Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “categories”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

A Computational Theory for the Emergence of Grammatical Categories in Cortical Dynamics

A general agreement in psycholinguistics claims that syntax and meaning are unified precisely and very quickly during online sentence processing. Although several theories have advanced arguments regarding the neurocomputational bases of this phenomenon, we argue that these theories could potentially benefit by including neurophysiological data concerning cortical dynamics constraints in brain tissue. In addition, some theories promote the integration of complex optimization methods in neural tissue. In this paper we attempt to fill these gaps introducing a computational model inspired in the dynamics of cortical tissue. In our modeling approach, proximal afferent dendrites produce stochastic cellular activations, while distal dendritic branches–on the other hand–contribute independently to somatic depolarization by means of dendritic spikes, and finally, prediction failures produce massive firing events preventing formation of sparse distributed representations. The model presented in this paper combines semantic and coarse-grained syntactic constraints for each word in a sentence context until grammatically related word function discrimination emerges spontaneously by the sole correlation of lexical information from different sources without applying complex optimization methods. By means of support vector machine techniques, we show that the sparse activation features returned by our approach are well suited—bootstrapping from the features returned by Word Embedding mechanisms—to accomplish grammatical function classification of individual words in a sentence. In this way we develop a biologically guided computational explanation for linguistically relevant unification processes in cortex which connects psycholinguistics to neurobiological accounts of language. We also claim that the computational hypotheses established in this research could foster future work on biologically-inspired learning algorithms for natural language processing applications.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West 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. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Review of Value of Solar Studies In Theory and In Practice

This brief summarizes a collection of state- and utility-commissioned value-of-solar (VoS) studies and related literature, with a focus on who commissioned the study, which value and cost categories were discussed and/or quantified, and the methods used. Our objective is to compile information on prior VoS studies to inform state regulators and other stakeholders that may pursue related studies or integrate findings into rate design. The brief is organized into three parts: 1) an introduction to distributed solar photovoltaic (DPV) compensation; 2) a review of theoretical research on VoS; and 3) a review of VoS studies. The vast majority of VoS studies have served an informational role of quantifying the net benefits of PV. Three studies were commissioned in states or utility service territories that subsequently implemented VoS tariffs in California, New York, and Austin, Texas. When applied as a tariff, VoS aims to compensate PV output as efficiently as possible by doing so at rates that reflect the marginal benefits and costs of PV through value and cost categories that may vary temporally and/or geographically. This could lead to higher compensation in locations and times where more PV output is more valuable and consequently drive adoption in those locations to provide more societal benefits. Value and cost factors can be broadly grouped into five categories: generation, transmission, distribution, other utility, and other social categories. Those conducting VoS studies must weigh various tradeoffs when deciding which categories to include and quantify. Tradeoffs include prioritizing values based on their magnitude of value or cost impact, as well as taking into account the feasibility of data collection and accurate quantification. Values of higher magnitude and estimation feasibility are quantified in the majority of studies, including the earliest of studies conducted in the 2000s and 2010s. Additionally, some values of higher magnitude but low feasibility in the earliest of studies have become quantifiable in recent years. There are some values with low average system-wide levels but very high magnitude in specific locations or hours. The value magnitude in some cases can be tied to DPV penetration with low value in areas with little congestion and/or low penetration and vice versa. In these cases, values that are easier to quantify are often incorporated, while those that are more difficult are often addressed via a placeholder value. The placeholder value is paired with a discussion around data needs and methods to improve future estimates, as well as a conversation about when these value categories may increase in magnitude and necessitate more rigorous quantification. This brief summarizes findings from two meta-analyses of VoS studies that took place between 2005 and 2018, as well as findings from four additional studies published from 2018 to 2023. Table ES-1 summarizes the various value and cost categories included in each respective study and whether they were quantified, discussed, or omitted. Values such as avoided energy, capacity, transmission capacity, line losses, and avoided environmental costs are quantified in every study. Some categories were deemed harder to quantify and less impactful at the time of the study, so they were discussed but not quantified (e.g., ancillary services). Other categories, including many at the distribution level, were very locationally and/or temporally specific and dependent on high DPV penetration. These were sometimes quantified and at other times discussed. Notably, when it came to utility costs, integration costs were discussed in all cases, though they were deemed to have a small impact. Other utility costs were omitted for the most part; however, the utility-commissioned study (by NorthWestern Energy in Montana) included both lost utility revenue and programmatic/administrative cost categories. While there are some similarities across studies, each had fairly unique methods that are detailed in the body of this brief.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Cumulative Water Rights Curves

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0 sourced from WestDAAT - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category, and files associated with this category v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description This product an updated version of the database used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al. in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (2024). This database contains 2,667 individual .csv files, three for each Water Management Area (WMA) in the 11-state region. File Naming WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either "S" for surface water rights, "G" for groundwater rights, or "U" for unspecified. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the [###] unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al. in review) 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 the study region. 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 second index in this object, the data for California will also be in the second index for each accompanying list. wmasRightsPersGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for groundwater. wmasRightsPersSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for surface water. wmasRightsPersUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for water from an unspecified source. wmasRightsTotsGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for groundwater. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for surface water. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for water from an unspecified source. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmaIDByState: A list of data frames which contain the by state allocation by WMA matrix. There is a matrix for each state in a different data frame within the object.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2023

On triality defects in 2d CFT

We consider the triality fusion category discovered in the c = 1 Kosterlitz-Thouless theory. We analyze this fusion category using the tools from the group theoretical fusion category and compute the simple lines, fusion rules and F-symbols. We then studied the physical implication of this fusion category including deriving the spin selection rule, computing the asymptotic density of states of irreducible representations of the fusion category symmetries, and analyzing its anomaly and constraints under the renormalization group flow. There is another set of F-symbols for the fusion categories with the same fusion rule known in the literature. We find these two solutions are different as they lead to different spin selection rules. This gives a complete list of the fusion categories with the same fusion rule by the classification result in.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Cumulative Water Rights Curves

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. This product is the dataset used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al., in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (submission pending). This database contains 1,744 individual .csv files, two for each Water Management Area (WMA; see here) in the 11-state region. File naming convention: WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either S for surface water rights, or G for groundwater rights. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the ### unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al., in review)

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Cumulative Water Rights Curves

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. This product is the dataset used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al., in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (submission pending). This database contains 1,744 individual .csv files, two for each Water Management Area (WMA; see here) in the 11-state region. File naming convention: WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either S for surface water rights, or G for groundwater rights. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the ### unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al., in review) The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataCumulationCurves.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Evaluation of Saccadic Component Measure on Smooth Pursuit Tests

ABSTRACT Introduction Despite the advancement of eye-tracking technology for smooth pursuit (SP) eye movement evaluation, qualitative observation offers much information that is not captured by computers; hence, both objective and qualitative information should be utilized to evaluate SP. This study examined the consistency among our clinicians when evaluating SP using normal (N), grossly normal (GN), mildly abnormal (MA), and abnormal (AB) as classifications. We then evaluated the effect of combining GN and MA into a single subclinical (SUBC) category. We also evaluated the computerized percent saccade (PS) metric by determining its sensitivity and specificity in classifying SP. Materials and Methods Retrospective horizontal and vertical SP test videos and numerical data for 70 participants were obtained from the Neuro Kinetics Neuro-Otologic Test Center and de-identified. From this, eye-tracking videos, time plots of eye-tracking positional data, and tables of SP eye-tracking performance data were generated for 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5 Hz in both horizontal and vertical planes, totaling 6 tests per subject. Three clinicians rated each subject’s SP performance as N, GN, MA, or AB for a total of 6 ratings (3 frequencies, horizontal and vertical). This process was repeated using N, SUBC, and AB as rating categories. Clinicians also provided an overall SP rating for each plane as follows: AB if the results were abnormal for 2 or more frequencies tested. Alternatively, if fewer than 2 frequencies presented with a rating of AB, then an overall rating of MA, GN, or N was determined at the respective clinician’s discretion. Results When the 3 clinicians were tasked with classifying SP videos using 4 clinical categories, fair overall agreement was demonstrated. However, when MA and GN categories were combined into an SUBC category, the overall agreement for the 3 clinicians improved slightly for both horizontal SP (HSP) and vertical SP (VSP). This pattern of agreement did not differ considerably when comparing HSP versus VSP, and good consistency and reliability was observed across clinicians. Again, inter-rater consistency was smaller for VSP versus HSP despite the reduction in clinical categories. Cut-off values were generated for the PS metric and demonstrated good specificity and sensitivity when they were exceeded for 2 or more frequencies in a particular plane when evaluating a subject’s SP test. Conclusions

General & Internal Medicine↗
DOE OSTI2022

Simulation, Challenge Testing and Validation of Solutions for Residential and Commercial Occupancy Sensing/Counting and CO2 Sensing (Final Report)

Carbon dioxide sensors used for monitoring and control applications in buildings are known to be sensitive to long term drift and can be affected by variations in temperature, humidity, other gas interferents, pressure and other factors that cannot be corrected through the typical auto-calibration methods often embedded in the sensor electronics. This investigation was part of the Category D defined in the ARPA-E Saving Energy Nationwide in Structures With Occupancy Recognition (SENSOR) Financial Assistance Funding Opportunity Announcement No. DE-FOA-0001737, FFDA No. 81.135, January 18, 2017. The FOA defined target criteria for the evaluation of the Category C commercial CO2 sensors selected for review and development through the ARPA-E SENSOR program and charged the Iowa State Category D team with developing an evaluation methodology for Category C sensors in accordance with these criteria. As part of the work, the Iowa State team chose to engage the standards community in the development of the evaluation methodology. Standard development work in the D22.05 Indoor Air and D22.03 Ambient Atmospheres and Source Emissions subcommittees of ASTM International Committee D22 on Air Quality on the evaluation of low cost sensors and provision of guidance for using indoor carbon dioxide concentrations to evaluate indoor air quality and ventilation is of particular relevance to the Category D efforts. To date, three draft standards with specific input by the Iowa State Category D team have passed the subcommittee balloting stage and are being balloted in December 2022 and January 2023 in the main D22 committee. In addition to the aforementioned standards to which the PI was a contributing author, intellectual property developed in this project pertaining to “An Automated System for Evaluation of the Long Term Performance of Carbon Dioxide Sensors” and “An Automated Ground Truth System for Real-Time Reliability Assessment, Capture of Control Decisions and Energy Savings Measurements for Occupancy Recognition Systems and Other Applications” are the other major deliverables of the project. These standards and the developed intellectual property are expected to benefit the public in a number of ways stemming from their provision of means to benchmark the performance of carbon dioxide and other sensor systems. In particular, there is high interest in techniques to demonstrate the performance of low-cost carbon dioxide sensors which can be used for typical HVAC applications (e.g., demand controlled ventilation, outdoor and indoor air monitoring, estimation of occupancy, etc.).

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Impacts of Bulk Microphysics Scheme Structural Choices on Simulations of Rain Initiation Through Drop Coalescence

This study examines how different structural choices in bulk microphysics schemes impact the simulation of warm rain initiation. A single liquid category (SLC) approach prognosing up to four moments of a single drop size distribution (DSD) is compared to the traditional two-category, two-moment approach with separate DSDs for cloud and rain (four total prognostic variables). Different methods for calculating tendencies of the prognostic variables from drop collision-coalescence are also tested: a discretized numerical-integration approach, machine learning via neural networks, lookup tables, and traditional power law fits. Relative to simulations using a bin microphysics model, SLC gives smaller error overall than the two-category approach when numerical integration is used to calculate the collision-coalescence tendencies for both. Replacing the numerical integration with a pre-computed lookup table reduces computational cost with little loss of accuracy. However, using fitted power laws with SLC to represent the collision-coalescence tendencies substantially reduces accuracy and leads to an order of magnitude increase in error. It is also demonstrated that with SLC, reasonably accurate solutions are obtained using only three prognostic moments, while a two-moment SLC scheme leads to substantial error. Overall, both the choice of prognostic moments (e.g., SLC vs. two-category) and method to calculate the collision-coalescence tendencies are important to consider for minimizing errors in bulk schemes. SLC with a sufficiently detailed calculation of the collision-coalescence tendencies provides accurate solutions for a reasonable computational cost, providing a viable alternative to the traditional two-category, two-moment approach for bulk microphysics.

320 (cloud physics and chemistry)↗
DOE OSTI2023

Smart manufacturing maturity models and their applicability: a review

The purpose of this paper is to review existing smart manufacturing (SM) maturity models' dimensions and maturity levels to assess their applicability and drawbacks. There are many maturity models available but many of them have not been validated or do not provide a useful guide or tool for applications. This gap creates the need for a review of the existing maturity model's applicability. Nineteen peer-reviewed maturity models related to “Digital Transformation,” “Industry 4.0” or “Smart Manufacturing” were selected based on a systematic literature review and five consulting firm models were selected based on the author's industry knowledge. The chosen models were analyzed to determine 10 categories of dimensions. Then they are assessed on a 1–5 scale for how applicable they are in the 10 categories of dimensions. The five “consulting firm” models have a first-mover advantage, are more widely used in industry and are more applicable, but some require payment, and they lack published details and validation. The 19 “peer reviewed” models are not as widely used, lack awareness in the industry and are not as easy to apply because of no web tool for self-assessment, but they are improving. The categories defined to characterize the models and facilitate comparisons for users include “Information Technology (IT) and Cyber-Physical System (CPS) and Data,” “Strategy and Organization,” “Supply Chain and Logistics,” “Products and Services,” “Culture and Employees,” “Technology and Capabilities,” “Customer and Market,” “Cybersecurity and Risk,” “Leadership and Management” and “Governance and Compliance.” The analyzed maturity models were particularly weak in the areas of cybersecurity, leadership and governance. Researchers and practitioners can use this review with consideration of their specific needs to determine if a maturity model is applicable or if a new model needs to be developed. The review can also aid in the development of maturity models through the discussion of each of the dimension categories. Finally, compared to existing reviews of SM maturity models, this research determines comprehensive dimension categories and focuses on applicability and drawbacks.

42 ENGINEERING↗