Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “journals”

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

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

At least 307 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Lightweight nodular iron crankshaft for heavy duty engine

An automobile vehicle crankshaft including a crankshaft casting of a nodular iron. The crankshaft casting includes multiple main journals coaxially aligned on a common crankshaft casting axis. Multiple crankpin journals are fixedly connected to the main journals by individual webs. Multiple lightening holes have individual ones of the multiple lightening holes integrally formed within individual ones of the crankpin journals during casting. A bubble space is located proximate to a mid-portion of selected ones of the multiple lightening holes of the crankpin journals. The bubble space locally increases a passage size of the selected ones of the multiple lightening holes and reduces a mass of the individual ones of the crankpin journals.

Klemstine, David C.↗
DOE OSTI2023

60 Years and Beyond of Reviews of Geophysics

Reviews of Geophysics is an AGU journal, first established in February 1963. It is a hybrid open access invitation-only journal that publishes comprehensive review articles across various disciplines within the Earth and Space Sciences. The selection criteria are rigorous and many submissions are declined without review. The journal is the highest ranked in the fields of Geochemistry and Geophysics, with a high Journal Impact Factor (JIF 2021 = 24.9), which is indicative of its high visibility and influence within the scientific community. The journal's published review papers, beyond a mere summary of literature, provide crucial context for current work, and establish the framework for comprehensive understanding of research progress, challenges, and interconnections between different communities, so that research may be appreciated by a broad audience. Finally, we emphasize the importance of publishing studies that provide a comprehensive overview and synthesis of the current state of knowledge in a field, especially in the case of geophysics, where knowledge is rapidly developing, increasing and becoming more specialized.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

University Coalition for Fossil Fuel Energy Research

Following a nationwide open competition, the University Coalition for Fossil Energy Research (UCFER) was established in October 2015 through a cooperative agreement between Penn State and the Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL). Penn State lead UCFER with the objective of advancing basic and applied research for clean and low-carbon energy based on fossil fuels in support of the DOE’s mission. UCFER focused on research that improves the efficiency of production and use of fossil energy resources, while minimizing the environmental impacts and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Penn State lead a team of nine universities (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Pennsylvania State University, Princeton University, Texas A&M University, University of Kentucky, University of Southern California, The University of Tulsa, University of Wyoming, and Virginia Polytechnic and State University) during the competition stage, adding seven more universities in 2017 (Carnegie Mellon University, Louisiana State University, The Ohio State University, University of North Dakota, University of Pittsburgh, University of Utah, and West Virginia University). This Coalition exhibited a wide geographical distribution across the U.S. bringing a wide variety of fossil energy expertise. This national university alliance was a major collaborative effort with NETL to address specific topics of R&D in NETL’s mission area, which involved one or more of NETL’s five core competencies (Geologic and Environmental Systems, Materials Engineering and Manufacturing, Energy Conversion Engineering, Systems Engineering and Analysis, and Computational Science and Engineering). The first five to six months of the project was the definitization stage. During this period, Penn State worked closely with NETL to finalize the Coalition organizational structure and By- Laws, prepare a statement of substantial involvement and a statement of project objectives, and develop operations and membership plans. A major component of this stage included preparing an execution plan to solicit research, evaluate proposals, recommend selected projects to NETL, and award projects. In addition, a plan was prepared to monitor projects, review projects, disseminate knowledge from research projects and develop an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. This included developing a website and several databases. The first of six rounds of solicitations started in mid-2016. Projects from the sixth solicitation started February 1, 2021, and ended January 31, 2023. Projects that were selected represented twelve technology lines. Approximately $16.6 million in funding was available for the six solicitations. Most of the funding was provided by DOE, Office of Fossil Energy (DOEFE) with the DOE Fuel Cells Technologies Office (DOE-FCTO) providing funding for a few projects. Coalition universities submitted 259 proposals in response to the solicitations, requesting approximately $67.0 million in funding, and forty-three projects were selected. However, one project withdrew after the principal investigator left the university. The management of the Coalition projects was a major activity by Penn State. Managing the Coalition projects consisted of monitoring the projects, reviewing the projects through annual technical review meetings, disseminating knowledge from the research projects, and developing an online system for Coalition research portfolio management. Penn State’s OMT monitored projects to ensure that all milestones (technical, schedule, budget) were met, expenditures were allowable, cost share (when applicable) were reported, and all technical reports were submitted. The OMT also posted the technical reports electronically on a secure members-only website for access and review by the Coalition members. Disseminating knowledge from the research projects was done through a website, newsletters, various meetings, conferences, journal articles, publicity/press releases, and project summaries that were prepared after each project was completed. Penn State kept NETL apprised of UCFER progress through quarterly reports (thirtyone were submitted by Penn State), verbal and written communications, yearly updates at the annual technical review meetings, and cost accrual reports. The UCFER project had a significant impacty. The UCFER program established the first national university alliance in fossil energy research with a major collaboration effort with DOE NETL that addressed specific topics in NETL’s research and development mission areas. It generated inter-university collaborations, which was another program interest. Twenty-two out of 259 proposals contained collaborations (≈8.5%) and three of forty-two funded projects involved inter-university collaborations (≈7.0%). The forty-two funded projects provided support at fourteen universities involving 269 personnel. Research was conducted by 106 faculty, 115 graduate and undergraduate students, forty-six research staff and post-doctoral scholars, and two visiting scholars. Students and post-doctoral scholars were also on-site at NETL through CRADAs. In addition, non-Coalition participants included six universities and sixteen companies and national laboratories. The non-Coalition participants were involved as subcontractors, providers of cost share, performed unpaid consultation and sample analysis, served as advisory board members, or were providers of samples and materials for testing. UCFER also produced visibility in that fifty-six refereed journal articles were published, fifty-seven conference papers and twenty-three posters were prepared, 190 presentations were given, eight patent applications were filed, two books/book chapters were written, and ten software codes were developed. Collaboration between NETL and the individual projects was a major requirement for all funded projects. This included NETL staff time to support collaboration, consultation, technical guidance, sample preparation and analysis, internships at NETL, on-site testing and equipment usage by Coalition participants at NETL, co-mentoring students, and coauthoring journal articles and conference papers. Collaboration was impacted by COVID-19 in that not all on-site activities could be performed. NETL personnel were coauthors on eight of the conference papers (fourteen percent of the conference papers that were prepared) and seventeen of the journal articles (thirty percent of the journal articles that were prepared). A website was developed for an online proposal solicitation and review process and to provide exposure to UCFER. A website analysis highlighted the large amount of member and general public interest in UCFER by interpreting access statistics from March 2016 through June 2023. Visitors to the site originated from many different organizations, businesses, and countries. The website provided a means to disseminate information to both the general public and the UCFER members and was successfully used for outreach activities. In addition, NETL required that RFP release, proposal submission, and proposal reviews all be performed online. Penn State successfully developed these capabilities in a secure section of the website, which were used throughout the UCFER project. It is recognized that each project had its technical successes. In addition, highlighted successes were compiled and summarized from the research projects. Information was requested from the PIs of completed projects. In addition, Penn State’s Operations Management Team reviewed subcontract reports to identify project successes. Examples of information requested from PIs included (not all-inclusive): new projects that have been funded as a result of UCFER funding; new commercial products; establishment of a new center; new patent; new software; best paper awards; highly-cited work; and graduate student successes. A total of forty-eight highlighted successes were reported.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2021

Special Issue: 10th Anniversary of Atmosphere: Climatology and Meteorology

During the last decade, the number of open access science journals has increased, and these have become an avenue for publishing quality science in a relatively fast and economical way. The Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) journal Atmosphere published its first volume in 2010, and recently celebrated 10 years with the publication of this special commemorative issue. Atmosphere is a peer reviewed, open access journal described as cross disciplinary. Furthermore, the journal attracts authorship from across the globe. During the first few years, the regular issue of Atmosphere was a quarterly publication, but, by 2019, was issued each month. Furthermore, the journal publishes research articles and notes, communications, review articles, and case studies, as well as timely Special Issues.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Baltimore Ecosystem Study: Soil atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane, 1998 - ongoing

The Baltimore Ecosystem Study (BES) established a network of long-term permanent biogeochemical study plots in 1998. These plots provide long-term data on vegetation, soil and hydrologic processes in the key ecosystem types within the urban ecosystem. The network of study plots includes forest plots (upland and riparian), chosen to represent the range of forest conditions in the area and grass plots (to represent home lawns). Plots are instrumented with lysimeters (drainage and tension) to sample soil solution chemistry, time domain reflectometry probes to measure soil moisture, dataloggers to measure and record soil temperature, and trace gas flux chambers to measure the flux of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane from soil to the atmosphere. Measurements of in situ nitrogen mineralization, nitrification and denitrification were made at approximately monthly intervals from Fall 1998 - Fall 2000. Detailed vegetation characterization (all layers) was done in summer 1998 and 2015. Data from these plots has been published in Groffman et al. (2006, 2009), Groffman and Pouyat (2009), Savva et al. (2010), Costa and Groffman (2013), Duncan et al. (2013), Waters et al. (2014), Ni and Groffman (2018), Templeton et al. (2019). Literature Cited Costa, K.H. and P.M. Groffman. 2013. Factors regulating net methane flux in urban forests and grasslands. Soil Science Society of America Journal 77:850 - 855. Duncan, J. M., L. E. Band, and P. M. Groffman. 2013. Towards closing the watershed nitrogen budget: Spatial and temporal scaling of denitrification. Journal of Geophysical Research Biogeosciences 118:1-5; DOI: 10.1002/jgrg.20090 Groffman PM, Pouyat RV, Cadenasso ML, Zipperer WC, Szlavecz K, Yesilonis IC,. Band LE and Brush GS. 2006. Land use context and natural soil controls on plant community composition and soil nitrogen and carbon dynamics in urban and rural forests. Forest Ecology and Management 236:177-192. Groffman, P.M., C.O. Williams, R.V. Pouyat, L.E. Band and I.C. Yesilonis. 2009. Nitrate leaching and nitrous oxide flux in urban forests and grasslands. Journal of Environmental Quality 38:1848-1860. Groffman, P.M. and R.V. Pouyat. 2009. Methane uptake in urban forests and lawns. Environmental Science and Technology 43:5229-5235. DOI: 10.1021/es803720h. Ni, X. and P.M. Groffman. 2018. Declines in methane uptake in forest soils. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science of the United States of America 115:8587-8590. Savva, Y., K. Szlavecz, R. V. Pouyat, P. M. Groffman, and G. Heisler. 2010. Effects of land use and vegetation cover on soil temperature in an urban ecosystem. Soil Science Society of America Journal 74:469-480. Templeton, L., M.L. Cadenasso, J. Sullivan, M. Neel and P.M. Groffman. 2019. Changes in vegetation structure and composition of urban and rural forest patches in Baltimore from 1998 to 2015. Forest Ecology and Management. In press. Waters, E.R., J.L. Morse, N.D. Bettez and P.M. Groffman. 2014. Differential carbon and nitrogen controls of denitrification in riparian zones and streams along an urban to exurban gradient. Journal of Environmental Quality 43:955–963.

Groffman, Peter M↗
NASA NTRS1978

Hydrodynamic air lubricated compliant surface bearing for an automotive gas turbine engine. 2: Materials and coatings

Material coatings for an air-lubricated, compliant journal bearing for an automotive gas turbine engine were exposed to service test temperatures of 540 C or 650 C for 300 hours, and to 10 temperature cycles from room temperatures to the service test temperatures. Selected coatings were then put on journal and partial-arc foils and tested in start-stop cycle tests at 14 kPa (2 psi) loading for 2000 cycles. Half of the test cycles were performed at a test chamber service temperature of 540 C (1000 F) or 650 C (1200 F); the other half were performed at room temperature. Based on test results, the following combinations and their service temperature limitations are recommended: HL-800 TM (CdO and graphite) on foil versus chrome carbide on journal up to 370 C (700 F); NASA PS 120 (Tribaloy 400, silver and CaF2 on journal versus uncoated foil up to 540 C (1000 F); and Kaman DES on journal and foil up to 640 C (1200 F). Kaman DES coating system was further tested successfully at 35 kPa (5 psi) loading for 2000 start-stop cycles.

Bhushan, B.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Reports on crustal movements and deformations

Studies of tectonic plate motions, regional crustal deformations, strain accumulation and release, deformations associated with earthquakes and fault motion, and micro-plate motion, were collected and are summarized. To a limited extent, papers dealing with global models of current plate motions and crustal stress are included. The data base is restricted to articles appearing in reveiwed technical journals during the years 1970-1980. The major journals searched include: Journal of Geophysical Research (solid earth), Tectonophysics, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Geological Society of America Bulletin, Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, and the Journal of Geology.

Cohen, S. C.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Introduction to this Special Issue on Geostatistics and Scaling of Remote Sensing

The germination of this special PE&RS issue began at the Royal Geographical Society (with the Institute of British Geographers)(RCS-IBC) annual meeting in January, 1997 held at the University of Exeter in Exeter, England. The cold and snow of an England winter were greatly tempered by the friendly and cordial discussions that ensued at the meeting on possible ways to foster both dialog and research across "the Big Pond" between geographers in the US and the UK on the use of geostatistics and geospatial techniques for remote sensing of land surface processes. It was decided that one way to stimulate and enhance cooperation on the application of geostatistics and geospatial methods in remote sensing was to hold parallel sessions on these topics at appropriate meeting venues in 1998 in both the US and the UK Selected papers given at these sessions would be published as a special issue of PE&RS on the US side, and as a special issue of Computers and Geosciences (C&G) on the UK side, to highlight the commonality in research on geostatistics and geospatial methods in remote sensing and spatial data analysis on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. As a consequence, a session on "Ceostatistics and Geospatial Techniques for Remote Sensing of Land Surface Processes" was held at the Association of American Geographers (AAG) annual meeting in Boston, Massachusetts in March, 1998, sponsored by the AAG's Remote Sensing Specialty Group (RSSG). A similar session was held at the RGS-IBG annual meeting in Guildford, Surrey, England in January 1998, organized by the Modeling and Advanced Techniques Special Interest Group (MAT SIG) of the Remote Sensing Society (RSS). The six papers that in part, comprise this issue of PE&RS, are the US complement to such a dual journal publication effort. Both of us are co-editors of each of the journal special issues, with the lead editor of each journal being from their respective side of the Atlantic where the journals are published. The special issue of C&G that constitutes the other half of this co-edited journal series will be published in early 1999, with 3 papers by US authors being published along with 6 papers authored by individuals from the UK and other places in Europe.

Quattrochi, Dale A.↗
NASA NTRS2000

A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research

BACKGROUND: Conflicts of interest pose a threat to the integrity of scientific research. The current regulations of the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Science Foundation require that medical schools and other research institutions report the existence of conflicts of interest to the funding agency but allow the institutions to manage conflicts internally. The regulations do not specify how to do so. METHODS: We surveyed all medical schools (127) and other research institutions (170) that received more than $5 million in total grants annually from the National Institutes of Health or the National Science Foundation; 48 journals in basic science and clinical medicine; and 17 federal agencies in order to analyze their policies on conflicts of interest. RESULTS: Of the 297 institutions, 250 (84 percent) responded by March 2000, as did 47 of the 48 journals and 16 of the 17 federal agencies. Fifteen of the 250 institutions (6 percent)--5 medical schools and 10 other research institutions--reported that they had no policy on conflicts of interest. Among the institutions that had policies, there was marked variation in the definition and management of conflicts. Ninety-one percent had policies that adhered to the federal threshold for disclosure ($10,000 in annual income or equity in a relevant company or 5 percent ownership), and 9 percent had policies that exceeded the federal guidelines. Only 8 percent had policies requiring disclosure to funding agencies, only 7 percent had such policies regarding journals, and only 1 percent had policies requiring the disclosure of information to the relevant institutional review boards or to research subjects. Twenty journals (43 percent) reported that they had policies requiring disclosure of conflicts of interest. Only four federal agencies had policies that explicitly addressed conflicts of interest in extramural research, and all but one of the agencies relied primarily on institutional discretion. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation among policies on conflicts of interest at medical schools and other research institutions. This variation, combined with the fact that many scientific journals and funding agencies do not require disclosure of conflicts of interest, suggests that the current standards may not be adequate to maintain a high level of scientific integrity.

Human↗
NASA NTRS2006

Thermal Management Techniques for Oil-Free Turbomachinery Systems

Tests were performed to evaluate three different methods of utilizing air to provide thermal management control for compliant journal foil air bearings. The effectiveness of the methods was based on bearing bulk temperature and axial thermal gradient reductions during air delivery. The first method utilized direct impingement of air on the inner surface of a hollow test journal during operation. The second, less indirect method achieved heat removal by blowing air inside the test journal to simulate air flowing axially through a hollow, rotating shaft. The third method emulated the most common approach to removing heat by forcing air axially through the bearing s support structure. Internal bearing temperatures were measured with three, type K thermocouples embedded in the bearing that measured general internal temperatures and axial thermal gradients. Testing was performed in a 1 atm, 260 C ambient environment with the bearing operating at 60 krpm and supporting a load of 222 N. Air volumetric flows of 0.06, 0.11, and 0.17 cubic meters per minute at approximately 150 to 200 C were used. The tests indicate that all three methods provide thermal management but at different levels of effectiveness. Axial cooling of the bearing support structure had a greater effect on bulk temperature for each air flow and demonstrated that the thermal gradients could be influenced by the directionality of the air flow. Direct air impingement on the journal's inside surface provided uniform reductions in both bulk temperature and thermal gradients. Similar to the direct method, indirect journal cooling had a uniform cooling effect on both bulk temperatures and thermal gradients but was the least effective of the three methods.

Radil, Kevin↗
NASA NTRS2016

Appreciation of the 2015 JGR Space Physics Peer Reviewers

The Editors of the Journal of Geophysical Research Space Physics are deeply indebted to the many people among the research community that serve this journal through peer review. The journal could not exist without the time and effort invested by the community through this voluntary activity, providing expert evaluations and thoughtful assessments of the work of others. In 2015, the journal had 1506 scientists contribute to the process with at least one peer review, for a total of 3575 reviews completed, including additional reviews of resubmitted manuscripts. There were 277 reviewers that contributed four or more reports in 2015. The average number of reviews per referee in 2015 was, therefore, 2.4. Note that the total number of manuscript final decisions (i.e., accept or reject) for Journal of Geophysical Research (JGR) Space Physics was 1147 in 2015. Of this, 774 were accepted and 373 were declined, for an acceptance rate of 67% last year. If the 1334 "revision" decisions are included in the tally, then the total number of decisions made in 2015 was 2481. Working out the arithmetic, it means that on average, a manuscript gets about 1.2 revision decisions before a final accept-or-reject decision. This explains the ~3.1 average number of reviews per manuscript throughout each paper's lifetime in the submission-revision editorial process. We are pleased and happy that the research community is willing and able to devote their resources toward this service endeavor. We appreciate each and every one of you that helped maintain the high quality of papers in JGR Space Physics last year. We look forward to another excellent year working with all of you through the year ahead.

Liemohn, Michael W.↗
DOE OSTI2025

WorkJournalMaker (WJMaker) v0.5

The software generates and maintains daily work journal entries in text format, via a web browser. The journal entries are saved in a structured directory file tree on the system running the software. The software also incorporates a database so that it can track the location of files in the file system and various other metadata. The software allows the users to access their journal entries either through the browser or as discrete text files, facilitating sharing and open science. Additionally, to assist with the yearly PMP process, this tool connects to LLM APIs to provide summarization of the journal entries on a month-by-month or weekly basis. The advantage over similar technologies such as Apple Notes (extremely popular for notetaking) is that the instant software does not force the user to stay inside the Apple ecosystem, since it allows for export of the user's text files. This facilitates open science, so that researchers who use the tool can easily transfer their research notes to any other system. The WebJournalMaker repository is here: https://github.com/lbnl-science-it/WorkJournalMaker The WebJournalMaker repository is forked from the JournalSummarizer: https://github.com/tyfong-lbl/JournalSummarizer and builds on its code. I wrote the code for both of these software repos, using generative AI.

Fong, Timothy [Lawrence Berkeley National Laborato↗
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↗
DOE OSTI2022

NRAP-Open-IAM: NRAP Open Source Integrated Assessment Model

Note: This is the last version (a2.6.1) of NRAP-Open-IAM released during NRAP Phase II in 2022. The latest version of NRAP-Open-IAM is available here: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/phase-iii-nrap-open-iam NRAP-Open-IAM is an open-source software product that enables quantification of containment effectiveness and leakage risk at storage sites in the context of system uncertainties and variability. NRAP-Open-IAM represents the next-generation in a line of systems-based computational models developed for quantitative geological carbon storage (GCS) risk assessment. The model comprises a set of reduced-order and analytical models of various components of the GCS system, potential leakage pathways, receptors of concern including impact to groundwater resources and the atmosphere, a framework to support stochastic simulation, time stepping, uncertainty quantification, other analytical functionality for scenario and risk-performance evaluation, and a basic graphical user interface to support scenario development, data input simulation definition, and basic post-processing and results display. As the NRAP Open-IAM functionality continues to evolve, we continue to add to its capability to develop quantitative, probabilistic, and time-dependent profiles of the evolution of risk at a GCS site and evaluate the influence of uncertain parameters on uncertainty in predicted risk. It can be used to quantify the dynamics of reservoir saturation plume and pressure-affected area, for evaluation of the area of potential groundwater impact (i.e., Area of Review) and monitoring requirements to support cost and regulatory analysis, and for consideration of different post-injection site care and closure scenarios. This submission contains the current version of NRAP-Open-IAM available for evaluation and testing. To use the NRAP-Open-IAM, download the source code (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/4c24a3da-3b40-4ffe-9892-c807ae9f8760) then open the NRAP-Open-IAM user's guide (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669) to read more about the tool. Installation instructions for Windows, Mac, and Linux can be found in the "installers" folder of the extracted NRAP-Open-IAM folder and describe setup of environment (e.g., Python libraries) needed for proper work of the tool. Test of installation can be done by running "python openiam_setup_tests.py" in the "setup" folder. The installation test also runs a test suite to see if the NRAP-Open-IAM has been installed correctly. To run the test suite separately, run "python iam_test.py" in the "test" folder. User's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/8b27335a-343c-4836-b8a3-3ad0bdc9e669 Developer's guide: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/3bc6ee7d-609d-4eb6-80ba-fa6130ee0313 Reservoir simulation data used in some examples distributed with NRAP-Open-IAM: - Kimberlina: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/eb62cece-61b2-4037-9b6d-32407dde2ab8 - Kimberlina (compartmentalized): https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/08f396c8-bc5f-44ad-a028-6e98a6ea6d70/resource/366f9530-3b32-4b84-affe-ab2df1d9a8b5 - FutureGen 2.0: https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/futuregen-2-0-1008-simulation-reservoir-lookup-table NRAP-Open-IAM GitLab repository: https://gitlab.com/NRAP/OpenIAM Related publications: - Bacon, D., Yonkofski, C., Brown, C., Demirkanli, D. and Whiting, J., 2019. Risk-based post injection site care and monitoring for commercial-scale carbon storage: Reevaluation of the FutureGen 2.0 site using NRAP-Open-IAM and DREAM. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 90: 102784. - Bacon, D. Demirkanli, D., and White, S., 2020. Probabilistic risk-based Area of Review (AoR) determination for a deep-saline carbon storage site. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 102: 103153. - Harp, D., Oldenburg, C., and Pawar, R., 2019. A metric for evaluating conformance robustness during geologic CO2 sequestration operations. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control 85: 100-108. - Lackey, G., Vasylkivska, V., Huerta, N., King, S., and Dilmore, R., 2019. Managing well leakage risks at a geologic carbon storage site with many wells, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 88 :182-194. - Vasylkivska, V., Dilmore, R., Lackey, G., Zhang, Y., King, S., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., and Harp, D., 2021. NRAP-Open-IAM: A flexible open-source integrated assessment model for geologic carbon storage risk assessment and management, Environmental Modelling & Software, 143: 105114. Presentations: - Chen, B., Harp, D., and Pawar, R., A data assimilation approach (ES-MDA) coupling with NRAP-Open-IAM for quantifying uncertainty reduction in geological CO2 sequestration. AGUFM 2019: T44A-02. - Chen, B., and Harp, D., Improving risk analysis precision for geologic CO2 sequestration by quantifying the uncertainty reduction before and after acquiring monitoring data. 14th Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies Conference, Melbourne, Australia, 2018, pp. 21-26. - Harp, D., National Risk Assessment Partnership Task 2: Containment Assurance. No. LA-UR-19-28654, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States), 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., King, S., Bacon, D., Harp, D., Chen, B., Mansoor, K., Onishi, T., Yang, Y., Zhang, Y., and Keating, E., NRAP-Open-IAM: An open-source integrated assessment model, poster, Mastering the Subsurface Through Technology Innovation, Partnerships and Collaboration: Carbon Storage and Oil and Natural Gas Technologies Review Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 13-16, 2018. - Vasylkivska, V., Lackey, G., King, S., Wentworth, A., Huerta, N., Creason, C., DiGiulio, J., Yang, Y., and Dilmore, R., Long-term risk analysis of a geologic CO2 storage project during the post-injection period, SIAM Conference on Computational Science and Engineering, Spokane, WA, February 25-March 1, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Overview of the NRAP-Open-IAM tool for carbon storage (beta release), 2019 Annual NRAP Tool Users Meeting, Pittsburgh, PA, August 27, 2019. - Vasylkivska, V., Bacon, D., Chen, B., Dilmore, R., Harp, D., King, S., Lackey, G., Lindner, E., Liu, G., Mansoor, K. and Zhang, Y., NRAP-Open-IAM: A new, open-source code for integrated assessment of geologic carbon storage containment effectiveness and leakage risk, poster, American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2020 (virtual meeting), December 2020. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP open-source integrated assessment model and relevant application, oral presentation, NRAP workshop "NRAP Tools for Geologic Carbon Storage Risk-Based Decision Making" held in conjunction with Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) 2021 Annual Forum (virtual meeting), Salt Lake City, UT, September 2021. - Vasylkivska, V., NRAP-Open-IAM: open-source integrated assessment model, digital poster/demonstration, software demonstration session, 2022 Carbon Management Project Review Meeting, August 16, 2022

AoR↗
NASA NTRS1983

Reports on crustal movements and deformations

This Catalog of Reports on Crustal Movements and Deformation is a structured bibliography of scientific papers on the movements of the Earth crust. The catalog summarizes by various subjects papers containing data on the movement of the Earth's surface due to tectonic processes. In preparing the catalog we have included studies of tectonic plate motions, spreading and convergence, microplate rotation, regional crustal deformation strain accumulation and deformations associated with the earthquake cycle, and fault motion. We have also included several papers dealing with models of tectonic plate motion and with crustal stress. Papers which discuss tectonic and geologic history but which do not present rates of movements or deformations and papers which are primarily theoretical analyses have been excluded from the catalog. An index of authors cross-referenced to their publications also appears in the catalog. The catalog covers articles appearing in reviewed technical journals during the years 1970-1981. Although there are citations from about twenty journals most of the items come from the following publications: Journal of Geophysical Research, Tectonophysics, Geological Society of America Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Nature, Science, Geophysical Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, and Geology.

Cohen, S. C.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Dynamic characteristics of a hydrostatic gas bearing driven by oscillating exhaust pressure

Vibration of a statically loaded, inherently compensated hydrostatic journal bearing due to oscillating exhaust pressure is investigated. Both angular and radial vibration modes are analyzed. The time-dependent Reynolds equation governing the pressure distribution between the oscillating journal and sleeve is solved together with the journal equation of motion to obtain the response characteristics of the bearing. The Reynolds equation and the equation of motion are simplified by applying regular perturbation theory for small displacements. The numerical solutions of the perturbation equations are obtained by discretizing the pressure field using finite-difference aproximations with a discrete, nonuniform line-source model which excludes effects due to feeding hole volume. An iterative scheme is used to simultaneously satisfy the equations of motion for the journal. The results presented include Bode plots of bearing-oscillation gain and phase for a particular bearing configuration for various combinations of parameters over a range of frequencies, including the resonant frequency.

Watkins, C. B.↗
NASA NTRS1992

STELAR: An experiment in the electronic distribution of astronomical literature

STELAR (Study of Electronic Literature for Astronomical Research) is a Goddard-based project designed to test methods of delivering technical literature in machine readable form. To that end, we have scanned a five year span of the ApJ, ApJ Supp, AJ and PASP, and have obtained abstracts for eight leading academic journals from NASA/STI CASI, which also makes these abstracts available through the NASA RECON system. We have also obtained machine readable versions of some journal volumes from the publishers, although in many instances, the final typeset versions are no longer available. The fundamental data object for the STELAR database is the article, a collection of items associated with a scientific paper - abstract, scanned pages (in a variety of formats), figures, OCR extractions, forward and backward references, errata and versions of the paper in various formats (e.g., TEX, SGML, PostScript, DVI). Articles are uniquely referenced in the database by journal name, volume number and page number. The selection and delivery of articles is accomplished through the WAIS (Wide Area Information Server) client/server models requiring only an Internet connection. Modest modifications to the server code have made it capable of delivering the multiple data types required by STELAR. WAIS is a platform independent and fully open multi-disciplinary delivery system, originally developed by Thinking Machines Corp. and made available free of charge. It is based on the ISO Z39.50 standard communications protocol. WAIS servers run under both UNIX and VMS. WAIS clients run on a wide variety of machines, from UNIX-based Xwindows systems to MS-DOS and macintosh microcomputers. The WAIS system includes full-test indexing and searching of documents, network interface and easy access to a variety of document viewers. ASCII versions of the CASI abstracts have been formatted for display and the full test of the abstracts has been indexed. The entire WAIS database of abstracts is now available for use by the astronomical community. Enhancements of the search and retrieval system are under investigation to include specialized searches (by reference, author or keyword, as opposed to full test searches), improved handling of word stems, improvements in relevancy criteria and other retrieval techniques, such as factor spaces. The STELAR project has been assisted by the full cooperation of the AAS, the ASP, the publishers of the academic journals, librarians from GSFC, NRAO and STScI, the Library of Congress, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Warnock, A.↗
NASA NTRS1999

[Observations in the Outer Galaxy of Metal Abundances]

This project involved observations of far-infrared (FIR) fine-structure lines of [S III] (19,33 microns), [O III] (52,99 microns), and [N III] (57 microns) in the outer Galaxy (galactocentric radius R = 11-18 kpc), in order to study the variation of metal abundances with radius in the Galaxy. The metal abundance gradient is a fundamental input into models of galaxy evolution, and greatly constrains theories of galaxy evolution, stellar structure and evolution, and star formation. In addition, we observed the [C III (158 microns) and [O I] (63 microns) lines in these same regions to study molecular cloud structure in the low metallicity outer Galaxy. These observations were carried out over two weeks in August 1995 aboard the Kuiper Airborne Observatory, which was stationed at Hickam AFB at the time. Two Harvey Mudd students worked with me planning the observations and accompanied me on the flights. These students, and two other Harvey Mudd students, worked with me during the remaining time of the grant period analyzing these data and preparing them for publication These data have formed the basis for two journal articles in a professional astronomical journal. The first off these articles has been published (Rudolph et al. 1997, "Far-Infrared Abundance Measurements in the Outer Galaxy", The Astrophysical Journal, 489, 94-101). The second article is in preparation (Rudolph et al. 1999, "The Abundance Gradient in the Galaxy", in preparation for The Astrophysical Journal).

Source record↗