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 quick-reference sheet provides a list of funding programs for the solid waste and wastewater sectors available at the national state levels. These funding programs are related to existing infrastructure improvements, as well as the development of new energy efficiency and renewable energy systems (including waste-to-energy).
The authors were tasked with writing a concise memo (now a short report) that adequately addresses the current ``state-of-the-art'' in the field of reactive flow modeling and burn models for mid-year 2025, along with identifying some of the modeling gaps. It is assumed that the reader has experience with burn models and running hydrocode simulations, and thus every effort is made to ensure brevity, clarity, and utility, so that this document will serve as a quick and useful reference. Note that “mid-year” was used in the title, as it is possible that advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) may significantly impact the field before the year is over.
Little is known about the structure of tropical forests despite its critical role in the provisioning of ecosystem services. Here we assess the vertical structure of forests in the Brazilian Amazon with a large-scale airborne LiDAR dataset. We show that fire has greater impact in the lowest forest strata, differently from selective logging and windthrow. We also find that secondary forests quickly recover or even exceed reference areas at the 1-10 m height stratum but that full recovery for the 20-30 m height stratum has not been achieved even after 35 years. Our modeling results suggest that proximity to roads, elevation, precipitation, soil pH, and proportion of sand in the soil are the most important predictors of forest structure. Finally, we identify 5 forest structural types (FSTs) and use them to visualize the spatial distribution of forest structure. This study provides important information for forest monitoring, management, and conservation.
Automated vehicle (AV) technology is quickly maturing, and the corresponding infrastructure systems that evaluate traffic and communicate to vehicles requires sophisticated sensing and perception technologies, referred to as intelligent roadway infrastructure (IRI), to complement emerging AV capabilities. IRI provides signals to vehicles, indicating right-of-way for vehicles and communicating to approaching AVs that no other vehicle is failing to yield. This capability, denoted as safety-affirmative signaling, provides a green light or a green arrow as appropriate and affirms through communication links to connected vehicles when it is safe to proceed. About 36% of collisions occur at intersections, with most occurring upon left turns (22.2%) or crossing over (12.6%), and only a small percentage (1.2%) while turning right at an intersection. Of all intersection crashes about half (52.5%) of those vehicles were traveling through a signalized intersection 2. Safety-affirmative signaling would guarantee safety of AV fleet vehicles, by providing the interlocking principle, a term from automated train control that only allows progression through a railway intersection after affirming no opportunity for a crash exists. IRI through safety-affirmative signaling would bring performance and safety to complex roadway intersections where AV transit fleet service is most needed, as well as safety benefits to traditional, non-automated vehicles and vulnerable road users. The implementation of IRI has functional, programmatic, and technical challenges. Research work performed at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in an integrative approach encapsulating these themes, and termed infrastructure perception and control (IPC) is motivated by improved performance (travel time), improved safety (reduced collisions), and improved energy efficiency (less fuel burned and minimized production of greenhouse gases). IPC is intended not only for roadway and intersection applications but also in extension to inform complementary buildings and grid systems to enable better co-management, as vehicles and their charging needs become increasingly integrated into the built environment. The NREL IPC project presents an open-source framework, architecture, and supporting technology to implement IRI, addressing critical issues such as fusion of data, reliability, standardization of data interfaces, and confidence of detection. The framework is informed by previous experience in U.S. Department of Defense research technology, specifically in the use of radar to detect, identify, and track aerial threats. These principles combined with multi-sensor fusion provides for a complete digital twin with known and measurable confidence and accuracy from which safety-affirmative signaling can be developed and deployed.
On Thursday, September 12 OpenAI released “a new series of models designed to spend more time thinking… they can reason through complex tasks and solve harder problems than previous models in science, coding, and math.” These models are referred to as o1-preview and o1-mini and appear to be first results of what had been a closely held project called Strawberry within OpenAI. The models are not described as successors in the earlier GPT series because they provide a qualitatively different type of capability, especially step-by-step reasoning.
Thousands of person years have been invested in searches for new physics (NP), the majority of them motivated by theoretical considerations. Yet, no evidence of beyond the Standard Model physics has been found. This suggests that model-agnostic searches might be an important key to explore NP, and help discover unexpected phenomena which can inspire future theoretical developments. A possible strategy for such searches is identifying asymmetries between data samples that are expected to be symmetric within the Standard Model. We propose exploiting neural networks (NNs) to quickly fit and statistically test the differences between two samples. Our method is based on an earlier work, originally designed for inferring the deviations of an observed dataset from that of a much larger reference dataset. We present a symmetric formalism, generalizing the original one, avoiding fine-tuning of the NN parameters and any constraints on the relative sizes of the samples. Our formalism could be used to detect small symmetry violations, extending the discovery potential of current and future particle physics experiments.
GridPIQ uses dozens of publicly available datasets to provide context for a user's grid project, as well as defaults for users to choose from. Users can choose to import their own data to better customize their analysis or use GridPIQ-supplied defaults. This allows users to get up and running with an analysis very quickly without having to spend significant time pulling together input data. To run an electric vehicle (EV) smart charging project, a user will need to provide or select from prepopulated values for the regional load profile shape and peak load, region of interest and closest weather station, EV charging profile, number of EVs to add for the analysis, maximum EV charging power, location of chargers relative to grid infrastructure, and allowable charging times (for coordinated charging mode). The outputs of the analysis are changes in air quality, EV energy consumption, EV peak demand, and EV hourly consumption profile—before and after project implementation." For a detailed description of the tool methodology, including all the publicly available datasets used by the tool, see the [GridPIQ documentation](https://gridpiq.pnnl.gov/v2-beta/doc/).
The project objective was to create a catalog of NDA capabilities so that as future challenges emerge, potential solutions can be quickly identified. The initial direction was to create a custom database where we would manually add various NDA technologies. During the year, LANL leadership heavily embraced AI tools and established LANL’s Enterprise ChatGPT license. To align with this vision, instead of a database we created a custom GPT to achieve the same capability. We provided a series of references on NDA technologies, the most comprehensive of which is the 2024 “PANDA manual” which is a 700-page textbook. A custom GPT is a semi-isolated version of OpenAI’s GPT model that can be tailored to specific tasks with context documents and instructions. Anyone with a LANL ChatGPT Enterprise account can access the NDA Catalog. Since the GPT exists on the green network, only non-sensitive questions may be asked. The Catalog can be used by simply asking questions in conversational English. We have found the Catalog to be quite accurate, even for heavily technical, complex queries. The Catalog allows the user to describe a measurement problem and it will respond with potential technology solutions.
Due to their widespread production and known environmental contamination, the need for the detection and remediation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) has grown quickly. While destructive thermal treatment of PFAS at low temperatures (e.g., 200 to 500oC) is of interest due to lower energy and infrastructure requirements, the range of possible degradation products remains underexplored. To better understand the low temperature decomposition of PFAS species, we have coupled gas-phase infrared spectroscopy with a multivariate curve resolution (MCR) analysis and a database of high-resolution PFAS infrared reference spectra to detect and quantify a complex mixture resulting from potassium perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS-K) decomposition. Nine prevalent decomposition products (namely smaller perfluorocarbon species) are identified and quantified.
Abstract Ontologies are widely used in databases to standardize data, improving data quality, integration, and ease of comparison. Within ontologies tailored to diverse use cases, post-composing user-defined terms reconciles the demands for standardization on the one hand and flexibility on the other. In many instances of Breedbase, a digital ecosystem for plant breeding designed for genomic selection, the goal is to capture phenotypic data using highly curated and rigorous crop ontologies, while adapting to the specific requirements of plant breeders to record data quickly and efficiently. For example, post-composing enables users to tailor ontology terms to suit specific and granular use cases such as repeated measurements on different plant parts and special sample preparation techniques. To achieve this, we have implemented a post-composing tool based on orthogonal ontologies providing users with the ability to introduce additional levels of phenotyping granularity tailored to unique experimental designs. Post-composed terms are designed to be reused by all breeding programs within a Breedbase instance but are not exported to the crop reference ontologies. Breedbase users can post-compose terms across various categories, such as plant anatomy, treatments, temporal events, and breeding cycles, and, as a result, generate highly specific terms for more accurate phenotyping.
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
In situ electrochemical Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy (ec-S/TEM) probes the dynamics of electrochemical processes in real time and at high spatial resolution. This method utilizes microfabricated electrochemical cells, with enclosed dimensions of 800 μm wide, 800 μm long, and 1–2 μm tall, with electron-transparent silicon nitride windows. Working, counter, and reference electrodes in the configuration studied are deposited Pt with a planar surface area of about 1 μm 2 and a height of 50 nm. The cell confines the electrolyte within a 1 μm tall channel, and the microfabricated electrodes have a non-standard geometry, are coplanar, and are not front-facing. As such, standard assumptions of electrochemical experiments do not apply. COMSOL modeling was used to compare and contrast differences in electrochemical behavior between conventional experimental setups and the in situ ec-S/TEM cells. Cell height strongly affected voltammogram measurements: peak magnitudes and shifts correlate directly to cell height. Reactant concentration above the electrode quickly decreases during deposition, leading to a planar diffusion-dominated regime. The concentration gradient prioritizes particle growth along the thin edges of the electrode and not on the planar part of the electrode. Experiments done in the ec-S/TEM ex situ of a TEM verify the model’s accuracy.
The framework developed in this study is provided both as an excel sheet (https://inl.gov/content/uploads/2023/11/Nuclear-Reactor-Cost-Reduction-Pathway-Spreadsheet-Tool.xlsx) and a Python (Jupyter) Notebook (link: https://github.com/accert-dev/ACCERT/tree/main/Cost%20Reduction). Capital cost considerations are one of the primary inhibitors to the large-scale deployment of nuclear power plants. While it is widely accepted that first units will likely be expensive and relatively uncompetitive, it is reasonable to expect that subsequent units, built in relative quick succession, will be cheaper as they benefit from the so-called “learning effects”. However, the large degree of uncertainty associated with this parameter renders it challenging for first movers to invest in the first few expensive units. To resolve this impasse, the U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Nuclear Liftoff study advocated for the formation of large, committed order books of plants of the same technology to spread the costs across several units and kickstart the nuclear supply chain. The study also advocated best practices for avoiding overruns and keeping reactors on budget. This report builds on these key recommendations by attempting to quantify specific pathways toward cost reduction for nuclear energy. A capital cost estimation framework was built to untangle the effect of learning into a subset of key cost drivers, referred to as “levers”. Collectively, the choice of these levers is intended to reflect the decision-making of high-level stakeholders like plant owners and the government. In addition to the size of the firm orderbook, these levers included (a) cost drivers that are most often attributed to cost overruns such as architect/engineering (A/E) proficiency, construction proficiency, procurement service proficiency, design completion prior to the start of construction, and design maturity, and (b) cost reduction strategies such as modular construction, cross-site standardization, safety classification of the reactor building, and of the balance of plant. Two advanced reactor designs were leveraged as use cases and bottom-up cost estimates made with assumptions consistent with a well-executed first-of-a-kind project (WE-FOAK, i.e., almost no overruns) were used as baselines for the models. Cost correlations were surveyed from the literature to determine the impact of important variables on projected timelines and costs.
Successfully manufacturing an automotive body structure made via the sheet metal stamping process depends upon simultaneous consideration of component design, tooling design, stamping process control, and material properties. In many cases, introducing lightweight sheet materials (e.g., aluminum alloys, magnesium alloys, advanced high strength steels) holds the potential to significantly reduce vehicle weight, but challenges the stamping process by introducing materials with inherently less ductility. Successful and repeatable applications require co-developing the stamping process controls with the varying material properties, including formability. During the stamping process, as soon as the forming limit of the sheet is exceeded, the material shows localized necking which quickly leads to splits. Controlling process variability to avoid these material splits will enable deployment of less formable, lighter, and stronger materials for stamped automotive components. A typical optimization procedure for manufacturing requires an iterative process involving parameter setting, execution of computational simulations, and modifying the parameters. The entire process demands substantial computational time, making it impractical for real-time feedback towards rapid corrective actions required for in-line control for running production processes. To overcome this challenge, artificial intelligence (AI) can be leveraged to determine optimal manufacturing parameters within a single manufacturing cycle time. This research proposes an in-line optimization framework incorporating a trained AI model to predict kidney-shaped die forming. Preliminary results indicate that the AI framework can accurately predict draw-in values based on a given parameter set, a process referred to as forward prediction. Furthermore, the AI framework can also predict the optimal parameter set that leads to the desired draw-in values, referred to as inverse optimization (or backward prediction). This research has been performed in collaborations with USCAR (US Council for Automotive Research) and AutoForm. The members of USCAR are Ford, GM, and Stellantis.
Multiobjective simulation optimization (MOSO) problems are optimization problems with multiple conflicting objectives, where evaluation of at least one of the objectives depends on a black-box numerical code or real-world experiment, which we refer to as a simulation. Whereas an extensive body of research is dedicated to developing new algorithms and methods for solving these and related problems, it is challenging and time-consuming to integrate these techniques into real-world production-ready solvers. This is partly because of the diversity and complexity of modern state-of-the-art MOSO algorithms and methods and partly because of the complexity and specificity of many real-world problems and their corresponding computing environments. The complexity of this problem is only compounded when introducing potentially complex and/or domain-specific surrogate-modeling techniques, problem formulations, design spaces, and data acquisition functions. Here, this paper carefully surveys the current state of the art in MOSO algorithms, techniques, and solvers, as well as problem types and computational environments where MOSO is commonly applied. We then present several key challenges in the design of a parallel multiobjective simulation optimization framework (ParMOO) and how they have been addressed. Finally, we provide two case studies demonstrating how customized ParMOO solvers can be quickly built and deployed to solve real-world MOSO problems.
Abstract Subcritical crack growth (SCG) plays an important role in many geological processes such as delayed earth rupture and rock weathering. The complex dependency of SCG on the in‐crack fluid chemistry, however, is still poorly understood. In this study, we utilize the newly developed surface force‐based fracture theory (SFFT) to elucidate the relative contributions of surface forces and solute transport to the crack growth kinetics of calcite in NaCl solutions. Expanding on Barenblatt's cohesive crack model, SFFT introduces an effective stress intensity at the crack tip that encompasses all the relevant intermolecular forces across the crack in addition to the external far‐field stresses. The nonlinear system of equations portraying the crack opening profile, the solute distribution in a propagating crack, and the crack growth velocity are numerically solved via an implicit scheme. After carefully calibrating the model for calcite‐water systems, the SFFT is used to predict the SCG response of calcite at different NaCl concentrations, based on various hypotheses. These predictions are then compared to existing SCG data from the literature. We demonstrate that the experimentally observed variation of SCG rate with NaCl concentration cannot be explained solely by DLVO forces (electrostatic and Van der Waals interactions). This can be remediated by introducing an exponentially decaying hydration force with a nonlinear, nonmonotonic dependence on NaCl concentration. Furthermore, we demonstrate that accounting for both diffusive and advective transport of ions is important in explaining the absence of a stage‐II SCG response for calcite in electrolyte solutions. Plain Language Summary Subcritical crack growth (SCG) refers to the slow propagation of cracks in materials under a stress below the threshold for catastrophic failure. SCG is a key process in many geological events, for example, delayed earth ruptures and rock weathering. New initiatives such as underground CO 2 and H 2 storage in carbonate reservoirs further call for better understanding of SCG in carbonate minerals subjected to varying fluid chemistry. This study examines the SCG of calcite, a key mineral found in carbonate rocks, intergranular cement in sandstones, and filling material in mineral veins and faults, determining their deformation and strength. A mathematical model is developed to describe how the crack opens and propagates, how solutes (like salts) distribute within the crack, and how the crack surfaces interact with each other. We used the model to predict calcite SCG in water at different salt concentrations and compared it with experimental data. Our results revealed that the hydration force is the dominating factor in determining the complex, non‐linear dependency of SCG on salinity. We also found that both the movement of ions by diffusion and by bulk water flow are crucial for explaining the SCG rates, especially when the cracks grow quickly. Key Points Surface Force‐Based Fracture Theory predicts the complex subcritical crack growth patterns of calcite crystals immersed in NaCl solutions Results highlight the dominant role of hydration forces in altering the fracture behavior of calcite compared to VdW and electric double‐layer forces Advective solute transport explains the absence of stages‐II and ‐III subcritical crack growth responses in solid‐liquid systems