Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Python script”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Myco-CORPSE simulations assessing mycorrhizal carbon allocation across U.S. forests and global change scenarios

Plants allocate a substantial portion of their fixed carbon belowground to mycorrhizal fungi in exchange for nutrients and other benefits. However, most current ecosystem models omit mycorrhizal processes, limiting our ability to predict plant–soil carbon dynamics under environmental change. To address this gap, we used a mycorrhiza-explicit soil biogeochemical model, Myco-CORPSE (Mycorrhizal Carbon, Organisms, Rhizosphere, and Protection in the Soil Environment), to simulate tree carbon allocation to arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) and ectomycorrhizal (ECM) fungi in temperate forests.The dataset includes outputs from two sets of model simulations:1. Perturbation experiments: Simulations across gradients of ECM dominance (0–100%), nitrogen deposition, soil temperature, and net primary productivity (NPP) to test how these factors affect mycorrhizal C allocation and nutrient cycling.2. FIA-based simulations: Model applications to over 1,800 U.S. forest sites using site-specific data from the U.S. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, including vegetation composition, mycorrhizal type, climate, litter traits, soil properties, and N deposition.Model outputs include simulated mycorrhizal carbon allocation and related biogeochemical variables, such as soil and microbial carbon and nitrogen stocks. Data are provided in CSV format and organized by experiment type (in separate ZIP files). Python scripts for running simulations, plotting, and spatial mapping are also included and organized similarly. No proprietary software is required. These outputs support a peer-reviewed study and were used to generate figures and tables in the associated publication.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Water isotope data for the TEMPEST study site, 2023-2026

This dataset contains water isotope (deuterium (dD) and oxygen (d18O)) data from porewater, experimental source water, and aquifer sources from the Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments (TEMPEST) experimental field site in Edgewater, MD. Samples were taken from 2023-2026 and included in file "TEMPEST_Water_Isotope_LANL_2023-2026.csv". Porewater samples were taken from 15cm depth at multiple locations in each experimental plot (i.e., control, freshwater, and saltwater). Water samples were stored in 2 ml amber glass vials with septum caps under refrigeration until analysis. A L2140-i Picarro cavity ringdown spectrometer connected to an A0211 Picarro vaporization module was used to run water samples. Standards (United States Geological Survey (USGS) 47 and 48) were used to check instrument accuracy during each run of samples. Post-processing codes were run to calculate isotopic values from raw data. Reported isotope data is post-processed. Raw data CSV files from the Picarro were processed using a Python script and output as excel files containing data calibrated to Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW). Standardization is based on USGS47 and USGS48 standards that are measured before and after every 5-10 unknowns. Every measurement is comprised of 10 injections. Processing involved discarding the first 4 injections due to a known memory effect. Raw means of the last 6 injections are taken for each measurement and then corrected from the linear calibration relationship of the USGS standards expected vs measured values to obtain corrected compositions relative to VSMOW. Reported isotope data are corrected mean results.

Aquifer↗
DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗
DOE OSTI2024

2020 natural gas LCA data appendices

This collection is the data-centric appendices for the report Life Cycle Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation: U.S. 2020 Emissions Profile. It consists of Appendix A: Additional Modeling Parameters [spreadsheet]; Appendix B: Water Burdens [spreadsheet]; Appendix D: Simulation of Liquids Unloading [python script and spreadsheet]; Appendix E: Detailed GHG Results for All Scenarios [spreadsheet]; Appendix F: Full Inventory Results [spreadsheet]; and Appendix I: Stage-Level Natural Gas Loss and Consumption Rates [spreadsheet].

Appendices↗
DOE OSTI2025

2020 natural gas LCA appendices Rev1

This collection is the data-centric appendices for the report Life Cycle Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation: U.S. 2020 Emissions Profile. It consists of Appendix A: Additional Modeling Parameters [spreadsheet]; Appendix B: Water Burdens [spreadsheet]; Appendix D: Simulation of Liquids Unloading [python script and spreadsheet]; Appendix E: Detailed GHG Results for All Scenarios [spreadsheet]; Appendix F: Full Inventory Results [spreadsheet]; and Appendix I: Stage-Level Natural Gas Loss and Consumption Rates [spreadsheet]. These results have been updated from the previous version (https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/2020-natural-gas-lca-data-appendices) to correct a modeling error where the same post-processing natural gas composition was used instead of the intended regional compositions.

Appendices↗
DOE OSTI2020

Development of the PROTEUS and ANSYS Coupled System for Simulating Heat Pipe Cooled Micro Reactors

The objective of this project is to develop the coupled system of PROTEUS/ANSYS for simulating a heat pipe cooled micro reactor. As an initial effort, while figuring out controlling ANSYS Mechanical with Workbench, the coupled system of PROTEUS/FLUENT in the CORBA environment were tried to demonstrate the coupled simulation for a transient problem of a heat pipe cooled micro reactor. Finally, the coupled system of PROTEUS/ANSYS was constructed using APDL commands in the CORBA environment, instead of ANSYS Workbench, since we found that ANSYS with the current version of Workbench Python scripting did not provide capabilities necessary for simulating a transient problem.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2021

VERA-Grizzly Ex-Core Calculations: Watts Bar Unit 1 Cycles 1-2

The critical structures that comprise light-water reactor (LWR) nuclear power plants are subjected to operating environments that can challenge their integrity. Structures in close proximity to the reactor core, such as the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and the biological shield wall, are subjected to high levels of radiation emanating from the core, as well as elevated temperatures. As the US fleet of operating LWRs ages, the effects of these operating environments on the integrity of these structures must be considered to ensure their continued safe operation. Extending the lifetime of commercial reactors and maintaining the aging reactor fleet require accurate prediction of the exposure of ex-core components to neutron and photon radiation. In particular, concrete degradation studies must be performed to evaluate the safety and long-term operation of reactors with lifetime extensions. The concrete reactor bioshield is important for providing radiological protection during operation and must last for the entire lifetime of the reactor. Recent interest in lifetime extensions furthers the need to accurately simulate concrete material degradation in the reactor bioshield. As a result of this need, the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program has funded this study to couple its tools, Virtual Environment for Reactor Applications (VERA) and Grizzly. VERA allows users to set up models to calculate time-dependent and fully coupled solutions (with thermal feedback) for ex-core quantities of interest such as vessel and coupon fluence and detector responses for multiple statepoints and cycles. Grizzly is a finite-element application based on the Multiphysics Object Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) framework that is used to enable aging materials calculations. This report highlights the work performed to calculate the fluence in the vessel and concrete for Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 1 (WBN1) Cycles 1 and 2. The fluences obtained from VERA were successfully transferred to Grizzly using a Python script. Four simulations were run with Grizzly: (1) the Mazars model with the initial Young’s modulus being the instantaneous modulus, (2) the Mazars model with the initial Young’s modulus being the delayed modulus, (3) the Mazars model with the initial Young’s modulus being the delayed modulus with the addition of the effects of micro-damage caused by irradiation, and (4) the Mazars model with the initial Young’s modulus being the instantaneous modulus, and with the addition of micro-damage and creep. Details regarding the methods used to obtain the fluence and the statistical errors associated with the VERA Monte Carlo Shift calculations are discussed in greater detail in this report. The results obtained from the four Grizzly models are also presented in this report.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Automation of Plot Generation for Strategic Petroleum Reserve Cavern Leaching Monitoring

Monitoring cavern leaching after each calendar year of oil sales is necessary to support cavern stability efforts and long-term availability for oil drawdowns in the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Modeling results from the SANSMIC code and recent sonars are compared to show projected changes in the cavern’s geometry due to leaching from raw-water injections. This report aims to give background on the importance of monitoring cavern leaching and provide a detailed explanation of the process used to create the leaching plots used to monitor cavern leaching. In the past, generating leaching plots for each cavern in a given leaching year was done manually, and every cavern had to be processed individually. A Python script, compatible with Earth Volumetric Studio, was created to automate most of the process. The script makes a total of 26 plots per cavern to show leaching history, axisymmetric representation of leaching, and SANSMIC modeling of future leaching. The current run time for the script is one hour, replacing 40-50 hours of the monitoring cavern leaching process.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2022

NRAP-Open-IAM: Generic Aquifer Component Development and Testing

The Generic Aquifer Model calculates the concentrations of dissolved salt and dissolved CO 2 surrounding a leaking legacy well. The Generic Aquifer model can also estimate the size of an “impact plume” where concentration changes exceed user-specified thresholds. The model is a component of NRAP-Open-IAM, an open-source Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) developed by the National Risk Assessment Partnership (NRAP) to perform risk assessment for geologic CO 2 storage. The input parameters were selected to cover a wide range of groundwater aquifers and leakage rates. The generic aquifer model was developed using a generative adversarial deep learning network, trained using a large synthetic dataset of STOMP multiphase flow simulations. The deep learning model predictions of dissolved salt and dissolved CO 2 in the aquifer compare well to the original STOMP simulation results. The extent of aquifer impacted by leaking CO 2 or brine is calculated using a user-defined mass fraction threshold. The aquifer impact volumes calculated based on STOMP simulation results compare well to those calculated based on the deep learning model. In a provided python script, gridded observation results from the generic aquifer component of NRAP-Open-IAM are converted to HDF5 format files for monitoring design with the DREAM code.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Benchmark Exercise for the Control Rod Swelling Evaluation

The VTR core has six reactivity control assemblies and three safety assemblies. The control assemblies or primary control rods are adjusted during the normal operation to balance the core reactivity and to control the reactor power. A typical control assembly radial layout is presented in Figure 1. The figure shows the swelled absorber (B 4 C) rod. Initially, helium gas fills the gap between the pin and the cladding before irradiation swelling takes place. For VTR, HT9 steel was selected as the cladding and duct material. The main neutron absorbing material used in the VTR is B 4 C. When residing in the core, the neutronics, thermophysical, and mechanical properties of the materials used in a control assembly will degrade due to accumulated neutron damage. Material degradation limits how long a control assembly can reside in the core. Many phenomena affect the control assembly lifetime, such as the loss of reactivity worth due to B 4 C depletion, the mechanical interaction of the absorber rod and the cladding due to B 4 C swelling, the helium gas buildup in the pin due to B-10 capture, etc. B 4 C swelling, which causes closure of the gap between the absorber rod and the cladding, is usually considered as the main limiting factor from past experience. An initial study was conducted at PNNL to evaluate the irradiation behavior of a VTR control assembly. The evaluation was performed using the CNRD2 code that was initially developed for the FFTF. The study also included an assessment of the VTR control assembly and focused on a 61-pin control assembly design, which is different from that used (37-pin design) in the core design study. The study conducted by PNNL was reviewed independently by ANL. A Python script referred to as the Control Assembly Evaluation Script (CAES) was developed for the independent review and additional assessment of 37-pin control assembly design. The script has focused on the assessment of the absorber rod swelling for its importance in determining the control assembly lifetime. CAES uses geometry, neutronics, materials data as input to predict the swelling of the absorber rod during its residence in the reactor core. The results from CAES showed some non-negligible differences against the PNNL results. Some of the differences can be attributed to the different interpretation of the control rod assembly dimensions. To resolve this issue, a benchmark exercise was proposed. The benchmark specification was developed by PNNL. The benchmark exercise was performed independently at PNNL and ANL using different codes/scripts (CRND2 and CAES). This memo documents the results calculated using the different codes. However, this report is limited to presenting the results obtained. Further investigation of the cause of the observed difference will be performed as part of future activities, pending continuation of the VTR program.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Project Description for Student Symposium 2022: Modeling Approach to Critical in the Upcoming CERBERUS Experiment

The Critical Experiment Reflected By copper to BettEr Understand Scattering [CERBERUS] is an integral experiment that will be executed at the end of FY23. The experiment is designed to study the intermediate energy range, in particular elastic and inelastic scattering of neutrons in copper. Approaching criticality safely is of utmost importance, and having a computer mode is a useful tool when determining changes that can safely be made to the experiment. Multiple simulations are needed to analyze the approach to critical, and manually creating MCNP input files is both tedious and error prone. To solve this problem, a python script was created to develop and run these input files.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Modeling the cooldown of cryocooler conduction-cooled devices

Cryocooler conduction cooled devices can experience significant cooldown time due to lower available cooling capacity compares to convection cooled devices. Therefore, the cooldown time is an important design parameter for conduction cooled devices. This article introduces a framework developed in Python for calculating the cooldown profiles and cooldown time of cryocooler conduction-cooled devices such as superconducting magnets and accelerator cavities. The cooldown time estimation problem is essentially a system of ordinary first-order differential equations comprising the material properties (temperature dependent thermal conductivity and specific heat capacity) of the components intertwined with the prevailing heat transfer channels (conduction, radiation, and heat flow across pressed contacts) and the cryocooler capacity. The formulation of this ODE system is first presented. This ODE system is then solved using the in-built Python library odeint. A case study is presented comprising a small cryocooler conduction-cooled copper stabilized niobium-titanium magnet. The case study is supplemented with the Python script enabling the reader to simply tweak the device design parameters and optimize the design from the point of view of slow/fast cooldown.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Modeling, Performance Assessment, and Nodal Data Analysis of TRISO-Fueled Systems with Shift

This technical report documents several enhancements to the Shift Monte Carlo (MC) code under the US Department of Energy (DOE) Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program in fiscal year (FY) 2022. Performance enhancements were added to Shift specifically for tristructural isotropic (TRISO)–fueled reactor systems and guided based on performance analysis in FY 2021. For the pebble performance model developed in previous studies, the runtime improved by ~ 91× compared to the original model and ~ 2× compared to the user-optimized model. Compared to Serpent, Shift is ~ 3× slower if Serpent delta-tracking is enabled but ~ 2× faster when delta-tracking is disabled. The multigroup cross section generation was improved through simplifying tally input definitions, porting several post-processing tally operations from Python scripts into the Shift code base, and accounting for production reactions in the scattering multiplicity. Progress was also made on two emerging capabilities: (1) the development of Titan (a Shift reactor physics user interface) and (2) initial investigation into path-length tallies for computing multigroup scattering matrices.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Development of Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy for the Californium-252 Supply Program

Calibration-free–laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (CF-LIBS) is suggested as an alternative to traditional LIBS because it does not rely on calibration curves and instead relies on previously reported parameters called transition probabilities. Transition probabilities are fundamental parameters that describe the probability a specific transition from an upper energy to a lower energy will occur. These values act as internal calibrations and allow concentrations to be calculated based on the plasma temperature and electron density, which can be determined from Saha-Boltzmann methods. CF-LIBS provides the ability to perform elemental concentration estimations on samples without the need for chemical dilutions and only nanograms of material are ablated into the plasma. These benefits can be applied remotely inside hot cells, glove boxes, and radiation hoods through optical fibers. This report summarizes recent efforts to develop CF-LIBS methods for future applications within Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s radioisotope production portfolio, such as the Cf-252 Supply Program. Summaries are provided for the developed Python scripts for data analysis and two studies employing these programs to determine unreported transition probabilities of relevant lanthanides. Additionally, a review of fiber-delivered LIBS and a discussion of a LIBS fiber probe design are provided.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Using CUBIT to Create Unstructured Mesh Models for MCNP Simulations

The Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) transport code version 6 (also known as MCNP6) has the capability for tracking particles on unstructured mesh (UM) geometry models embedded into constructive solid geometry (CSG) cells. This feature has been developed for performing calculations of complex geometry models because creating CSG models is a time-consuming and error-prone process as the complexities of geometries increase. An MCNP UM calculation requires UM geometry input files. The UM capability was originally designed to work with UM models created with the Abaqus/CAE software and ASCII input files that it generates. The Abaqus-formatted input files needed for MCNP UM calculations must have the correct Abaqus syntax and meet the additional MCNP requirements. Several software packages can generate a UM model formatted as an Abaqus input file. Cubit, the Sandia National Laboratory automated mesh generation toolkit, can generate a UM model formatted as an Abaqus input file. However, the Abaqus input files created by Cubit cannot be used for MCNP simulations. A Python script has been developed to convert an Abaqus file created by Cubit to an Abaqus file that the MCNP code can process. This report describes the process of using Cubit to create UM models for MCNP calculations.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Athena-I CUBIT Journal Files

The Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP)1 transport code version 6 (also known as MCNP6) has the capability for tracking particles on unstructured mesh (UM) geometry models embedded into con structive solid geometry (CSG) cells. This feature has been developed for performing calculations of complex geometry models because manually creating CSG models is a time-consuming and error prone process as the complexities of geometries increase. The UM capability was originally designed to work with UM models created with the Abaqus software and ASCII input files that it generates. The MCNP code version 6.0 and later can process UM models formatted as Abaqus input files. Starting with version 6.3, MCNP can also process HDF5 mesh input files. External codes must be used to generate Abaqus input files for MCNP UM calculations. CUBIT, the Sandia National Laboratory automated mesh generation toolkit, can generate a UM model formatted as an Abaqus input file. However, the Abaqus input files exported from CUBIT cannot be used for MCNP simulations because it lacks the proper syntax. A Python script was developed to convert an Abaqus file created by CUBIT to an Abaqus file format that MCNP can process. Creating UM models for complex geometries is not an easy task. The process of creating UM models in CUBIT for MCNP simulations is detailed in. CUBIT provides several user interface options including a graphical user interface (GUI) and a command line interface. A GUI provides an easy way to use CUBIT without learning the CUBIT command syntax. When using CUBIT with either interface option, command lines are written into an ASCII file known as a journal file; this journal file can be edited and archived so that it can be played back in CUBIT to automatically generate a UM model. This report describes the CUBIT journal files of the UM models developed for Athena-I. The Athena platform, an energy-tuning assembly, was developed to spectrally shape the National Ignition Facility (NIF) deuterium-tritium fusion neutron source to a thermonuclear (fusion) plus prompt fission neutron spectrum with capability to act as a short-pulse neutron source. MCNP6 was used for the Athena experiment design analysis.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

September 2023 - Mini Blast Tube Experimental Results [Slides]

Ryan Rettinger (M-6): provided the python script for extracting the pressure data. Joseph Kerwin (E-14): provided the countless pictures taken during the flow shots. Chris Long (W-13): provided the simulation data shown in the upcoming slides.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Domain Aware Deep-learning Algorithms Integrated with Scientific-computing Technologies (DADAIST)

This technical report summarized the contribution of the DADAIST project funded by the Data Model Convergence Initiative via the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) investments at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). Specifically, we report the development of the NeuroMANCER (Neural Modules with Adaptive Nonlinear Constraints and Efficient Regularizations), a new open-source Scientific Machine Learning library for formulating and solving parametric constrained optimization problems, physics-informed system identification, and parametric optimal control problems. NeuroMANCER is using differentiable programming to combine modern data-driven models and optimization modeling language into a coherent algorithmic and software framework. NeuroMANCER is a Pytorch-based framework and adopts much of its philosophy focused on research and development, rapid prototyping, and streamlined deployment. Strong emphasis is given to extensibility, interoperability with the PyTorch ecosystem, and quick adaptability to custom domain problems. Neuromancer repository contains a comprehensive library of differentiable modules, including custom activation functions, matrix factorizations, deep learning architectures, neural differential equations, differential equation solvers, implicit layers such as iterative solvers, high-level API for symbolic expressions, API for modeling and control of dynamical systems, and extensive set of tutorial code examples in the form of python scripts and jupyter notebooks.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗