SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “pore scale flow”

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.

223 records · Page 13

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2023

Pore-resolved investigation of turbulent open channel flow over a randomly packed permeable sediment bed

Pore-resolved direct numerical simulations are performed to investigate the interactions between streamflow turbulence and groundwater flow through a randomly packed porous sediment bed for three permeability Reynolds numbers, Re K = 2.56 , 5.17 and 8.94, representative of natural stream or river systems. Time–space averaging is used to quantify the Reynolds stress, form-induced stress, mean flow and shear penetration depths, and mixing length at the sediment–water interface (SWI). Here, the mean flow and shear penetration depths increase with Re K and are found to be nonlinear functions of non-dimensional permeability. The peaks and significant values of the Reynolds stresses, form-induced stresses, and pressure variations are shown to occur in the top layer of the bed, which is also confirmed by conducting simulations of just the top layer as roughness elements over an impermeable wall. The probability distribution functions (p.d.f.s) of normalized local bed stress are found to collapse for all Reynolds numbers, and their root-mean-square fluctuations are assumed to follow logarithmic correlations. The fluctuations in local bed stress and resultant drag and lift forces on sediment grains are mainly a result of the top layer; their p.d.f.s are symmetric with heavy tails, and can be well represented by a non-Gaussian model fit. The bed stress statistics and the pressure data at the SWI potentially can be used in providing better boundary conditions in modelling of incipient motion and reach-scale transport in the hyporheic zone.

turbulence simulation↗

NASA NTRS2005

Making Macroscopic Assemblies of Aligned Carbon Nanotubes

A method of aligning and assembling single-wall carbon nanotubes (SWNTs) to fabricate macroscopic structures has been invented. The method entails suspending SWNTs in a fluid, orienting the SWNTs by use of a magnetic and/or electric field, and then removing the aligned SWNTs from suspension in such a way as to assemble them while maintaining the alignment. SWNTs are essentially tubular extensions of fullerene molecules. It is desirable to assemble aligned SWNTs into macroscopic structures because the common alignment of the SWNTs in such a structure makes it possible to exploit, on a macroscopic scale, the unique mechanical, chemical, and electrical properties that individual oriented SWNTs exhibit at the molecular level. Because of their small size and high electrical conductivity, carbon nanotubes, and especially SWNTs, are useful for making electrical connectors in integrated circuits. Carbon nanotubes can be used as antennas at optical frequencies, and as probes in scanning tunneling microscopes, atomic-force microscopes, and the like. Carbon nanotubes can be used with or instead of carbon black in tires. Carbon nanotubes are useful as supports for catalysts. Ropes of SWNTs are metallic and, as such, are potentially useful in some applications in which electrical conductors are needed - for example, they could be used as additives in formulating electrically conductive paints. Finally, macroscopic assemblies of aligned SWNTs can serve as templates for the growth of more and larger structures of the same type. The great variety of tubular fullerene molecules and of the structures that could be formed by assembling them in various ways precludes a complete description of the present method within the limits of this article. It must suffice to present a typical example of the use of one of many possible variants of the method to form a membrane comprising SWNTs aligned substantially parallel to each other in the membrane plane. The apparatus used in this variant of the method (see figure) includes a reservoir containing SWNTs dispersed in a suspending agent (for example, dimethylformamide) and a reservoir containing a suitable solvent (for example, water mixed with a surfactant). By use of either pressurized gas supplied from upstream or suction from downstream, the suspension of SWNTs and the solvent are forced to mix and flow into a tank. A filter inside the tank contains pores small enough to prevent the passage of most SWNTs, but large enough to allow the passage of molecules of the solvent and suspending agent. The filter is oriented perpendicular to the flow path. A magnetic field parallel to the plane of the filter is applied. The success of the method is based on the tendency of SWNTs to become aligned with their longitudinal axes parallel to an applied magnetic field. The alignment energy of an SWNT increases with the length of the SWNT and the magnetic-field strength. In order to obtain an acceptably small degree of statistical deviation of SWNTs of a given length from alignment with a magnetic field, one must make the field strong enough so that the thermal energy associated with rotation of an SWNT away from alignment is less than the alignment energy.

Smalley, Richard E.↗

DOE OSTI2020

The Influence of Aqueous Dispersivity on Transport of Radiological Material at LANL MDA G - 20450

Aqueous dispersivity is a phenomenon by which a solute moving in groundwater mixes with water that does not contain the solute and becomes diluted. Solutes take paths of varying lengths through pore networks or experience slower velocities due to interactions with pore walls. Aqueous dispersivity leads to breakthrough curves with earlier arrival than expected in purely advective systems and persistent 'tails,' or late-arriving, dilute concentrations of the solute. Dispersivity can be longitudinal (in the direction of flow) or transverse (orthogonal to flow). LANL has disposed of radioactive material at Material Disposal Area (MDA) G since the late 1950's. Most of the disposed materials at MDA G are low-level waste (LLW), but other types of radioactive wastes are disposed or stored at the site. For example, there is a collection of remote-handled transuranic waste (RH-TRU) waste in 33 shafts, which were intended to be stored retrievably. Aqueous-phase radionuclides included in models of contaminant transport at MDA G are subject to dispersive processes in porous media of the vadose zone and saturated zone. To model dispersivity at MDA G probabilistically, we created site-specific distributions of aqueous dispersivity. First, we performed a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed publications, reports from other performance assessments of MDA G, and documentation from sites that were considered similar based on expert opinion, such as Yucca Mountain. Data were included from a wide range of sources, so that distributions developed based on the data reflect the current state of knowledge in properties of the subsurface environment. Data were grouped based on value type (e.g., determined via experiment or used in a different model), rock type, zone type (saturated or unsaturated), and site, and were weighted in the distributions according to their relevance to the site and zone type. We combined Monte Carlo simulation and bootstrapping techniques to produce approximate distributions of mean aqueous dispersivity. Distributions of dispersivity for saturated and unsaturated zone transport are differentiated by data weight and the length scales over which transport occurs. We find that underestimating or disregarding transverse dispersivity may lead to overstating simulated well capture in the saturated zone at MDA G. Neglecting transverse dispersivity is a common assumption due in part to use of one-dimensional transport models that do not consider solute spreading orthogonal to flow. Also, we find that variability in longitudinal dispersivity is associated with substantial travel time alterations in the MDA G unsaturated zone and in simulated contaminant breakthrough times at a downstream observation plane in the MDA G saturated zone. Finally, at large scales (>1000 m), a linear trend between the dispersivity coefficient and length over which transport occurs may overestimate the dispersivity coefficient. Future modeling work with application to solute spreading could include interacting advective and diffusive zones in the highly fractured basalt below MDA G. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2021

Striving to translate shale physics across ten orders of magnitude: What have we learned?

Shales will play an important role in the successful transition of energy from fossil-based resources to renewables in the coming decades. Aside from being a significant source of low-carbon intensity fuels, like natural gas, they also serve as geologic seals of subsurface formations that may be used to isolate nuclear waste, sequester CO 2 , or store intermittent energy (e.g., solar hydrogen). Despite their importance, shales pose significant engineering and environmental challenges due to their nanoporous structure and extreme heterogeneity that spans at least ~10 orders of magnitude in spatial scale. Two challenges inhibit a system-level understanding: (1) the physics of fluid flow and phase behavior in shales are poorly understood due to the dominant molecular interactions between minerals and fluids under confinement, and (2) the apparent lack of scale separation that prevents a reliable (closed) description of the physics at any single scale of observation. In this review, we focus on the latter issue and discuss scale translation, which in its broadest sense is transforming data or simulations from one spatiotemporal scale to another. While effective scale translation is not exclusive to shales, but all geologic porous media, the need for it is especially acute in shales given their high degree of heterogeneity. Classical theories like homogenization, while indispensable, fail when scales are not separated. Other methods, like numerical upscaling, scale-translate in only one direction: small to large, but not the reverse, called downscaling. However, the confluence of advances in three areas are bringing challenging problems such as shales within reach: increased computational power and scalable algorithms; high-resolution imaging and multi-modal data acquisition; and machine learning to process massive amounts of data. While these advances equip geoscientists with a wide array of experimental and computational tools, no individual tool can probe the entire gamut of heterogeneity in shales. Their effective use, therefore, requires an ability to bridge between various data types obtained at different scales. The aim of this review is to present a coherent account of computational and experimental methods that may be used to achieve just that, i.e., to perform scale translation. We provide a broader definition of scale translation, one that transcends classical homogenization and upscaling methods, but is consistent with them and accommodates notions like downscaling and data translation. After a brief introduction to homogenization, we review hybrid methods, numerical upscaling and its recent extensions, multiscale computing, high-resolution imaging, and machine learning. We place particular emphasis on multiscale computing and propose an algorithmic framework to bridge between the pore (micro) and Darcy (macro) scales. Throughout the paper, we draw comparisons between the various methods and highlight their (often hidden) similarities, differences, benefits, and pitfalls. We finally conclude with two case studies on shales that exemplify some of the methods presented.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Ammonia Permeation Through Inorganic Membranes

Moisture probes are used in the tritium facility to measure the moisture content of the gas stream. When tritium reacts with nitrogen to form ammonia, the ammonia gas damages the sensitive moisture probe. The gas stream tested during this experiment for moisture probe protection is composed of nitrogen and argon gas in conjunction with ammonia and water vapor. The gas stream is filtered through an inorganic membrane due to the high reactivity of tritium and a residual gas analyzer (RGA) is used to measure the ammonia and water vapor in the gas stream, as well as the permeability of nitrogen and argon through the inorganic membranes. The membranes tested were boron nitride and silver. The permeability was compared for each membrane at different pressures and flow rates. Fourier-transformed infrared spectroscopy (FT-IR) was used to compare the membranes before and after ammonia permeation. Ammonia gas is a byproduct formed from tritium gas reacting with nitrogen in the gas stream, similar to the Haber Process which occurs when hydrogen reacts with nitrogen [2]. The corrosive nature of ammonia damages metals and sensitive instruments such as moisture probes. Moisture probes are essential in various gas and liquid processes for measuring the moisture content of a gas. Membrane research has found that graphene oxide membranes successfully uptake ammonia from the gas stream at a humidity of approximately 30% at which point the pores pin closed, preventing gas permeation. Further research is being conducted to find an inorganic membrane that will prevent ammonia permeation thus circumventing damage to the sensitive moisture probe. The permeation measurements for argon and nitrogen gas and water and ammonia vapor were measured at various pressures of 800, 1000, 1200, 1500, 1800, and 2000 torr. The permeability average (PA) was calculated for each filter using a Barrer calculation. The average permeations for each filter were then compared. The gas composition was measured using the RGA Nitrogen was permeated through the membranes after ammonia permeation and a FT-IR spectrum was obtained. Boron Nitride: As the nitrogen pressure increased, the permeability of the membrane decreased from 800-1200 torr and remained relatively unchanged from 1200-2000 torr. The membrane exhibited a slight decrease in argon permeability from 800-1200 torr and a slight increase from 1500-2000 torr. The boron nitride membrane when permeated with ammonia and nitrogen prevented less ammonia permeation compared to the blank filter. The boron nitride filter demonstrated a decrease in permeability after ammonia permeation. Silver Membrane: When permeated with nitrogen alone, the membrane permeability decreased from 800 torr to 1200 torr. The permeability of the membrane showed little difference as pressure increased from 1200 torr. When permeated with argon, the same phenomenon occurred but on a much smaller scale. When compared to the blank and the boron nitride membranes the silver membrane exhibited significantly lower permeability. This may be in part due to the coating on the silver membrane and differences in pore size of the membranes. During permeation with ammonium hydroxide vapor and nitrogen, the partial pressure of the ammonia increased as compared to the blank membrane. The permeability before and after permeation with ammonia and nitrogen were compared. Permeability values suggested that after being permeated with the ammonia that the permeability for lower pressures increased slightly. There was no significant change in the FT-IR spectrums before and after permeation. Future work: Continue testing various inorganic membranes for ammonia permeation. Further research chemical separation of ammonia from the gas stream, which may prove difficult due to the high reactivity of tritium.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

DOE OSTI2024

HERO CarbonSAFE Phase 2 Project in the Columbia River Basalt Group

The Hermiston, Oregon Basalt CarbonSAFE Phase II project (HERO CarbonSAFE) seeks to accelerate the deployment of commercial carbon dioxide (CO2) storage projects in basaltic rocks. Basalt CO2 storage has several advantages to conventional saline storage reservoirs including 1. The potential for rapid mineralization of CO2, 2. Associated decreases in pressure and CO2 migration risks, 3. Reduced long-term monitoring requirements with respect to plume tracking, 4. Widespread geographic distribution and, 5. Large storage potential due to thickness, porosity, and CO2 interactions with basalt. And for locations such as the Pacific Northwest, Hawaii, Iceland, India and Japan, basalts may offer the only economically feasible option for local CO2 storage. However, there are limited field-scale assessments of CO2 storage in basalt, and current carbon capture utilization and storage (CCUS) permitting and regulatory frameworks were developed for conventional saline reservoirs. HERO CarbonSAFE is designed to address research gaps and uncertainties associated with basalt storage. Specifically, the project will assess the feasibility of CO2 injection in the deep layered basalts, long-term storage (mineralization), practical approaches for large-scale implementation (50+ million metric tons of CO2 over 30 years), lithology-specific risks, and the technoeconomic potential for CO2 storage in basalts. The HERO CarbonSAFE project will assess feasibility of developing a commercial-scale (50+ million metric tons of CO2) geological storage complex within the Columbia River Basalt Group (CRBG), a layered continental flood basalt complex that underlies Calpine’s natural gas-fired Hermiston Power Project (HPP) in Hermiston, OR (Figure 1). Under this 2-year CarbonSAFE Phase II project, the HERO team will conduct a data acquisition campaign that includes drilling a stratigraphic well to a total depth of ~1,500 m into the thick layered basalts proximal to HPP. A comprehensive well logging and hydrologic testing program will be augmented with new core collected from flow zones and sealing units, and comprehensive laboratory testing to help refine the kinetic rates of mineralization. The newly acquired information will be integrated with existing data from regional wells to correlate basalt injection zone properties to develop storage hub/commercial-scale models. Using these models, the project team will evaluate injection scenarios to define the technical and economic potential for storing a minimum of 50 million metric tons of CO2 over a 30-year period, along with a robust sensitivity analysis on key parameters governing reservoir viability for sustainable injection over a commercial project lifetime. Specific technical objectives of HERO are: (1) assessing the reservoir response of a series of stacked layered reservoir flowtop sequences occurring in this area of the CRBG to commercial-scale injection volumes; (2) extending prior efforts by the project team to characterize the deep layered basalts encountered in regional studies, to leverage prior investments by U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Carbon Storage program; (3) leveraging DOE’s mineralization characterization efforts to advance model parametrization for commercial scale injection of CO2 in basalts; (4) conducting risk assessments associated with scaling up to commercial storage hub injection goals, while validating DOE’s National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) tools, to identify potential constraints that would prevent the CRBG from serving as a commercial-scale storage complex; (5) developing mitigation plans to address identified risks; (6) developing a commercial-scale injection and monitoring, verification and accounting (MVA) strategy; (7) utilizing computational models to define and minimize, if possible, the Area of Review (AoR) under Class VI regulations; and (8) developing a robust CO2 management strategy for CRBG that also considers a regional source/sink approach that is responsive to stakeholder needs and industrial demand. Specific institutional objectives are: (1) identifying and developing plans to mitigate the nontechnical challenges associated with the build-out of a commercial-scale storage complex within the CRBG with integrated CO2 sources; (2) implementing the community outreach plan; (3) conducting regulatory research, including a survey of issues related to pore space ownership, MVA and long-term assurance of mineralization-based storage, to support an eventual application for a UIC Class VI permit; (4) advancing the project’s plan for CO2 liability management; and (5) continuing to refine and update the project’s economic model. The final objective is the preparation of a comprehensive Site Characterization Plan that draws upon the technical and institutional feasibility assessments to prepare the project for future commercialization efforts.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗