SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
This presentation slide document reviews the attempts to integrate systems and create common standards for missions. A primary example is telemetry and command sets for satellites. The XML Telemetric and Command Exchange (XTCE) exists, but this is not easy to implement. There is a need for a new standard. The document proposes a method to achieve the standard, and the benefits of using a new standard,
In high energy physics (HEP), analysis metadata comes in many forms—from theoretical cross-sections, to calibration corrections, to details about file processing. Correctly applying metadata is a crucial and often time-consuming step in an analysis, but designing analysis metadata systems has historically received little direct attention. Among other considerations, an ideal metadata tool should be easy to use by new analysers, should scale to large data volumes and diverse processing paradigms, and should enable future analysis reinterpretation. This document, which is the product of community discussions organised by the HEP Software Foundation, categorises types of metadata by scope and format and gives examples of current metadata solutions. Important design considerations for metadata systems, including sociological factors, analysis preservation efforts, and technical factors, are discussed. A list of best practices and technical requirements for future analysis metadata systems is presented. These best practices could guide the development of a future cross-experimental effort for analysis metadata tools.
Monte Carlo event generators are a critical tool for the interpretation of data obtained by neutrino experiments. Several modern event generators are available which are well-suited to the GeV energy scale used in studies of accelerator neutrinos. However, theoretical modeling differences make their immediate application to lower energies difficult. In this paper, I present a new event generator, MARLEY, which is designed to better address the simulation needs of the low-energy (tens of MeV and below) neutrino community. The code is written in C++14 with an optional interface to the popular ROOT data analysis framework. The current release of MARLEY (version 1.2.0) emphasizes simulations of the reaction 40 Ar ( ν e , e − ) 40 K ⁎ but is extensible to other channels with suitable user input. This paper provides detailed documentation of MARLEY's implementation and usage, including guidance on how generated events may be analyzed and how MARLEY may be interfaced with external codes such as Geant4. Further information about MARLEY is available on the official website at http://www.marleygen.org. Program title:MARLEY 1.2.0 CPC Library link to program files:https://doi.org/10.17632/4v7zxnc8j3.1 Developer's respository link:http://github.com/MARLEY-MC/marley Code Ocean capsule:https://codeocean.com/capsule/9868179 Licensing provisions: GNU General Public License 3.0 Programming language: C++14 External routines/libraries used: GNU Scientific Library [1,2] (required), ROOT [3,4] (optional) Nature of problem: Simulation of neutrino-nucleus scattering events at energies of tens-of-MeV and below Solution method: Initial two-to-two scattering kinematics are sampled using the allowed approximation differential cross section and tables of precomputed nuclear matrix elements. Subsequent de-excitations of the remnant nucleus are simulated using a Monte Carlo implementation of the Hauser-Feshbach statistical model and tabulated γ-ray decay schemes for discrete nuclear levels. Additional comments including restrictions and unusual features: Input data are provided with the code that are suitable for producing simulations of the charged-current reaction 40 Ar ( ν e , e − ) 40 K ⁎ , coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering on spin-zero target nuclei, and neutrino-electron elastic scattering on any atomic target. Preparation of new reaction input files (whose format is documented in Appendix B) would enable other reaction channels and nuclear targets to be handled by the existing code framework. Although there is no maximum neutrino energy enforced by the code itself, realistic neutrino-nucleus scattering events may be generated up to roughly 50 MeV. Above this energy, the effects of forbidden nuclear transitions, which are neglected in the current treatment of the cross sections (see section 2.1), become increasingly important.
The multireference coupled-cluster Monte Carlo (MR-CCMC) algorithm is a determinant-based quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) algorithm that is conceptually similar to Full Configuration Interaction QMC (FCIQMC). It has been shown to offer a balanced treatment of both static and dynamic correlation while retaining polynomial scaling, although application to large systems with significant strong correlation remained impractical. In this paper, we document recent algorithmic advances that enable rapid convergence and a more black-box approach to the multireference problem. These include a logarithmically scaling metric-tree-based excitation acceptance algorithm to search for determinants connected to the reference space at the desired excitation level and a symmetry-screening procedure for the reference space. We show that, for moderately sized reference spaces, the new search algorithm brings about an approximately 8-fold acceleration of one MR-CCMC iteration, while the symmetry screening procedure reduces the number of active reference space determinants with essentially no loss of accuracy. We also introduce a stochastic implementation of an approximate wall projector, which is the infinite imaginary time limit of the exponential projector, using a truncated expansion of the wall function in Chebyshev polynomials. Notably, this wall-Chebyshev projector can be used to accelerate any projector-based QMC algorithm. We show that it requires significantly fewer applications of the Hamiltonian to achieve the same statistical convergence. We benchmark these acceleration methods on the beryllium and carbon dimers, using initiator FCIQMC and MR-CCMC with basis sets up to cc-pVQZ quality.
Reframe enables the parsing of a document in the PDF format and the recovery of the hierarchical structure of the content within.
This is a new data and metadata reporting format for soil respiration data, based on engagement with a wide range of researchers in the earth and ecological sciences as well as expert advisory panels. Reporting formats are intended to be ‘bottom-up’, community-developed documents and templates that can enable consistent, findable, accessible, interoperable, and reproducible (FAIR) data; our goal was a reporting format that would be relevant and useful for synthesis activities, optimizing data discoverability and usability while not placing an undue burden on data contributors. The format is split into two levels of information—metadata about chambers (used to measure soil respiration in the field), and the measured data themselves. The file data_reportingformat_template.xlsx contains information on how the data table should be structured, including field names, field descriptions, and units; the chammetadata_reportingformat_template.xlsx file contains similar information for the chamber-level metadata. Fundamentally, this format aims to enable FAIR data through an easy-to-use guide for data providers interested in formatting their data in a common way, and provide ‘future-proofing’ capabilities to support reanalyses of soil respiration data, a globally-important component of the carbon cycle.
Various authors have previously studied the theory and practice of cavity testing, notably an extensive treatment by Powers [1] and Padamsee [2]. The advent of the digital Low Level RF (LLRF) electronics based on Field Programmable Logic Arrays (FPGA) provides various improvements over the rather complex systems used in the past as well as enabling new measurement techniques.In this document we reintroduce a technique that seems to have fallen out of practice in recent times, that is obtaining the coupling constant β through measurements from just one port, the reflected power port, of the directional coupler placed in front of the cavity.
This report documents the recent development to enable XFEM to work with higher order elements. It also demonstrates the application of higher order (quadratic) elements to both 2D and 3D models of PCMI problems, where discrete fractures in the fuel are represented using XFEM. The modeling results demonstrate the ability of the higher order XFEM to accurately capture the effects of a crack on the response in the vicinity of the intersecting surfaces of cracked fuel and cladding, as well as represent smooth responses in the regions away from the crack.
Energy demand is growing exponentially, renewing interest in nuclear technology as a reliable, carbon-free energy source. In alignment with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Idaho National Laboratory’s (INL’s) primary mission is to discover, demonstrate and secure innovative nuclear energy solutions. The capability to monitor the conditions inside nuclear reactors core is considered essential to this development process. To enable such capability, the InPile Instrumentation (I2) program was conceived in 2017 as an additional element to DOE Crosscutting Technology Development activities under the Nuclear Energy Enabling Technology (NEET) program. This document reports on the first year of implementation of research activities.
This standard presents a set of optional metadata fields for managed digital objects within the Nuclear Security Enterprise (NSE) and provides a deeper look at data representation in metadata by looking at the representation of 1) Records Management required metadata, and 2) common representations of technical/scientific data. Metadata standardization is a critical enabler for effectively sharing data, documents, and other digital objects between NSE sites, and for tracing the digital thread at the object level. Standardization is necessary for both schemas and vocabularies, meaning that both field standards and value standards must be specified. This document serves as a complementary field standard, recommending an optional set of fields that should be uniformly built for all managed digital objects within the NSE. This document specifically focuses on extending the shared discovery layer defined in the first white paper by introducing additional descriptive and data representation fields that improve cross-site search and interpretation.
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 collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: 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. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. 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.
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 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 included 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 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.
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
A document discusses a technique for enabling the reception of spacecraft commands at received signal levels as much as three orders of magnitude below those of current deep space systems. Tone-based commanding deals with the reception of commands that are sent in the form of precise frequency offsets using an open-loop receiver. The key elements of this technique are an ultrastable oscillator and open-loop receiver onboard the spacecraft, both of which are part of the existing New Horizons (Pluto flyby) communications system design. This enables possible flight experimentation for tone-based commanding during the long cruise of the spacecraft to Pluto. In this technique, it is also necessary to accurately remove Doppler shift from the uplink signal presented to the spacecraft. A signal processor in the spacecraft performs a discrete Fourier transform on the received signal to determine the frequency of the received signal. Due to the long-term drift in the oscillators and orbit prediction model, the system is likely to be implemented differentially, where changes in the uplink frequency convey the command information.
The purpose of this report is to summarize and document the work done to enable a NASA CFD code to model laminar-turbulent transition process on an isolated turbine blade. The ultimate purpose of the present work is to down-select a transition model that would allow the flow simulation of a variable speed power turbine to be accurately performed. The flow modeling in its final form will account for the blade row interactions and their effects on transition which would lead to accurate accounting for losses. The present work only concerns itself with steady flows of variable inlet turbulence. The low Reynolds number k- model of Wilcox and a modified version of the same model will be used for modeling of transition on experimentally measured blade pressure and heat transfer. It will be shown that the k- model and its modified variant fail to simulate the transition with any degree of accuracy. A case is thus made for the adoption of more accurate transition models. Three-equation models based on the work of Mayle on Laminar Kinetic Energy were explored. The three-equation model of Walters and Leylek was thought to be in a relatively mature state of development and was implemented in the Glenn-HT code. Two-dimensional heat transfer predictions of flat plate flow and two-dimensional and three-dimensional heat transfer predictions on a turbine blade were performed and reported herein. Surface heat transfer rate serves as sensitive indicator of transition. With the newly implemented model, it was shown that the simulation of transition process is much improved over the baseline k- model for the single Reynolds number and pressure ratio attempted; while agreement with heat transfer data became more satisfactory. Armed with the new transition model, total-pressure losses of computed three-dimensional flow of E3 tip section cascade were compared to the experimental data for a range of incidence angles. The results obtained, form a partial loss bucket for the chosen blade. In time the loss bucket will be populated with losses at additional incidences. Results obtained thus far will be discussed herein.
The purpose of this report is to document the work done to enable a NASA CFD code to model the transition on a blade. The purpose of the present work is to down-select a transition model that would allow the flow simulation of a Variable-Speed Power-Turbine (VSPT) to be accurately performed. The modeling is to be ultimately performed to also account for the blade row interactions and effect on transition and therefore accurate accounting for losses. The present work is limited to steady flows. The low Reynolds number k-omega model of Wilcox and a modified version of same will be used for modeling of transition on experimentally measured blade pressure and heat transfer. It will be shown that the k-omega model and its modified variant fail to simulate the transition with any degree of accuracy. A case is therefore made for more accurate transition models. Three-equation models based on the work of Mayle on Laminar Kinetic Energy were explored and the Walters and Leylek model which was thought to be in a more mature state of development is introduced and implemented in the Glenn-HT code. Two-dimensional flat plate results and three-dimensional results for flow over turbine blades and the resulting heat transfer and its transitional behavior are reported. It is shown that the transition simulation is much improved over the baseline k-omega model.
The Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership (S-NPP) and Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) High Rate Data (HRD) link provides Direct Broadcast data to users in real-time, utilizing their own remote field terminals. The Field Terminal Support (FTS) provides the resources needed to support the Direct Readout communities by providing software, documentation, and periodic updates to enable them to produce data products from SNPP and JPSS. The FTS distribution server will also provide the necessary ancillary and auxiliary data needed for processing the broadcasts, as well as making orbital data available to assist in locating the satellites of interest. In addition, the FTS provides development support for the algorithm and software through GSFC Direct Readout Laboratory (DRL) International Polar Orbiter Processing Package (IPOPP) and University of Wisconsin (UWISC) Community Satellite Processing Package (CSPP), to enable users to integrate the algorithms into their remote terminals. The support the JPSS Program provides to the institutions developing and maintaining these two software packages, will demonstrate the ability to produce ready-to-use products from the HRD link and provide risk reduction effort at a minimal cost. This paper discusses the key functions and system architecture of FTS.