Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Requirements Modeling”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

DS-TIDE: Harnessing Dynamical Systems for Efficient Time-Independent Differential Equation Solving

Time-Independent Differential Equations (TIDEs) are central to modeling equilibrium behavior across a wide range of scientific and engineering domains, from electrostatics to porous media flow. Conventional numerical solvers offer reliable solutions but incur significant computational costs due to fine-grained discretization and iterative procedures. Machine learning-based approaches address this by replacing iterative solving processes with one-time inference; however, their sophisticated models require extensive training resources that often exceed those of traditional solvers. Consequently, designing a TIDE solver that achieves high accuracy, broad applicability, and exceptional computational efficiency remains a fundamental challenge. In this paper, we propose DS-TIDE, a novel hardware solver that is inspired by, and subsequently leverages, the intrinsic connection between Dynamical Systems (DS) and Differential Equations (DEs) to efficiently and accurately solve TIDEs. DS-TIDE employs a CMOS-compatible DS-based processor, whose physical states evolve under carefully designed DE-driven dynamics and naturally converge to equilibrium -- the solution of the target TIDE -- within ~1µs on a ~1-watt DS-TIDE processor. To enhance expressivity, DS-TIDE incorporates Heterogeneous Dynamics with Temporal Layering (HDTL), which solves TIDEs through a three-stage DS evolution -- conditioning, solving, and decoding -- each governed by specialized dynamics. The entire evolution process is analogous to an infinitely deep neural network temporally unrolled, offering the system the capability of representing complex equations. Furthermore, DS-TIDE is equipped with an on-device DS-DE Auto-Alignment mechanism that dynamically adapts intrinsic hardware dynamics within milliseconds, effectively aligning the system’s dynamics to diverse target DEs. Experimental results across TIDEs from a wide range of scientific and engineering domains demonstrate that DS-TIDE achieves ~10^3× speedup, ~10^5× energy savings, and competitive or superior accuracy compared to state-of-the-art numerical and ML-based solvers.

Liu, Chuan↗
DOE OSTI2024

A high fidelity and user-friendly equation-oriented optimization model for carbon capture using a novel water-lean solvent

Research Triangle Institute (RTI) International and SLB have developed a novel water-lean solvent technology for carbon capture, demonstrating low specific reboiler duty (SRD) values at capture rates exceeding 90%. At the Technology Centre Mongstad (TCM) pilot plant, the technology achieved an SRD of 2.55 GJ/t-CO2 at 95% capture, utilizing an intercooler and a 5°C temperature approach in the lean/rich solvent cross exchanger. To meet varying carbon capture targets for Front End Engineering and Design (FEED) studies and to enable real-time optimization and advanced process control, an efficient optimization model is required. This model needs to minimize energy demand for a given capture rate and determine optimal operating parameters in response to fluctuating flue gas conditions. While an existing Aspen Plus simulation model, developed by RTI and SLB, accurately matches TCM plant data, its sequential modular (SM) strategy is too slow for real-time applications due to recycle streams and tight heat integration inherent in solvent-based carbon capture processes. Although an equation-oriented (EO) modeling strategy is more suitable for optimizing these processes, its adoption has been limited by several factors: feature limitations in Aspen Plus EO mode (e.g., lack of balance block support), a less user-friendly interface for variable identification and loop solving, complex troubleshooting of convergence issues, and the necessity for accurate initial values.

carbon capture↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Resolution requirements for numerical modeling of neutrino quantum kinetics

Neutrino quantum kinetics is a rapidly evolving field in computational astrophysics, with a primary focus on collective neutrino oscillations in core-collapse supernovae and postmerger phases of binary neutron star mergers. In recent years, there has been considerable debate concerning resolution dependence in numerical simulations. In this paper, we conduct a comprehensive resolution study in both angular- and spatial directions by using two independent schemes of quantum kinetic neutrino transport: finite volume and pseudospectral methods. We complement our discussion by linear stability analysis including inhomogeneous modes. Our result suggests that decreasing spatial resolutions underestimates the growth of flavor instability, and then leads to wrong asymptotic states of flavor conversions, which potentially has a critical impact on astrophysical consequences. We further delve into numerical results of low resolution simulations, that reveals the underlying mechanism responsible for numerical artifacts caused by insufficient resolutions. Finally, this study settles the debate on requirements of resolutions and serves as a guideline for numerical modeling of quantum kinetic neutrino transport.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Generalized vs. fractional: a comparative analysis of Maxwell models applied to entangled polymer solutions

Fractional viscoelastic models provide an excellent description of rheological data for polymer systems with power-law behaviour. However, the physical interpretation of their model parameters, which carry fractional units of time, often remains elusive. We show that for poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) solutions, the fractional Maxwell model (FMM) requires much fewer model parameters than the classical generalized Maxwell model for a good description of the data and that it can be applied consistently to solutions with varying degrees of viscoelasticity. Despite their fractional units, the parameters exhibit scaling laws similar to classical parameters as a function of polymer concentration.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2025

Aided Active Learning (AAL) for Enhanced Critical Heat Flux Prediction

Accurate prediction of critical heat flux (CHF) is crucial for the safe and efficient operation of nuclear reactors. Traditional CHF modeling methods often require extensive experimental data, which are hard to obtain. This study introduces the Aided Active Learning (AAL) framework, which strategically minimizes data requirements without sacrificing model accuracy. Unlike conventional Active Learning (AL), AAL introduces an additional step of randomly selecting a subset from the sample pool before applying the query strategy. To evaluate the performance of AAL, two query strategies—uncertainty-based sampling and error-reduction sampling—were evaluated across the following models: random forest (RF), feedforward neural network (FNN), and variational feedforward neural network (vFNN). The proposed framework demonstrated that AAL effectively reduces the number of training samples needed to achieve comparable predictive accuracy. For the RF model, AL required only 710 samples to achieve an R2 score of 0.98, as compared to the 4,785 samples needed by random sampling. Similarly, the FNN model achieved the same R2 score with just 355 samples when using AL, a significant improvement over the 825 samples required by random sampling. In case of uncertainty-based sampling strategy, vFNN attained an R2 of 0.98 with 3,420 samples, reducing the sample requirement by 47% relative to the 6,440 samples needed for random sampling. Its performance suggests that larger training data are required to fully leverage its uncertainty quantification capabilities.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Validation and Calibration of Energy Models with Real Vehicle Data from Chassis Dynamometer Experiments

Accurate estimation of vehicle fuel consumption typically requires detailed modeling of complex internal powertrain dynamics, often resulting in computationally intensive simulations. However, many transportation applications-such as traffic flow modeling, optimization, and control-require simplified models that are fast, interpretable, and easy to implement, while still maintaining fidelity to physical energy behavior. This work builds upon a recently developed model reduction pipeline that derives physics-like energy models from high-fidelity Autonomie vehicle simulations. These reduced models preserve essential vehicle dynamics, enabling realistic fuel consumption estimation with minimal computational overhead. While the reduced models have demonstrated strong agreement with their Autonomie counterparts, previous validation efforts have been confined to simulation environments. This study extends the validation by comparing the reduced energy model's outputs against real-world vehicle data. Focusing on the MidSUV category, we tune the baseline Autonomie model to closely replicate the characteristics of a Toyota RAV4. We then assess the accuracy of the resulting reduced model in estimating fuel consumption under actual drive conditions. Our findings suggest that, when the reference Autonomie model is properly calibrated, the simplified model produced by the reduction pipeline can provide reliable, semi-principled fuel rate estimates suitable for large-scale transportation applications.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Visibility-enhanced model-free deep reinforcement learning algorithm for voltage control in realistic distribution systems using smart inverters

Increasing integration of distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) into distribution networks could result in adverse effects on grid operation. Traditional model-based control algorithms require accurate model information that is difficult to acquire and thus are challenging to implement in practice. Here, this paper proposes a surrogate model-enabled grid visibility scheme to empower deep reinforcement learning (DRL) approach for distribution network voltage regulation using PV inverters with minimal system knowledge. In contrast to existing DRL methods, this paper presents and corroborates the adverse impact of missing load information on DRL performance and, based on this finding, proposes a surrogate model methodology to impute load information utilizing observable data. Additionally, a multi-fidelity neural network is utilized to construct the DRL training environment, chosen for its efficient data utilization and enhanced robustness to data uncertainty. The feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed algorithm are assessed by considering DRL testing across varying degrees of observable load information and diverse training environments on a realistic power system.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Bayesian approach to time-domain photonic Doppler velocimetry analysis

Photonic Doppler velocimetry (PDV) is an established technique for measuring the velocities of fast-moving surfaces in high-energy-density experiments. In the standard approach to PDV analysis, the short-time Fourier transform (STFT) is used to generate a spectrogram from which the velocity history of the target is inferred. The user chooses the form, duration, and separation of the window function. Here, in this study, we present a Bayesian approach to infer the velocity directly from the PDV oscilloscope trace, without using the spectrogram for analysis. This is clearly a difficult inference problem due to the highly periodic nature of the data, but we find that with carefully chosen prior distributions for the model parameters, we can accurately recover the injected velocity from synthetic data. We validate this method using PDV data collected at the STAR two-stage light gas gun at Sandia National Laboratories, recovering shock-front velocities in quartz that are consistent with those inferred using the STFT-based approach and are interpolated across regions of low signal-to-noise data. Although this method does not rely on the same user choices as the STFT, we caution that it can be prone to misspecification if the chosen model is not sufficient to capture the velocity behavior. Analysis using posterior predictive checks can be used to establish whether a better model is required, although more complex models come with additional computational cost, often taking more than several hours to converge when sampling the Bayesian posterior. We, therefore, recommend it be viewed as a complementary method to that of the STFT-based approach.

Allison, James R. [First Light Fusion Ltd., Yarnto↗
DOE OSTI2024

Convective Boundary-Layer Spatial Heterogeneity Experiment Field Campaign Report

Earth system models (ESMs) require accurate heat, mass, and momentum exchanges between components, which requires accurate observations and modeling of the atmospheric boundary layer. Over the land, the daytime convective atmospheric boundary layer (CBL, also called the convective mixing layer) develops and evolves daily, driven by solar surface heating. Doppler lidar (DL) measurements of vertical velocities provide an effective way to document the diurnal cycle of CBL (Chu et al. 2023). With the support of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Research (ASR) program, we studied convective mixing-layer heights (MLH) across multiple DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Southern Great Plains (SGP) observatory sites based on DL measurements.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Implementing Ordinary Differential Equation Solvers in Rust Programming Language for Modeling Vehicle Powertrain Systems: Preprint

Efficient and accurate ordinary differential equation (ODE) solvers are necessary for powertrain and vehicle dynamics modeling. However, current commercial ODE solvers can be financially prohibitive, leading to a need for accessible, effective, open-source ODE solvers designed for powertrain modeling. Rust is a compiled programming language that has the potential to be used for fast and easy-to-use powertrain models, given its exceptional computational performance, robust package ecosystem, and short time required for modelers to become proficient. However, of the three commonly used (>3,000 downloads) packages in Rust with ODE solver capabilities, only one has more than four numerical methods implemented, and none are designed specifically for modeling physical systems. Therefore, the goal of the Differential Equation System Solver (DESS) was to implement accurate ODE solvers in Rust designed for the component-based problems often seen in powertrain modeling. DESS is a text-based software package that provides a flexible framework for building and solving systems of ODEs. This allows DESS to be included as a dependency for automotive powertrain models that require a variety of solvers and solver configurations. Seven explicit ODE solver methods have been implemented in DESS: Euler’s, Heun’s, midpoint, Ralston’s, classic Runge-Kutta, Bogacki-Shampine, and Cash-Karp. These represent five fixed-step methods and two adaptive-step methods. This paper shows that the solver implementations increase accuracy and computational efficiency compared to Euler's method when modeling a system of three thermal masses in Rust. DESS also includes features designed for modeling component-based physical systems. Users can define relationships between nodes in their system, which the package then translates into a system of equations, leading to simpler and more intuitive code. In the case of a three-thermal-mass system, the user can specify node thermal properties (e.g., thermal capacitance), how nodes are interconnected, and thermal conductance between nodes rather than providing a system of equations. The core contribution from this work is an open-source, text-based Rust package with ODE solvers for automotive powertrain modeling to support cost-free, fast, and accurate simulation.

ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Link Scheduling in Satellite Networks via Machine Learning Over Riemannian Manifolds

Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites play a crucial role in enhancing global connectivity, serving a complementary solution to existing terrestrial systems. In wireless networks, scheduling is a vital process that allocates time-frequency resources to users for interference management. However, LEO satellite networks face significant challenges in scheduling their links towards ground users due to the satellites’ mobility and overlapping coverage. This paper addresses the dynamic link scheduling problem in LEO satellite networks by considering spatio-temporal correlations introduced by the satellites’ movements. The first step in the proposed solution involves modeling the network over Riemannian manifolds, thanks to their representation as symmetric positive definite matrices. We introduce two machine learning (ML)-based link scheduling techniques that model the dynamic evolution of satellite positions and link conditions over time and space. To accurately predict satellite link states, we present a recurrent neural network (RNN) over Riemannian manifolds, which captures spatio-temporal characteristics over time. Furthermore, we introduce a separate model, the convolutional neural network (CNN) over Riemannian manifolds, which captures geometric relationships between satellites and users by extracting spatial features from the network topology across all links. Simulation results demonstrate that both RNN and CNN over Riemannian manifolds deliver comparable performance to the fractional programming-based link scheduling (FPLinQ) benchmark. Remarkably, unlike other ML-based models that require extensive training data, both models only need 30 training samples to achieve over 99% of the sum rate while maintaining similar computational complexity relative to the benchmark.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Update on Model Specification Development of Ternary Pumped Storage Technologies [Slides]

T-PSH is an innovative structure of C-PSH that features two turbines, one for pumping and one for generation, replacing the single turbine in C-PSH. These turbines are housed in separate chambers, with an additional set of penstocks connecting the pump turbine to the hydraulic system. This structure enables T-PSH to operate in an HSC mode, allowing for simultaneous pumping and generation, which provides greater operational flexibility compared to C-PSH. To model T-PSH's HSC mode, a user defined turbine and governor system model is required, including the shared penstock model and additional pump turbine model. This specification will focus on the details of the user-defined turbine and governor model, which leverages the HYGOV model.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2024

A Road Map to Determine Chemical Phenomenology Required for Molten Salt Reactor Accident Modeling

The differences between molten salt reactors (MSRs) and light water reactors (LWRs) has required modification of previous approaches to model reactor accident progression. Part of this is related to the different chemical phenomenology of these reactors as their fuel is not as contained and can react with their surroundings. MELCOR is a reactor simulation tool that has implemented methods and models to model MSRs. However, additional development of MELCOR for modeling MSRs is required. Although understanding the chemistry surrounding MSRs is important to general MSR licensing and operation, only a subset of reactions and phenomenology are required to model beyond design basis incidents and therefore to be captured by MELCOR. This report is intended to guide the chemical phenomenology to improve MELCOR MSR accident modeling and discusses phenomenology models that are in development.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗