SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “error testing”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

1,502 records · Page 84

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2024

Optimized Viewing Techniques to Minimize Radiation Damage From X-ray Imaging Systems

X-ray inspection of ball grid arrays (BGAs) is typically performed at one or more viewing angles to examine adhesion sites for errors such as voids, joint cracking, or head-in-pillow. During this inspection process, the cir cuit board assembly is subject to ionizing radiation exposure, which can cause trapped charge within oxide layers of semiconductor devices. Some x-ray machines allow for programmable inspection routines, which could be used to optimize radiation exposure to semiconductor components. Using Monte Carlo methods, x-ray inspection of a BGA was simulated to determine a range of acceptable viewing angles. Dose rates to circuit board components were estimated at each inspection angle to determine the view resulting in optimized radiation exposure. Results showed that for each BGA, the maximum unobstructed viewing times without exceeding a 5 Gy dose limit to a single part ranged from 82 to 94 minutes. Using a radiation cost function method, optimized viewing across all components was found. Here, it was observed that for a consistent dose limit applied to silicon-based components, performing inspection with BGAs facing the x-ray source was optimal. A third method was applied, assigning individual dose limits based on empirical data from the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center radiation database. This method showed that optimized viewing maximizes the distance between the radiation source and highly sensitive components. It was also observed that cumulative effects from viewing two BGAs will influence viewing angles, causing the optimal view of one BGA to exist nearly 180° from the other.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

DOE OSTI2021

Nuclear Data and Cross Section Testing Using ENDF/B-VIII.0

With the release of the Evaluated Nuclear Data File (ENDF)/B-VIII.0 library, nuclear criticality safety practitioners and engineers have access to the latest cross section sets available for their analyses. However, these cross sections must be rigorously tested and validated to ensure that the nuclear data are responsive to the needs of the individuals responsible for developing, implementing, and maintaining computational tools for criticality safety applications. Thus, the ENDF/B-VIII.0 library is tested and validated with a large collection of experiments that were vetted by the International Criticality Safety Benchmark Evaluation Project and made available in the International Handbook of Evaluated Criticality Safety Benchmark Experiments. A selection of benchmark experiments for use within the criticality safety community were prepared and reviewed within the Verified, Archived Library of Inputs and Data (VALID), which is maintained by the Nuclear Energy and Fuel Cycle Division at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The performance of the ENDF/B-VIII.0 library is assessed by using VALID models of benchmark experiments with the beta 12 version of SCALE 6.3 KENO V.a and KENO-VI Monte Carlo codes. The performance is compared with the results obtained from with the ENDF/B-VII.1 library. This report considers multigroup (MG) and continuous energy (CE) formats of the ENDF/B-VIII.0 and -VII.1 libraries. The benchmark experiments within VALID that validate the ENDF/B-VIII.0 library cover 15 broad system categories by using a range of fissile materials, uranium enrichments, plutonium isotopic vectors, and mixed uranium/plutonium systems. These forms are represented as metals, solutions, or various arrays of rods or plates that cover a variety of neutron energy spectra: thermal, fast, mixed, and intermediate. Over 600 cases were considered for use with the KENO V.a and KENO-VI codes with the ENDF/B-VIII.0 library. The results of the Monte Carlo comparison of ENDF/B-VIII.0 to ENDF/B-VII.1 with both KENO V.a and KENO-VI indicate that there is a less than 0.53% Δk difference between the bias of calculated k eff from the expected values. The CE ENDF/B-VIII.0 library results in smaller magnitude biases than the ENDF/B-VII.1 data for HEU-MET-FAST, HEU-SOL-THERM, IEU-MET-FAST, LEU-SOL-THERM, PU-SOL-THERM, and U233-MET-FAST systems, while the MG results yielded smaller magnitude biases for HEU-MET-FAST, HEU-SOL-THERM, IEU-MET-FAST, LEU-COMP-THERM, LEU-SOL THERM, MIX-COMP-FAST, and U233-MET-FAST systems. Most notable are the adjustments to the plutonium and 233 U cross section data, which has resulted in noticeably lower biases in the ENDF/B VIII.0 results for the mixed, plutonium, and 233 U systems. Results of the sensitivity data file comparison generated from TSUNAMI-3D for selected VALID cases for the ENDF/B-VIII.0 library indicate a very high level of agreement with correlation coefficients of the effect of nuclear data uncertainty on k eff (the c k integral parameter) all above 0.99. This indicates that cases with the ENDF/B-VIII.0 library would see very similar responses to any nuclear data errors or change as those with the ENDF/B-VII.1 library.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Combined Mesonet and Tracker

Title: Combined Mesonet and Trackers (UNL Mobile Mesonets) Authors University of Nebraska PI: Adam Houston, UNL Professor (ahouston2@unl.edu) Mailing Address: 126 Bessey Hall P.O. Box 880340 Lincoln, NE 68588-0340 CoMeT Overview The University of Nebraska-Lincoln operates three Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeTs). CoMeTs are Ford Explorers (model years 2015, 2017, and 2019) with forward-mounted suites of meteorological sensors and dual moonroofs, combining the capability of a mobile mesonet to collect near-surface observations with the capability of an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) tracker vehicle, which enables an observer in the second row of seats to see the aircraft and maintain compliance with Federal Aviation Administration policies on UAS operation. The CoMeTs collect observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155A, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass (Barbieri et al. 2019). The HMP155A and 109SS-L thermistor are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). This list of sensors is also included in the CoMeT data file metadata. Manufacturer specifications for these instruments are given in Table 1 of Hanft and Houston (2018). The reported measured quantities are summarized below.CoMeT-3 was funded through an equipment allocation included in the NSF TORUS award (AGS-1824649). Instrument Description The specific sensors included on each CoMeT are summarized in the table at the end of this section. In general each CoMeT collects observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210 barometer with a Gill pressure port, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, position using a Garmin 19x HVS receiver, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass. The HMP155 and 109SS are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). Fast temperature and corrected RH measurements (using sensors housed within the U-tube) have a time constant of 10-12 s based on data collected across a temperature and RH shock during the CLOUD-MAP 2017 calibration/validation tests on June 26, 2017. Vehicle speed was < 10 kts for this test. CoMeT-1 CoMeT-2 CoMeT-3 Slow Temperature Slow RH Vaisala HMP155A-L20-PT Part #: 22280-7 Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Fast temperature Campbell Scientific 109SS-L20-PT Part #: 21448-3 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-109 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-150 Pressure Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Wind RM Young 05103-L20-PT Part #: 18435-310 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 GPS Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Compass KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 Logger Campbell Scientific CR6-NA-XT-SW Part #: 28385-9 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Data Collection and Real-Time Processing The reported measured quantities are summarized in the table below. Quantity Units Source Epoch time Seconds GPS Latitude and longitude Degrees GPS Altitude m GPS Pressure hPa PTB210 Temperature (fast) deg C 109SS-L Temperature (slow) deg C HMP155 RH (slow) % HMP155 Vehicle speed m/s GPS Vehicle heading deg C-100 and GPS In addition to the measured variables, several derived variables are calculated. Corrected/fast relative humidity (%) Relative humidity is adjusted to the fast temperature following Richardson et al. (1998) and Houston et al. (2016). Water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) Dew point temperature (°C) Potential temperature (Kelvin) Virtual potential temperature (Kelvin) Equivalent potential temperature (Kelvin) Regular intercomparisons between all three CoMeTs were performed during TORUS 2019. Comparisons were also conducted between CoMeT-1 and CoMeT-2 during LAPSE-RATE (2018) on 14 July. In these intercomparisons, the vehicles were parked adjacent to each other aligned perpendicular to (and facing into) the wind. To minimize engine heating effects, intercomparisons were only conducted when the wind speed was >10 kts. Data Format Original data files for each deployment are saved as text files and then converted to NetCDF. NetCDF versions have units that are CF compliant and may not match the original units in the txt files. The naming convention for the NetCDF files is as follows: UNL.CoMeT3.{deployment date YYYYMMDD}.{start time of observation collection in UTC HHMM}.L2.{post-processing codes}.cdf example: UNL.CoMeT3.20190627.1931.L2.g1.f1.cdf Post-processing codes are included to track modifications to the raw data. These codes are closely connected to error flags associated with each record. Each letter corresponds to a particular instrument: g: GPS p: Barometer tf: Fast temperature ts: Slow temperature rh: Relative humidity f: Compass w: Wind monitor a: All instruments Each number corresponds to a particular post-processing action described more below. Measured and derived variables are included in the following table. Variable Heading Standard Name Units time Time seconds since 00:00:00, 01-01-1970 Alt Altitude meters lat Latitude degrees north lon Longitude degrees east fast_temp Air Temperature kelvin slow_temp Air Temperature kelvin pressure Air Pressure pascals logger_RH Relative Humidity percent calc_corr_RH Relative Humidity percent wind_speed Wind Speed meters per second wind_dir Wind From Direction degrees vehicle_dir Vehicle Direction degrees dewpoint Dew Point Temperature kelvin mixing_ratio Humidity Mixing Ratio g/g theta Air Potential Temperature kelvin theta_v Virtual Potential Temperature kelvin theta_e Equivalent Potential Temperature Kelvin error_flag The error_flag variable is a string that matches the post-processing codes listed above. All instruments will have an associated code, but will have a “0” if the datum is unchanged from the initial processed value. Error Codes The following table summarizes the error codes for data collected before 2020: Error Code Relevant CoMeT Description g1 1,2,3 Exact correction. GPS position and time reprocessed from raw data g2 1 As far as we can tell this is an exact correction to an error in the GPS time. During the correct time periods the time suddenly went backwards ~250s and stayed at this offset for 750s when it corrected itself. The offset was applied to the “time warp” period. p1 2 Approximate correction. Hole in the pressure tube connecting the pressure port to the barometer. Resulted in erroneously low air pressure measurements when the vehicle was in motion. Derived variables recalculated (dew point temperature [e depends on qv and p], water vapor mixing ratio, potential temperature, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) a1 3 Exact correction. Missing data reprocessed from raw data a2 1 Bug fix to bias correction for ts1, ts2, and rh1: water vapor mixing ratio was off by a factor of 10 and virtual potential temperature was wrong because of this. f1 3 No correction, missing data. Fluxgate compass inoperable. Wind speed and direction calculated using GPS-derived vehicle heading instead. rh1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.7% removed from relative humidity. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +0.6 K removed from slow temperature. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts2 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.0 K removed. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) References Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1046–1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1046:TCOEPT>2.0.CO;2. Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An Observational and Modeling Study of Mesoscale Air Masses with High Theta-E. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 2503–2524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.Wexler Houston, A. L., R. J. Laurence III, T. W. Nichols, S. Waugh, B. Argrow, and C. L. Ziegler, 2016: Intercomparison of unmanned aircraft-borne and mobile mesonet atmospheric sensors. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 33, 1569-1582, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0178.1. Lowe, P. R., 1977: An Approximating Polynomial for the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. J. Applied Meteorology, 16, 100–103. Richardson, S. J., S. E. Frederickson, F. V. Brock, and J. A. Brotzge, 1998: Combination temperature and relative humidity probes: Avoiding large air temperature errors and associated relative humidity errors. Preprints, 10th Symp. On Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 278–283. Waugh, S., and S. E. Frederickson, 2010: An improved aspirated temperature system for mobile meteorological observations, especially in severe weather. 25th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P5.2. [Available online at https://ams.confex.com/ams/25SLS/techprogram/paper_176205.htm.]

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

AGR 5/6/7 Data Qualification Report for ATR Cycles 162B through 168A

This report provides the qualification status of experimental data for the Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) 5/6/7 fuel irradiation. AGR-5/6/7 was conducted in the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) at Idaho National Laboratory (INL) in support of development and qualification of tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) low-enriched fuel for use in high temperature gas-cooled reactors. The objectives of the AGR-5/6/7 experiments are to: (i) irradiate reference-design fuel particles to support fuel qualification, (ii) establish operating margins for the fuel beyond normal operating conditions, and (iii) provide irradiated-fuel performance data and irradiated-fuel samples for post-irradiation examination (PIE) and safety testing. The test train contains five separate capsules that were independently controlled and monitored. Each capsule contains multiple 12.51-mm-long compacts filled with low enriched uranium carbide/oxide (UCO) TRISO fuel particles. The primary objective of the AGR-5/6 test (Capsules 1, 2, 4, and 5) is to verify successful performance of the reference-design fuel under normal operating conditions. The AGR-7 test (Capsule 3) was designed to explore fuel performance at higher temperatures to demonstrate the capability of the fuel to withstand conditions beyond normal operating conditions in support of plant design and licensing. AGR 5/6/7 will also provide irradiated-fuel performance data on fission-gas release from failed particles during irradiation. The AGR-5/6/7 capsules were irradiated in the ATR northeast flux trap location. The experiment began on February 16, 2018 and ended on July 22, 2020, spanning nine ATR cycles over two and a half years. Thus, the AGR-5/6/7 fuel compacts were irradiated for a total of 360.9 effective full power days. The AGR 5/6/7 experiment was able to remain in the reactor core during all three Powered Axial Locator Mechanism (PALM) cycles (163A, 165A, and 167A) without overheating its fuel compacts. This report includes irradiation monitoring data from nine ATR Cycles: 162B, 163A, 164A, 164B, 165A, 166A, 166B, 167A, and 168A, as stored in the Nuclear Data Management and Analysis System (NDMAS). During irradiation, data records consisted of instantaneous measurements recorded every minute and provided by text files automatically every 2 hours. The AGR 5/6/7 data streams addressed in this report include thermocouple (TC) temperatures, sweep gas data (flow rates [capsule inlet, outlet, and downstream at detector], pressure, and moisture content), and Fission Product Monitoring System (FPMS) data (release rates and release to birth rate ratios [R/Bs]) for each of the five capsules. A total of 94,989,908 TC temperature and sweep gas data records were received and processed by NDMAS for AGR 5/6/7 irradiation. Of these records, 41,593,387 (or 43.7% of the total) met data collection and accuracy requirements and are labeled as Qualified. A total of 57,746,693 TC temperature readings were captured from 54 installed TCs. Among them, 10,034,676 TC temperature records (only 17.4%) were Qualified and 47,701,371 TC temperatures (or 82.6%) are Failed due to 48 TC failures (63.5%) and due to missing values (19.1%). To assess performance of the operational TCs, analysis of daily correlations between TCs found no evidence of virtual junction failure for any TCs. Analyses on control charts of TC temperature differences revealed trending in TC readings for TC2, 4, 5, and 13 in Capsule 3, but there is no conclusive indication of TC drift failure that caused those trends. Therefore, TC control charts are not used to disqualify TC data, but only for users’ consideration. For sweep gas flow rates, a total of 31,519,747 gas flow records (84.4%) are Qualified for use for AGR-5/6/7 experiment; 5,723,468 gas flow records (15.4%) are Failed due mostly to missing values; and 74,641 high sweep gas flow rates (0.2 %) are Trend. A large number of Failed missing TC temperature and gas flow values were caused by an error in the data output script that outputted a ‘NULL’ value when values were unchanged. This problem was fixed during the outage of Cycle 166B, which led to a substantially decreased number of missing values during the last three cycles. Nonetheless, a large amount of non-missing data remained because of the high data acquisition frequency (1-minute) and still provided sufficient data to effectively monitor the experiment as designed. For FPMS data, NDMAS received and processed fission product release and R/B data for nine ATR cycles, when ATR core reached full power during AGR 5/6/7 irradiation. These data consist of 110,388 release rate records and 110,388 R/B records for the twelve radionuclides (Kr 85m, Kr 87, Kr 88, Kr 89, Kr 90, Xe 131m, Xe 133, Xe 135, Xe 135m, Xe 137, Xe 138, and Xe 139) for each of the five capsules. Equivalent numbers of uncertainty records associated the release rates and R/B values were provided. To date, qualification status of the FPMS data stored in the NDMAS dat

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Terrain-Influenced Winds and Fire-Fire Interactions in Wildland Fire Simulations [Dissertation]

Ensemble-based approaches to prescribed fire planning cannot be supported by computational fluid dynamics based models like FIRETEC and the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Dynamics Simulator (WFDS) because they are too computationally expensive and cannot leverage large eddy simulation approaches like CAWFE and WRF-SFIRE because they have too coarse of resolution. QUIC-Fire was developed to fill this gap but it cannot currently address complex terrain, that is typical for instance in the Western United States. This dissertation describes a variety of improvements made to QUIC-Fire and its various incorporated algorithms in an effort to make it a viable tool in simulating wildland and prescribed fires on terrain. The modifications made to QUIC-Fire are described in three chapters. The first chapter describes the extension of the diagnostic wind model QUIC-URB, the wind engine of QUIC-Fire, to a terrain-following coordinate system. The terraininfluenced winds it generates are analyzed and compared. In particular, this chapter presents the mathematical derivation of the wind solver leading to a linear system of equations that are solved through the successive over-relaxation method. The model is validated against a standard test used in previous works (the Askervein Hill) and against a new dataset from measurements in the Socorro Mountains, New Mexico. The terrain-following implementation captures the correct phenomenology for the isolated Askervein Hill, with a wind speed up at the top of the hill. The model agrees well with measurements on the upwind side of the peak, but overestimates speed-up on the downwind side of the hill. This is due to the inability of the model to generate flow separation and wake-eddy dynamics. On a common laptop, the divergence-free wind field is obtained in 6 s, making the solver appealing for coupled fire-atmosphere simulations. The Socorro Mountain is highly complex, with many cliff faces, peaks, and valleys. Although the model captures the magnitude and direction of inlet and outlet areas of the domain, it performs rather poorly in the valley region and in the regions near the steep cliffs. Hence, the model shows good agreement with data in areas of open sloped terrain but lacks in areas where flow separation and thermally driven effects may be present (neither effect is addressed in this work). In the second chapter the implementation of the terrain-following version of QUIC-URB into QUIC-Fire, and the necessary changes needed to include terrain are described. No changes to the underlying fire spread algorithm are made other than what is required to correctly account for the inclusion of terrain. Previously published FIRETEC results that use five different topographies that share the same centerline profile are compared to simulation results from the modified QUIC-Fire that use the same topographies and fuels. QUIC-Fire results show overall similar behaviors in terms of how the topographies affect fire shapes and trends in spread rates. Due to the terrain-following version of QUIC-URB being unable to generate flow separations at the crest of hills, fire spread rates in these regions across all topographies are over-predicted when compared to FIRETEC. Lateral fire growth shows similar trends with FIRETEC between topographies but does not capture the increase in spread due to a diagonal interface between grassland and forested fuel region of the domain. These results suggest that there are three algorithms within QUIC-Fire that could use improvement: how flame tilt angle is accounted for, the incorporation of non-local drag effects, and the inclusion of the wake-eddy parameterizations that are used in QUIC-URB. Lastly, the third chapter describes a modification to the initial guess used for the calculation of the QUIC-URB mass-conserved wind solution during fire simulations. The modification is aimed at improving fire-fire interactions in QUIC-Fire simulations. The modification consists of using the solution from the previous timestep as the starting point for the calculation of the solution for the next timestep. Fire-fire interactions is greatly improved by the change but a new source of error is introduced. Due to how plumes are modelled in QUIC-Fire the new solution contains errors where gaps in the plume structure are present. However, these errors are mostly limited to the upper atmosphere, where they do not affect fire behavior at the surface, and their magnitude isn’t significant enough to discount the amount of new fire phenomenology now captured in QUIC-Fire with the change.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Beam dynamics corrections in the measurement of the anomalous precession frequency at the Muon $g-2$ experiment at Fermilab

The Muon $g-2$ experiment at Fermilab (E989) aims to measure the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon with an accuracy of 140 ppb (parts per billions). This accuracy, obtained by adding in quadrature a statistical and a systematic contribution of comparable value (100 ppb), will allow to reduce the experimental uncertainty (from the previous E821 experiment at BNL \cite{bnl}) of a factor of 4, and represents one of the most precise tests of the Standard Model (SM) theory of elementary particles. The first result on the Run-1 dataset \cite{prl} was released on April 7, 2021, showing a very good agreement with the previous result from BNL experiment, with a slightly better uncertainty. The corresponding experimental average increases the significance of the discrepancy between the measured and Standard Model prediction of 4.2$\sigma$ \cite{white_paper}.\\ \noindent The measured quantity is the muon magnetic anomaly a$_\mu$=$\frac{g_\mu-2}{2}$ where g$_\mu$ is the gyromagnetic factor of the muon. Dirac's equation predicts g$_\mu$ = 2, while radiative corrections, dominated by the QED contribution due to an exchange of a virtual photon, causes a per-mille correction on this quantity. By including all the SM contributions, a$_\mu$ is known at 370 ppb. The E989 experiment measures $a_\mu$ injecting positive muons with momentum of 3.1 GeV/$c$ polarized longitudinally in bunches (called $fills$) with an average rate of 12 Hz, in a storage ring of 14 meters diameter. Due to the parity violation in the weak muon decay, high energy positrons produced are emitted preferably in the muon's spin direction. By counting the number of positrons with energy greater then 1.7 GeV in function of the time, the frequency precession of the muon spin is measured, that together with the measurement of the magnetic field, allows to extract $a_\mu$. The positrons are detected with 24 electromagnetic calorimeters, that measure the energy and the arrival time of the positrons, each made of 54 crystals of lead fluoride (PbF$_2$) read by silicon photomultipliers (SiPM). Together with calorimeters, two tracking detectors are used to make non-destructive measurements of the muon beam characteristic by reconstructing the muon decay position extrapolating backward the decay positrons. The knowledge of the beam motion inside the ring plays a fundamental role in the analysis of $a_{\mu}$, where the measured anomalous precession frequency $\omega_a$ must be corrected for four main beam dynamics effects. A first correction is associated with the presence of an electric field responsible of the vertical focusing on the storage ring, where vertical direction is orthogonal to the orbit and horizontal direction is along the storage ring radius. Due to the oscillations in the vertical direction, the so called vertical betatron oscillations, a second correction is necessary to account for an average angle associated with the muon motion off the ideal orbit. A third correction is caused by lost muons in the ring which have a different spin phase at the injection respect to the decay ones. Finally, due to the correlation between the vertical and horizontal beam motion of the muons and the acceptance of the calorimeter, a correction (called ``phase-acceptance") arises. In Run1, due to the presence of two damaged resistors in one electrostatic quadrupole, this correction had a prominent role. The replacement of the damaged resistors before Run2 decreased this effect by one order of magnitude, and a further reduction in Run-3 was provided by an improved orbit.\\ \noindent The work of this Thesis focuses on the beam dynamics corrections on $\omega_a$. Due to the prominent role in Run-1 a special attention has been put to the phase-acceptance correction\footnote{The effect of this correction on the E821 BNL measurement of the $g-2$ has been evaluated to be within the quoted systematic error.}. Chapter \ref{ch:anomalous_magnetic_moment} introduces the anomalous magnetic moment of the muon. Chapter \ref{ch:early_experiment} describes the history of the Muon $g-2$ experiments. Chapter \ref{ch:theory} discusses the Standard Model prediction and possible new physics scenario. Chapter \ref{ch:muon_g2_experiment} describes the E989 experiment, whose experimental technique and the apparatus are discussed focusing on the improvements needed to reach the final goal on $a_\mu$ measurement. The original work of the Thesis is discussed in the last 5 chapters. Chapter \ref{ch:experiment_technique} presents the analysis technique to extract $\omega_a$, Chapter \ref{ch:beam_dynamics} describes the beam dynamics in the E989 experiment, Chapter \ref{ch:beam_dynamics_correction} discusses the beam dynamics correction to $\omega_a$, and Chapter \ref{sec:pa_corr} focuses on the phase acceptance correction. Finally Chapter \ref{ch:run23_analysis_improvements} contains the Run-2/3 improvements which are expected to allow for an increased precision ons the beam dynamics co...

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2021

Subsurface Characterization and Machine Learning Predictions at Brady Hot Springs Results

Geothermal power plants typically show decreasing heat and power production rates over time. Mitigation strategies include optimizing the management of existing wells - increasing or decreasing the fluid flow rates across the wells - and drilling new wells at appropriate locations. The latter is expensive, time-consuming, and subject to many engineering constraints, but the former is a viable mechanism for periodic adjustment of the available fluid allocations. Data and supporting literature from a study describing a new approach combining reservoir modeling and machine learning to produce models that enable strategies for the mitigation of decreased heat and power production rates over time for geothermal power plants. The computational approach used enables translation of sets of potential flow rates for the active wells into reservoir-wide estimates of produced energy and discovery of optimal flow allocations among the studied sets. In our computational experiments, we utilize collections of simulations for a specific reservoir (which capture subsurface characterization and realize history matching) along with machine learning models that predict temperature and pressure timeseries for production wells. We evaluate this approach using an "open-source" reservoir we have constructed that captures many of the characteristics of Brady Hot Springs, a commercially operational geothermal field in Nevada, USA. Selected results from a reservoir model of Brady Hot Springs itself are presented to show successful application to an existing system. In both cases, energy predictions prove to be highly accurate: all observed prediction errors do not exceed 3.68% for temperatures and 4.75% for pressures. In a cumulative energy estimation, we observe prediction errors that are less than 4.04%. A typical reservoir simulation for Brady Hot Springs completes in approximately 4 hours, whereas our machine learning models yield accurate 20-year predictions for temperatures, pressures, and produced energy in 0.9 seconds. This paper aims to demonstrate how the models and techniques from our study can be applied to achieve rapid exploration of controlled parameters and optimization of other geothermal reservoirs. Includes a synthetic, yet realistic, model of a geothermal reservoir, referred to as open-source reservoir (OSR). OSR is a 10-well (4 injection wells and 6 production wells) system that resembles Brady Hot Springs (a commercially operational geothermal field in Nevada, USA) at a high level but has a number of sufficiently modified characteristics (which renders any possible similarity between specific characteristics like temperatures and pressures as purely random). We study OSR through CMG simulations with a wide range of flow allocation scenarios. Includes a dataset with 101 simulated scenarios that cover the period of time between 2020 and 2040 and a link to the published paper about this project, where we focus on the Machine Learning work for predicting OSR's energy production based on the simulation data, as well as a link to the GitHub repository where we have published the code we have developed (please refer to the repository's readme file to see instructions on how to run the code). Additional links are included to associated work led by the USGS to identify geologic factors associated with well productivity in geothermal fields. Below are the high-level steps for applying the same modeling + ML process to other geothermal reservoirs: 1. Develop a geologic model of the geothermal field. The location of faults, upflow zones, aquifers, etc. need to be accounted for as accurately as possible 2. The geologic model needs to be converted to a reservoir model that can be used in a reservoir simulator, such as, for instance, CMG STARS, TETRAD, or FALCON 3. Using native state modeling, the initial temperature and pressure distributions are evaluated, and they become the initial conditions for dynamic reservoir simulations 4....

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

Artificial intelligence models, photos, and data associated with the manuscript “Quantifying Streambed Grain Size, Uncertainty, and Hydrobiogeochemical Parameters Using Machine Learning Model YOLO” (v2)

This data package is associated with the manuscript “Quantifying Streambed Grain Size, Uncertainty, and Hydrobiogeochemical Parameters Using Machine Learning Model YOLO” published in Water Resources Research (Chen et al., 2024). This data package includes the training, validation, testing, and prediction data used by the artificial intelligence (AI) model for automated grain size and hydro-biogeochemistry quantification using streambed photos. The grain size data are extracted for each photo using You Look Only Once (YOLO), a pre-trained object detection model. This data package was originally published in October 2023. It was updated August 2025 (v2; new and modified files). File and folder names were not revised to indicate changes. See the change history section in the readme for more details. Please see flmd.csv for a list of all files contained in this data package and descriptions for each. Please see dd.csv for a data dictionary that defines the column headers of .csv files in the data package. This dataset is comprised of one data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) readme; and (4) six subfolders. Subfolders 1 to 4 include the training, validation, testing, and prediction data. Subfolder 5_Summary includes the summary results of different combinations of training, validation, testing, and prediction data. Subfolder 6_SupplementalData includes additional data downloaded from public sources (Kaufman et al., 2023a; Kaufman et al., 2023b; Garefalakis et al., 2023; Mair et al., 2024; https://github.com/river-corridors-sfa/Geospatial_variables). In total, the data package includes 110 folders and 44,283 files. These files include 9,047 .jpg photos, 1 .png photo, 3 .tif photos; 26,639 photo labels and individual grain sizes and probability from AI (.txt); 8,447 grain size distribution data (.dat); and 126 CSV files for results summary, and 14 required metadata files (.xlsx). The summary CSV files contain 68 columns and approximately 2,200 rows that represent photo names, site locations, recording time, GPS coordinates, grains sizes (D10, D50, D60, and D84), number of grains, and additional hydro-biogeochemical data such as water depth, flow velocity, Manning’s coefficient, friction factor, hydraulic conductivity, permeability, streambed interstitial velocity magnitude, mass transfer rate, and nitrate uptake velocity. The photos were obtained from 75 sites in the Yakima River Basin and the Columbia River shorelines, and other associated data from samples and sensors obtained when the photos were taken are publicly available (Fulton et al. 2022; Grieger et al. 2023). All files are .csv, .txt, .dat, .jpg, or .pdf. We acknowledge the Yakama Nation as owners and caretakers of the lands where we collected some of these data. We thank the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate sample collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗