Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “polygonal”

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 91 records · Page 5
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

Structure-preserving numerical discretizations for domains with boundaries

This SAND report documents Exploratory Express LDRD Project 223790, "Structure-preserving numerical discretizations for domains with boundaries", which developed a method to incorporate consistent treatment of domain boundaries and arbitrary boundary conditions in discrete exterior calculus (DEC) for arbitrary polygonal (2D) and tensor-product structure prism (3D) grids. The new DEC required the development of novel discrete exterior derivatives, boundary operators, wedge products and Hodge stars. This was accomplished through the use of boundary extension and the blending of known 2D operators on the interior with 1D operators on the boundary. The Hodge star was based on the Voronoi Hodge star, and retained the limitation of a triangular circumcentric primal or dual grid along with low-order accuracy. In addition to the new DEC, two related software packages were written: one for the study of DEC operators on arbitrary polygonal and polyhedral grids using both symbolic and numerical approaches and one for a (thermal) shallow water testbed using TRiSK-type numerics. Immediately relevant (already funded, through CANGA) followup work is the development of a high-order, geometrically flexible Hodge star and structure-preserving, high-order, oscillation-limiting transport operators (using WENO) for n-forms on arbitrary 2D and 3D grids. This will provide all of the machinery required for a high-order version of TRiSK with boundaries on arbitrary 2D and tensor-product 3D grids, which is applicable to both the atmospheric (CRM in E3SM-MMF) and oceanic (MPAS-O) components of E3SM.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Moments-based interface reconstruction, remap and advection

We present a new moment-of-fluid (MOF 2 ) interface reconstruction method. It uses the zeroth, first, and second moments of the fragment of material inside a cell of the mesh to reconstruct a convex material polygon or a union of convex polygons that approximate the respective material fragment. The new method requires information about the material moments only for the cell under consideration. Furthermore, the MOF 2 method allows to exactly reproduce several convex shapes: corners, filaments, and some concave shapes: cell-complements to corners and filaments.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2020

FETS-VFFA Cell using Contour-Based Magnets

A pure-conductor winding arrangement has been found that approximates the optics of the design given in (Figure 1). The tunes are not the same but are reasonably flat and exist through the entire 3–12 MeV energy range, so could conceivably be fine-tuned using the vertical winding density function in the next section. The lattice consists of two magnets: a reverse bending Bd magnet followed by a normal bending Bf magnet. These magnets are both sectors whose midpoints are displaced with respect to the midpoints of the sides of a 20-sided polygon with side length 1.25 m. The ring is said to have 10 cells (2 polygon sides per cell) that are 2.5 m long. The displacements are 17 cm inwards for Bd and 17 cm outwards for Bf.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hydropower Infrastructure - LAkes, Reservoirs, and RIvers (HILARRI), v4

HILARRI is a database of links between major datasets of operational hydropower dams and powerplants, and inland water bodies. These connections are critical for conducting large-scale analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated natural and engineered water systems. Features include: – Dams from the National Inventory of Dams (2025) and the Global Reservoir and Dam Database (GRanD v1.3) – Hydropower plants from the Existing Hydropower Assets dataset (EHA 2025) – Power plants that are listed in the 2025 U.S. Hydropower Development Pipeline Data or were listed in previous versions of the dataset These hydropower infrastructure features are linked to several major datasets that provide hydrologic and hydraulic information relevant for analysis of hydropower systems that includes the integral water resources. That information comes from: – Products from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) – NHDPlusV2 Medium Resolution river network flowlines, – NHD waterbodies (limited to lakes and reservoirs), – NHD Watershed Boundary Dataset (HUC12-level for the Conterminous United States (CONUS)) – NHD High Resolution waterbodies – HydroLAKES water bodies (lakes and reservoirs) – LAGOS-US lakes and reservoirs – EPA National Lakes Assessment (2007, 2012, 2017, and 2022) – The Reservoir Sedimentation Database (RESSED) – EPA SuRGE sampling locations Unique identifiers are used to facilitate joining to the original full datasets. For example, characteristics of NHD flowlines such as estimated average flow rate can be joined from the NHDPlusV2 dataset to a dam or power plant listed in HILARRI based on the ID field, “COMID”, that is common to both datasets. HILARRI only includes basic information about identifiers, location, and data quality or usage notes. It does not contain the attributes or time series data associated with these sites. The HILARRI dataset incorporates information from several datasets to facilitate more effective and accurate analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated waterbodies. For example, dams were checked against the most recent American Rivers Dam Removal Database to identify and flag facilities that may no longer exist. Additionally, dams that are listed multiple times in the NID are identified and flagged to avoid double-counting when analyzing and summarizing information. Other quality flags include certainty of operational hydropower (i.e., if one or more datasets indicates hydropower at a particular location), whether an associated water body is accurate or composed of multiple polygons, or whether there is a known issue with reported characteristics in one of the underlying datasets. These additional data flags are designed to increase confidence in data usage for individual to large-scale analyses.

Hansen, Carly [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000193280838)↗
DOE OSTI2024

Frost Tables, NGEE Areas B, C and D, Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska, 2012-2014

This dataset represents spatially intensive thaw depth surveys with individual point measurements spaced ~0.5 m apart. The three ~10x10m grids cover an ice wedge and a portion of its two neighboring polygons. The data contain thaw depth, frost table elevation, ground surface elevation, active layer depth and surface water inundation across three seasons (2012, 2013 and 2014) at Utqiagvik (Barrow) NGEE Areas B, C and D. There are a total of 69 extracted files separated by month, year, and area. The data were originally provided in excel workbooks, these files have been preserved within the zip "Original_Files." The files were transformed for archiving with images pulled out into JPEGs, data preserved as CSV files and some methodological information preserved as TXT files. Some functions, features, and formatting were lost during the transformation. Missing data were defined with blank cells. Additional documentation can be found in files labelled with "information.txt" file endings.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).[2024-07-15] Renamed BEO_Thaw_Depth_Frost_Table_Area_*_*_*.csv, BEO_Thaw_Depth_Frost_Table_Area_*_*_*_Plot_1.JPEG, and BEO_Thaw_Depth_Frost_Table_Area_*_*_*_Plot_2.JPEG names that had E or L to be Early or Late. Renamed BEO_Thaw_Depth_Frost_Table_Area_*_*_*_Plot_1.JPEG, BEO_Thaw_Depth_Frost_Table_Area_*_*_*_Plot_2.JPEG, and BEO_Thaw_Depth_Frost_Table_Area_*_information_Plot_1.JPEG to BEO_Thaw_Depth_Frost_Table_Area_*_*_*_Gridpoints.JPEG, BEO_Thaw_Depth_Frost_Table_Area_*_*_*_3Dgraphic.JPEG, and BEO_Thaw_Depth_Frost_Table_Area_*_information_LiDAR_DEM.JPEG, respectively. Updated BEO_Thaw_Depth_Frost_Table_flmd.csv file to reflect above updates.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Active Layer and Moisture Measurements for Intensive Site 0 and 1, Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska

Thaw depth, relative dielectric permittivity, and soil temperature were collected along three transects within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska. Measurements were acquired along the transect at 3 m intervals on 2011-09-25, 2011-09-26, 2012-07-18, 2012-09-30, 2014-07-02, 2014-08-15, and 2014-09-14 for the L2 transect (intensive site 0), which is about 470 m long. Similarly, measurements were collected every 3 m on 2012-09-30, 2013-09-30, 2014-07-02, 2014-08-14, and 2014-09-23, and every 1 m on 2013-09-30 along the AB transect (intensive site 1) which is about 500 m long. File types in the package are all csv spreadsheets, following the ESS-DIVE csv guidelines (ESS-DIVE CSV v1), organized by transect name, with accompanying data dictionary files containing the filename suffix "_dd" (also csv format). Data collection details can be found in the Methods description of the metadata record. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Stable Isotope and Geochemical Evidence for Hydrological Isolation in an Arctic Coastal Plain Landscape, Barrow, Alaska, 2013

Data include results from water chemistry and water isotope analyses for samples collected in Barrow, Alaska during July and September 2013. Samples were from surface and soil pore waters from 15 locations: 3 locations from interlake polygonal terrain, 6 locations associated with interlake drainages, and 6 locations within or at the outlets of different aged drained thaw lake basins (DTLBs). Samples were taken in different drainage flow types at three different depths at each location in and around the Barrow Environmental Observatory. This dataset includes one .csv data file and one .pdf user guide.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a 15-year research effort (2012-2027) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Simulated hydrological dynamics and coupled iron redox cycling impact methane production in an Arctic soil: Modeling Archive

This Modeling Archive is in support of an NGEE Arctic publication "Simulated hydrological dynamics and coupled iron redox cycling impact methane production in an Arctic soil" in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Biogeosciences. We simulated biogeochemical cycling in arctic soils using the PFLOTRAN geochemical model combined with measurements from previous NGEE Arctic incubations of polygonal permafrost soils in northern Alaska (Zheng et al., 2018). Simulated iron cycling, carbon dioxide production, and methane production were compared with incubation measurements and the parameterized model was then used to simulate coupled iron and carbon cycling over repeated oxic-anoxic cycles at different levels of carbon substrate availability and pH. The most recent data version (2.0) in the archive incorporates changes to the model and simulations as suggested by reviewers during the manuscript review process. These changes include an updated parameterization of the model; a new set of simulations omitting the iron cycle for direct evaluation of how iron cycle processes affect modeled outcomes; and a set of simulations testing different scenarios of carbon substrate availability in addition to scenarios of initial soil pH. This archive contains simulation code, model output, and analysis code for PFLOTRAN simulations. All scripts are python except the batch script for submitting multiprocessor jobs. Note that the model also requires compiled versions of the Alquimia interface and the NGEE Arctic fork of the PFLOTRAN geochemical simulator (see the README_INSTALL document for basic instructions). The Output directory contains eight data files in netCDF format generated by the model. The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a 10-year research effort (2012-2022) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Orthoimagery and Shapefiles Documenting Pre- and Post-August 2019 Slope Disturbances, Teller Road Site, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2018-2019

This dataset was derived from UAS aerial photos and dGPS data collected at the Teller mile marker 47 site in 2018 and 2019 and used to support research quantifying the timing and rate of surface movements and analyze soil transport process in Arctic landscapes. In July 2018, a Phantom uncrewed aerial system (UAS) collected >6800 high resolution aerial photos of the lower portion of the Teller 47 watershed (see for raw photos; pending archive NGA281). During the UAS survey, 25 x 25 cm tile ground control points (GCPs) were laid out and secured with one rebar rod in the center. The four corners and rebar tops were surveyed with differential GPS, and these coordinates were used to construct and validate an orthomosaic of the site. These points were resurveyed in August 2019 and used to track annual movement. Changes in position between the two surveys are reported in (Lathrop et al. 2022; NGA254). Agisoft Metashape photogrammetry software was used to construct a georeferenced orthomosaic image (*.tif file) of a portion (0.68 km2) of the watershed with a final resolution of ~1 cm. Manual delineation of the perimeters of failures visible in the UAS imagery (*.tif files) was conducted to create shapefile polygons (two *.zip files). The failures were identified by the exposure of bare mineral soils, which were made visible by disruption of the overlying tundra vegetation. The shapefiles were then used to analyse the topographic distribution and sizes of the failures. In August 2019 an additional ~300 georeferenced UAS images of slope instability features were collected (data pending submission) and compared with the 2018 orthomosaic. Overview maps of the failure locations included as a *.pdf.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Raw 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 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2021

Isolation coupler for a structural assembly and method for attenuating a load

An isolation coupler for coupling a functional element to a support structure includes a first bracket. The first bracket includes a number of first-bracket sides. The number of first-bracket sides forms a closed polygonal shape, in plan view. The isolation coupler further includes a number of isolators coupled to each one of the first-bracket sides. The isolation coupler also includes a second bracket. The second bracket includes a number of second-bracket sides. The second bracket sides are coupled to the isolators. The number of second-bracket sides is equal to the number of first-bracket sides and forms the closed polygonal shape, in plan view. The isolators separate each one of the first-bracket sides from a corresponding one of the second-bracket sides to attenuate a load transferred from the first bracket to the second bracket.

Aston, Richard W.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Scaling Building Energy Audits through Machine Learning Methods on Novel Drone Image Data

Building energy audits are time-consuming and labor-intensive. This paper describes a new method using machine learning (ML) techniques on novel data sources (drone images) to improve the identification of building characteristics and retrofit opportunities, and thereby reduce the effort for audits. The new ML method includes: (1) Building footprint extraction using line extraction, polygonization, and polygon-merging, (2) Building envelope extraction using PIX4d modeling software to reconstruct a building 3D model, (3) Visualization tool for viewing images from the 3D model, (4) Window-to-wall ratio (WWR) using state-of-art deep neural network semantic segmentation, (5) Envelope thermal anomaly detection using an unsupervised machine learning clustering algorithm, and (6) Rooftop energy equipment detection based on an object detection algorithm. The testing of this method involved a comparison of additional ML-generated information overlaid on current ‘state-of-practice’ audit and remote assessment baselines using evaluation metrics: labor time and associated cost, marginal benefits of using ML-generated information in workflows for audits and remote assessments, integration potential with existing processes and tools, and replicability/scalability of the method. In two test buildings in California that had comprehensive drawings and meter data available, the ML method effectively generated a building footprint, envelope, rooftop equipment, WWR, and locations of envelope thermal anomalies. Projected target segments of the ML method are sites with minimal drawings and energy data, and underserved sectors such as multistoried housing, disadvantaged communities, and schools for which the ML method can enable identification of building asset characteristics and prioritization of envelope retrofits and decentralized energy equipment retrofits.

Singh, Reshma↗
DOE OSTI2023

Fuel injection assembly for a turbomachine

Fuel injection assemblies and combustors are provided. A fuel injection assembly includes a fuel injector having a first annular wall that about an axial centerline and extends from a primary inlet disposed at a first end to a primary outlet disposed at a second end. A second annular wall surrounds the first annular wall. A fuel plenum is defined between the first annular wall and the second annular wall. A fuel duct extends from a fuel outlet defined in the second annular wall to a fuel inlet. wherein the fuel duct is in fluid communication with the fuel plenum. The fuel duct includes a polygonal segment and a cylindrical inlet segment. The polygonal segment extends from the fuel outlet to the cylindrical inlet segment.

Griffis, Clay Thomas↗
DOE OSTI2023

Isolation coupler for a structural assembly and method for attenuating a load

An isolation coupler for coupling a functional element to a support structure includes a first bracket. The first bracket includes a number of first-bracket sides. The number of first-bracket sides forms a closed polygonal shape, in plan view. The isolation coupler further includes a number of isolators coupled to each one of the first-bracket sides. The isolation coupler also includes a second bracket. The second bracket includes a number of second-bracket sides. The second bracket sides are coupled to the isolators. The number of second-bracket sides is equal to the number of first-bracket sides and forms the closed polygonal shape, in plan view. The isolators separate each one of the first-bracket sides from a corresponding one of the second-bracket sides to attenuate a load transferred from the first bracket to the second bracket.

Aston, Richard W.↗
DOE OSTI2023

3D point cloud processing

Methods for processing a 3D point cloud of a building into polygons using an electronic computing device are presented, the methods including: causing the electronic computing device to receive the 3D point cloud; causing the electronic computing device to segment the 3D point cloud into a number of facades; and causing the electronic computing device to generate a number of polygons representing the number of facades. In some embodiments, the causing the electronic computing device to segment the 3D point cloud into a number of facades includes: performing voxel downsampling operation on the 3D point cloud; calculating a point normal for every point in the voxel downsampled 3D point cloud; and performing region growing to find each of the number of facades.

Wang, Richard↗