Results for “Experimental Testbed” — Page 5

DOE OSTI2024

Monitoring spatiotemporal evolution of fractures during hydraulic stimulations at the first EGS collab testbed using anisotropic elastic-waveform inversion

The EGS Collab project acquired continuous active-source seismic monitoring (CASSM) data before, during, and after hydraulic stimulations at the first testbed at the depth of 4850 ft (1478 m) at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, South Dakota, for monitoring fracture creation and evolution. CASSM acquisition was conducted using 24 hydrophones, 18 accelerometers, and 17 piezoelectric sources within four fracture-parallel wells and two orthogonal wells. 3D anisotropic traveltime tomography and anisotropic elastic-waveform inversion of the campaign cross-borehole seismic data show that the rock within the stimulation region is a heterogeneous horizontal transverse isotropic medium. Here we use these inversion results as the initial models and apply 3D anisotropic first-arrival traveltime tomography and 3D anisotropic elastic-waveform inversion to the CASSM data acquired after each stimulation in May, 2018 and December, 2018. We observe the spatiotemporal evolution of seismic velocities and anisotropic parameters caused by hydraulic fracture stimulations, showing the regions of rock alternation caused by hydraulic fracture stimulation.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

The EGS Collab project: Outcomes and lessons learned from hydraulic fracture stimulations in crystalline rock at 1.25 and 1.5 km depth

With the goal of better understanding stimulation in crystalline rock for improving enhanced geothermal systems (EGS), the EGS Collab Project performed a series of stimulations and flow tests at 1.25 and 1.5 km depths. The tests were performed in two well-instrumented testbeds in the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, South Dakota, United States. The testbed for Experiment 1 at 1.5 km depth contained two open wells for injection and production and six instrumented monitoring wells surrounding the targeted stimulation zone. Four multi-step stimulation tests targeting hydraulic fracturing and nearly year-long ambient temperature and chilled water flow tests were performed in Experiment 1. The testbed for Experiments 2 and 3 was at 1.25 km depth and contained five open wells in an outwardly fanning five-spot pattern and two fans of well-instrumented monitoring wells surrounding the targeted stimulation zone. Experiment 2 targeted shear stimulation, and Experiment 3 targeted low-flow, high-flow, and oscillating pressure stimulation strategies. Hydraulic fracturing was successful in Experiments 1 and 3 in generating a connected system wherein injected water could be collected. However, the resulting flow was distributed dynamically, and not entirely collected at the anticipated production well. Thermal breakthrough was not observed in the production well, but that could have been masked by the Joule-Thomson effect. Shear stimulation in Experiment 2 did not occur - despite attempting to pressurize the fractures most likely to shear - because of the inability to inject water into a mostly-healed fracture, and the low shear-to-normal stress ratio. The EGS Collab experiments are described to provide a background for lessons learned on topics including induced seismicity, the correlation between seismicity and permeability, distributed and dynamic flow systems, thermoelastic and pressure effects, shear stimulation, local geology, thermal breakthrough, monitoring stimulation, grouting boreholes, modeling, and system management.

15 - GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2026

Data, model inputs, and analysis scripts associated with a manuscript on stream intermittency controls across spatial scales in Pacific Northwest watersheds

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final dataset and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the manuscript "Hydroclimatic Memory and Watershed Template Shape Stream Intermittency: Multi-scale Attribution Using Process-based Simulation and Explainable ML" by Niroula et al. (2026), submitted to Water Resources Research (WRR). The study investigates the dominant controls on stream intermittency across local, reach, and watershed scales using a coupled process-based simulation and explainable machine-learning framework. Long-term daily simulations from the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS) were used to generate wetness states and ponded-depth responses over river-corridor cells. These ATS outputs were then aggregated across scales and used to train XGBoost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) models. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) was applied to quantify the relative importance of hydroclimatic forcings, watershed template attributes, and antecedent-memory effects in shaping intermittency behavior. The analysis is carried out for three contrasting Pacific Northwest watersheds: Oak Creek (OCW), American River Watershed (ARW), and H.J. Andrews (HJA). Across these testbeds, the package contains ATS-ready watershed inputs, ATS run configuration and selected output files, model-evaluation data products, intermittency-analysis datasets, machine-learning target-feature tables, SHAP outputs, and notebooks used to organize, analyze, and visualize results. At a high level, the package documents a workflow in which ATS provides the physically based simulation backbone and explainable machine learning is used as a post-processing attribution tool. The contents are intended to support interpretation of the manuscript figures and results, provide context for how intermittency metrics were generated at multiple scales, and preserve the key artifacts needed to understand and reuse the analysis workflow. The package contains a high-level directory summary file (`summary.txt`) and four main content folders (1) `evaluation_plots` contains evaluation figures and supporting evaluation datasets; (2) `intermittency_plots` contains intermittency-focused analysis notebook and prepared datasets; (3) `ml-training-and-shap_values_plots` contains ML training inputs, SHAP outputs, and figure-generation notebooks; and (4) `watershed_mesh_and_ats_input` contains ATS model setup materials, forcing inputs, geometry, and selected run files. More specifically, the `evaluation_plots` folder contains the notebook used for ATS evaluation plotting and site-specific evaluation datasets. These include evapotranspiration and water-balance products for three watersheds, as well as an Oak Creek field-measurement discharge file. The `intermittency_plots` folder contains the notebook used for intermittency analysis and the prepared datasets used to analyze intermittent and non-intermittent wetness behavior across the study watersheds. The `ml-training-and-shap_values_plots` folder contains notebooks and outputs for the machine-learning and explainability workflow. This includes the main XGBoost and SHAP notebook(s), a beeswarm plotting notebook, target-feature tables for machine-learning training, SHAP summary tables, and per-sample SHAP value archives. The `watershed_mesh_and_ats_input` folder contains ATS-related watershed inputs and supporting materials. This includes mesh and shape products, ATS-readable LAI and meteorological forcing inputs, selected ATS spinup and transient-run files, and a watershed workflow example notebook. Subdirectories are organized by watershed where applicable.All files are .cpg (codepage files), .csv (comma-separated values), .dbf (database files), .exo (Exodus mesh format), .h5 (HDF5 format), .ipynb (Jupyter notebooks), .pkl (Python pickle), .prj (projection files), .sh (shell scripts), .shp (shapefile geometry), .shx (shapefile index), .txt (text files), or .xml (markup data).

Advanced Terrestrial Simulator↗