Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “hydraulic”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

MURR LEU structural and thermal hydraulics analyses: Part II – Impacts of irradiation thermo-mechanical behavior on thermal hydraulics safety analyses

A series of structural analyses have been performed to support the conversion of the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) from the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU; ≥20 wt% U-235) to low-enriched uranium (LEU; <20 wt% U-235) fuel. The irradiation thermo-mechanical analysis evaluated the effects of fuel swelling, irradiation creep, thermal expansion, as well as thermal resistance from the oxide layer growth for the MURR LEU element in prototypic thermal and irradiation conditions as presented in Part I of this article. Overall, this irradiation thermo-mechanical analysis predicts smaller gap thickness reductions in previously limiting regions, and larger reductions in the middle of the outermost end channels where power density is not typically a maximum. Due to substantial differences between the channel gap reductions assumed for the previous safety analyses and those predicted by the irradiation thermo-mechanical analysis, a need to evaluate their impact on the thermal hydraulics safety analyses arose. This article presents the results from the steady-state safety analysis for normal operation as well as the two most limiting accident scenarios. The calculation models were revised in order to account for the spatial and temporal variation of the channel gap thicknesses. The results show that sufficient safety margins are still maintained for normal operation as well as during the postulated accident transients. This work provides a methodology of incorporating the irradiation thermo-mechanical behavior of plate-type fuel into the thermal hydraulics safety analyses.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Computational Analysis of Hydraulic Efficiency of Michigan DOT Covers J and K

Drainage structures are used in urban street and highway systems to capture stormwater runoff. These structures typically consist of catch basins fitted with grates, inlets, or combination grate/inlet configurations that collect runoff and convey it through buried drainage systems. They are strategically placed within curb-and-gutter systems to enhance public safety by efficiently removing water from roadways and thereby reducing the risk of hydroplaning. The performance of drainage structures is commonly evaluated in terms of hydraulic efficiency, defined as the percentage of flow captured by the basin relative to the total flow reaching the structure. Understanding the hydraulic performance of these structures allows designers to properly space inlets, resulting in cost-effective designs that also help ensure the safety of the traveling public. MDOT uses a variety of drainage structures for runoff capture, as documented in Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Drainage Manual. Many of these structures incorporate sinusoidal-type grates that are not addressed in HEC-22. Because physical modeling of these structures has been limited, further analysis is needed to verify their capture efficiency. Under current MDOT practice, the capture efficiency of these grates is estimated by assuming performance similar to that of a comparably sized reticuline grate described in HEC22. The first phase of this effort, titled Computational Analysis of Hydraulic Efficiency of Michigan DOT Cover C, focused on evaluating the hydraulic performance of MDOT’s Cover C grate. Cover C was selected as the initial test candidate because its sinusoidal pattern is representative of other MDOT grates, while it is typically used in high-volume, higher-speed applications. A similar version, Cover CX, is used on interstate highways but does not include transverse bars for bicycle safety. The current second phase of the study expands this work to evaluate MDOT’s Covers J and K. These grates were selected for additional analysis to further assess the hydraulic performance of MDOT drainage structures that are not directly represented by grate configurations in HEC-22. The results of this phase will build on the findings from the Cover C analysis and support improved understanding of the capture efficiency of MDOT’s standard drainage grates. This report is intended to serve as a companion document to the earlier study, Computational Analysis of Hydraulic Efficiency of Michigan DOT Cover C [3]. The present work applies the same overall CFD-based evaluation approach to MDOT Covers J and K and compares the resulting performance trends with those previously identified for Cover C. In particular, both studies assess on-grade interception efficiency, sag-location hydraulic capacity, and the effects of partial obstruction relative to HEC-22-based design estimates.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Geochemical Impact of Acid Spearhead and Slickwater Stimulation on Wolfcamp Shale from the Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site

The Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site 1 (HFTS-1) was a field study performed in the Wolfcamp Formation in the West Texas Permian (Midland) Basin, USA, with a focus on improving the efficiency of hydraulic fracturing. Investigating site-specific rock-fluid geochemical interactions during hydraulic fracturing is an important step to understanding the impact on formation shale porosity, permeability, and long-term shale gas production. During field operations in this region, hydraulic fracturing fluid (HFF) injection usually starts with a concentrated acid spearhead for rapid rock dissolution, followed by the injection of near-neutral pH slickwater containing chemicals and proppants. A multistep sequential injection approach was used to investigate different stages of rock-fluid interactions. The carbonate content in the host rock is important when acid spearhead is considered, as carbonate mineral dissolution is rapid and can result in porosity and permeability changes in the shale matrix. Here, in this study, we designed flow-through experiments using fractured carbonate-rich and clay-rich Wolfcamp shale cores with (1) a short-time acid soaking step and (2) a long-term slickwater flow-through step to simulate the injection method used at HFTS-1. The fluid chemistry was analyzed. A thorough mineralogical progression [e.g., Calcium (Ca) dissolution and iron (Fe) redox progression] in the cores during HFF injection was also characterized and imaged by synchrotron microprobe. Reactive transport modeling was performed based on the experimental setup. The results showed that the acid spearhead is a crucial step in creating a reaction front by mineral dissolution, especially in carbonate-rich shales. A slight layer of ferrihydrite precipitated during the slickwater flow-through period. This study provides insights into potential geochemical impact due to hydraulic fracturing operations in the Permian Basin.

clastic rock↗
DOE OSTI2025

Hydraulic constraints to stomatal conductance in flooded trees

Stomatal closure is a pervasive response among trees exposed to flooded soil. We tested whether this response is caused by reduced hydraulic conductance in the soil-to-leaf hydraulic continuum (k total ), and particularly by reduced root hydraulic conductance (k root ), which has been widely hypothesized. We tracked stomatal conductance at the leaf level (g s ) and canopy scale (G s ) along with physiological conditions in two temperate tree species, Magnolia grandiflora and Quercus virginiana, that were subjected to flood and control conditions in a greenhouse experiment. Flooding reduced g s , G s , k root and k total . Path analysis showed strong support for direct effects of k total on g s and for flood duration on k total , but not k root on k total . A process-based model that accounted for the k total reduction predicted the timeseries of G s in flood and control treatment trees reasonably well (predicted versus observed G s R 2 = 0.80 and 0.51 for M. grandiflora and Q. virginiana, respectively). However, accounting only for k root reduction in flooded trees was insufficient for predicting observed G s reduction. Together, these results suggest that hydraulic constraints were not limited to roots and highlight the need to account for flooding effects on k total when projecting forest ecosystem function using process-based models.

Plant stress↗
DOE OSTI2025

Distributed Fiber Optic Sensing for in-well hydraulic fracture monitoring

This study presents the results from in-well hydraulic fracture monitoring within a horizontal well in an unconventional reservoir utilizing Distributed Fiber Optic Sensing (DFOS). An in-house-developed Brillouin-based Distributed Strain Sensing (DSS) interrogator was deployed to obtain strain measurements, complemented by a commercial Raman-based Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) interrogator for temperature measurements and a commercial Rayleigh-based Low-Frequency Distributed Acoustic Sensing (LF-DAS) interrogator for strain-rate measurements. Examined over a ten-day period, the spatio-temporal distribution of temperature-compensated strain obtained from DSS and DTS revealed distinct signatures of the multi-stage hydraulic fracturing process. These signatures were analyzed with respect to fracture width growth and closure, residual strain effects, and fracture conductivity near the wellbore. Fracture widths within the fracture zone were estimated for individual stages. The findings were assessed with LF-DAS measurements for further evaluation. This work integrates DFOS-measured strain, temperature, and strain-rate data for monitoring in-well hydraulic fracturing, with the goal of supporting future studies in interpreting DFOS measurements for improved understanding of hydraulic fracturing in unconventional reservoirs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Enhancing SWAT with mechanistic plant hydraulics: development and application in the Hanjiang River Basin

Plant transpiration plays a critical role in global water and energy cycles, requiring better process understanding as climate change intensifies drought stress and alters plant responses. Most hydrological models such as the widely-used SWAT lack representation of plant hydraulics, the mechanistic processes controlling plant water regulation and transpiration. Here, this study developed SWAT-PHS by integrating a plant hydraulics scheme (PHS) into SWAT hydrological model, enabling explicit simulation of root water uptake, sap flow, storage and transpiration at 30-minute timescales for watershed-scale modeling. In the Hanjiang River Basin, SWAT-PHS mitigated overestimation of runoff during the rainy season and underestimation during the dry season, reducing the overall simulation error by 29% across the entire simulation period. The model can simulate reasonable plant water dynamics, including diurnal transpiration patterns and drought responses showing declining transpiration flux, hydraulic buffering through stem water storage, and depth-dependent root water uptake strategies. Sensitivity analysis shows that SWAT-PHS captured mechanistic relationships between plant hydraulic traits and transpiration, with root distribution and stem capacitance positively affecting annual transpiration while vulnerability parameters showed negative effects. This work provides a pathway for improving hydrologic modeling and water resource management by better representing plant water regulation under climate change and expected intensifying water stress conditions.

China↗
DOE OSTI2025

Characterization of Fuel-to-Coolant Heat Transfer During Reactivity-Initiated Accidents Using Tightly Coupled Thermal Hydraulics and Fuel Thermomechanics

The reactivity-initiated accident (RIA) is a complex scenario with several tightly interacting physical phenomena. Accurately predicting fuel behavior during these transients is difficult due to limitations in the modeling of fuel-to-coolant heat transfer. Common approaches to simulate RIAs involve standalone calculations using either a fuel performance code or a thermal-hydraulic code. The complex interdependencies of thermal-hydraulic and fuel mechanical behavior suggest that a tight coupling between these codes may provide more accurate predictions of fuel-to-coolant heat transfer and cladding mechanical response. Here, RELAP5-3D and BISON are coupled in this paper to simulate RIAs, and a sensitivity analysis is performed to rank key thermal properties and two-phase heat transfer parameters relevant for fuel-to-coolant heat transfer and cladding failure mechanisms in UO 2 –Zircaloy-4 systems. Gas gap conductance, film boiling heat transfer uncertainty, pulse width, fuel-specific heat capacity, and cladding-specific heat capacity were identified as important parameters. Variations in figures of merit resulting from changes to pulse width and the material thermal properties indicate that time-dependent heat transfer rates are significant for safety-relevant mechanical parameters due to the time dependence of cladding ductility and pellet-cladding mechanical interaction loading. The results suggest that the thermal-hydraulic factors have a nonnegligible influence on the thermomechanical solution and vice versa. Tight coupling of both sets of physics is recommended to improve prediction of fuel behavior during RIAs. Highlights include the following: 1. The RELAP5-3D thermal-hydraulic code and the BISON fuel performance code are tightly coupled for simulation of RIA transients with energy depositions at the Zircaloy-4 cladding failure threshold. 2. Departure from nucleate boiling occurred for all simulated cases. Due to the ductility of fresh fuel, substantial ballooning occurred in most cases. 3. Gas gap conductance, fuel-specific heat capacity, cladding-specific heat capacity, transient pulse width, and film boiling heat transfer were the dominant thermal factors impacting the safety figures of merit at energy depositions.

Critical Heat Flux (CHF)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Size-related decline in dryland shrubs is related to reductions in hydraulic efficiency and carbon assimilation and not nonstructural carbohydrate depletion

Plant growth and survival are fundamentally constrained by water transport from roots to leaves, impacting carbon assimilation and associated labile carbon pools. However, physiological constraints on growth and survival vary with plant age, due to changes in metabolic sinks, and increases in hydraulic path length from rhizosphere to canopy. We investigated crown dieback, growth, hydraulics, carbon assimilation and carbohydrate storage in relation to increasing basal diameter of two dominant shrub species (Caragana korshinskii and Artemisia ordosica) at the southeastern edge of the Tengger Desert, China. The aim was to identify mechanisms of decreased performance with plant size in dryland shrubs. Clear contrasts in stomatal regulation of leaf water potentials were detected between species. Despite these contrasts, radial growth, hydraulic transport efficiency (Ks), and photosynthetic efficiency similarly declined in both species with increasing plant size, while non-structural carbohydrate (NSC) reserves remained unchanged. Xylem embolism (PLC) increased with plant size, resulting in significant reductions in carbon assimilation in both species. Results indicate that hydraulic, and potentially carbon assimilation constraints, rather than reductions in carbohydrate storage, govern growth-related dryland shrub decline. These findings improve our understanding of how population demography impacts dryland forest response to climate change.

Zhang, Hongxia↗
DOE OSTI2024

Insights into the thermo-hydraulic properties of compacted MX80 bentonite during hydration under elevated temperature

In high-level radioactive waste geological repositories, compacted bentonite undergoes coupled thermo-hydraulic processes due to heat released from a central waste canister and groundwater imbibition from the surrounding host rock. An understanding of these processes is essential for long-term simulations of radionuclide migration and canister corrosion, which requires an understanding of temperature effects on the coupled thermo-hydraulic properties governing these processes. In this study, a tank-scale radial infiltration test was used to investigate water imbibition processes in compacted bentonite under a central heater temperature of 200 °C that simulates high thermal gradients in a repository. Interpretation of this test focuses on evaluation of the liquid water wetting front during hydration and the interpretation of the temperature-dependent transient soil water retention curve (SWRC), thermal conductivity function (TCF), and hydraulic conductivity function (HCF). The SWRC during imbibition follows a temperature-dependent wetting path. Temperature effects on the hydraulic conductivity of bentonite in saturated conditions had the greatest effect on the shape of the HCF, with minimal temperature effects at higher suctions. The transient thermal conductivity data matched well with a new TCF linked with the SWRC shape. Although the bentonite layer was restrained, local deformations during hydration may have affected the shapes of the TCF and HCF.

Engineering↗
DOE OSTI2025

Application of physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) solution to coupled thermal and hydraulic processes in silty sands

Abstract The accurate modeling of water and heat transport in soils is crucial for both geo-environmental and geothermal engineering. Traditional modeling methods are problematic because they require well-defined boundaries and initial conditions. Recently, physics-informed neural networks (PINNs), which incorporate partial differential equations (PDEs) to solve forward and inverse problems, have attracted increasing attention in machine learning research. In this study, we applied PINNs to tackle hydraulic and thermal transport coupling forward problems in silty sands. A fully connected deep neural network was utilized for training. This neural network model leverages automatic differentiation to apply the governing equations as constraints, based on the mathematical approximations established by the neural network itself. We conducted forward problems and compared the solutions derived from PINNs with those from Finite Element Method (FEM) simulations. The forward problem results demonstrate the PINNs model’s capability in predicting hydraulic transport, heat transport, and thermal–hydraulic coupling in silty sands under various boundary conditions. The PINNs exhibited great performance in simulating the thermal–hydraulic coupling problem. The accuracy of the PINNs solutions shows its potential for simulation in geotechnical engineering.

Feng, Yuan↗
DOE OSTI2025

Physical and Hydraulic Properties of RCRA Borehole Samples from the Hanford Site : Final Report, Fiscal Years 2023-2024

Sediment from 44 core samples collected from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) boreholes drilled in the 200 East and 200 West areas of the Hanford Site were characterized for physical and hydraulic properties (Table S.1). Characterization data included gravimetric water contents and matric potentials, grain-size distributions, saturated hydraulic conductivity, water retention characteristics, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. These properties provide site-specific data and parameters that can be used in subsurface flow and contaminant transport models to assess the transport and fate of contaminants in the vadose zone and underlying aquifer systems. The analyzed core samples come from specific areas and depth intervals at the Hanford Site that were targeted for sampling to address data gaps identified by site contractors (Khaleel 2020). X-ray computed tomography (XCT) was used to evaluate the general textural characteristics of the samples and to determine which samples to use for further physical and hydraulic property characterization. Subsequent sample selection was determined by consensus after review of the XCT images by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Central Plateau Cleanup Company, and INTERA staff.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Experimental Comparison of Elastomeric Materials for Hydraulic Seal Durability under Reciprocating Conditions

Wave Energy Converters (WECs) rely on hydraulic Power Take-Off (PTO) systems to transform the kinetic energy of ocean waves into electricity, where hydraulic seals play a critical role in preventing fluid leakage and ensuring watertight operation under harsh marine conditions. However, seal degradation due to wear, fatigue, and corrosion remains a key challenge limiting system reliability and increasing maintenance costs. In this study, the tribological performance of elastomeric materials for hydraulic sealing applications that are based on commercial polyurethane and custom-compounded Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) is investigated. Using a CSM tribometer, reciprocating wear tests were conducted in accordance with ASTM G133 under dry sliding conditions, with normal loads ranging from 3 to 10 N, and sliding speeds of 10 to 30 mm/s. Coefficient of friction (COF), specific wear rate, and worn surface morphology are evaluated to understand how load, velocity, and material composition affect seal durability. Improved wear stability and high Shore A hardness (93–94) were demonstrated by the commercial thermoplastic polyurethane (Duralast 4203 and 4758). EPDM-based compounds showed different filler-dependent behaviors, formulations filled with carbon black (E3) had the lowest wear rate (1.45 × 10?4 mm³ N?¹ m?¹) and increased load-bearing capacity, while samples modified with silica and plasticizer (E4, E5) had better conformability and damping but less hardness. Compounded EPDMs showed wider deformation zones because of their lower modulus and filler-matrix interfacial fluctuations, while commercial grades exhibited shallower wear scars (= 380 µm), according to optical profilometry. The Archard model-based lifetime estimation showed that, under 10 N and 30 mm/s, operational endurance ranged from 3.1 to 6.2 years. Because of its low wear rate and steady interfacial behavior, E3 had the longest anticipated life. For medium-load hydraulic sealing applications, these results demonstrate the possibility of customized EPDM formulations as affordable substitutes for commercial polyurethanes. They also offer a quantitative foundation for material selection and lifespan prediction.

Durability↗
NASA NTRS1950

Survey of less-inflammable hydraulic fluids for aircraft

A survey of current information on civil and military development of less-inflammable hydraulic fluids for aircraft is presented. Types of less-inflammable fluid reported include: glycol derivative, water base, silicone, ester, and halogenated compound. Specification requirements, physical and chemical properties, hydraulic-system test results, and advantages and disadvantages of various hydraulic fluids are discussed. For completely satisfactory service, some modification of currently available fluids or of present hydraulic-system parts still appears necessary.

FRICTION AND LUBRICATION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Thermal Hydraulics Validation Activities in the ART-GCR Campaign

The Advanced Reactor Technologies - Gas Cooled Reactor Campaign (ART-GCR) is part of the United States Department of Energy - Office of Nuclear Energy's Advanced Reactor Technologies program aimed at developing a High Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) which will offer enhancements in safety and efficiency. The Design, Methods, and Validation arm of the ART-GCR program provides experience and advanced tools for HTGR design and analysis. The Methods and Validation arm is developing data to validate predictions of decay heat removal through an extensive experimental campaign the Natural Convection Shutdown Heat Removal Test Facility at Argonne National Laboratory. In-core thermal hydraulics validation is being facilitated through the OECD/NEA's Thermal Hydraulic Code Validation Benchmark for High Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactors using HTTF Data. That benchmark contains code-to-code and code-to-data comparisons for 3 sets of HTGR thermal hydraulics phenomena. This ongoing benchmark activity has 16 participants from 9 countries developing leading insights into HTGR thermal hydraulics code validation. The ART-GCR campaign is also working on the development of state-of-the-art MOOSE-based models of the High Temperature Engineering Test Reactor (HTTR). Through the OECD/NEA's HTTR Loss of Forced Cooling (LOFC) program, the ART-GCR campaign is developing a multiphysics transient code validation benchmark based on 3 HTTR experiments that will provide an opportunity for international collaboration on multiphysics code validation.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗