Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “column generation”

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.

275 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

WHONDRS River Corridor Sediment and Water Geochemistry and In Situ Sensor Data from 7 Perennial and 7 Intermittent Streams across San Antonio, Texas (v3)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the effects of intermittency on sediment respiration. The dataset provides sediment and surface water geochemistry and in situ sensor data from 7 perennial and 7 intermittent streams in San Antonio, Texas. Each stream/site was visited both in summer during base flow (July-September 2023) and winter during peak flow (January-February 2024). Related data were collected and will be published separately in collaboration with A. Veach. The data package was originally published in April 2025. It was updated in June 2025 (v2; modified and new files) and September 2025 (v3; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of two folders of field photos and videos, one folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data and one main data folder containing (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) readme; (5) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; (6) field protocol; (7) a subfolder with sample data; and (8) a subfolder with sensor data. The sample data subfolder contains (1) surface water and sediment dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) surface water and sediment total nitrogen data and averages; (3) sediment grain size data; (4) sediment iron (II) data and averages; (5) wet sediment mass, dry sediment mass, water mass, and wet sediment volume in incubation and sediment ICR vials; (7) sediment incubation respiration rate data and averages; (8) normalized respiration rate data and averages; (9) methods codes; (10) sediment percent carbon and nitrogen; (11) sediment X-ray diffraction (XRD) data; (12) gravimetric moisture and averages; (13) a subfolder with sediment incubation respiration data, scripts, and plots; (14) surface water and sediment FTICR methods; and (15) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla (9.4T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains five subfolders, one containing the sediment .xml data files, one containing the water .xml files, one containing the sediment CoreMS output files, one containing the water CoreMS output files, and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS). The sensor data subfolder contains (1) a subfolder with miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature data and plots; (2) miniDOT dissolved oxygen and temperature summary data; and (3) miniDOT installation methods. All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .d, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mov, or .mp4. CORRECTION: The data processing methods for FTICR described in “v3_WHONDRS_AV1_Methods_Codes.csv” mistakenly indicate that users should process the data in Formultitude. The corrected description should read: “Both unprocessed and processed data are provided to allow users flexibility in data processing. Instructions and scripts for processing the data using CoreMS are included.” CORRECTION: Carbon and nitrogen content are reported as percentages. The current column headers "01395_C_percent_per_mg" and "01397_N_percent_per_mg" are incorrect. These should read "01395_C_percent" and "01397_N_percent" and will be corrected in the next version of this data package.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Gas-Liquid Flow Modeling for Renewable Fuels Production

Aerobic/anaerobic and gas fermentation pathways have emerged as promising new technologies for the generation of renewable fuels/chemicals from biomass derived sugars, and mixtures of greenhouse/energy rich gas streams (CO2/CH4/H2/CO) via microbial action. Example pathways include sugars-to-ethanol conversion, biomethanation (CO2/H2 to CH4), biogas upgrading, CO fermentation and wet-waste conversion. Gas and liquid phase transport, mass-transfer, and mixing physics at large length scales can significantly affect microbial conversion rates, particularly when the microbial reaction requires a narrow set of conditions. These phenomena are difficult to study in small-scale bench-top reactors that are typically well-mixed. Predictive computational fluid dynamics (CFD) based simulations can therefore aid in the scale-up, design and optimization of these reactors. This work presents multiphase Euler-Euler CFD simulations of at-scale (~500 m3) bioreactors. Our mathematical model treats the gas and liquid as interpenetrating phases. This approach reduces the computational complexity of tracking individual gas bubbles that are several orders of magnitude smaller than reactor dimensions. We solve the Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) multiphase equations that account for phase and chemical species transport, interphase mass and momentum transfer and uses a phenomenological model for gas uptake by microbes. We use a customized solver derived from open-source CFD toolbox, OpenFOAM [1], to perform these simulations, which has been validated against small-scale reactors in our previous work [2]. There is currently a knowledge-gap regarding bubble-size distributions when using gas mixtures with vastly different properties, which can have a significant impact overall mass-transfer. For example, hydrogen bubbles are more buoyant compared to other relatively heavier gases (CO2/CH4/CO), resulting in a large distribution of residence times and bubble sizes. This work therefore develops a deeper understanding of bubble dynamics and interphase mass transfer in such heterogenous gas mixtures through well-resolved computational models. We use a population balance model (PBM) for bubble-size-distribution modeling that is validated against small-scale experiments in our solver with an uncertainty quantification study for bubble coalescence and break-up model parameters. Results pertaining to multiple simulations of gas-fermentation reactors are presented where gas mixtures with varying compositions of CO2/CH4/CO/H2 are imposed at the sparger boundaries. The spatio-temporal variations in bubble-size distribution and mass transfer coefficient are analyzed for varying superficial velocities and gas-compositions for varying sizes of bubble-column and airlift reactors. This work will also examine the performance of different reactor designs, viz. bubble column reactor, airlift reactor with an internal draft tube, and a stirred-tank reactor with Rushton impellers. Reactor mass-transfer coefficient, gas hold-up, and dissolved gas distribution are critically analyzed among reactors, and sensitivity studies pertaining to gas flow rates and reactor geometry will be presented. [1] Weller, H., Tabor, G., Jasak, H. and Fureby, C., A tensorial approach to computational continuum mechanics using object-oriented techniques, Computers in physics, 12, 6, 620--631, 1998. [2] Rahimi, M., Sitaraman, H., Humbird, D. and Stickel, J., Computational fluid dynamics study of full-scale aerobic bioreactors: Evaluation of gas-liquid mass transfer, oxygen uptake, and dynamic oxygen distribution, Chemical Engineering Research and Design, 139: 283-295.

BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Total metals, carbon, nitrogen & anion concentration data; Slate River & East River floodplains, Crested Butte, CO; May 2022-October 2022

This data package includes processed and undiluted measurements for metal, total carbon, total nitrogen, and anion concentrations from pore water (groundwater) and surface water samples from the Slate River and East River floodplains of Crested Butte, CO, focus field sites for the SLAC Floodplain Hydro-Biogeochemistry SFA. The data was generated as part of the work targeting the overarching research question for the SLAC SFA: How do ubiquitous subsurface interfaces mediate molecular-scale biogeochemical processes and groundwater quality in floodplains and watersheds? Samples were collected between May and October of 2022. These measurements were all recorded at the Arizona Laboratory for Emerging Contaminants (ALEC) at the University of Arizona located in Tucson, AZ. Groundwater samples were extracted from a network of installed rhizon (Rhizosphere Research Products, part no. 19.60.21F, 0.6 micrometer mesh size) and piezometer wells within the river floodplain. All water samples were shaded from sun exposure during extraction from the subsurface and preserved at 4C until measured at ALEC.Analysis by ICP-MS (metals):Measurements for total metals were made on the Agilent 7700x ICP-MS (for total metals) – Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA. The analytical QA/QC protocol was adapted from US EPA Method 200.8 for analysis by ICP-MS. Calibration standards were prepared from multi-element stock solutions (SPEX Certiprep, Metuchen, NJ). Calibration curves include at least 7 points with correlation coefficients > 0.995. The QC protocol includes a continuing calibration blank (CCB), a continuing calibration verification (CCV) solution and at least one quality control sample (QCS) to be analyzed just after calibration and again after every 12 samples and at the completion of the run. The QCS solutions are from an independent source, such as NIST SRM 1643e - Trace elements in water, or QCS solutions from High Purity Standards (Charleston, SC). Acceptable QC responses must be between 90 and 110% of the certified value. Lastly, a suitable internal standard (usually Rh, In, Ga or Ge) is added using on-line addition into the sample line and mixing tee.Analysis by Shimadzu TOC-L (TOC/TN):The TOC-L system is a combustion technique where liquid samples are injected and combusted into CO2 for carbon detection by non-dispersive infrared (NDIR) and NO for detection by chemiluminescence. A calibration curve using five standard solutions between 0.1 and 7 ppm for carbon and 0.05 and 3.5 ppm for nitrogen is made for each type of measurement with a linearity >0.99. All samples, standards, and QC’s are prepared in 24mL scintillation vials that have been baked for 4hrs at 475 Cº and made using RO water (18.2mΩ). QC’s include a calibration blank check (CCB), continuing calibration check (CCC), and a certified reference material check (CRM). All QC’s are within ±10% error and are run before and after each batch of samples. Samples are diluted and rerun if any measurement concentrations are above the highest standard.Analysis by Ion Chromatography (Anions):The instrument used is the Thermo Scientific Dionex ICS-6000 using AS+AG22 column set for anion analysis with sodium carbonate eluent. A calibration curve using five standard solutions between 5 and 250 umol/L is made with a linearity >0.99. Standards and QC’s are prepared in 15mL polypropylene conical tubes, pipetted along with the samples into 1.5mL polypropylene vials. Dilutions are made using RO water (18.2mΩ). QC’s include a calibration blank check (CCB), continuing calibration check (CCC), and a certified reference material check (CRM). All QC’s are within ±10% error and are run before and after each batch of samples. Samples are diluted and rerun if any measurement concentrations are above the highest standard.All files are in csv format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Antifoam Development for Eliminating Flammability Hazards and Decreasing Cycle Time in the Defense Waste Processing Facility

The Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) was requested to develop a new antifoam control method for the Defense Waste Processing Facility’s (DWPF) Chemical Process Cell (CPC). SRNL completed testing of both chemical and nonchemical foam controls. The nonchemical foam controls were either ineffective (or worse, created more foam) or impractical (a water spray can control foam, but excessive water is needed). As a result, the focus of this study was on finding a superwetter or commercial antifoam for controlling foam. Thirty potential antifoams were tested as part of this study. A series of tests were developed to help screen out ineffective alternatives including: 1. Spreading testing of superspreaders, 2. Foam column testing with physical simulants, 3. Boiling testing with physical and chemical simulants, 4. Days-only Sludge Receipt and Adjustment Tank (SRAT) process simulations with sludge (containing noble metals and mercury), Precipitate Reactor Feed Tank (PRFT), and Slurry Mix Evaporator Feed Tank (SEFT) simulants in the RC1 Reaction Calorimeter (purchased for antifoam testing), and 5. Around-the-clock SRAT and Slurry Mix Evaporator (SME) process simulations with sludge(containing noble metals and mercury), PRFT, and SEFT simulants in the RC1 Reaction Calorimeter. Evonik Surfynol® MD20, a commercially available defoamer, was relatively effective in controlling foam, while remaining chemically stable in SRAT and SME processing across the pH range of 4 to 13. No degradation products were detected in the offgas, in the condensate or in the SRAT and SME products. In nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet testing, 250 mg/kg Evonik Surfynol® MD20 was needed for foam control compared to 1,625 mg/kg for Antifoam 747, DWPF’s current antifoam. In nitric-formic acid flowsheet testing, 1,125 mg/kg of Evonik Surfynol® MD20 was needed to control foam throughout the SRAT and SME cycles. The commercially available superspreader Momentive™ Y-17112 was even more effective than Evonik Surfynol® MD20 as both a defoamer and an antifoam. Not only was the foam destroyed upon addition but also was less persistent between additions. It was the most effective antifoam in testing using both the nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet and the nitric-formic acid flowsheet. In nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet testing, only 100 mg/kg Momentive™ Y-17112 was needed to control foam throughout the SRAT and SME cycles. In nitric-formic acid flowsheet testing, 300 mg/kg Momentive™ Y-17112 was needed to control foam throughout the SRAT and SME cycles. Momentive™ Y-17112 is also resistant to hydrolysis as demonstrated by its chemical stability in SRAT and SME processing across the pH range of 4 to 13 and lack of degradation products in offgas or condensate. Both candidates were effective as potential replacements for Antifoam 747, with Y-17112 demonstrating superior foam control. During nitric-glycolic flowsheet testing 50% less antifoam was needed when using Momentive™ Y-17112 compared to MD20. During nitric-formic flowsheet testing 75% less antifoam was needed when using Momentive™ Y-17112 compared to MD20. Foam remediated with Momentive™ Y-17112 was less persistent throughout testing. In addition, no degradation products were detected in the offgas, in the condensate or in the SRAT and SME products. Based on this testing, Momentive™ Y-17112 is clearly superior to Evonik Surfynol® MD20 and Antifoam 747, especially for the nitric-formic acid flowsheet processing; it is recommended that Momentive™ Y-17112 replace Antifoam 747 in DWPF. An antifoam addition strategy is recommended for both the nitric-glycolic acid flowsheet and the nitric-formic acid flowsheet. Implementation of Momentive™ Y-17112 is expected to decrease SRAT and SME boiling times by up to 50%, eliminate the issues resulting from Antifoam 747 degradation products, and minimize foamovers. To validate the effectiveness of these defoaming agents, SRNL recommends irradiation of a SRAT or SME product simulant containing fresh antifoam. The goal of this testing is to determine whether the irradiation causes decomposition of the antifoam that would make it less effective or produce new species in the offgas or slurry. This testing began in April 2020. An evaluation should be completed to determine the thermolytic hydrogen and methane generation rate in downstream equipment, including the High-Level Waste evaporators.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Schneider Springs Fire Study 2023 for Ecosystem Respiration Rates: Surface Water Chemistry and Hydrologic Sensor Data across the Yakima River Basin, Washington, USA (v2)

This dataset supports a broader study examining the drivers of spatial variability in wildfire impacts across the Yakima River Basin. Data provided within this dataset were generated from sample collection across 17 total sites (8 sites affected by a recent wildfire, 9 sites unaffected by a recent wildfire) within multiple rivers throughout the Yakima River Basin in Washington, USA from May-July 2023. Fire affected sites are defined as those affected by the 2021 Schneider Springs Fire, based on the drainage area of the streams being within the 2021 Schneider Springs Fire burn perimeter or not (Figure 1, below). The contents include surface water geochemistry data (dissolved organic carbon; total dissolved nitrogen; total suspended solids); short-term sonde data (specific conductivity; turbidity; pH; chlorophyll A; temperature); stream depth data; stream velocity; manual chamber open channel respiration data; sensor time-series data (oxygen; water pressure; barometric pressure); field metadata (including qualitative information on in stream and river corridor characteristics); and environmental context photos taken in the field. The dataset also includes a summary file of the sensor data and plots of the sensor data. Sensors were only recovered at 15 out of the 17 sites, and not all sensors were recovered at all 15 sites (see Methods section for more details), therefore all data does not exist at all sites. Data from a 2022 study at the same sites, as well as additional sites, can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/view/doi:10.15485/1969566. The data package was originally published in November 2023. It was updated in June 2025 (v2; modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset is comprised of one folder with field photos and one main data folder with two subfolders. The main data folder consists of (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) field metadata; (4) field protocol; (5) readme; (6) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; and (7) stream depth and averages. The sensor data subfolder consists of (1) sensor installation methods summary; (2) stream velocity; and (3) six subfolders. The BarotrollAtm (barometric pressure; temperature), DepthHOBO (water pressure; temperature), MantaRiver (specific conductivity; turbidity; pH; chlorophyll A; temperature), EXO (specific conductivity; pH; temperature), miniDOT (dissolved oxygen; temperature), and miniDOTManualChamber (dissolved oxygen; temperature) contain time-series data, plots, and summary files. The sample data subfolder consists of (1) total suspended solids (TSS) data; (2) dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (3) total dissolved nitrogen (TN) data and averages; and (4) methods codes. All files are .csv, .pdf, .jpg, .jpeg, or .mov.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗