Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “spreadsheet”

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 OSTI2020

Utah FORGE: Phase 3 Ground Water Level Monitoring Data

Groundwater data around the Utah FORGE site has been collected to determine the piezometric levels and compositional variability. Field measurements in 2020 are designed to obtain and survey new groundwater wells that have been drilled on the distal periphery of the Utah FORGE project area. The spreadsheet included in this submission contains ground water level data from the Utah FORGE site as monitored from wells WOW-2 and WOW-3. The well locations are also provided as UTM, Zone 12, NAD83 coordinates.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Utah FORGE: Updated Phase 2C Well Location Coordinates

Utah FORGE has been established to develop, test, and improve the technologies and techniques required to develop EGS-type geothermal resources. Drilling of the first of two deep deviated wells, 16A(78)-32, will begin in the second half of 2020. This well will serve as the injection well for the injection-production well pair that will form the heart of the laboratory. This submission contains an archive of well location data within the Roosevelt Hot Springs geothermal area. An Excel spreadsheet is included containing updated GPS data for Utah FORGE wells drilled during Phase 2C (56-32, 68-32, 78-32). This data was collected over time by the Utah Geological Survey and contains all coordinates collected and the final averaged XY coordinates in both Longitude and Latitude and UTM Zone 12, NAD83. Elevation is also included. GIS shapefiles with well points are provided in the archive.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Utah FORGE: Well 56-32 Drilling Data and Logs

This dataset consists of drilling data (Pason data spreadsheets, daily reports, days v. depth, mud logs), Schlumberger logs (FMI, shear anisotropy analysis, memory, sonic, array induction/spectral density/dual spaced neutron/gamma ray/caliper, spectral GR/temperature, and Gardner density correlation), and an end of well report (EOWR) for Utah FORGE well 56-32. This is a vertical well that will be used for seismic monitoring. It was drilled between February 7th and February 21st 2021 to a depth of 9,145 feet. More information about this well can be found at: https://utahforge.com/2021/02/09/drilling-progress-of-well-56-32/ (linked below)

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Utah FORGE Seismic Stations and Wells GPS Survey Data, 2021

This is a CSV spreadsheet containing UTM and Latitude and Longitude coordinates and elevations for Wells 78-32, 58-32, and 16A(78)-32 and BOR1, BOR2, BOR3, FOR2, FOR5, FORK, FORU, and FORW seismic stations. These are from a GPS survey conducted by the Utah Geological Survey in June, 2021.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Utah FORGE 2020-2021 Geothermal Energy/EGS Survey and Results

The Utah FORGE project collaborated with the University of Utahs Department of Communication on a Capstone course during Fall Semester 2020. The course created a survey to gauge the general populations knowledge of geothermal energy and Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS). The survey was distributed through Qualtrics, an experience management company, in late 2020 and early 2021 to respondents in 11 western states (AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV, OR, UT, WA, WY). Approximately 1,000 responses were received. The Code Book (the consent form and the questions themselves) and the raw data results in a spreadsheet are included in the data resources.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Utah FORGE Updated Well, Well Pad, and Seismic Station GPS Coordinates December, 2021

This is a CSV spreadsheet containing UTM and Latitude and Longitude coordinates and elevations for Wells 78-32, 78B-32, 56-32, 58-32, 68-32, and 16A(78)-32 and seismic stations BOR1, BOR2, BOR3, FOR1, FOR2, FOR5, FOR6, FOR 7, FOR8, FORK, FORU, FORW, and FORB. These are from a GPS survey conducted by the Utah Geological Survey completed in December, 2021.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE Groundwater Levels: Updated March 2022

This Excel spreadsheet contains Utah FORGE groundwater data for wells WOW2 and WOW3. The data was updated on March 16th, 2022 and contains legacy data. Groundwater data includes the level, offset, date, and time for each measurement. Temperature, drift, water elevation and other parameters are recorded. Figures in the data include a water elevation over time plot. Legacy data ranges from year 1976 to 2019 and updated data ranges from year 2019 to 2021.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hawaii Play Fairway Analysis: Lanai Resistivity and Density 3D Inversion Models

To prepare for its third phase, the Hawaii Play Fairway project conducted groundwater sampling and analyses in ten locations in the Hawaiian islands, magnetotelluric (MT) and gravity surveys, as well as calculations of 3D subsurface stress due to the weight of the rock underlying the topography of the volcano. The subsurface stresses were used to evaluate the potential for fracture-induced permeability. Inversions of the MT and gravity data produce 3D models of resistivity and density, respectively, on Lanai, across Haleakala's SW rift (Maui), and surrounding Mauna Kea (Hawaii Island). The project developed and applied a new method for incorporating depth information about resistivity, density, and potential for fracture-induced permeability into the statistical method for computing resource probability in these three focus areas. The project then incorporated the new groundwater results with the new geophysical results and the calculations of potential for fracture-induced permeability to produce updated maps of resource probability and confidence. These results were used to identify target sites for exploratory drilling. Spreadsheet information: Each sheet contains data for a particular depth in kilometers. Positive depths are above sea level, and negative below. For more information, go to the Hawaii Groundwater and Geothermal Resources Center website linked in the resources.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE Well 56-32 Sludge XRF

This is an Excel spreadsheet containing the results of X-ray fluorescence from well 56-32 sludge samples. The instrumentation used was a Olympus Vanta M series handheld XRF analyzer. A glass (SiO2) "blank" was analyzed at the beginning and end of each sample batch to detect contamination within the instrument. The standard 2711A was analyzed at the beginning and end of each sample batch to detect drift in instrument precision over time. Material was analyzed in a plastic cup with a prolene thin film cover for minimal interference.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

INGENIOUS - Great Basin Regional Dataset Compilation

This is the regional dataset compilation for the INnovative Geothermal Exploration through Novel Investigations Of Undiscovered Systems (INGENIOUS) project. The primary goal of this project is to accelerate discoveries of new, commercially viable hidden geothermal systems while reducing the exploration and development risks for all geothermal resources. These datasets will be used in INGENIOUS as input features for predicting geothermal favorability throughout the Great Basin study area. Datasets consist of shapefiles, geotiffs, tabular spreadsheets, and metadata that describe: 2-meter temperature probe surveys, quaternary faults and volcanic features, geodetic shear and dilation models, heat flow, magnetotellurics (conductance), magnetics, gravity, paleogeothermal features (such as sinter and tufa deposits), seismicity, spring and well temperatures, spring and well aqueous geochemistry analyses, thermal conductivity, and fault slip and dilation tendency. For additional project information, see the INGENIOUS project site linked in the submission. Terms of use: These datasets are provided "as is", and the contributors assume no responsibility for any errors or omissions. The user assumes the entire risk associated with their use of these data and bears all responsibility in determining whether these data are fit for their intended use. These datasets may be redistributed with attribution (see citation information below). Please refer to the license information on this page for full licensing terms and conditions.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE: Deep Wells Temperature Surveys as of September 2022

This Excel spreadsheet contains temperature survey results for Utah FORGE wells 58-32, 78-32, 56-32, 16A(78)-32 and 78B-32. It also contains charts and comparisons, along with a "Data Summary" which provides links to previous GDR submissions with temperature data for each well.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE: Well 16A(78)-32 Stimulation Tracer Test Results

This archive contains data from the tracer test performed during the Utah FORGE well 16A(78)-32 stimulation. This includes: 1. the raw data file from Pason in the csv format; 2. a one-page Word document from Pason that explains the headers and units used in their data file; 3. an Excel spreadsheet with concentration data and relevant Pason flow data; 4. a Word document with jpg versions of concentration charts (Figs. 1-3) and a tracer mass recovery chart (Fig. 4).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Updated FMI Fracture Log from Well 16A(78)-32

This dataset consists of an Excel spreadsheet detailing the fracture picks from a reinterpretation of the formation micro-imaging (FMI) log from Utah FORGE well 16A(78)-32. The provided information details fracture location, geometry, and type. Also included here is a link to the original raw and processed FMI logs, as well as other data from the 2021 well logging.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Well 16A(78)-32 Perforation Images and Raw Data

This archive contains raw data of visual and acoustic mapping of perforations in Utah FORGE well 16A(78)-32 acquired during the August 2024 circulation program. The dataset includes downhole images captured by EV, a downhole visual analytics company, providing visual records of each perforation. Images are organized in two folders: one set with perforation visualization overlays and one without. An included Excel spreadsheet provides the organized raw data.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Utah FORGE: Well 16B(78)-32 Drill Core Fracture Analysis Images and Data

This dataset contains drilling core data from well 16B(78)-32, including PDF documents with flattened core images annotated by feature type and core interval, as well as spreadsheets detailing feature morphologies by depth, planar feature measurements, and planar feature orientations rotated to in situ conditions. Core was recovered from three intervals, one per stimulation stage, in the crystalline rocks affected by the stimulation of well 16A(78)-32. Seven core runs were conducted, yielding 135.8 feet of recovered core. Features in the core were categorized into planar fractures, semi-planar fractures, unbroken mineralized fractures, rough fractures, curviplanar fractures, concave-convex surfaces, and planar compositional features such as mylonite or dike-like structures. Planar features were measured while the core was positioned horizontally, with the core axis aligned to a downhole azimuth of 42 degrees. Planar core measurements from stimulations 2 and 3 that could be confidently correlated with FMI data were rotated to in situ orientations. This was done by rotating the planes along vertical and horizontal axes to match the azimuth and inclination data recorded in the directional survey of well 16B(78)-32, as well as applying an axial rotation to resemble the fracture orientations observed in the FMI log at corresponding depths. Coherent sets of planar fracture measurements were made by aligning the core within each 3-foot section of the dissected core barrel, and between adjacent 3-foot sections within a core run by matching rock fabrics, saw cuts and/or tool marks. Where coherent fracture measurements could not be made within a core run, data sets are denoted by a subscript (i.e. 2-Ta and 2-Tb both come from tangent core run number 2).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

UNH TDP - Concurrent Measurements of Inflow, Power Performance, and Loads for a Grid-Synchronized Vertical Axis Cross-Flow Turbine Operating in a Tidal Estuary

This data was collected between October 12 and December 15 of 2021 at the University of New Hampshire (UNH) and Atlantic Marine Energy Center (AMEC) turbine deployment platform (TDP). This data set includes over 29 days of grid connected turbine operation during this 65 day time frame. The priority for this measurement campaign was to collect data while the turbine was electrically connected to the grid by means of a rectifier and inverter. The Fall_2021_UNH_Measurement_Timeline.png highlights when each instrument was functioning and the Fall_2021_UNH_Test_Log.jpg indicates the four main regions for analysis available from this measurement campaign. The TDP is a floating structure moored on the Portsmouth facing side of Memorial Bridge pier #2, which spans the Piscataqua River between Portsmouth, NH and Kittery, ME. The Piscataqua River connects the Great Bay Estuary to the Gulf of Maine and the river currents are dominated by tidal forcing with water velocities exceeding 2.5 m/s during spring ebb tides at this site which were previously characterized by Kaelin Chancey (Assessment Of The Localized Flow And Tidal Energy Conversion System At An Estuarine Bridge - UNH MS Thesis 2019). The turbine under test was a modified New Energy Corporation (Calgary, CA) model EVG-025 4-blade H-Darrius type vertical axis cross flow turbine that rotates in the clockwise direction with a rotor diameter of 3.2m and blade length of 1.7m. The hydro-foil profile was a NACA 0021 with a 10 inch chord length and a blade preset pitch angle of +4deg with a positive angle corresponding with the toe in direction. The standard EVG-025 has a rotor diameter of 3.4m and its rated power output is 25kW at 3 m/s. The rotor diameter was reduced to accommodate the size of the existing TDP moon-pool. This project was pursued to quantify device performance for cross flow turbines operating in a marine environment. Accurate physical models, to characterize cross flow turbine performance, require real operational data sets due to the complexity of blade fluid interactions. This data can help support model development which will help predict turbine performance when analyzing perspective project locations in the future. Instrumentation was deployed to measure; water speed/direction, electrical power output, turbine shaft speed, turbine thrust force, and platform motion. Concurrent measurements of these parameters allow for correlations (cause and affect) to be inferred, allowing for characterization of device performance over a range of operating conditions. Water currents were measured using Acoustic Doppler Current Profilers (ADCP's) and Acoustic Doppler Velocimeters (ADV's) directly upstream and downstream of the turbine for inflow, wake and turbulence measurements. Electrical power output was measured using the Voltsys rectifier and the Shark power meter. Shaft speed was calculated based on the Voltsys measurements of the permanent magnet three phase generator AC generation frequency, coupled directly to the cross flow turbine under test (i.e., no gear box). Platform motions were captured using a Yost IMU (inertial measurement unit). Turbine thrust loading was measured using a reaction arm about the turbine deployment platform spanning beam, where two bi-directional load cells were connected to the system via a pinned connection. This submission includes zipped folders for each instrument containing quality controlled (QC'd) data in daily .csv files for the relevant duration specific to each instrument, along with separate .csv file that contains the units for each variable. Some instrument daily files are quite large and can pose a challenge for a visual spreadsheet editor to open. A processing software like MATLAB or Python is recommended. Note the degree of QC varied between each instrument due to time constraints. Particular time and attention was given to perform quality control tests on the acoustic based instruments that are particularly suscep...

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2022

HERO WEC V1.0 - WEC-Sim Detailed Simulation Runs and Summary Data

Data sets from simulation runs include 144 wave cases that were run based on the WEC-Sim model (https://mhkdr.openei.org/submissions/483). The 144 wave cases represent waves with the following wave height and wave period ranges: - Significant Wave Height: 0.25 - 4.0m in 0.25m increments - Wave Period: 5 - 13 sec in 1 sec increments Each run was simulated using a Pierson-Moskowitz irregular wave spectrum with a 200 second ramp time and a total simulation time of 2,200 seconds. Summary data set includes a spreadsheet and image files with matrices that are associated with data from simulation runs. All matrices cover the same significant wave height and wave periods from the sim runs, in the same increments. The following matrices are included: - Mechanical Power Input: Absorbed power calculated using linear input velocity at PTO (power take-off) multiplied by winch tension. - Mechanical Power Output: The hydraulic power calculated at the pump output prior to the pressure relief valve dump. - Feed Pressure: Average pressure at RO (reverse osmosis) input prior to pre-filters - RO Power Input: The hydraulic power calculated at the RO system inlet, accounts for flow loss due to pressure relief valve - Water Production: Average clean water flow at RO output

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2022

Ocean Energy Sandia TEAMER WEC Simulation Results

Computational fluid simulations for wave energy converters and supporting materials from Ocean Energy's WEC Buoy TEAMER project in collaboration with Sandia National Laboratories. Each file includes images and video of simulation along with the simulation files for the case. The videos and images include air and water simulations of the buoy in 2D and 3D views. Data spreadsheets of the simulation outputs are also included in the files. The data are represented as different cases in which the wave height(Hs) and peak period(Tp) were different.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗