For gigawatt to terawatt systems, this is unavoidable. For megawatt systems however, many hundreds of thousands of dollars are wasted designing pulser systems from the ground up for clients, when it is possible to simply architect a modular system once that can have its capacitors swapped for many possible target applications. The National Ignition Facility (NIF) at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is one such institution that would benefit from such a system, having bought such pulsers for several imaging systems. Ideally, all such a system would require is only a bachelors-level circuit analysis to find the correct capacitor values, as well as a written procedure to calibrate the software to correctly deliver the voltages required by the application. In this work, systems architecture and software engineering techniques are used to design and analyze such a system. Such a design, it is the hope of this author, will be used in scientific and engineering purposes in the future to build solenoid pulsers at the National Ignition Facility and other institutions to drastically cut development costs of scientific instrumentation.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Public Reference Data for Megawatt-Scale Hydrogen Electrolysis - Simulated Wave

The U.S. Department of Energy and the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) demonstrate hydrogen electrolysis, hydrogen compression and storage, and variable hydrogen fuel cell power production using megawatt-scale equipment at NLR’s Flatirons Campus as part of the Advanced Research on Integrated Energy Systems (ARIES) initiative. This dataset represents part of that effort and is intended for academic, national laboratory, industrial, and other stakeholders to plan, design, and validate models of megawatt-scale hydrogen technologies and diverse energy infrastructure nationwide. These data provide a baseline for how existing hydrogen electrolysis technologies perform when coupled with various energy technologies. Future datasets will demonstrate how existing hydrogen fuel cell technologies can provide controllable, dispatchable, and variable power output for artificial intelligence (AI) data centers and other variable loads. This dataset entry describes hydrogen production using a single, simulated wave energy conversion device. The electrolyzer is a 1.25-MW proton exchange membrane type MC250 system manufactured by Nel Hydrogen. While the unit supports up to 2.5 MW of electrolysis, NLR only has a single 1.25-MW electrolysis stack. For the wave energy, NLR used a wave energy converter model from PacWave. These devices can be equipped with accumulators and pressure relief values to smooth the power output by storing and releasing hydraulic energy. Using a peak power output of 10 MW, the model created two 25-minute profiles: one with and one without the accumulators and pressure relief valves. To down select the profile data from the native resolution of 20 Hz to 1 Hz, NLR took the mean of every 20 data points. NLR experimented with two simulated wave energy power plants: one that peaks at 10 MW, and one that peaks at 5 MW. These profiles were scaled for the physical 1.25 MW electrolyzer by multiplying the original profiles by one eighth and one quarter, respectively. The first profile matches the capacity rating of eight of the 1.25 MW electrolyzers, while the second matches four electrolyzers. Finally, NLR experimented with two settings for the electrolyzer power supply minimum and maximum current ramp rates (gain and slew): 200 and 400 amperes per second. The simulated profiles were translated from power (kilowatts) to current (amperes) using a curve fit with calibration data and sent to the electrolyzer power supply at 1-Hz frequency. These datasets report relevant hydrogen balance-of-plant and system data, all captured at 1 Hz, including hydrogen mass production measured with an Emerson Coriolis flow meter. Each .zip file represents a single wave electrolysis experiment and is formatted as follows: {technology}-{accumulator?}_{number of 1.25 MW electrolyzers connected}-{electrolyzer ramp rate in amperes/second} For instance, “wavePacWave-Noacc_4-400.zip” represents the 25 minute-long experiment using the PacWave’s wave energy converter model, equipped with no accumulator, connected to four 1.25-MW electrolyzers with their power supplies set to a maximum current ramp rate (gain and slew) of 400 A/s. Each .zip folder contains the following files: A .csv file containing raw data. An .xlsx file explaining all the fields in the raw data. A .png plot showing the time series of hydrogen production in kilograms per hour, electrolysis power consumption, and input wave power. An experiment, labeled “characterization_200.zip”, demonstrates the MC250 electrolyzer steady-state response with 30 minute load steps for a total duration of 5 hours. Finally, a .csv file is provided with all wave profiles combined into one dataset labeled "combined_wave_experiments.csv". NLR also built an AI/machine-learning predictive model based on these datasets. The model ingests the electrolyzer current command in amperes, as well as various pressures and temperatures across the system, and predicts hydrogen output in kilograms per hour. The complete model can be found at https://huggingface.co/NatLabRockies/ptmelt-hydrogen-electrolysis.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2026

DESI DR2 Reference Mocks: Clustering results from UCHUU ELGs and QSOs

High-redshift galaxy clustering provides a powerful probe of the growth of structure, testing models of dark matter, dark energy, and galaxy formation during the epoch when the Universe was rapidly evolving. Emission line galaxies (ELGs) and quasars (QSOs) are used as tracers of dark matter by the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) to probe this redshift regime. We present results from ELG and QSO mock catalogs created from the Uchuu N-body simulation and tuned to DESI Data Release 2 (DR2) clustering. Employing a modified subhalo abundance matching (SHAM) technique, we populate Uchuu halos and subhalos with QSOs between 0.8 < z < 2.1. For ELGs, we modify this method to select satellite galaxies with low velocities relative to their associated central halos, and populate a separate set of Uchuu halos and subhalos with ELGs between 0.8 < z < 1.6. In this paper, we reproduce the redshift evolution of number density and clustering statistics across the fitted range of scales. We also measure the large-scale clustering bias of both the data and mock samples. These results improve simulated lightcone construction from cosmological models and enhance our understanding of the galaxy-halo connection.

Vaisakh, R. [Southern Methodist U.] (ORCID:0009000↗
DOE OSTI2026

Plant-Nitrifier Interactions in Topsoil and Subsoil

Plants can influence soil microbes through resource acquisition and interference competition, with consequences for ecosystem function such as nitrification. However, how plants alter soil conditions to influence nitrifiers and nitrification rates remains poorly understood, especially in the subsoil. Here, coupling the 15N isotopic pool dilution technique, high throughput sequencing and in situ soil O2 monitoring, we investigated how a deep-rooted perennial grass, miscanthus, versus an adjacent shallow-rooted turfgrass reference shapes nitrifier assembly and function along 1 m soil profiles. In topsoil, the suppression of ammonia (NH3) oxidizing archaea (AOA) and gross nitrification rates in miscanthus relative to the reference likely resulted from nitrifiers being outcompeted by plant roots and heterotrophic bacteria for ammonium (NH4+). The stronger tripartite competition under miscanthus may have been caused in part by the lower soil organic matter (SOM) content, which supported lower gross nitrogen (N) mineralization, the major soil process that produces NH4+. In contrast, below 10 cm soil depth, significantly greater gross nitrification rates were observed in miscanthus compared to the reference. This was likely driven by the significantly lower oxygen (O2) in miscanthus than reference subsoil, which selected against aerobic heterotrophic bacteria but in favor of AOA. Overall, we found that plants can regulate AOA community structure and function through different mechanisms in topsoil and subsoil, with suppression of nitrification in topsoil and enhancement of nitrification in subsoil.

Field Data↗
DOE OSTI2026

Two-stage formation-energy correction (NbZr, TaZr, VZr)

This bundle contains the scripts, the raw and corrected per-structure data, and the manuscript plots for the NbZr / TaZr / VZr BCC binary formation energies and the associated RMSDs. Why a two-stage correction is necessary: The "raw" formation energy of every relaxed VASP configuration is computed in the usual way, FE_raw(c) = E_alloy(c) - sum_i x_i * E_pure_i , where E_pure_i are the per-atom total energies of the pure-element reference structures (Nb, Ta, V, Zr in the same BCC supercell, with identical INCAR / KPOINTS / PAW choices). With perfectly consistent reference runs the raw FE should vanish at the two pure-element endpoints (x = 0 and x = 1) by construction. In practice this does not hold for two reasons that are present in our dataset: 1. Reference-energy inconsistency (composition-dependent bias). Even with identical input parameters, the pure-element runs (stored in `corrected_DFT_pure_element_runs/`) differ slightly from the values that would be implied by the alloy runs at near-pure compositions (a few meV/atom). This bias is approximately linear in concentration, because the residual error in E_pure_Nb (or E_pure_Ta / E_pure_V) propagates into FE_raw(c) as (1 - x) * dE_pure_1, and the corresponding error in E_pure_Zr propagates as x * dE_pure_2. Left uncorrected, this produces a non-physical "tilt" of FE_raw(x) and shifts the entire FE-vs-x cloud away from zero at the endpoints. 2. Endpoint anchoring against the audited true endpoints. The strict endpoint values (FE_x0_meVatom, FE_x1_meVatom in `corrected_fe_strict_endpoints_20260518/strict_endpoint_check_20260518.csv`) were re-derived from an independent cross-check of the pure-element runs. After stage 1 removes the linear bias, the near-pure compositions in the alloy dataset still extrapolate to values that differ slightly from these audited endpoints — because stage 1 is fit from a few near-end alloy bins, not from the audited pure-element references themselves. The README.txt file discusses how these issues are addressed by the two-stage correction, and describes folder layout, pipeline summary, and how to re-run.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Proton Improvement Plan II (PIP-II) Clock and Timing

The PIP-II timing system is planned to be a two-part system consisting of a global timing system (referred to as ACLK) that provides high level, event-based timing for the whole Fermilab accelerator complex while the second part is a RF synchronized clock system unique to the PIP-II Linac itself (referred to as LCLK). The ACLK System will make use of an external 10 MHz GPS based signal source as a reference for its 650 MHz phase lock as it is the reference frequency for the TCLK output of the system (needed to support legacy hardware around complex). The LCLK System will use a PIP-II Linac RF reference (162.5 MHz) from the Linac LLRF system to allow beam synchronized event placement. Both the ACLK and LCLK systems will have a clock output with a data frame of 16 event bits + 32 data bits with frames broadcast at 650 MHz, phase locked to the 10MHz reference in the case of ACLK and the PIP-II LLRF sourced 162.5 MHz reference in the case of LCLK.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Multi-plane moment-of-fluid interface reconstruction in 3D

Moment-of-fluid (MOF) methods for interface reconstruction approximate the region occupied by material in each mesh element only through reference to its geometric moments. Here, we present a 3D MOF method that represents the material (POM) in each cell as the convex intersection of the cell and multiple half-spaces, each selected to minimize the least-squares error between computed moments of the approximated material and provided reference moments. This optimization problem is highly non-linear and non-convex, making the numerical result very sensitive to the initial guess. To create an effective initial guess in each cell, we construct an ellipsoid from 0th–2nd order reference moments such that its shape corresponds with that of the POM. Within this ellipsoid we inscribe a polyhedron, and initialize the minimization problem with the half-spaces defined by each of its faces. The inscribed polyhedron has minimally 4 faces, and using up to 3rd order moments permits optimization over up to 20 unknown values. We therefore define MOF methods that utilize 4, 5, or 6 half-spaces, correspondingly initialized with the faces of a single inscribed tetrahedron, triangular prism, or hexahedron. Stability of the non-linear optimization is further improved with a prepossessing step that normalizes the reference moments according to the axes of the reference ellipsoid. Using this approach, the non-linear least-squares solver reliably converges to a near-global minimum from a single initial guess. We demonstrate accuracy and robustness using single-cell and multi-cell examples over a wide spectrum of geometry. In particular, we demonstrate our ability to exactly reproduce several important and complex features defined by up to four half-spaces, such as corners, filaments, filament tips, and embedded material in the cell.

3D interface reconstruction↗
DOE OSTI2025

Ceramic Composite Inert Matrix Fuel Forms in High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Microreactors

Here, this work optimizes micro-prismatic high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR) designs to reduce the energy-normalized mass of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level waste (HLW) produced. The optimization was performed for the current graphite moderator and an inert matrix fuel (IMF) concept employing different composite moderators in a prismatic design architecture. The fuel matrix is magnesium oxide (MgO) with entrained tristructural-isotropic (TRISO) fuel. The moderator materials, including beryllium oxide (MgO-BeO) and beryllium (MgO-Be) at 40 vol % loading and yttrium hydride (MgO-YH x=1.9 ) and zirconium hydride (MgO-ZrH x=1.9 ) at 15 vol % loading, were entrained within the MgO host matrix. A generic graphite micro-prismatic HTGR is used as the baseline point design where the external dimensions are held constant. The composite moderator designs use 19.9% enriched uranium nitride TRISO fuel and hexagonal assemblies. For each IMF concept, an optimization study was performed to maximize the discharge burnup of the fuel by varying the TRISO packing fraction and the lattice pitch of the assemblies. The mass of SNF and HLW, other waste metrics, fuel cost, environmental impact metrics, and the activity of the SNF and HLW at 100 years and 100 000 years were calculated for the optimized IMF and graphite reference designs. The IMF results were subsequently compared to those of the graphite reference and the values for a light water reactor (LWR) and a small modular LWR. For the SNF and HLW, all the IMF concepts and the graphite reference produced less waste compared to the traditional LWR designs. However, the IMF concepts outperformed the graphite reference regarding the mass of SNF and HLW. For the other waste metrics, the IMF concepts showed reductions in fuel cost with improved environmental metrics relative to the graphite reference. Overall, the IMF concepts significantly reduced the SNF and HLW produced per unit of energy generated compared to traditional LWR designs.

TRISO↗
DOE OSTI2024

Improving precision and accuracy of genetic mapping with genotyping‐by‐sequencing data in outcrossing species

Abstract Genotyping‐by‐sequencing (GBS) is a widely used strategy for obtaining large numbers of genetic markers in model and non‐model organisms. In crop plants, GBS‐derived marker datasets are frequently used to perform quantitative trait locus (QTL) mapping. In some plant species, however, high heterozygosity and complex genome structure mean that researchers must use care in handling GBS data to conduct QTL mapping most effectively. Such outbred crops include most of the perennial grass and tree species used for bioenergy. To identify strategies for increasing accuracy and precision of QTL mapping using GBS data in outbred crops, we conducted an empirical study of SNP‐calling and genetic map‐building pipeline parameters in a Miscanthus sinensis population, and a complementary simulation study to estimate the relationship between genome‐wide error rate, read depth, and marker number. The bioenergy grass Miscanthus is an obligate outcrossing species with a recent (diploidized) whole‐genome duplication. For the study of empirical M. sinensis data, we compared two SNP‐calling methods (one non‐reference‐based and one reference‐based), a series of depth filters (12×, 20×, 30×, and 40×) and two map‐construction methods (i.e., marker ordering: linkage‐only and order‐corrected based on a reference genome). We found that correcting the order of markers on a linkage map by using a high‐quality reference genome improved QTL precision (shorter confidence intervals). For typical GBS datasets of between 1000 and 5000 markers to build a genetic map for biparental populations, a depth filter set at 30× to 40× applied to outbred populations provided a genome‐wide genotype‐calling error rate of less than 1%, improved accuracy of QTL point estimates and minimized type I errors for identifying QTL. Based on these results, we recommend using a reference genome to correct the marker order of genetic maps and a robust genotype depth filter to improve QTL mapping for outbred crops.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Database and Explorer

Overview The Carbon Management Projects (CONNECT) Toolkit is an online exploratory visualization tool developed by the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management (FECM) with support from other federal agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT). It provides a single point of access to authoritative information on federal agency investment in a portfolio of research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) projects that have been publicly announced to advance technologies for point source carbon capture, carbon dioxide removal, transport, storage, and conversion, collectively referred to as carbon management. The RD&D programs covered in this tool are authorized by annual congressional appropriations ("Base Program") and the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). The tool also incorporates public information on other federal initiatives, such as the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, and public information released by other government agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) and Primacy States’ Underground Injection Control Class VI permits and EPA’s facility level greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Developed in a geographic information system, the tool organizes carbon management projects into five groups based on the primary technology that a project aims to advance, each visually represented as a digital layer ("carbon management project layer"). Only federally funded projects are included, which can be awarded projects that are completed or ongoing, or projects that have been selected but are currently under negotiation. Project information can be viewed in the map or in the attribute table below it when turned on. In the map view, each project is displayed at either its host site (for field work), where available, or its performer site (project lead's location, further explained in the table below). Host sites and performer sites are represented in distinct icons. Several reference layers offer additional public information on infrastructural and natural resource environment for carbon management. These reference layers, combined with multiple geographical basemaps, enable users to visualize the carbon management project layers in context. Carbon management project information will be updated monthly based on feedback and information availability. Carbon management project layers Point Source Carbon Capture (PSC) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing carbon dioxide (CO2) from power plants or industrial facilities. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on capturing CO2 from the atmosphere, including direct air capture (DAC) and DAC hubs, direct ocean capture, enhanced mineralization, and biomass carbon removal and storage. For projects with multiple host sites, each of the sites are displayed individually with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the total for the entire project. Carbon Transport This layer contains DOE- and DOT-funded projects focused on CO2 transport. The Transport Research and Development sublayer contains projects that do not involve physical infrastructure; the Proposed Transport Corridor sublayer contains projects for which either a route for the transport infrastructure has been proposed or a general area for the transport infrastructure has been identified. Carbon Storage This layer contains DOE-funded key projects focused on CO2 storage. For projects with multiple field-work sites, each of the sites are displayed individually on the map with the project cost and cost sharing information representing the overall total for the entire project. Carbon Conversion This layer contains DOE-funded projects focused on converting CO2 into economically valuable products. Reference layers The following layers provide additional information in the geographic proximity of carbon management projects. Users should reference the original sources for more details (weblinks provided below and in pop-up windows on the map). Regional Clean Hydrogen Hub and Facility These layers illustrate the approximate areas of the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs announced by DOE's Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) and the approximate locations of individual facilities that constitute the hubs (see "Where are the H2Hubs located?" on the webpage linked above). EPA Facility Level GHG Emissions (direct emitter) This layer shows direct CO2 emissions from stationary sources in 2022, using data extracted from EPA's Facility Level Information on GreenHouse gases Tool (FLIGHT). Captured and injected CO2 are not deducted from direct emitters’ total emissions. Contact EPA for additional details. Underground Injection Control Class VI permit/permit application This layer shows the locations of CO2 injection wells that are granted or in the process of applying for an Underground Injection Control Class VI permit by EPA or a Primacy State (currently Louisiana, North Dakota, and Wyoming). The URLs for the permits or permit applications are provided in the pop-up windows associated with the well locations. Contact EPA for additional details. Carbon Storage Resource This layer contains information on prospective CO2 storage resources in saline formations and oil and gas reservoirs provided by the National Carbon Sequestration Database and Geographic Information System (NATCARB) spatial database. Contact NETL for additional details. Existing CO2 pipeline This layer shows active CO2 pipelines based on information digitized from the map issued by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). Contact PHMSA for additional details.

Carbon Conversion↗
DOE OSTI2026

FOCAL Campaign I: Advanced Wind Turbine Control Strategies

Campaign I of the Floating Offshore-wind Controls Advanced Laboratory Experimental Program (FOCAL) aims to generate a dataset enabling the validation of aerodynamic performance of a scaled turbine mounted on a rigid tower in a fixed condition. The turbine considered in the FOCAL testing campaigns is the IEA-Wind 15MW Reference Wind Turbine. This scaled model is capable of simulating advanced blade-pitch control strategies in a high-quality wind field. The turbine is fully instrumented to record a variety of parameters in real time such as structural loads and dynamics. The test data considered was generated at the University of Maine's Harold Alfond Wind and Wave (W2) testing facility. The Load Cases (LC) considered in this testing campaign are as follows: LC 1.X - Constant wind and blade-pitch with varying rotor speeds LC 2.X - Constant wind and rotor speed with varying blade-pitch LC 3.X - Varying wind with active closed-loop control Detailed properties on the modeled system are found in the following reference: Lenfest E., Floating Offshore-wind Controls Advanced Laboratory (FOCAL) Experimental Program - Campaign I: 1:70 Model-scale Testing of the IEA-Wind 15MW Reference Turbine. UMaine ASCC Report Number 23-40-1183. Details on the results of the verification and validation are found in the following reference: Mendoza, Nicole et al., "Verification and Validation of Model-Scale Turbine Performance and Control for the IEA Wind 15 MW Reference Wind Turbine," Energies, vol. 15, no. 20, 2022, https://doi.org/10.3390/en15207649.

17 WIND ENERGY↗