Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Infrastructure”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Experiences of Member States in Building a Nuclear Security Infrastructure for New Nuclear Power Programmes

A nuclear power programme has many benefits, but it is a major undertaking that requires careful planning and preparation as well as a substantial investment in time. It also necessitates the establishment of a sustainable national infrastructure with committed and sustained financial and human resources. While nuclear power is not unique in this respect, it is different from other sources of energy because of the risks associated with the use of nuclear material, as well as the need for compliance with international legal instruments, internationally accepted nuclear safety standards, nuclear security guidance, and safeguards requirements. The IAEA’s Milestones in the Development of a National Infrastructure for Nuclear Power, IAEA Nuclear Energy Series No. NG-G-3.1 (Rev. 1), defines a phased approach that identifies 19 infrastructure issues that should be addressed in each of the three phases of the development of a nuclear infrastructure for a nuclear power programme. The publication Evaluation of the Status of National Nuclear Infrastructure Development IAEA Nuclear Energy Series NG-T-3.2 (Rev. 2) provides a methodology to determine the status of the infrastructure conditions covering all 19 issues identified in the Milestones Approach. A companion IAEA Implementing Guide, Establishing the Nuclear Security Infrastructure for a Nuclear Power Programme, IAEA Nuclear Security Series No. 19, provides guidance on the recommended actions to be taken by a State to establish an effective national nuclear security infrastructure for a nuclear power programme using the Milestones Approach. This publication is intended to provide guidance based on the experiences and good practices of Member States with embarking nuclear power programmes as well as Member States that are expanding their nuclear power programmes. The guidance is in the form of case studies, which highlight challenges, issues, and solutions identified by Member States as lessons learned for new nuclear power programmes. This TECDOC is designed to present the experiences of Member States to assist other Member States in developing a nuclear security programme. It addresses the key actions necessary to establish an effective national nuclear security infrastructure for a nuclear power programme consistent with the three phases of the IAEA Milestones Approach. The Member States that provided case studies in this document are at different stages in the development of a nuclear power programme.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS2017

Building an Economical and Sustainable Lunar Infrastructure to Enable Lunar Industrialization

A new concept study was initiated to examine the architecture needed to gradually develop an economical, evolvable and sustainable lunar infrastructure using a public/private partnerships approach. This approach would establish partnership agreements between NASA and industry teams to develop a lunar infrastructure system that would be mutually beneficial. This approach would also require NASA and its industry partners to share costs in the development phase and then transfer operation of these infrastructure services back to its industry owners in the execution phase. These infrastructure services may include but are not limited to the following: lunar cargo transportation, power stations, communication towers and satellites, autonomous rover operations, landing pads and resource extraction operations. The public/private partnerships approach used in this study leveraged best practices from NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program which introduced an innovative and economical approach for partnering with industry to develop commercial cargo services to the International Space Station. This program was planned together with the ISS Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts which was responsible for initiating commercial cargo delivery services to the ISS for the first time. The public/private partnerships approach undertaken in the COTS program proved to be very successful in dramatically reducing development costs for these ISS cargo delivery services as well as substantially reducing operational costs. To continue on this successful path towards installing economical infrastructure services for LEO and beyond, this new study, named Lunar COTS (Commercial Operations and Transport Services), was conducted to examine extending the NASA COTS model to cis-lunar space and the lunar surface. The goals of the Lunar COTS concept are to: 1) develop and demonstrate affordable and commercial cis-lunar and surface capabilities, such as lunar cargo delivery and surface power generation, in partnership with industry; 2) incentivize industry to establish economical and sustainable lunar infrastructure services to support NASA missions and initiate lunar commerce; and 3) encourage creation of new space markets for economic growth and benefit. A phased-development approach was also studied to allow for incremental development and demonstration of capabilities needed to build a lunar infrastructure. This paper will describe the Lunar COTS concept goals, objectives and approach for building an economical and sustainable lunar infrastructure. It will also describe the technical challenges and advantages of developing and operating each infrastructure element. It will also describe the potential benefits and progress that can be accomplished in the initial phase of this Lunar COTS approach. Finally, the paper will also look forward to the potential of a robust lunar industrialization environment and its potential effect on the next 50 years of space exploration.

Zuniga, Allison F.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Toward indicators of the performance of US infrastructures under climate change risks

Built infrastructures are increasingly disrupted by climate-related extreme events. Being able to monitor what climate change implies for US infrastructures is of considerable importance to all levels of decision-makers. A capacity to develop cross-cutting, widely applicable indicators for more than a dozen different kinds of infrastructure, however, is severely limited at present. The development of such indicators must be considered an ongoing activity that will require expansion and refinement. A number of recent consensus reports suggest four priorities for indicators that portray the impacts of climate change, climate-related extreme events, and other driving forces on infrastructure. These are changes in the reliability of infrastructure services and the implications for costs; changes in the resilience of infrastructures to climate and other stresses; impacts due to the interdependencies of infrastructures; and ongoing adaptation in infrastructures.

adaptation, indicators, infrastructure↗
DOE OSTI2020

Modeling charging infrastructure impact on the electric vehicle market in China

The plug-in electric vehicle (PEV) is deemed as a critical technological revolution, and the governments are imposing various vehicle policies to promote its development. Meanwhile, the market success of PEVs depends on many aspects. The study reported herein integrates one’s use of charging infrastructure at home, public place and workplace into the market dynamics analysis tool, New Energy and Oil Consumption Credits (NEOCC) model, to systematically assess the charging infrastructure (home parking ratio, public charging opportunity, and charging costs) impact on PEV ownership costs and analyze how the PEV market shares may be affected by the attributes of the charging infrastructure. Compared to the charging infrastructure, the impact of battery costs is incontrovertibly decisive on PEV market shares, the charging infrastructure is still non-negligible in the PEV market dynamics. The simulation results find that the public charging infrastructure has more effectiveness on promoting the PEV sales in the PEV emerging market than it does in the PEV mature market. However, the improvement of charging infrastructure does not necessarily lead to a larger PEV market if the charging infrastructure incentives do not coordinate well with other PEV policies. Besides, the increase of public charging opportunities has limited motivations on the growth of public PEV fleets, which are highly correlated to the number of public fast charging stations or outlets. It also finds that more home parking spaces can stimulate more sales of personal plug-in hybrid electric vehicles instead of personal battery electric vehicles.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: First Q2022

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2022 (Q1). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the ninth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Second Quarter 2022)

The U.S. Department of Energy's Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private nonresidential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2022 (Q2). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with two different 2030 infrastructure requirement scenarios. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the tenth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator (Third Quarter 2023)

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the third calendar quarter of 2023 (Q3 2023) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared to the infrastructure requirement scenario outlined in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report, The 2030 National Charging Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the fifteenth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and NREL publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Fourth Quarter 2023

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the fourth calendar quarter of 2023 (Q4 2023) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared to the infrastructure requirement scenario outlined in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report, The 2030 National Charging Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the sixteenth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and NREL publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: First Quarter 2024

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the first calendar quarter of 2024 (Q1 2024) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared to the infrastructure requirement scenario outlined in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report, "The 2030 National Charging Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure" (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85654.pdf). This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the 17th report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and NREL publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2024

Electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure continues to rapidly change and grow. Using data from the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator, this report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2024 (Q2 2024) by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared to the infrastructure requirement scenario outlined in the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) report, "The 2030 National Charging Network: Estimating U.S. Light-Duty Demand for Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure" (https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy23osti/85654.pdf). This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape of EV charging infrastructure. This is the 18th report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and NREL publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Rising infrastructure inequalities accompany urbanization and economic development

Impending global urban population growth is expected to occur with considerable infrastructure expansion. However, our understanding of attendant infrastructure inequalities is limited, highlighting a critical knowledge gap in the sustainable development implications of urbanization. Using satellite data from 2000 to 2019, we examine country-level population-adjusted biases in infrastructure distribution within and between regions of varying urbanization levels and derive four key findings. First, we find long-run positive associations between infrastructure inequalities and both urbanization and economic development. Second, our estimates highlight increasing infrastructure inequalities across most of the countries examined. Third, we find greater future infrastructure inequality increases in the global south, where inequalities will rise more in countries with substantial urban primacy. Fourth, we find that infrastructure inequality may evolve differently than economic inequalities. Overall, advancing sustainable development vis-à-vis urbanization and economic development will require intentional infrastructure planning for spatial equity.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Evaluating Offshore Infrastructure Integrity

Drilling in the offshore environment involves a complex network of infrastructure including pipelines, platforms, rigs, subsea installations, ports, and terminals. Government and industry partners have developed this network over many decades and it remains a critical part of the United States (U.S.) energy portfolio. Many of the major components of this system have been designed with a 20- to 30-year lifespan, yet consistent and growing energy demands support the need to extend the design life of existing infrastructure or repurpose it for secondary needs (i.e. enhanced oil recovery, carbon storage, and new wells). As a result, a growing portion of the offshore infrastructure in the U.S. is approaching or has exceeded its original design life. A critical step in ensuring the continued safe and effective operation of offshore infrastructure is developing a comprehensive understanding of the state of offshore infrastructure and the factors that effect it. The purpose of this project is to assess the current state of existing infrastructure and identify the factors involved in infrastructure degradation through the development and application of big data analytics, machine learning, and advanced spatio-temporal analysis. The project leverages existing data at NETL and combines it with new information on offshore oil and gas structures and the ambient offshore environment in an effort to identify patterns associated with infrastructure integrity. Building on the identified trends and patterns, this project incorporates exploratory analytics and spatial analysis tools in conjunction with machine learning and statistical models to characterize the condition of existing platforms in the offshore environment and predict their risk of failure.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2025

Planning Amidst Uncertainty: Identifying Core CCS Infrastructure Robust to Storage Uncertainty

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is a critical technology for reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but its large-scale deployment is complicated by uncertainties in geological storage performance. These uncertainties pose significant financial and operational risks, as underperforming storage sites can lead to costly infrastructure modifications, inefficient pipeline routing, and economic shortfalls. To address this challenge, we propose a novel optimization workflow that is based on mixed-integer linear programming and explicitly integrates probabilistic modeling of storage uncertainty into CCS infrastructure design. This workflow generates multiple infrastructure scenarios by sampling storage capacity distributions, optimally solving each scenario using a mixed-integer linear programming model, and aggregating results into a heatmap to identify core infrastructure components that have a low likelihood of underperforming. A risk index parameter is introduced to balance trade-offs between cost, CO2 processing capacity, and risk of underperformance, allowing stakeholders to quantify and mitigate uncertainty in CCS planning. Applying this workflow to a CCS dataset from the US Department of Energy’s Carbon Utilization and Storage Partnership project reveals key insights into infrastructure resilience. Reducing the risk index from 15% to 0% is observed to lead to an 83.7% reduction in CO2 processing capacity and a 77.1% decrease in project profit, quantifying the trade-off between risk tolerance and project performance. Furthermore, our results highlight critical breakpoints, where small adjustments in the risk index produce disproportionate shifts in infrastructure performance, providing actionable guidance for decision-makers. Unlike prior approaches that aimed to cheaply repair underperforming infrastructure, our workflow constructs robust CCS networks from the ground up, ensuring cost-effective infrastructure under storage uncertainty. These findings demonstrate the practical relevance of incorporating uncertainty-aware optimization into CCS planning, equipping decision-makers with a tool to make informed project planning decisions.

Olson, Daniel↗
NASA NTRS1996

An Open Computing Infrastructure that Facilitates Integrated Product and Process Development from a Decision-Based Perspective

Computer applications for design have evolved rapidly over the past several decades, and significant payoffs are being achieved by organizations through reductions in design cycle times. These applications are overwhelmed by the requirements imposed during complex, open engineering systems design. Organizations are faced with a number of different methodologies, numerous legacy disciplinary tools, and a very large amount of data. Yet they are also faced with few interdisciplinary tools for design collaboration or methods for achieving the revolutionary product designs required to maintain a competitive advantage in the future. These organizations are looking for a software infrastructure that integrates current corporate design practices with newer simulation and solution techniques. Such an infrastructure must be robust to changes in both corporate needs and enabling technologies. In addition, this infrastructure must be user-friendly, modular and scalable. This need is the motivation for the research described in this dissertation. The research is focused on the development of an open computing infrastructure that facilitates product and process design. In addition, this research explicitly deals with human interactions during design through a model that focuses on the role of a designer as that of decision-maker. The research perspective here is taken from that of design as a discipline with a focus on Decision-Based Design, Theory of Languages, Information Science, and Integration Technology. Given this background, a Model of IPPD is developed and implemented along the lines of a traditional experimental procedure: with the steps of establishing context, formalizing a theory, building an apparatus, conducting an experiment, reviewing results, and providing recommendations. Based on this Model, Design Processes and Specification can be explored in a structured and implementable architecture. An architecture for exploring design called DREAMS (Developing Robust Engineering Analysis Models and Specifications) has been developed which supports the activities of both meta-design and actual design execution. This is accomplished through a systematic process which is comprised of the stages of Formulation, Translation, and Evaluation. During this process, elements from a Design Specification are integrated into Design Processes. In addition, a software infrastructure was developed and is called IMAGE (Intelligent Multidisciplinary Aircraft Generation Environment). This represents a virtual apparatus in the Design Experiment conducted in this research. IMAGE is an innovative architecture because it explicitly supports design-related activities. This is accomplished through a GUI driven and Agent-based implementation of DREAMS. A HSCT design has been adopted from the Framework for Interdisciplinary Design Optimization (FIDO) and is implemented in IMAGE. This problem shows how Design Processes and Specification interact in a design system. In addition, the problem utilizes two different solution models concurrently: optimal and satisfying. The satisfying model allows for more design flexibility and allows a designer to maintain design freedom. As a result of following this experimental procedure, this infrastructure is an open system that it is robust to changes in both corporate needs and computer technologies. The development of this infrastructure leads to a number of significant intellectual contributions: 1) A new approach to implementing IPPD with the aid of a computer; 2) A formal Design Experiment; 3) A combined Process and Specification architecture that is language-based; 4) An infrastructure for exploring design; 5) An integration strategy for implementing computer resources; and 6) A seamless modeling language. The need for these contributions is emphasized by the demand by industry and government agencies for the development of these technologies.

Hale, Mark A.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Automated Reconfigurable Mission Adaptive Digital Assembly Systems (ARMADAS): Robotically Assembled Sustainable Lunar Infrastructure

Introduction: The Automated Reconfigurable Mission Adaptive Digital Assembly Systems (ARMADAS) project at NASA Ames Research Center is developing autonomous infrastructure, instrumentation, and spacecraft assembly and manufacturing capabilities for next generation exploration and science missions, with a goal to change the cost scaling of these missions relative to mission size and duration. Using a building-block approach with a 'kit of parts' composed of ultra-light, high-performance mechanical metamaterials, simplified robots leverage the period environment to achieve high levels of autonomy and reliability for in-space and surface assembly of large-scale apertures, solar-arrays, towers, habitats, and other infrastructure. Robots and structure break down into a compact form factor for launch. By leveraging economies of scale and achieving high-packing ratios, ARMADAS technology can revolutionize possible space missions by breaking the tyranny of the launch shroud, decreasing development times, decreasing mission costs for transformative science capability, and providing a scalable and versatile space infrastructure strategy. Capabilities: To date, the ARMADAS project has demonstrated autonomous assembly of large numbers of structural modules into a meters-scale structure in an earth gravity environment. The mechanical performance is on par with conventional space structures, at a fraction of the cost. By using highly repeatable manufacturing processes (injection molding carbon fiber reinforced space-rated polymers), the structures are both cost effective and highly precise. The ARAMADAS system carefully designs parts for high-precision assembly–the simple and cost-effective robots build structures much larger and more precise than themselves. While maintaining structural efficiency, the ARMADAS system encompasses many functional module types, including for solar power, comm/power routing, etc., that will enable entire infrastructure systems to be engineered and autonomously assembled with modular parts. With well-defined interfaces, custom instrumentation modules can easily be added to fit many mission objectives. Lunar Infrastructure Vision: At the LSIC spring meeting, ARMADAS will present a vision for a general-purpose lunar construction kit capable of meeting a wide variety of lunar surface infrastructure needs (Figure 1). Investing in an ecosystem of reconfigurable, discretely repairable parts and robots enables systems than can expand their capability, reconfigure to meet emergency or unforeseen needs, self-repair and reduce spare-part needs. With a small set of parts (module types), a wide variety of infrastructure needs can be met. Footing modules will allow infrastructure construction at locations with no surface preparation. Footer, primary structure, and rail modules can create reconfigurable rail systems. These rail systems can be used to reduce cost-of-transport between frequently accessed sites, provide dust mitigation, and convey power and communications. High-performance structure modules combined with power-routing and solar modules can create tall towers for power and communication. Concepts for habitats and garages encompass a structure to support regolith cover for a pre-integrated module to an entirely ARMADAS system-based structure. This system can be leveraged by many in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technologies to simplify processes and augment capabilities.

C. E. Gregg↗
DOE OSTI2020

System Health and Status Reporting is Used to Improve Infrastructure Systems at the Hanford Site - 20449

Reliable physical infrastructure systems are vital to completing the clean-up mission and the start-up and commissioning of new nuclear waste processing facilities at the Hanford Site. Key infrastructure systems at Hanford include water, sewer, and electrical utilities, roads, telecommunications/network systems, and fire systems. All of the infrastructure systems are non-nuclear, General Service systems that are being maintained under formal engineering configuration control and none are specifically credited in any documented safety analysis (DSA). Starting in calendar year 2017, the Hanford Site's infrastructure and services contractor started producing system health and status reports for a total of 15 critical infrastructure systems as means to get a better understanding of each system's health and how it could be improved to ensure better and more reliable service delivery. As the reporting, tracking, and use of the metrics has matured, the number of systems for which reports are being developed has been expanded to a total of 23. Each of the critical infrastructure systems are assigned primary and alternate design authorities that complete qualifications on each assigned system. The design authorities actively manage and maintain configuration control on each of their systems and track metrics associated with availability, maintenance (corrective and preventive), and configuration of the technical baseline. The metrics are based on the principles established in Chapter V of DOE O 420.1C, Facility Safety, [1] and have been tailored as appropriate to each of the key infrastructure systems. An overall assessment of system health is performed and documented on a routine basis (e.g., quarterly). Included in this documentation is a quantitative score for each of the metrics (i.e., availability, maintenance, configuration management) along with results of system walk-downs, description of any permanent design modifications, identification of new or emerging issues and vulnerabilities affecting the system, and an assessment by the design authority of actions necessary to improve the system health score. The overall status scores are calculated using a formula and based on a pre-determined grading scale, a color is assigned for simple presentation. The information gained from developing the reports is being used to (1) assist with making timely and better informed decisions through the use of solid technical bases that are increasing the overall reliability and capabilities of the Site's infrastructure systems as new expense and capital projects in the Reliability Projects Investment Portfolio (RPIP) are prioritized and executed; (2) feed the risk management program, and (3) integrate the technical content of Master Plans that describe the Site's needs for the system and the system's capabilities to meet those future needs. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2022

Game-Theoretic Strategies for Cyber-Physical Infrastructures Under Component Disruptions

In this work, networked infrastructures of recursively defined systems composed of discrete cyber and physical components are considered. The components of basic systems at the finest levels can be disrupted by cyber or physical means, and can be reinforced to survive at certain costs. A problem of ensuring the infrastructure performance is formulated as a game between a provider and an attacker, who probabilistically choose components to reinforce and attack, respectively. The disruptions of this infrastructure are characterized using the aggregate failure correlation function that specifies the conditional failure probability of the infrastructure given the failure of an individual system at that level. The survival probabilities of basic systems satisfy simple product-form, first-order differential equations expressed in terms of the multiplier functions. The utility functions of the provider and attacker are composed of the reward and cost terms, both expressed in terms of the component reinforcement and attack probabilities. The Nash equilibrium of this game is characterized, along with the sensitivity functions of the survival probabilities of basic systems that highlight their dependence individually on the cost-benefit terms, the correlation functions, and the multiplier functions. These results are illustrated using simplified models of a distributed cloud servers infrastructure, a 5G data network infrastructure, a high performance computing federation, and a smart energy grid infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Trends from the Alternative Fueling Station Locator: Second Quarter 2021

The U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE's) Alternative Fueling Station Locator contains information on public and private non-residential alternative fueling stations in the United States and Canada and currently tracks ethanol (E85), biodiesel, compressed natural gas, electric vehicle (EV) charging, hydrogen, liquefied natural gas, and propane stations. Of these fuels, EV charging continues to experience rapidly changing technology and growing infrastructure. This report provides a snapshot of the state of EV charging infrastructure in the United States in the second calendar quarter of 2021 (Q2). Using data from the Station Locator, this report breaks down the growth of public and private charging infrastructure by charging level, network, and location. Additionally, this report measures the current state of charging infrastructure compared with the target infrastructure volume for 2030. This information is intended to help transportation planners, policymakers, researchers, infrastructure developers, and others understand the rapidly changing landscape for EV charging. This is the sixth report in a series. Reports from previous quarters can be found in the Alternative Fuels Data Center (AFDC) and National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) publication databases, as well as the AFDC Charging Infrastructure Trends page (https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/electricity_infrastructure_trends.html).

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗