SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Surface flow vectors”

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.

24 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

A Finite Element Method for Compressible and Turbulent Multiphase Flow Instabilities with Heat Transfer

We present a new finite element framework for modeling compressible, turbulent multiphase flows with heat transfer. For two-fluid systems with a free surface, the Volume of Fluid (VOF) method is implemented without the need for interface reconstruction, while turbulence is resolved using a dynamic Vreman large eddy simulation (LES) model. Unlike most two-phase VOF studies, which neglect heat transfer, the present approach incorporates energy transport equations within the VOF formulation to account for heat exchange, an effect particularly important in turbulent flows. Conjugate heat transfer is often challenging in finite volume methods, which require explicit specification of heat fluxes at the solid–fluid interface, limiting accuracy and predictive capability. By contrast, the finite element formulation does not require heat flux inputs, allowing more accurate and robust simulation of heat transfer between solids and fluids. The method is demonstrated through three representative cases. First, a two-fluid instability with a single-mode perturbation is simulated and validated against analytical growth rates. Second, conjugate heat transfer is examined in a high-temperature flow over a cold metal cylinder, with validation performed both quantitatively—via pressure coefficient comparisons with experimental data—and qualitatively using vector field topology. Finally, compressible spray injection and breakup are modeled, demonstrating the ability of the framework to capture interfacial dynamics and atomization under turbulent, high-speed conditions. In the compressible spray injection and breakup case, the results indicate that the finite element formulation achieved higher predictive accuracy and robustness than the finite-volume method. With the same mesh resolution, the FEM reduced the root mean square error (RMSE) and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE) from 6.96 mm and 26.0% (for the FVM) to 4.85 mm and 12.7%, respectively, demonstrating improved accuracy and robustness in capturing interfacial dynamics and heat transfer. The study also introduced vector field topology to visualize and interpret coherent flow structures and instabilities, offering insights beyond conventional scalar-field analyses.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Magnetic field properties in non-axisymmetric divertors

Stellarator power plants require a plan for the removal of the particles and the heat that are exhausted across the plasma edge. Unless a flowing liquid metal can be used to carry the helium exhaust to places where it can be removed from the plasma chamber, the particle exhaust must be magnetically diverted into pumping chambers. Studies are required to determine how magnetic features relate to the required divertor properties, how these magnetic features can be produced, and how they can be controlled. General studies are clarified and simplified by the use of the magnetic field line Hamiltonian $ψ_p(ψ,θ,φ)$ and a vector $\vec{x}(ψ,θ,φ)$ that gives the point in space associated with each point in the $(ψ,θ,φ)$ canonical coordinates, a flux and two angles. The non-resonant Fourier terms in ψp can be removed by a canonical transformation, so only resonant Fourier terms can determine the field line properties in the plasma edge and divertor. This paper discusses the important divertor properties and explains how $ψ_p(ψ,θ,φ)$ and $\vec{x}(ψ,θ,φ)$ can be obtained numerically in a special form for any stellarator magnetic field, $\vec{B}(\vec{x})$. This form holds between an arbitrary magnetic surface and the chamber walls with the non-resonant terms eliminated. Studies based on variations in the terms in such derived field-line Hamiltonians can determine what magnetic features are mathematically possible and how they could be produced and controlled by the external magnetic field coils.

Physics↗

DOE OSTI2022

Behavior and mechanisms of Doppler wind lidar error in varying stability regimes

Abstract. Wind lidars are widespread and important tools in atmospheric observations. An intrinsic part of lidar measurement error is due to atmospheric variability in the remote-sensing scan volume. This study describes and quantifies the distribution of measurement error due to turbulence in varying atmospheric stability. While the lidar error model is general, we demonstrate the approach using large ensembles of virtual WindCube V2 lidar performing a profiling Doppler-beam-swinging scan in quasi-stationary large-eddy simulations (LESs) of convective and stable boundary layers. Error trends vary with the stability regime, time averaging of results, and observation height. A systematic analysis of the observation error explains dominant mechanisms and supports the findings of the empirical results. Treating the error under a random variable framework allows for informed predictions about the effect of different configurations or conditions on lidar performance. Convective conditions are most prone to large errors (up to 1.5 m s−1 in 1 Hz wind speed in strong convection), driven by the large vertical velocity variances in convective conditions and the high elevation angle of the scanning beams (62∘). Range-gate weighting induces a negative bias into the horizontal wind speeds near the surface shear layer (−0.2 m s−1 in the stable test case). Errors in the horizontal wind speed and direction computed from the wind components are sensitive to the background wind speed but have negligible dependence on the relative orientation of the instrument. Especially during low winds and in the presence of large errors in the horizontal velocity estimates, the reported wind speed is subject to a systematic positive bias (up to 0.4 m s−1 in 1 Hz measurements in strong convection). Vector time-averaged measurements can improve the behavior of the error distributions (reducing the 10 min wind speed error standard deviation to <0.3 m s−1 and the bias to <0.1 m s−1 in strong convection) with a predictable effectiveness related to the number of decorrelated samples in the time window. Hybrid schemes weighting the 10 min scalar- and vector-averaged lidar measurements are shown to be effective at reducing the wind speed biases compared to cup measurements in most of the simulated conditions, with time averages longer than 10 min recommended for best use in some unstable conditions. The approach in decomposing the error mechanisms with the help of the LES flow field could be extended to more complex measurement scenarios and scans.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2021

Discovering Blind Geothermal Systems in the Great Basin Region: An Integrated Geologic and Geophysical Approach for Establishing Geothermal Play Fairways: All Phases

Most geothermal resources in the Great Basin region of the western USA are blind, and thus the discovery of new commercial-grade systems requires synthesis of favorable characteristics for geothermal activity. The geothermal play fairway concept involves integration of multiple parameters indicative of geothermal activity to identify promising areas for new development. This project integrated multiple datasets to apply the play fairway concept and assess geothermal potential in a large region of the Great Basin in Nevada. It is therefore referred to as the Nevada play fairway project. This project was a strong collaborative effort between several organizations, led by the Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology at the University of Nevada, Reno, but with key support from the U.S. Geological Survey, ATLAS Geosciences, Inc,, Hi-Q Geophysical, Inc., Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Utah Geological Survey, and Innovative Geothermal Ltd. In Budget Period 1 of this project, available data for nine geologic, geochemical, and geophysical parameters were initially synthesized to produce a new detailed geothermal potential map of 96,000 km2 from west-central to eastern Nevada. These parameters were grouped into subsets and individually weighted to delineate rankings for local permeability, intermediate permeability, regional permeability, and thermal potential, which collectively defined geothermal play fairways (i.e., most likely locations for significant geothermal fluid flow). This initial work was aimed at reducing the risks in regional exploration and therefore facilitating discovery of new commercial-grade systems in blind settings, as well as in areas with surface expressions of geothermal activity. Budget Period 2 of the project involved detailed analysis of some of the most promising areas identified in Phase 1. Twenty-four highly prospective areas, including both known undeveloped systems and previously undiscovered potential blind systems, were identified for further analysis. After reconnaissance of these areas, five of the most promising sites were selected for detailed studies. Multiple techniques were employed in the detailed studies, including geologic mapping, shallow temperature surveys, gravity surveys, Lidar, geochemical studies, seismic reflection analysis, and 3D modeling. The goal of the detailed studies was to identify specific areas with the highest likelihood for high permeability and thermal fluids, such that drill sites could be targeted. Three main sets of predictive maps were generated for each detailed study area: 1) play fairway maps, 2) play fairway error maps, and 3) direct evidence maps. Local- and intermediate-scale permeability models were revised to reflect results of the detailed geologic, geophysical, and geochemical analyses. Budget Period 3 of the project involved more detailed geophysical analyses and temperature-gradient (TG) drilling in southeastern Gabbs Valley and northern Granite Springs Valley, deemed the two most promising sites, with the goal of providing preliminary validation of the play fairway methodology. In southeastern Gabbs Valley, the collocation of a favorable structural setting (displacement transfer zone and fault intersections), Quaternary faults, intersecting and terminating gravity gradients, magnetic low, shallow (2 m) temperature anomaly, low resistivity anomaly, and promising geothermometry from nearby water wells provided evidence for a blind system. Drilling of six TG holes defines an apparent geothermal system at this locality with temperatures as high as 124°C at 152 m. This system is blind, with no surface hot springs, fumaroles, or paleo-geothermal deposits. For northern Granite Springs Valley, a favorable structural setting (termination of a major Quaternary normal fault), terminating gravity gradient, magnetic gradient, newly discovered sinter deposits, nearby warm water wells, previously drilled TG holes in the vicinity, and promising geothermometry suggest a hidden system. Drilling of six new TG holes yields temperatures of ~96°C at ~250 m, suggesting the presence of a geothermal system. Major lessons learned in the course of this project include: 1) initially identified sites commonly include multiple favorable structural settings at a finer scale; 2) promising sites in Cenozoic basins cannot be recognized without detailed geophysical surveys; and 3) play fairway analysis should be refined as the exploration program vectors into the most promising sites and finer-scale data are acquired. In addition to producing copious amounts of data, this project resulted in 16 published papers, 10 abstracts, more than 40 presentations across the U.S. and abroad (including several keynote addresses), 2 Masters theses, and 7 media reports.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

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↗