Results for “SCALE Code System” — Page 89

DOE OSTI2024

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2024 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for ground state atomistic materials modeling

We provide the ensemble of fifteen pre-trained graph foundation models (GFMs) for atomistic materials modeling applications. Each one of the fifteen GFMs has been trained on five open-source datasets that (once aggregated) amount to over 154 million atomistic structures, which cover over two-thirds of the natural elements of the periodic table and that comprises a broad set of organic and inorganic compounds. This vast set of atomistic structures comprises ground state configurations that are dynamically stable (i.e., equilibrated structures with atomic forces approximately close to zero values) as well as dynamically unstable structures (i.e., non-equilibrium structures with non-negligible non-zero values of atomic forces). The ensemble of datasets aggregated does NOT include excited states. The datasets have been curated to remove atomistic structures with spectral norm of the force tensor above 100 eV/angstrom. Moreover, a linear term of the energy was computed for each dataset using a linear regression model that uses the chemical concentration of each natural element as regressor. The linear term predicted by the linear regression model has been subtracted from each original energy value to perform a re-alignment of the energy values across different electronic structures approximation theories performed to generate the diverse multi-source, multi-fidelity datasets. The folder "ADIOS_files" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "ADIOS_files" directory contains 6 sub-directories named as follows: - ANI1x-v3.bp - MPTrj-v3.bp - OC2020-20M-v3.bp - OC2020-v3.bp - OC2022-v3.bp - qm7x-v3.bp Each sub-directory contains the pre-processed datasets converted in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used to the development, training, and performance testing of the ensemble go predictive graph foundation models. Each GFM was developed using HydraGNN (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN) as underlying graph neural network (GNN) architecture. The multi-task learning (MTL) capability of HydraGNN was used to simultaneously train the GFMs on labeled values for direct predictions of energy (a total system property of an atomistic structure that measures the chemical stability) and atomic forces (an atomic level property of an atomistic structure that measures the dynamical stability). The hyper parameters of the GFM have been tuned using scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) algorithms implemented in the software DeepHyper (https://github.com/deephyper/deephyper). The pre-training of each HPO trial was performed using distributed data parallelism (DDP) to scale the training across 128 compute nodes of the exascale OLCF supercomputer Frontier. Each HPO trial was trained only for 10 epochs and an early stopping was performed to avoid wasting significant computational resources on GNN architectures that were clearly underperforming. For each HPO trial, the 'omnistat' tool developed by (AMD Research - Advanced Micro Device) was used to measure the total energy consumption in kWh. The ensemble of GFMs was obtained by selecting the fifteen best performing HPO trials. Four models have been selected for their clear advantage in accuracy, and these are the GFMs with IDs 229, 156, 147, 260. Additional eleven models have been selected based on judicious balance between accuracy and energy consumption needed for training, and these are the GFMs with IDs 165, 78, 137, 1, 175, 171, 181, 67, 179, 167, 351. Each selected GFM of the ensemble was continued to cumulate a total of at most 30 epochs. In some cases, the total number of epochs actually performed was les than 30 due to two combined factors: (1) the size of the GFM (i.e., the number of model parameters to train) and (2) the total wall-clock time for which the computational resources could be allocated on OLCF-Frontier. The "Ensemble_of_models" directory contains 15 sub-directories named as follows: - gfm_0.229 - gfm_0.156 - gfm_0.147 - gfm_0.260 - gfm_0.165 - gfm_0.78 - gfm_0.137 - gfm_0.1 - gfm_0.175 - gfm_0.171 - gfm_0.181 - gfm_0.67 - gfm_0.179 - gfm_0.167 - gfm_0.351 Each one of these sub-directories refers to one of the fifteen HPO trials that have been selected to continue the pre-training with at most 30 epochs. With each sub-directory associated with a specific HPO trial, the following files can be found: - config.json: file for argument parsing to develop and train an HydraGNN architecture - gfm_0.ID_epoch_N.pk: file with model parameters for HPO ID trial after N epochs of training The ensemble of fifteen GFM architectures was used for (1) ensemble averaging to stabilize the predictions of energy and atomic forces after pre-training for post-processing analysis and (2) ensemble uncertainty quantification (UQ). The code used to develop, pre-train, and load the pre-trained models for post-processing analysis is available on the ORNL-GitHub at the following link: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/tree/Predictive_GFM_2024

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2020

Proposed guidance for preparing and reviewing a molten salt non-power production or utilization facility application

Development of non-power molten salt reactors (MSRs) are under consideration to further establish an MSR experience base, support the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.43(e), and provide any additional analyses needed for development of a full-scale MSR. Guidance provided in this report is based on MSRs operating with liquid fuel (i.e., fuel dissolved within a molten salt). These reactors, unless owned by the DOE or DOD, will require licensing by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff. Standard review plan (SRP) guidance for large light water reactors (LWRs) is available in NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants; Light Water Reactor (LWR) Edition. However, NRC staff observed that NUREG-0800 is very cumbersome to apply to non-power reactors “because of the great differences in complexity and hazards between non-power reactors and nuclear power plants.” Therefore, a program to develop performance-based guidance applicable to non-power reactors was initiated. In 1996, NUREG-1537, Parts 1 and 2, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, was published. Part 1, the format and content guide, suggests a uniform format for presenting information in non-power reactor applications that is acceptable to the NRC staff, but conformance with the format and content is not required. Part 2, the SRP, ensures the quality and uniformity of the staff review of an application. Unfortunately, the application guidelines and SRP do not provide adequate guidance for all advanced non-LWR technologies and applications. This discrepancy eventually led to the 2012 development of interim staff guidance (ISG) for NUREG-1537, which includes criteria for describing and reviewing aqueous homogeneous reactors (AHRs). Specifically, NUREG-1537 ISG, 2012 expanded the original document to address three areas: 1. updated criteria for heterogeneous non-power reactors, 2. criteria for licensing AHRs, and 3. criteria for licensing a Part 50-licensed isotope production facility. In 2015, the US Department of Energy (DOE) opted to build on the AHR NUREG-1537 ISG experience by performing a gap analysis of the guidance that would be used to license a non-power MSR. MSRs represent one of the advanced non-LWR technologies selected by DOE for development through a multiyear cost share award with Southern Company Services. Under this Advanced Reactor Concepts 2015 (DOE Advanced Reactor Concepts [ARC] 15) award program, the DOE tasked Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) to evaluate the guidance changes that the NRC may need to consider when licensing an MSR non-power reactor. ORNL staff, with support from Boston Government Services, LLC, focused on five system-related chapters in NUREG-1537 that were considered most relevant to inform the effort that would be required for a non-power MSR applicant. ORNL documented this review in a technical report, ORNL/TM-2018/834, Proposed Guidance for Preparing and Reviewing Molten Salt Non-Power Reactor License Applications (NUREG-1537). The report was subsequently shared with industry and the NRC. The 2018 review was limited in scope, focusing on key system chapters based on the expected significance of each chapter relative to expected differences in addressing advanced non-LWR technologies, specifically non-power MSRs, compared with heterogeneously fueled non-power reactors. In the ORNL report, proposed generic adaptations were suggested for the following NUREG-1537 chapters: Chapter 4, “Reactor Description”; Chapter 5, “Reactor Coolant Systems”; Chapter 6, “Engineered Safety Features”; Chapter 9, “Auxiliary Systems”; Chapter 11, “Radiation Protection Program and Waste Management” The inclusion of Chapter 11 in the previous review effort was intended to provide guidance for categorizing the waste-handling process for an MSR operating with homogenous fuel. The introductions from Parts 1 and 2 of the 2012 NUREG-1537 ISG provide guidance for the application and review of production facilities. After a period of operation, non-power MSRs with homogenous fuel will include gaseous and soluble fission products. The gaseous fission products will be collected and held for decay in an off-gas system. There might also be an initiative to polish or filter the soluble fission products in the fuel salt by some mechanical or chemical means. The treatment and handling of fission products in the non-power MSR fuel salt and the description of this process in the safety analysis report (SAR) must be very precise to avoid the waste treatment facility being construed as a co-located special nuclear material (SNM) fuel cycle facility (see Section 2.3 of this report). Subsequent to the release of ORNL/TM-2018/834, NRC staff expressed a desire to continue the regulatory gap analysis that was begun in that report. This would provide additional clarity and information addressed in certain sections of the original report, while also providing new guidance on certain topics not addressed in the original report. This revision would benefit the NRC staff reviewing applications involving non-power MSR designs and would help developers understand how the NRC staff might approach the review of such applications. The focus of this report is to provide infrastructure support to the NRC staff for the regulatory review of non-power MSRs.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2017

Quantification of sauter mean diameter in diesel sprays using scattering-absorption extinction measurements

Quantitative measurements of the primary breakup process in diesel sprays are lacking due to a range of experimental and diagnostic challenges, including: high droplet number density environments, very small characteristic drop size scales (~1-10 μm), and high characteristic velocities in the primary breakup region (~600 m/s). Due to these challenges, existing measurement techniques have failed to resolve a sufficient range of the temporal and spatial scales involved and much remains unknown about the primary atomization process in practical diesel sprays. To gain a better insight into this process, we have developed a joint visible and x-ray extinction measurement technique to quantify axial and radial distributions of the path-integrated Sauter Mean Diameter (SMD) and Liquid Volume Fraction (LVF) for diesel-like sprays. This technique enables measurement of the SMD in regions of moderate droplet number density, enabling construction of the temporal history of drop size development within practical diesel sprays. The experimental campaign was conducted jointly at the Georgia Institute of Technology and Argonne National Laboratory using the Engine Combustion Network “Spray D” injector. X-ray radiography liquid absorption measurements, conducted at the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne, quantify the liquid-fuel mass and volume distribution in the spray. Diffused back-illumination liquid scattering measurements were conducted at Georgia Tech to quantify the optical thickness throughout the spray. By application of Mie-scatter equations, the ratio of the absorption and scattering extinction measurements is demonstrated to yield solutions for the SMD. This work introduces the newly developed scattering-absorption measurement technique and highlights the important considerations that must be taken into account when jointly processing these measurements to extract the SMD. These considerations include co-alignment of measurements taken at different institutions, identification of viable regions where the measurement ratio can be accurately interpreted, and uncertainty analysis in the measurement ratio and resulting SMD. Because the measurement technique provides the spatial history of the SMD development, it is expected to be especially informative to the diesel spray modeling community. Results from this work will aid in understanding the effect of ambient densities and injection pressures on primary breakup and help assess the appropriateness of spray submodels for engine computational fluid dynamics codes.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

NASA NTRS2017

Modeling of a Turbofan Engine with Ice Crystal Ingestion in the NASA Propulsion System Laboratory

The main focus of this study is to apply a computational tool for the flow analysis of the turbine engine that has been tested with ice crystal ingestion in the Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) at NASA Glenn Research Center. The PSL has been used to test a highly instrumented Honeywell ALF502R-5A (LF11) turbofan engine at simulated altitude operating conditions. Test data analysis with an engine cycle code and a compressor flow code was conducted to determine the values of key icing parameters, that can indicate the risk of ice accretion, which can lead to engine rollback (un-commanded loss of engine thrust). The full engine aerothermodynamic performance was modeled with the Honeywell Customer Deck specifically created for the ALF502R-5A engine. The mean-line compressor flow analysis code, which includes a code that models the state of the ice crystal, was used to model the air flow through the fan-core and low pressure compressor. The results of the compressor flow analyses included calculations of the ice-water flow rate to air flow rate ratio (IWAR), the local static wet bulb temperature, and the particle melt ratio throughout the flow field. It was found that the assumed particle size had a large effect on the particle melt ratio, and on the local wet bulb temperature. In this study the particle size was varied parametrically to produce a non-zero calculated melt ratio in the exit guide vane (EGV) region of the low pressure compressor (LPC) for the data points that experienced a growth of blockage there, and a subsequent engine called rollback (CRB). At data points where the engine experienced a CRB having the lowest wet bulb temperature of 492 degrees Rankine at the EGV trailing edge, the smallest particle size that produced a non-zero melt ratio (between 3 percent - 4 percent) was on the order of 1 micron. This value of melt ratio was utilized as the target for all other subsequent data points analyzed, while the particle size was varied from 1 micron - 9.5 microns to achieve the target melt ratio. For data points that did not experience a CRB which had static wet bulb temperatures in the EGV region below 492 degrees Rankine, a non-zero melt ratio could not be achieved even with a 1 micron ice particle size. The highest value of static wet bulb temperature for data points that experienced engine CRB was 498 degrees Rankine with a particle size of 9.5 microns. Based on this study of the LF11 engine test data, the range of static wet bulb temperature at the EGV exit for engine CRB was in the narrow range of 492 degrees Rankine - 498 degrees Rankine , while the minimum value of IWAR was 0.002. The rate of blockage growth due to ice accretion and boundary layer growth was estimated by scaling from a known blockage growth rate that was determined in a previous study. These results obtained from the LF11 engine analysis formed the basis of a unique “icing wedge.”

Turbo engine↗

NASA NTRS2007

Full Life-Cycle Defect Management Assessment: Initial Inspection Data Collection Results and Research Questions for Further Study

It is often the case in software projects that when schedule and budget resources are limited, the Verification and Validation (V&V) activities suffer. Fewer V&V activities can be afforded and moreover, short-term challenges can result in V&V activities being scaled back or dropped altogether. As a result, too often the default solution is to save activities for improving software quality until too late in the life-cycle, relying on late-term code inspections followed by thorough testing activities to reduce defect counts to acceptable levels. As many project managers realize, however, this is a resource-intensive way of achieving the required quality for software. The Full Life-cycle Defect Management Assessment Initiative, funded by NASA s Office of Safety and Mission Assurance under the Software Assurance Research Program, aims to address these problems by: Improving the effectiveness of early life-cycle V&V activities to make their benefits more attractive to team leads. Specifically, we focus on software inspection, a proven method that can be applied to any software work product, long before executable code has been developed; Better communicating this effectiveness to software development teams, along with suggestions for parameters to improve in the future to increase effectiveness; Analyzing the impact of early life-cycle V&V on the effectiveness and cost required for late life-cycle V&V activities, such as testing, in order to make the tradeoffs more apparent. This white paper reports on an initial milestone in this work, the development of a preliminary model of inspection effectiveness across multiple NASA Centers. This model contributes toward reaching our project goals by: Allowing an examination of inspection parameters, across different types of projects and different work products, for an analysis of factors that impact defect detection effectiveness. Allowing a comparison of this NASA-specific model to existing recommendations in the literature regarding how to plan effective inspections. Forming a baseline model which can be extended to incorporate factors describing: the numbers and types of defects that are missed by inspections; how such defects flow downstream through software development phases; how effectively they can be caught by testing activities in the late stages of development. The model has been implemented in a prototype web-enabled decision-support tool which allows developers to enter their inspection data and receive feedback based on a comparison against the model. The tool also allows users to access reusable materials (such as checklists) from projects included in the baseline. Both the tool itself and the model underlying it will continue to be extended throughout the remainder of this initiative. As results of analyzing inspection effectiveness for defect containment are determined, they can be shared via the tool and also via updates to existing training courses on metrics and software inspections. Moreover, the tool will help satisfy key CMMI requirements for the NASA Centers, as it will enable NASA to take a global view across peer review results for various types of projects to identify systemic problems. This analysis can result in continuous improvements to the approach to verification.

Shull, Forrest↗

DOE OSTI2020

Distributed fiber sensing systems for 3D combustion temperature field monitoring in coal-fired boilers using optically generated acoustic waves (Final Report)

In this project, we have developed and tested three kinds of fiber optic sensing systems for real time monitoring of temperature variations within an industrial scale boiler furnace. The fiber optic sensing systems target spatial and temporal distributions of high temperature profiles in a boiler furnace in fossil power plants. The reconstructed temperature profile will provide critical input for the control mechanisms to optimize the combustion process. This temperature profile will address the essential problem for fossil power plants in achieving higher efficiency and fewer pollutant emissions. Acoustic pyrometer systems have been used to reconstruct temperature field of power plant boilers based on measuring TOF (times-of-flight) of sound waves along some straight paths in a 2D cross-section of the boiler. In this project, optically generated acoustic signals from a fiber optic sensing system have replaced the acoustic signals generated from an electrical transducer. A 3D reconstruction algorithm replaced the previous 2D model. In this project, three kinds of fiber optic sensing systems have been developed and tested. They are fiber optic sensing system I, fiber optic sensing system II (Distributed Sensing System I) and fiber optic sensing system III (Distributed Sensing System II). For fiber optic sensing system I, the fiber optic ultrasound generator acts as a signal generator. A microphone, hydrophone or other electronic devices serve as a signal receiver. In this system, there are one generator and one receiver. Distance test, water temperature test, air temperature test, air temperature reconstruction, and GE ISBF pilot test were performed by Fiber optic sensing system I. The fiber optic sensing system I successfully detected temperature in all these tests. We got 2D temperature reconstruction results by using the fiber optic sensing system I and it matched the reference data. The fiber optic sensing system I successfully survived in GE ISBF boiler environment (480 °F). For fiber optic sensing system II (Distributed Sensing System I), it is an all optical ultrasound system. The fiber optic ultrasound generator acts as a signal generator. Fiber Bragg Grating (FBG) and Fabry-Perot (FP) sensor act as a signal receiver. In this system, there is one generator and one receiver. Aluminum plate temperature test, furnace high temperature test, and GE ISBF pilot test were performed by the fiber optic sensing system II. Fiber optic sensing system II successfully detected the temperature in all these tests. The fiber optic sensing system II successfully survived at up to 700 °C furnace environment and 320 °C GE ISBF boiler environment. For fiber optic sensing system III (Distributed Sensing System II), it is also an all optical ultrasound system. The fiber optic ultrasound generator acts as a signal generator. Multiple FP fiber sensors act as signal receivers. In this system, there is one generator and three receivers. Three GE ISBF pilot tests were performed by fiber optic sensing system III. The fiber optic sensing system III survived in the cold flow tests in GE’s ISBF pilot test facility. However, we didn’t get high temperature data by using this system since the nanosecond laser issues. During the period of the project, test trials, data simulation and algorithm optimization was performed successfully. For real time temperature field construction, the sampling rate must be fast enough to capture the field variations. The technology of Code-division multiple access (CDMA) is well studied which could allow parallel multiplexing, even if signals overlap in time or frequencies. Moreover, it has been known that extending the length of signal significantly improves SNR. For acoustic signals, these multiplexing techniques have also been widely used, mainly for sonar and acoustic communications. The CDMA modulation technique has been proposed and studied to guarantee high network throughput, low channel access delay and low energy consumption. We have studied the temperature field reconstruction using Gaussian Radial Basis Functions (GRBF)-based approximation approach. Reconstruction of 3D temperature field using Neural Networks with measured TOF and known propagation paths is feasible. 2D and 3D temperature field reconstruction simulation results are achieved. The milestone status is shown in Table 1. We finished milestone 1-8 and milestone 10. For milestone 9, we did three pilot tests by using the fiber optic sensing system III (Distributed Sensing System II) at GE Power. However, due to the failure of the ns laser, we did not get the temperature results. We conducted some additional tasks that were not originally proposed: 1) We fabricated a fiber optic sensing system I and did a pilot test based on this system. 2) In the proposal, we proposed two pilot tests at GE Power. In reality, we finished at least seven pilot tests at GE Power. GE Power has made a lot of efforts for supporting the pilot tests. 3) We got a simulation results based on CDMA. In summary, most of the tasks have been accomplished. The outcome of this project removed a few barriers that hinder the achievement of the final product of the distributed sensing systems. With the successful accomplishment of this project, a prototype of the fiber optic sensing system can be fabricated to attract more interests from companies and other funding agencies.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

DOE OSTI2020

RELAP5-3D Modeling of High Temperature Test Facility (HTTF) Test PG-26

The High Temperature Test Facility (HTTF) at Oregon State University (OSU) is a scaled integral effects experiment designed to investigate transient behavior in high-temperature gas-cooled nuclear reactors with prismatic fuel and reflector blocks. Several tests have been completed, and more are still planned to at the HTTF, including depressurized conduction cooldown (DCC) and pressurized conduction cooldown (PCC) transients. This report analyses test PG-26, a progression of the Double Ended Inlet-Outlet Crossover Duct Break transient that is referred to as a DCC. PG-26 has been performed at the HTTF between May 30 and June 30, 2019. Core initial conditions (i.e., before the DCC started) have been met using low power (<100 kW) and two of ten available electric heaters. The DCC transient was initiated during the 50 th hour of the test. The break valves were opened, and hot helium from the core and cold helium from the reactor cavity simulation tank (RCST) started mixing. The gases flowed in a countercurrent fashion, where the top half of the hot duct contained hot helium that flowed in one direction and cold helium that flowed in the other direction in the bottom half of the duct. After the pressure and density reached equilibrium, the event entered a diffusion mode. The onset of a reverse natural circulation was not observed during the DCC period of the test. Version 4.4.2ie of the RELAP5-3D computer code has been used to model the HTTF PG-26 test, and results have been compared to available high-quality measured data. The model used in this study is the quality-controlled HTTF RELAP5-3D model (HTTF base 2018-04-19 QA), originally developed by P. Bayless. The report includes RELAP5-3D results of the “base calculations” as well as some sensitivities to important uncertain model inputs, such as primary helium mass flow rate, core ceramic thermal properties, as well as heat evacuation and loop friction models. Using the base RELAP5-3D model predicts a countercurrent helium flow in the hot duct observed at the beginning of the DCC, but instead of going into a molecular diffusion mode, the model predicts the onset of natural convection. Increasing friction in the core and hot duct prevents the natural convection from happening in some of the simulations. Although some temperatures are well predicted (and even overpredicted), the general tendency is to underpredict the ceramic and helium temperatures and heat removal rates during the DCC, resulting in many of the assessment findings being in minimal or insufficient agreement with the data. It is worth noting that the described discrepancies between measured data and RELAP5-3D predictions are not RELAP5-3D code limitations. More so, they reflect limitations in boundary condition and thermal property knowledge. While the RELAP5-3D calculations of the test provide some insights into what happens during the transient, and point to missing or potentially uncertain data to which the experimenters can direct their attention, the principal conclusion is that the PG-26 test data are insufficient for a system code assessment.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

NASA NTRS1999

Modeling the Activity of Single Genes

The central dogma of molecular biology states that information is stored in DNA, transcribed to messenger RNA (mRNA) and then translated into proteins. This picture is significantly augmentated when we consider the action of certain proteins in regulating transcription. These transcription factors provide a feedback pathway by which genes can regulate one another's expression as mRNA and then as protein. To review: DNA, RNA and proteins have different functions. DNA is the molecular storehouse of genetic information. When cells divide, the DNA is replicated, so that each daughter cell maintains the same genetic information as the mother cell. RNA acts as a go-between from DNA to proteins. Only a single copy of DNA is present, but multiple copies of the same piece of RNA may be present, allowing cells to make huge amounts of protein. In eukaryotes (organisms with a nucleus), DNA is found in the nucleus only. RNA is copied in the nucleus then translocates(moves) outside the nucleus, where it is transcribed into proteins. Along the way, the RNA may be spliced, i.e., may have pieces cut out. RNA then attaches to ribosomes and is translated to proteins. Proteins are the machinery of the cell other than DNA and RNA, all the complex molecules of the cell are proteins. Proteins are specialized machines, each of which fulfills its own task, which may be transporting oxygen, catalyzing reactions, or responding to extracellular signals, just to name a few. One of the more interesting functions a protein may have is binding directly or indirectly to DNA to perform transcriptional regulation, thus forming a closed feedback loop of gene regulation. The structure of DNA and the central dogma were understood in the 50s; in the early 80s it became possible to make arbitrary modifications to DNA and use cellular machinery to transcribe and translate the resulting genes; more recently, genomes (i.e., the complete DNA sequence) of many organisms have been sequenced. This large-scale sequencing began with simple organisms, viruses and bacteria, progressed to eukaryotes such as yeast, and more recently (1998) progressed to a multi-cellular animal, the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Sequencers have now moved on to the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, whose sequence is slated for completion by the end of 1999. The human genome project is expected to determine the complete sequence of all 3 billion bases of human DNA within the next five years. In the wake of genome-scale sequencing, further instrumentation is being developed to assay gene expression and function on a comparably large scale. Much of the work in computational biology focuses on computational tools used in sequencing, finding genes that are related to a particular gene, finding which parts of the DNA code for proteins and which do not, understanding what proteins will be formed from a given length of DNA, predicting how the proteins will fold from a one-dimensional structure into a three dimensional structure, and so on. Much less computational work has been done regarding the function of proteins. One reason for this is that different proteins function very differently, and so work on protein function is very specific to certain classes of proteins. There are, for example, proteins such enzymes that catalyze various intracellular reactions, receptors that respond to extracellular signals and ion channels that regulate the flow of charged particles into and out of the cell. In this chapter, we will consider a particular class of proteins called transcription factors(TFs), which are responsible for regulating when a certain gene is expressed in a certain cell, which cells it is express in, and how much is expressed. Understanding these processes will involve developing a deeper understanding of transcription, translation, and the cellular processes that control those processes. All of these elements fall under the aegis of gene regulation or more narrowly transcriptional regulation. Some of the key questions in gene regulation are: What genes are expressed in a certain cell at a certain time? How does gene expression differ from cell to cell in a multicellular organism? Which proteins act as transcription factors, i.e., are important in regulating gene expression? From questions like these, we hope to understand which genes are important for various macroscopic processes. Nearly all of the cells of a multicellular organism contain the same DNA. Yet this same genetic information yields a large number of different cell types. The fundamental difference between a neuron and a liver cell, for example, is which genes are expressed. Thus understanding gene regulation is an important step in understanding development. Furthermore, understanding the usual genes that are expressed in cells may give important clues about various diseases. Some diseases, such as sickle cell anemia and cystic fibrosis, are caused by defects in single, non-regulatory genes; others, such as certain cancers, are caused when the cellular control circuitry malfunctions - an understanding of these diseases will involve pathways of multiple interacting gene products. There are numerous challenges in the area of understanding and modeling gene regulation. First and foremost, biologists would like to develop a deeper understanding of the processes involved, including which genes and families of genes are important, how they interact, etc. From a computation point of view, there has been embarrassingly little work done. In this chapter there are many areas in which we can phrase meaningful, non-trivial computational questions, but questions that have not been addressed. Some of these are purely computational (what is a good algorithm for dealing with a model of type X) and others are more mathematical (given a system with certain characteristics, what sort of model can one use? How does one find biochemical parameters from system-level behavior using as few experiments as possible?). In addition to biological and algorithmic problems, there is also the ever-present issue of theoretical biology - what general principles can be derived from these systems, what can one do with models other than just simulate time-courses, what can be deduced about a class of systems without knowing all the details? The fundamental challenge to computationalists and theorists is to add value to the biology - to use models, modeling techniques and algorithms to understand the biology in new ways.

Mjolsness, Eric↗

DOE OSTI2017

Modeling the influence of nozzle-generated turbulence on diesel sprays

The physical mechanisms governing spray breakup in direct injection engines, such as aerodynamic induced instabilities and nozzle-generated cavitation and turbulence, are not well understood due to the experimental and computational limitations in resolving these processes. Recent x-ray and visible extinction measurements have been con-ducted with a targeted interest in the spray formation region in order to characterize the distribution of droplet sizes throughout the spray. Detailed analysis of these measurements shows promise of yielding insight into likely mechanisms governing atomization, which can inform the improvement of spray models for engine computational fluid dynamic (CFD) codes. In order to investigate potential atomization mechanisms, we employ a joint experimental and computational approach to characterize the structure of the spray formation region using the Engine Combustion Network Spray D injector. X-ray tomography, radiography and ultra-small angle x-ray scattering measurements conducted at the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne National Laboratory quantify the injector geometry, liquid fuel mass and Sauter mean diameter (SMD) distributions under non-vaporizing conditions. Diffused back-illumination imaging measurements, conducted at the Georgia Institute of Technology, characterize the asymmetry of the spray structure. The selected range of injection pressures (50 – 150 MPa) and ambient densities (1.2 – 22.8 kg/m3) allow for the influence of aerodynamic forces on the spray to be studied in a controlled and systematic manner, while isolating the atomization process from the effects of vaporization. In comparison to high ambient density conditions, the spray is observed to be more asymmetric at low ambient density conditions. Although several mechanisms may cause asymmetries in the nozzle exit flow conditions and ultimately the spray distribution, irregularities in the internal nozzle geometry were identified, suggesting an increased sensitivity of the spray structure to internal nozzle surface finish imperfections at such conditions. The presence of these asymmetries may influence the ability to interpret line-of-sight measurements and their derived SMD values and trends from a single viewing angle of the spray. With this consideration in mind, the measured local sensitivities to ambient density suggest that for ambient densities less than 2.4 kg/m3, aerodynamic effects are likely suppressed, allowing the influence of turbulent-induced breakup to be isolated. In concert with the experimental measurements, we utilize three-dimensional, CFD Lagrangian-Eulerian spray simulations in CONVERGE to evaluate the details of the predicted spray structure. In particular, we compare measured and predicted sensitivities of the SMD distribution to changes in injection and ambient conditions from three different atomization models, namely Kelvin Helmholtz (KH), KH Aerodynamics Cavitation Turbulence (KH-ACT), and the newly developed KH-Faeth hybrid model. While none of the existing hybrid spray models were able to replicate the experimentally observed sensitivities, it was found that the scales characterizing the KH-Faeth model show promise of capturing the experimentally observed trends if the effects of secondary droplet breakup are neglected. These results inform recommendations for future experiments and computational studies that can guide the development of an improved spray breakup model.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗

DOE OSTI2024

NORTH DAKOTA CARBONSAFE PHASE III: SITE CHARACTERIZATION AND PERMITTING OF GEOLOGIC STORAGE OF CARBON DIOXIDE

The Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), in partnership with Minnkota Power Cooperative Inc. (Minnkota), SLB, and Computer Modelling Group Ltd. (CMG), supported wide-scale deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) as part of the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Energy Technology Laboratory Carbon Storage Assurance Facility Enterprise (CarbonSAFE) Initiative Phase III. This phase included the acquisition, analysis, and development of information to fully characterize two storage complexes to demonstrate viable storage resources for commercial volumes of CO2 (defined by DOE as a minimum of 50 million tonnes [MMt] of CO2 within a 30-year period) (National Energy Technology Laboratory, 2024). Phase III also involved the preparation, submission, and approval of North Dakota underground injection control (UIC) Class VI storage facility permits (SFPs)—required precursors to applications for Class VI injection well permits. The presumed viability of commercial-scale CCS, situated adjacent to Minnkota’s Milton R. Young Station (MRYS), is validated by Minnkota’s continued pursuit of Project Tundra—an initiative to build the world’s largest lignite-based CCS project in central North Dakota (www.projecttundrand.com). Project Tundra comprises two scopes of work, Tundra Capture (installation of postcombustion CO2 capture at MRYS) and Tundra SGS (secure geologic storage). The efforts of North Dakota CarbonSAFE Phase III, Site Characterization and Permitting, supported Tundra SGS. Extensive site-specific characterization activities included a successful multimeasurement geophysical approach and drilling a stratigraphic test well (J-ROC 1, subsequently renamed Liberty-1) adjacent to MRYS. Core collection and analyses, downhole testing and fluid sampling, and geophysical logging were performed on J-ROC 1 and on a nearby stratigraphic test well (known as J-LOC 1), which was drilled, cored, and tested under a complementary project funded by the North Dakota Lignite Research Program. The injection tests performed on J-LOC 1 positively impacted the CarbonSAFE project, resulting in fewer proposed injection wells and significant construction, operations, and monitoring cost savings. The characterization data collected and analyses performed were integrated into geologic models, and successive numerical simulations were run to determine CO2 plume extent and subsurface pressure buildup associated with the planned CO2 injection rate of nearly 4 MMt per year. The latter doubles the CarbonSAFE Initiative goal with an estimated 100 MMt of CO2 stored in 20 years. Application of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) method for estimating the Class VI Rule area of review (AOR) to the overpressurized Broom Creek Formation inspired an alternative method of calculation, called risk-based AOR delineation. This peer-reviewed method was applied for the first time during the storage facility-permitting process. The two SFP applications submitted in 2021 successfully resulted in North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC) orders in 2022 authorizing the creation of the storage facility areas and amalgamation of pore space as well as establishing financial responsibility requirements. After approval of the SFPs, Minnkota filed in 2022 applications for permits to reenter the J-ROC 1 well and to drill two new wells—all with the intended purpose to become Class VI injection wells. To establish eligibility under the Internal Revenue Code for Section 45Q tax incentives, a monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) plan was prepared and submitted by Minnkota to EPA in 2022, resulting in the first such plan approved in North Dakota. Also in 2022, under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Minnkota prepared and submitted an environmental information volume (EIV) describing the proposed CCS project and associated potential environmental impacts. Based on the EIV, DOE determined that the proposed construction project required an environmental assessment, and Minnkota submitted the first draft in 2023 and a revised draft in 2024. Both submissions were followed by a public comment period. Subsequently, DOE issued a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on September 13, 2024. A successful outreach program, strongly based in the production, presentation, and dissemination of informational material, fostered an environment to aid stakeholders in making informed decisions regarding the planned project. Opportunities for public input were provided at various steps along the way, including at county planning and zoning meetings, before and during the SFP administrative hearing, and during environmental assessment public comment periods. In addition, land/pore space owners and mineral owners had various points of contact, including granting access rights, securing pore space leasing, and mineral owner notifications. Based upon the successful storage facility permitting issued by NDIC, approval of the MRV plan by EPA, and receipt of a FONSI under the NEPA, Minnkota is continuing its pursuit of Project Tundra. In December 2023, the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations under its Carbon Capture Demonstrations Projects Program announced funding for the capture system (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023) and a proposal for CarbonSAFE Phase IV: Construction funding was submitted in March 2024 for the storage project. A go/no-go decision to proceed with construction and operations in the Broom Creek Formation is anticipated in 2024. References National Energy Technology Laboratory, CarbonSafe Initiative, https://netl.doe.gov/carbon-management/carbon-storage/carbonsafe (accessed August 2024). Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations, 2023, OCED selects three projects in CA, ND, and TX to reduce harmful carbon pollution, create new economic opportunities, and advance carbon reducing technologies, December, www.energy.gov/oced/articles/oced-selects-three-projects-ca-nd-and-tx-reduce-harmful-carbon-pollution-create-new (accessed August 2024).

Peck, Wesley↗

NASA NTRS1998

A Geometry Based Infra-Structure for Computational Analysis and Design

The computational steps traditionally taken for most engineering analysis suites (computational fluid dynamics (CFD), structural analysis, heat transfer and etc.) are: (1) Surface Generation -- usually by employing a Computer Assisted Design (CAD) system; (2) Grid Generation -- preparing the volume for the simulation; (3) Flow Solver -- producing the results at the specified operational point; (4) Post-processing Visualization -- interactively attempting to understand the results. For structural analysis, integrated systems can be obtained from a number of commercial vendors. These vendors couple directly to a number of CAD systems and are executed from within the CAD Graphical User Interface (GUI). It should be noted that the structural analysis problem is more tractable than CFD; there are fewer mesh topologies used and the grids are not as fine (this problem space does not have the length scaling issues of fluids). For CFD, these steps have worked well in the past for simple steady-state simulations at the expense of much user interaction. The data was transmitted between phases via files. In most cases, the output from a CAD system could go to Initial Graphics Exchange Specification (IGES) or Standard Exchange Program (STEP) files. The output from Grid Generators and Solvers do not really have standards though there are a couple of file formats that can be used for a subset of the gridding (i.e. PLOT3D data formats). The user would have to patch up the data or translate from one format to another to move to the next step. Sometimes this could take days. Specifically the problems with this procedure are:(1) File based -- Information flows from one step to the next via data files with formats specified for that procedure. File standards, when they exist, are wholly inadequate. For example, geometry from CAD systems (transmitted via IGES files) is defined as disjoint surfaces and curves (as well as masses of other information of no interest for the Grid Generator). This is particularly onerous for modern CAD systems based on solid modeling. The part was a proper solid and in the translation to IGES has lost this important characteristic. STEP is another standard for CAD data that exists and supports the concept of a solid. The problem with STEP is that a solid modeling geometry kernel is required to query and manipulate the data within this type of file. (2) 'Good' Geometry. A bottleneck in getting results from a solver is the construction of proper geometry to be fed to the grid generator. With 'good' geometry a grid can be constructed in tens of minutes (even with a complex configuration) using unstructured techniques. Adroit multi-block methods are not far behind. This means that a million node steady-state solution can be computed on the order of hours (using current high performance computers) starting from this 'good' geometry. Unfortunately, the geometry usually transmitted from the CAD system is not 'good' in the grid generator sense. The grid generator needs smooth closed solid geometry. It can take a week (or more) of interaction with the CAD output (sometimes by hand) before the process can begin. One way Communication. (3) One-way Communication -- All information travels on from one phase to the next. This makes procedures like node adaptation difficult when attempting to add or move nodes that sit on bounding surfaces (when the actual surface data has been lost after the grid generation phase). Until this process can be automated, more complex problems such as multi-disciplinary analysis or using the above procedure for design becomes prohibitive. There is also no way to easily deal with this system in a modular manner. One can only replace the grid generator, for example, if the software reads and writes the same files. Instead of the serial approach to analysis as described above, CAPRI takes a geometry centric approach. This makes the actual geometry (not a discretized version) accessible to all phases of the analysis. The connection to the geometry is made through an Application Programming Interface (API) and NOT a file system. This API isolates the top-level applications (grid generators, solvers and visualization components) from the geometry engine. Also this allows the replacement of one geometry kernel with another, without effecting these top-level applications. For example, if UniGraphics is used as the CAD package then Parasolid (UG's own geometry engine) can be used for all geometric queries so that no solid geometry information is lost in a translation. This is much better than STEP because when the data is queried, the same software is executed as used in the CAD system. Therefore, one analyzes the exact part that is in the CAD system. CAPRI uses the same idea as the commercial structural analysis codes but does not specify control. Software components of the CAD system are used, but the analysis suite, not the CAD operator, specifies the control of the software session. This also means that the license issues (may be) minimized and individuals need not have to know how to operate a CAD system in order to run the suite.

Haimes, Robert↗

DOE OSTI2016

Development of a CO 2 Chemical Sensor for Downhole CO 2 Monitoring in Carbon Sequestration

Geologic storage of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) has been proposed as a viable means for reducing anthropogenic CO 2 emissions. The means for geological sequestration of CO 2 is injection of supercritical CO 2 underground, which requires the CO 2 to remain either supercritical, or in solution in the water/brine present in the underground formation. However, there are aspects of geologic sequestration that need further study, particularly in regards to safety. To date, none of the geologic sequestration locations have been tested for storage integrity under the changing stress conditions that apply to the sequestration of very large amounts of CO 2 . Establishing environmental safety and addressing public concerns require widespread monitoring of the process in the deep subsurface. In addition, studies of subsurface carbon sequestration such as flow simulations, models of underground reactions and transports require a comprehensive monitoring process to accurately characterize and understand the storage process. Real-time information about underground CO 2 movement and concentration change is highly helpful for: (1) better understanding the uncertainties present in CO 2 geologic storage; (2) improvement of simulation models; and (3) evaluation of the feasibility of geologic CO 2 storage. Current methods to monitor underground CO 2 storage include seismic, geoelectric, isotope and tracer methods, and fluid sampling analysis. However, these methods commonly resulted low resolution, high cost, and the inability to monitor continuously over the long time scales of the CO 2 storage process. A preferred way of monitoring in-situ underground CO 2 migration is to continuous measure CO 2 concentration change in brine during the carbon storage process. An approach to obtain the real time information on CO 2 concentration change in formation solution is highly demanded in carbon storage to understand the CO 2 migration subsurface and to answer the public safety problem. The objective of the study is to develop a downhole CO 2 sensor that can in-situ, continuously monitor CO 2 concentration change in deep saline. The sensor is a Severinghaus-type CO 2 sensor with small size, which renders it can be embedded in monitoring well casing or integrated with pressure/temperature transducers, enabling the development of “smart” wells. The studies included: (1) prepare and characterize metal-oxide electrodes. Test the electrodes response to pH change. Investigate different ions and brine concentration effects on the electrode’s performance. Study the stability of the electrode in brine solution; (2) fabricate a downhole CO 2 sensor with the metal-oxide electrodes prepared in the laboratory. Test the performance of the CO 2 sensor in brine solutions. Study high pressure effects on the performance of the sensor; (3) design and conduct CO 2 /brine coreflooding experiments with the CO2 sensor. Monitor CO 2 movement along the core and test the performance of the sensor in coreflooding tests. Develop a data acquisition system that can digitize the sensor’s output voltage. Our completed research has resulted in deep understanding of downhole CO 2 sensor development and CO 2 monitoring in CO 2 storage process. The developed downhole CO 2 sensor included a metal-oxide electrode, a gas-permeable membrane, a porous steel cup, and a bicarbonate-based internal electrolyte solution. Iridium oxide-based electrode was prepared and used for preparation the CO 2 sensor. The prepared iridium oxide-based electrode displayed a linearly response to pH change. Different factors such as different ions and ions concentration, temperature, and pressure effects on the electrode performance on pH response were investigated. The results indicated that the electrode exhibited a good performance even in high salt concentration of produced water. To improve the electrode performance under high pressure, IrO 2 nanoparticles with the particle size in the range of 1-2 nm were prepared and electrodeposited on stainless steel substrate by cyclic voltammetry. It was observed that the thin film of iridium oxide was formed on the substrate surface and such iridium oxide-based electrode displayed excellent performance under high pressure for longer term. A downhole CO 2 sensor with the iridium oxide-based electrode was prepared. The working principle of the CO 2 sensor is based on the measurement of the pH change of the internal electrolyte solution caused by the hydrolysis of CO 2 and then determination of the CO 2 concentration in water. The prepared downhole CO 2 sensor had the size of diameter of 0.7 in. and length of 1.5 in. The sensor was tested under the pressures of 500 psi, 2,000 psi, and 3,000 psi. A linear correlation was observed between the sensor potential change and dissolved CO 2 concentration in water. The response time of the CO 2 sensor was in the range of 60-100 minutes. Further tests indicated that the CO 2 sensor exhibited good reproducibility under high pressure. A CO 2 /brine coreflooding system was constructed to simulate the real-world CO 2 storage process. The prepared downhole CO 2 sensor was loaded in the system to monitor CO 2 movement during CO 2 /brine coreflooding test. The results indicated that the sensor could detect CO 2 movement in the tests. Further studies showed that the sensor could be recovered by brine flooding after CO 2 /brine flushed the core. The results of the coreflooding tests demonstrated that the sensor had potential application for CO 2 monitoring in carbon sequestration. A data acquisition system for the downhoe CO 2 sensor was developed and coded. The system converted the sensor output signal into digital data and transported the data from downhole to wellhead surface. The data acquisition system was tested and evaluated in the laboratory with the prepared sensor for data collection.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2024

Globally Gridded Groundwater Extraction Volumes and Costs under Six Depletion and Ponded Depth Targets

This repository contains simulated outputs from superwell – a hydro-economic tool for long-term assessment of groundwater cost and supply – providing globally gridded groundwater extractable volumes and associated unit costs ($/km³) for accessible groundwater production, based on a variety of user-defined depletion and ponded depth scenarios. Key model documentation: Niazi, H., Ferencz, S. B., Graham, N. T., Yoon, J., Wild, T. B., Hejazi, M., Watson, D. J., & Vernon, C. R. (2025). Long-term hydro-economic analysis tool for evaluating global groundwater cost and supply: Superwell v1.1. Geoscientific Model Development, 18(5), 1737-1767. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1737-2025 Find the source code of the superwell model on GitHub: https://github.com/JGCRI/superwell Repository Overview Main output: superwell_outputs.7z contains 6 files (4.5 GB) named as superwell_py_deep_all_0.*PD_0.*DL.csv. These files present superwell outputs of global groundwater extraction volumes and cost estimates on a 0.5° scale for six scenarios with different Ponded Depth (PD; 0.3 and 0.6 m) and Depletion Limit (DL; 5%, 25%, and 40% of available volume) targets over the entire pumping lifetime of a grid cell superwell_py_deep_all_0.3PD_0.25DL_sample_100.csv contains superwell outputs for 100 data points sampled to match the global inputs' distribution superwell_py_deep_all_0.3PD_0.25DL_Grid_72548.csv contains superwell output for a single grid cell concept_v5.png provides an overview of the superwell workflow Outputs Description year_number: year of pumping depletion_limit: set depletion limit (DL) as a volume fraction of total available groundwater Mappings: continent, country, gcam_basin_id, Basin_long_name, grid_id: geographic identifiers and basin information Inputs: grid_area (km²): area of the grid cell whyclass: hydrogeological classification of the aquifer permeability (m/day), porosity (%), total_thickness (m), depth_to_water (m): aquifer properties. The geo-processed input data has been published separately: https://doi.org/10.57931/2307831 Model outputs: orig_aqfr_sat_thickness (m), aqfr_sat_thickness (m): original and remaining/instantaneous saturated thickness of the aquifer hydraulic_conductivity (m/day), transmissivity (m²/day): hydraulic properties of the aquifer radius_of_influence (m), areal_extent (km²): well radius and area of influence from the center of the well number_of_wells (-): number of wells in a grid cell determined by a ratio of well area and grid area max_drawdown (m), drawdown (m), drawdown_interference (m): well and aquifer drawdown during extraction total_head (m): total lift for the groundwater (depth to water plus drawdown) total_well_length (m): total depth of wells drilled well_yield (m³/day): pumping rate or well yield power (kW), energy (kWh): power and energy required for pumping groundwater Volume Outputs: volume_produced_perwell (m³), cumulative_vol_produced_perwell (m³): production volume metrics per well volume_produced_allwells (m³), cumulative_vol_produced_allwells (m³): aggregate extraction volumes for all wells in a grid cell available_volume (m³): available groundwater in storage for the grid cell as determined by aquifer properties depleted_vol_fraction: fraction of total volume pumped over available volumes in a grid cell (same as depletion limit) Cost Outputs: well_installation_cost ($): well installation cost based on the hydrogeological complexity of the aquifer annual_capital_cost, maintenance_cost, nonenergy_cost ($): nonenergy costs energy_cost_rate ($/kWh): electricity rate energy_cost ($): energy cost of pumping groundwater total_cost_perwell ($), total_cost_allwells ($): total annual energy and non-energy cost for each and all wells in a grid cell a unit_cost ($/m³), unit_cost_per_km3 ($/km³), unit_cost_per_acreft ($/acre-ft): total cost of pumping a unit of groundwater, indicated for different spatial units Key Resources Model documentation: Niazi, H., Ferencz, S., Graham, N., Yoon, J., Wild, T., Hejazi, M., Watson, D., & Vernon, C. (2024; In-prep). Long-term Hydro-economic Assessment Tool for Evaluating Global Groundwater Cost and Supply: Superwell v1. Geoscientific Model Development. Input data: Niazi, H., Watson, D., Hejazi, M., Yonkofski, C., Ferencz, S., Vernon, C., Graham, N., Wild, T., & Yoon, J. (2024). Global Geo-processed Data of Aquifer Properties by 0.5° Grid, Country and Water Basins. MSD-LIVE Data repository. https://doi.org/10.57931/2307831 superwell source code: https://github.com/JGCRI/superwell Cite as Niazi, H., Ferencz, S., Yoon, J., Graham, N., Wild, T., Hejazi, M., Watson, D., & Vernon, C. (2024). Globally Gridded Groundwater Extraction Volumes and Costs under Six Depletion and Ponded Depth Targets. MSD-LIVE Data repository. https://doi.org/10.57931/2307832 Contact Reach out to Hassan Niazi or Stephen Ferencz or open an issue in the superwell repository for questions or suggestions.

Earth Systems↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

Cameron J. Hines↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boil Off Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Modeling and Simulation of Tank Pressure Control using Zero-Boiloff Active Thermal Control for LOXSAT Technology Demonstration Mission

To-date, research and modeling of cryogenic fluid management technologies (CFM) for spaceflight has been limited to ground tests, short-duration zero-g simulations (e.g. drop towers), and small-scale experiments on-orbit. There has not been a large-scale flight demonstration of a flight-like system. As future NASA missions to take humans further from Earth will require large, in-space cryogenic propulsion vehicles, it is imperative to begin collecting flight data for these systems to accurately model and design future vehicles. To meet this goal, NASA awarded tipping point technology demonstration awards to Eta Space, Lockheed Martin, Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX), and United Launch Alliance (ULA) to demonstrate on-orbit storage and transfer of cryogenic propellant. For its award, Eta Space is developing LOXSAT-1. It is a small satellite that will be launched on a Rocket Lab Electron rocket. The spacecraft consists of a Rocket Lab Photon spacecraft bus with a primary payload of a spherical liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tank with thermodynamic control systems. The primary objective of the mission is to demonstrate zero-boil-off storage of liquid oxygen. To accomplish this objective, the payload is equipped with an active thermal control system fluid loop that consists of propellant management device (PMD), positive-displacement pump, heat exchanger connected to a cryocooler, and a spray bar mixing injector. When the fluid loop is operating, fluid is drawn from the tank by the PMD and pumped through the heat exchanger, lowering the fluid temperature below the fluid temperature in the tank. This subcooled liquid is then injected back into the tank through the spray bar. The subcooled injected liquid has two effects. If it is sprayed into the ullage space, the injected liquid will form into jets or droplets and exchange heat with the ullage gas. This will cool and condense the gas, reducing the pressure in the tank. Additionally, the liquid that is not sprayed through the ullage, as well as any remaining liquid spray from the ullage, will rejoin the liquid mass of the tank, lowering the bulk temperature of the liquid. These combines effects provide for zero-boil off pressure control by lowering the tank pressure and the liquid saturation pressure simultaneously, ensuring the liquid stays subcooled. To model these complex mechanics and predict the performance of the active thermal control system, NASA is providing Eta Space with 3 parallel models of the tank. The approach of providing 3 different models allows for cross-checking and comparisons between the three to better understand how different modeling assumptions and selection semi-empirical factors affects the modeling result. Additionally, developing 3 models provides three different schemes for numerical simulation, providing confidence that results depict real physical phenomenon and not numerical quirks of the program. Within the tank thermodynamics, there are two primary areas of heat transfer we concern ourselves with: the heat transfer between the ullage space and the droplet spray, and between the ullage space and bulk liquid. For the droplet heat transfer, there are multiple sets of assumptions that can be made and correlations that can be used. Currently, two working models - the TankSIM model and Easy5 model – provide for an overview of the different approaches available. The TankSIM model and Easy5 model use two different models for droplet heating and evaporation that illustrate how the models use different types of mechanisms to arrive at the same answer. For the TankSIM model, droplets are treated as spheres of constant radius. Heat is transferred from the ullage to the droplet and warms the droplet until it reaches saturation, then the droplet begins evaporating and reducing its radius and mass. To calculate the heat transfer coefficient between the droplet and ullage, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. To determine the number of droplets in the ullage, a resident mass approach is used. This approach averages the number of droplets such that residuals at the start-up and shut-off of the spray bar cancel out. This same approach is used in the Easy5 model. The GFSSP model implements a linked list to track individual droplet “nodes” within the model. For the Easy5 model, the droplet is assumed to have an interface at a temperature equal to the saturation temperature corresponding to the pressure of the gas phase. The heat transfer from the gas to the interface and the interface to the droplet bulk is then calculated, and the net mass transfer between the droplet and interface is determined by performing an energy balance across the interface. For the gas side of the interface, the Ranz-Marshall correlation is used. For the liquid side of the interface, a variety of correlations were tried, including Kronig and Brink (1950) and effective conductivity models. As a result of these assumptions, the Easy5 model currently predicts faster depressurization, as at saturated vapor conditions, the heat transfer coeffect on the liquid side for the Easy5 model is greater than the heat transfer coefficient predicted by Ranz-Marshall used in the TankSIM code. This greater heat flux translates into faster condensation of the saturated ullage gas. At the bulk liquid to ullage interface, the models are in much closer agreement. Both models model the ullage as a sphere centered within the bulk liquid in the tank, and both use the energy-jumping boundary condition to model heat and mass transfer across the interface. There are slight differences in how the interface temperature is calculated, however. The Easy5 model assumes the temperature of the interface is equal to the saturation temperature associated with the pressure of the gas phase. The TankSIM model calculates this temperature with Alabovskii’s equation, which provides a correction factor for interface temperatures. Analysis tasks are focused on determining rates of depressurization within the tank during active cooling operation. To maintain net positive suction head at the pump inlet, the tank pressure cannot fall faster than the saturation pressure associated with the temperature of the bulk liquid. Additionally, there is interest in analyzing the performance of the loop at different pump speeds and cryocooler input powers. Adjusting the flowrate affects both the performance of the heat exchanger between the cryocooler and pumped liquid, and the heat transfer between the droplet spray and the ullage. Ideally, a pump speed and cryocooler power can be selected that will allow the tank to operate in zero-boil-off mode with a very narrow range of storage pressure.

zero boil-off↗

DOE OSTI2026

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗