Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “TASK”

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 OSTI2024

Advanced Laboratory and Field Arrays (ALFA)/Lab Collaboration Project (LCP) for Marine Energy (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The objective of the Advanced Laboratory and Field Arrays (ALFA) project was to reduce the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) energy by leveraging research, development, and testing capabilities at Oregon State University, University of Washington, and the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. ALFA is a project within the Pacific Marine Energy Center (PMEC; formerly NNMREC), a multi-institution entity with a diverse funding base that focuses on research and development for marine renewables. The ALFA project aimed to accelerate the development of next-generation arrays of wave energy conversion (WEC) and tidal energy conversion (TEC) devices through a suite of field-focused R&D activities spanning a broad range of strategic opportunity areas identified in the Funding Opportunity Announcement: • Device and/or array operation and maintenance (O&M) logistics development; • High-fidelity resource characterization and/or modeling technique development and validation; • Array-specific component technology development (e.g. moorings and foundations, transmission, and other offshore grid components); • Array performance testing and evaluation; and • Novel cost-effective environmental monitoring techniques and instrumentation testing and evaluation. The objective of the Lab Collaboration Project (LCP) was to accelerate the development of next-generation marine energy conversion systems. The LCP aimed to achieve these project objectives in collaboration with the national laboratories by: • Developing concept generation and assessment tools; • Improving access to existing testing resources; • Validating collision risk models between fish and turbines; and • Advancing analysis and simulation capabilities for wave-WEC interactions and PTO analysis in nonlinear ocean waves. The ALFA portion of the project was comprised of six overarching technical tasks: • Task 1: Debris Modeling, Detection and Mitigation; • Task 2: Autonomous Monitoring & Intervention; • Task 3: Resource Characterization for Extreme Conditions; • Task 4: Robust Models for Design of Offshore Anchoring and Mooring Systems; • Task 5: Performance Enhancement for Marine Energy Converter (MEC) Arrays; and • Task 6: Evaluating Sampling Techniques for MHK Biological Monitoring. The LCP was divided into four overarching technical tasks: • Task 7: Project Management and Reporting • Task 8: Novel Design and Assessment Methodologies for Wave Energy Converter Design (Wave- SPARC) • Task 9: Testing Access for Commercial Marine Renewable Energy Technology Developers • Task 10: Quantifying Collision Risk for Fish and Turbines • Task 11: Nonlinear Ocean Waves and PTO Control Strategy Each ALFA/LCP task listed above functioned as a separate and discreet project. A final Technical Report was written for each individual task and these reports were uploaded to OSTI, after receiving DOE approval. The following document is a compilation of each of these final, approved reports arranged as individual chapters.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Advanced Perovskite Solar Cells and Modules

The “Advanced perovskite Cells and Modules” research project was the final agreement focused on enhancing perovskite solar cell (PSC) technologies funded by the US Department of Energy's Solar Energy Technologies Office. The project was designed to address three crucial areas in PSC development: stability, manufacturability, and efficiency. The project was then structured around three main tasks, each targeting one of these strategic goals. The team of experienced researchers in these materials worked collaboratively to address the targets outlined in the technical work plan. building on existing PSC research while also exploring promising new concepts arising in the field. An overview of each primary task is summarized below: Task 1 Stability: This first task, aims to identify material characteristics and metrics that can help predict the primary degradation mechanisms impacting PSC stability. This involved developing specific device tests based on hypotheses regarding mechanisms impacting stability, including fast failure procedures to speed up PSC development and improvement. Various strategies to enhance stability, like incorporating additives, post-treatments, novel contact materials etc. were developed using this fast feedback approach. The relationships between indoor and outdoor stresses were also validated. Task 2 Manufacturability: This second task, focused on creating a scalable production process for PSCs. Initially the objective is to establish a best-known method for a 182 cm2 minimodule. However, given resource limitations, these metrics were modified to focus on the other goal of outlined in the TWP. Specifically, this task worked to demonstrate the transferability of this best-known method to another research institution. Work scope in this area was expanded to material purity and understanding of reagent/process relationships. Examination of other difficulties in PSC production and potential solutions for large-scale production were also evaluated. Given challenges observed in process transfer, work to develop data infrastructure and recording tools for processing of material and devices was then also prioritized in this task. Task 3 Efficiency: This task was focused on improvements to PCE, while still considering Task 1 and Task 2 goal. The efforts targeted a PCE greater than 22% with a T95 exceeding 1000 hours at 25°C in a nitrogen environment for lab-scale devices (approximately 0.1 cm2 devices) across a range of solar-relevant perovskite compositions, including wide-gap (around 1.7 eV) and low-gap (around 1.3 eV) materials, using standard metal contacts. This work then provides a foundation for MHP-based tandem efforts undertaken in other projects and the All-MHP tandem efforts outlined in this projects TWP. Work in this project emphasized disseminating its findings through peer-reviewed publications (PRP), conference presentations, and industrial collaborations. Significant products were produced in all these areas, over 53 peer reviewed publications, 32 conference presentations and industrial investment based on NLR assistance on precompetitive challenges. The team also developed significant intellectual property and awards for their technical excellence, innovations and leadership. The team also leveraged traditional and social media platforms to engage with stakeholders and the public.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
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

WHOLESCALE - Water & Hole Observations Leverage Effective Stress Calculations And Lessen Expenses (Final Technical Report 2020 - 2024)

The WHOLESCALE acronym stands for Water & Hole Observations Leverage Effective Stress Calculations and Lessen Expenses. The goal of the WHOLESCALE project is to simulate the spatial distribution and temporal evolution of stress in the geothermal system at San Emidio in Nevada, United States. To reach this goal, the WHOLESCALE team has developed a methodology to incorporate and interpret data from four methods of measurement into a multi-physics model that couples thermal, hydrological, and mechanical (T H-M) processes. The WHOLESCALE team has applied this methodology at the San Emidio geothermal field, located ~100 km north of Reno, Nevada in the northwestern Basin and Range province. The WHOLESCALE team includes 30 individuals working at two universities, two national laboratories, and one industry partner. Two master-degree students and five post-doctoral researchers have gained professional experience and earned partial financial support via the WHOLESCALE project. The WHOLESCALE team has taken advantage of the perturbations created by changes in pumping operations during planned shutdowns in 2016, 2021, and 2022 to infer temporal changes in the state of stress in the geothermal system at San Emidio, Nevada, U.S. The WHOLESCALE results support the working hypothesis that increasing pore-fluid pressure reduces the effective normal stress acting across fault zones. During normal operations, pumping in deep production wells decreases fluid pressures and thus increases the effective normal stresses on faults, reducing microseismicity. During planned shutdowns, the cessation of production increases pore-fluid pressure and reduces effective normal stress. The WHOLESCALE products generated during the 4-year period between 2020 and 2024 include: three articles published in the open-access, peer-reviewed scientific literature, two master’s theses, 20 presentations or papers at scientific conferences, and 17 data sets available on public repositories. The WHOLESCALE project has been completed in two phases that included three performance periods separated by two Go/No-go Stage Gate Reviews. Tasks were classified by data type (i.e., Geologic Structure, Borehole, Geodesy, Hydrology, Seismology, and Modeling). The first phase of the project started July 31, 2020 and included ongoing project coordination (Task 1), a project kickoff (Task 2), analysis of existing data (Task 3), development of the initial stress model & deployment design (Task 4), and Go/No-go Decision Point #1 (Task 5). Phase II began with implementing the 2022 deployment (Task 6), followed by Go/No-go Decision Point #2 (Task 7) The remainder of Phase II consisted of analyzing data collected during deployment (Task 8), calibration of the stress model on all observations (Task 9), and the Final Review (August 23, 2024) & Reporting (Task 10).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

ASME Design Code Rule Changes for Nuclear Graphite

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler Pressure and Vessel Code (ASME BPVC) Section III, Division 5, Article HHA-3000 outlines graphite core component and graphite core assembly design guidelines. Graphite core components are defined as ?components manufactured from graphite that are installed to form a graphite core assembly within the reactor pressure vessel of a high temperature, graphite moderated fission reactor.? (p. 413) Graphites? inherent defect distributions do not allow for deterministic material reliability. Rather, graphite has variable strength distributions which change by grade. Article HHA-3000 outlines two semi-probabilistic methods, the full and simplified assessments, which set design load limit targets for each of three component structural reliability classes. The Design Task Group was officially recognized as a specialized task group within ASME November of 2023, though we?ve been collaborating since 2022. The purpose of the Design Task Group is to correct, clarify, and make HHA-3000 function as intended. The Design Task Group will sunset once we?ve achieved our objectives. The Design Task Group was specifically told to not write new Code. While there may be more precise and more accurate methods to determine reliability targets, the current methods are conservative, relatively simple to implement, and have thus far been considered satisfactory for setting design reliability targets. Much of the ground-work to write proposal files and background documents for records to make the changes needed to achieve our objective have been completed. The Design Task Group has documented much of their work through papers, presentations, and memorandums. Three memorandums in which INL team members had substantial contributions are found in the Appendices: FEA Modeling for the Baseline Program, Evaluating the Effects on Margin of Updating the Threshold and Shape Parameters in the Full Assessment, and Interpretations of the Full and Simplified Assessments in ASME BPVC. Most of the on-going work to achieve the Design Task Group?s objective will be addressing comments on existing records and moving records through the balloting process. The Design Task Group met bi-weekly mostly through the end of FY2023. Since February 2024, the Design Task Group has mostly been completed with solving and documenting the technical issues associated with the assessments. Unless new tasks are identified, the remaining work of the Design Task Group will be political and editorial.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Predictive Indicators of the Performance of Large Language Models

In several mission contexts, it is desirable to estimate the performance of large language models (LLMs) on tasks that we cannot run directly. In light of published “scaling laws” our hypothesis is that some tasks should be consistently more challenging than others based on characteristics of the task. The goal of this project was to begin quantifying how much information about LLM performance can be gained from the features of a model and a task. Two of our statistical models struggled to converge. Pass/fail test results may provide limited information for inference beyond model quality and task difficulty, but we see no evidence at this time for significant feature interaction effect sizes, arguing for simple models. Future work extending the models to capitalize on perplexity of ground truth answers is suggested. This project also introduces “Depth of Knowledge Variant Testing” as a strategy for more finely assessing language models on open domain question and answer tasks. We developed sets of questions that ask a language model to produce similar information while demonstrating increasing depth of knowledge, and also relabeled existing Q&A test questions with their depth of knowledge. Our results suggest further consideration of Bloom’s taxonomy and further refinement of prompts to properly elicit information at varying depths. In the course of this work, we set up a basic infrastructure for standardizing tasks and testing many language models on these tasks. In addition to testing the predictive quality of model features and performance across test suites, with this project we have introduced two new task features to contextualize each test question: the Dewey Classification main category of information covered, and the Bloom’s taxonomy level that corresponds to the depth of knowledge probed by the question. Splits across these and other features produced over five hundred task subtypes with distinct feature vectors, which we tested on half a dozen models.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

IRIS: Exploring Performance Scaling of the Intelligent Runtime System and its Dynamic Scheduling Policies

High-Performance Computing is becoming increasingly heterogeneous, relying on a diverse mix of hardware to achieve good performance. Paradoxically, current drivers and frameworks for these devices typically require separate languages and implementations for each vendor. Furthermore, there are few tools and little support to schedule codes between these devices in a truly heterogeneous manner-partly because of this fragmentation between vendors and the languages each supports. To overcome both limitations, the Intelligent Runtime System (IRIS) was developed. It allows a common task abstraction to automatically be shared among contemporary vendors and is run from a single host-side API. At runtime, IRIS queries the host system and registers which frameworks and drivers are available, these determine which kernels can be used by the scheduler-CPUs via OpenMP, Nvidia GPUs (CUDA), AMD GPUs (HIP), and Intel and Xilinx FPGAs with OpenCL. IRIS enables tasks to be scheduled to any heterogeneous device and resolves to the appropriate kernel binary at runtimeit only uses the devices supported by the system on which it is run. IRIS supports single-task and graph-based expressions of dependencies of tasks. Additionally, IRIS features a range of dynamic scheduling policies, allowing complex chains of tasks and interactions to be executed, relieving the programmer/user from considering the system to assign tasks to devices optimally. This paper presents the peak performance attainable by IRIS over a range of systems-each with different numbers and types of accelerator devices, it highlights the flexibility of IRIS since these devices are truly heterogeneous, relying on different backends (drivers, frameworks, and languages) which historically required unique implementations to utilize them. We then use this peak performance as a baseline to compare increasingly complex chains of tasks (with increasingly complex task dependencies) and evaluate how IRIS copes. Finally, we consider the performance of different IRIS scheduling policies on this range of task graphs.

Johnston, Beau↗
DOE OSTI2025

IRIS-MASH: Efficient Multi-device Asynchronous Multi-Stream Heterogeneous Computing

In the rapidly evolving field of high-performance computing (HPC), effectively leveraging heterogeneous devices through asynchronous task programming is paramount. This paper presents a robust asynchronous task programming model tailored for a multi-device, multi-stream execution environment that incorporates a diverse array of heterogeneous computing units, including GPUs from various vendors and other accelerators. Current state-of-the-art task programming models provide methodologies to support asynchronous task executions, but they typically handle homogeneous devices using native programming languages, while support for heterogeneous devices is limited to frameworks like OpenCL. This gap presents significant challenges in abstracting heterogeneous devices to harness their true asynchronous capabilities effectively using their native programming languages. By implementing asynchronous task execution, our model significantly boosts the performance of tiled algorithm task graphs through overlapping data transfers with computation and enabling the simultaneous execution of multiple kernels. We integrate this approach into a heterogeneous Intelligent Runtime System (IRIS) and assess its performance using a suite of tiled algorithm benchmarks from the heterogeneous math kernels library (MatRIS) based on IRIS. Experimental results demonstrate a performance improvement ranging from 1.6 × to 2 × over IRIS without asynchronous support, and a notable 22% performance enhancement compared to established runtime systems such as StarPU and PaRSEC. This approach significantly improves computation efficiency of HPC workflows and provides a solid base for future exploration and development in the area of asynchronous task programming in heterogeneous systems.

Miniskar, Narasinga Rao [ORNL] (ORCID:000000018259↗
DOE OSTI2024

TrustDER: Trusted, Private and Scalable Coordination of Distributed Energy Resources

In this project, the Stanford and SLAC Teams have developed a Trusted, Private and Scalable platform for coordinating Coordination of Distributed Energy Resources (TrustDER). This is a layered system that ensures private, trusted and scalable coordination and monitoring of DERs. It accommodates a variety of resources, such as solar generation, gensets and loads, with a particular focus on battery systems-based resources, as they are a transformational technology experiencing fast growth in adoption by large critical facilities. The platform can be used as standalone or added to existing aggregation systems to enable trust, privacy and resilience. TrustDER consists of layers that address each of the shortcomings of the existing state of the art. Each layer in the platform can operate independently but provides information to the layers above it to enable a novel form of overall coordination architecture. The project consists of several tasks, with each task dedicated to the design of each layer. Task 2 Resource Virtualization defined a software abstraction layer for distributed energy resources (DERs). The goal of this abstraction was to simplify the implementation of algorithms utilizing cooperation of DERs resources in a variety of use cases. Task 3 is on Secure ID for Asset Authentication. Identity Management Systems (IDMS) are a foundational infrastructure for interactions between entities (organizations, users, devices, and services). Secure ID is blockchain-based a distributed identity management system allowing (1) identity provisioning, (2) authentication, (3) authorization, and (4) identity data sharing for IoT-enabled assets on the electricity grid. In this project, the SLAC team focused on designing and testing Keymaker, a protocol for authenticating device identity managed by Secure ID. Task 5 Private and Safe Integration is focused on the design and evaluation of a DER cooperation scheme which allows for the aggregation of DERs without impacting network reliability. The approach is designed based on realistic assumptions regarding data availability, communication infrastructure limitations, and privacy. Task 6 Scalable Distributed Privacy for Information explored how virtualized batteries could be managed privately. Specifically, it examined the case in which a principal provides a partitioned battery to multiple clients. Task 7 Use Cases was to ensure that this technology was applied in relevant situations and scenarios. Primarily, this means that virtualization needed to be employed in a manner that either improved flexibility, bolstered security or privacy, or decreased costs.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2024

A Multifunctional Isostructural Bilayer Oxygen Evolution Electrode for Durable Intermediate-Temperature Electrochemical Water Splitting

The overarching goal of the proposed research is to address SOEC’s degradation problem by advancing a new isostructural highly electrocatalytically active bilayer oxygen evolution reaction (OER) electrode, consisting of a LSCF (La 1-x Sr x Co 1-y Fe y O 3-δ ) core and a SCT (SrCo 0.9 Ta 0.1 O 3-δ ) shell, to achieve high and sustainable rate of oxygen evolution matching operating current densities without encountering delamination. To realize this goal, the project has adopted a combined experimental and theoretical approach to conduct research in the following six areas closely associated with SOPO tasks: 1) Development of electrocatalytically active bilayer oxygen electrodes (SOPO task-1) 2) Development of new symmetric three electrode cell (STEC) methodology to extract electrokinetic data of oxygen electrodes (SOPO task-2) 3) Quantification of electrokinetics of bilayer oxygen electrodes and correlation with degradation and delamination (SOPO task-2) 4) Performances of bilayer oxygen electrodes under fuel cells and electrolyzers modes (SOPO task-3) 5) Microscale modeling of oxygen electrode/electrolyte interface in solid oxide electrolysis cells (SOPO task-4) 6) Prediction of crack growth rate at oxygen electrode/electrolyte interface in solid oxide electrolysis cells (SOPO task-4)

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2025

Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration: Phase III (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The Southwest Regional Partnership on Carbon Sequestration (SWP) is one of 7 regional partnerships formed in 2003 under the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Regional Carbon Sequestration Partnerships (RCSPs) initiative. The overall purpose of the initiative was to help determine and implement the technology, infrastructure, and regulations most appropriate to promote carbon storage in different regions of the country. Covering Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and parts of Texas, Wyoming, and Kansas, the SWP evaluated regional carbon storage and utilization potential and focused on technologies and sites that could complement the region’s strong position in energy production. The project progressed through three phases: • Phase I (2003–2005): Characterized regional geologic formations and CO 2 sources, assessed sequestration potential, and identified pilot test sites. • Phase II (2005–2013): Conducted small-scale field tests to validate sequestration methods, including geologic and terrestrial projects. • Phase III (2008–2022): Demonstrated large-scale CO 2 injection at a commercial oil field to test monitoring, verification, and long-term storage strategies. This report covers Phase III. The final project site, the Farnsworth Unit (FWU) in Texas, provided real-world testing of reservoir characterization, monitoring, and risk evaluation tools and processes that could be used in any commercial scale carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) project. Extensive data collection and analysis helped refine best practices for reservoir characterization, injection monitoring, and storage verification. The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Key lessons learned include the importance of robust data management, strategic site selection, regulatory navigation, and effective industry collaboration. The project’s findings will inform ongoing and future carbon storage initiatives. Task 1 (Regional Characterization) • The SWP continued to participate in national outreach efforts and NATCARB. • The SWP evaluated multiple potential sites before selecting the FWU as the primary field test location. Task 2 (Public Outreach and Education) • The SWP contributed to national databases, DOE best practice manuals, and regional geological assessments to support future sequestration efforts. Task 3 (Permitting and Regulatory Compliance) • The SWP ensured compliance with federal and state regulations, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. • The SWP obtained all necessary permits for drilling, injection, and monitoring activities. Task 4 (Site Characterization and Planning) • The SWP developed work plans for four key activities: characterization, simulation, monitoring and verification, and risk evaluation. • The SWP collected and synthesized legacy data from multiple sources to build initial static geological models and dynamic reservoir models demonstrating project feasibility. • The SWP conducted an initial risk evaluation and developed mitigation plans. Task 5 (Field Operations and Data Collection) • The SWP drilled, logged, and cored three characterization wells to gather critical subsurface data. • The SWP conducted multiple geophysical surveys, including 3D seismic, crosswell seismic, and vertical seismic profiling, to improve reservoir characterization. Task 6 (Monitoring and Verification) • The SWP performed extensive geological characterization using data from characterization wells and seismic surveys. • The SWP established a surface monitoring network to track CO 2 flux in soil gas, groundwater chemistry, and near-surface atmospheric CO 2 levels. • The SWP built and refined reservoir models to study the effects of relative permeability on simulation behavior and improve calibration with experimental data. Task 7 (Risk Assessment and Model Refinement) • The SWP conducted multiple studies to evaluate reservoir integrity, predict CO 2 plume behavior and improve predictive modeling capabilities. • The SWP refined geological models and used them to enhance the accuracy of simulation models. • The SWP continued quantitative risk assessment of top-ranked risks and strengthened the link between qualitative and quantitative risk methodologies.

02 PETROLEUM↗
DOE OSTI2025

Solar Decarbonization of Paraffin Dehydrogenation Through Particle Heat Carriers (Final Technical Report)

This project focuses on solutions to decarbonize high-temperature catalytic processes using solar thermal heat. The primary project goal is to show the validity of a moving packed bed reactor for propane dehydrogenation using catalyst particles as the heat carrier for the reaction, which can be heated by concentrated solar energy in a particle receiver. This concept, if further developed, may provide a cost-effective pathway for converting lower value gases to important chemical precursors for industrial materials using only renewable energy. The project was divided into six tasks. In Task 1, DFT calculations were performed to understand the role of Pt and Sn in the catalytic dehydrogenation reaction. In Task 2 chemical kinetics measurements were made for several catalyst formulations at high temperatures. In Task 3, the solar absorptance of catalyst particles was compared to the absorptance of commonly used materials in particle receivers. In Task 4, numerical models were developed which could predict performance of the complete system and predict specific temperatures in the system. In Task 5, a prototype system was designed, fabricated, and tested to show the validity of the concept. Task 6 concerned project management activities. Experiments with the prototype showed repeatable thermal performance at temperatures targeted for the reaction. A limited set of tests were done with active catalyst and propane dehydrogenation, showing conversion of propane to propylene with a range of conversions and selectivities. The results are promising, and the prototype designed was reliable during testing, and the team expects that further development of the prototype would yield improved results. A numerical model framework based on coupled fluid and particle mechanics was developed with high computational efficiency using GPU calculations. The model may prove highly useful for evaluating other high-temperature particle systems. However, it was determined that simpler porous media models were good fits for the needs of the current moving packed bed concept. Data showing strong solar absorption of the particles validates the plan of using existing solar particle receivers with only a change in the particle type. Catalyst investigation showed that Pt 1 Sn 3 is the most viable candidate for developing PtSn catalysts for high temperature propane dehydrogenation, considering the balance of activity, selectivity, and deactivation. This project completed an initial study of various factors needed to incorporate a moving bed catalytic reactor for propane dehydrogenation into a concentrated solar thermal particle system. Future developments may allow this technology to be scaled up and help to use solar thermal energy to decarbonize not only the propane dehydrogenation reaction, but other gas-solid catalytic reactions at similar temperatures.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Effects of machine learning errors on human decision-making: manipulations of model accuracy, error types, and error importance

Abstract This study addressed the cognitive impacts of providing correct and incorrect machine learning (ML) outputs in support of an object detection task. The study consisted of five experiments that manipulated the accuracy and importance of mock ML outputs. In each of the experiments, participants were given the T and L task with T-shaped targets and L-shaped distractors. They were tasked with categorizing each image as target present or target absent. In Experiment 1, they performed this task without the aid of ML outputs. In Experiments 2–5, they were shown images with bounding boxes, representing the output of an ML model. The outputs could be correct (hits and correct rejections), or they could be erroneous (false alarms and misses). Experiment 2 manipulated the overall accuracy of these mock ML outputs. Experiment 3 manipulated the proportion of different types of errors. Experiments 4 and 5 manipulated the importance of specific types of stimuli or model errors, as well as the framing of the task in terms of human or model performance. These experiments showed that model misses were consistently harder for participants to detect than model false alarms. In general, as the model’s performance increased, human performance increased as well, but in many cases the participants were more likely to overlook model errors when the model had high accuracy overall. Warning participants to be on the lookout for specific types of model errors had very little impact on their performance. Overall, our results emphasize the importance of considering human cognition when determining what level of model performance and types of model errors are acceptable for a given task.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

MRCI Subtask 2.4/2.5: Regional/Subregional Analysis and Risk Assessment Final Technical Summary Report

The objective of the Midwest Regional Carbon Initiative (MRCI) project is to implement a collaborative Regional Initiative (RI) to accelerate the deployment of carbon capture, and storage (CCS) in the Midwest-Northeastern quadrant of the United States. This report is a Technical Summary report describing work performed on Tasks 2.4 (Conducting Regional/Subregional Analysis) and 2.5 (Assessing and Managing Risk) during the MRCI project. In Task 2.4, detailed numerical reservoir simulation models were developed for selected carbon storage (CS) systems identified under Task 2.1 (Battelle, 2021a) in the MRCI study area. The objective of Task 2.4 is to demonstrate a dynamic modeling methodology for evaluating the suitability of the (selected) CS systems in the MRCI region for hosting a commercial-scale storage project. In this study, CO2 injectivity was evaluated for different CS systems with an annual injection rate of 1 million metric tonnes (MMT) of CO2 considered as the minimum requirement for a commercial scale project. The objective of Task 2.5 is to assess key risks associated with storing CO2 in the different CS systems across the MRCI region and to demonstrate a method(s) for assessing these risks that may be used by developers of future CO2 storage projects in the region. The risk analysis was limited to evaluating two types of leakage risks (i.e., wellbore leakage, flow across unfractured caprock) at three modeled sites considered in Task 2.4.

MRCI,Report,Summary,Technical Challenges,dynamic m↗
DOE OSTI2024

Transforming Uinta Basin Earth Materials for Advanced Products (TUBE-MAP)

The objectives of this project were to quantify, assess, and plan to enable the transformation of Uinta Basin earth resources, such as coal, oil shale, resin, rare earth elements, and critical minerals into high value metal, mineral, and carbon-based products. The specific major goals were 1) basinal assessments and initial planning (Task 2), 2) basinal assessment for waste stream reuse with associated plan development (Task 3), 3) basinal strategies development for infrastructure, industries, and business (Task 4), 4) technology assessment, development, and field-testing plan (Task 5), 5) technology innovation center plan (Task 6), and 6) stakeholder outreach and education plan (Task 7).

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗
DOE OSTI2025

FY24 – FY25 Efforts to Revive the ANS-54.8 Liquid Metal Fire Protection in LMR Plants Standard

The current multi-year effort seeks to utilize national laboratory support from Argonne to expedite revival of the ANS-54.8 standard titled “Liquid Metal Fire Protection in LMR Plants.” To achieve that objective, the following tasks were identified: Task 1 involves working directly with ANS to revive the ANS-54.8 Working Group. This was to be accomplished by completing necessary paperwork, submitting that paperwork to ANS for approval, enlisting potential working group members from industry, the NRC, national laboratories, and universities, and organizing and leading Working Group activities. The overall purpose of the Working Group is to develop an updated draft of ANS-54.8 for review and approval by ANS consensus committees, the ANS Standards Board, and certification from ANSI. Task 2 focuses on leveraging historical information and expertise at Argonne related to sodium fire protection systems and strategies. For more than a decade, Argonne has worked on both international and domestic projects related to sodium fire protection system development and evaluation. The goal of this task is to utilize that experience to help inform the ANS-54.8 Working Group on important considerations that may be addressed in an updated draft of ANS-54.8. Task 3 focuses on leveraging Argonne experience in the development of and use of analysis methods and tools for the simulation of sodium fire scenarios and evaluation of the effectiveness of sodium fire protection systems and strategies. For more than a decade, Argonne has recovered, modified, and utilized several historical sodium fire analysis software tools. The goal of this task is to utilize that experience to help inform the ANS-54.8 Working Group of best practices for sodium fire progression analysis that may be addressed in an updated draft of ANS-54.8.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗