Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “task saturation”

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 OSTI2022

Dimensionally Reduced Model for Rapid and Accurate Prediction of Gas Saturation, Pressure, and Brine Production in a CO 2 Storage Application: Case Study Using the SACROC Field as Part of SMART Task 5

This technical report presents work conducted by the sub surface analysis team of the Strategic Systems Analysis & Engineering group at NETL for Task 5 of SMART Phase 1. This study involved the development of deep learning models for CO 2 geologic storage that are capable of accurate prediction of spatio-temporal outputs of CO 2 saturation, pressure, and brine production in three dimensional space over a storage operation's injection and post-injection timeframes. The model framework involves ensembling multi-layer encoder networks that provide dimesionality reduction of geologic inputs with fully connected long short-term memory (LSTM) neural networks that generate time-series prediction This approach offers a means to maximize training time efficiency, reduce computational memory burden, and minimize prediction turnaround.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

DECOVALEX 2023 Task D -- Interim Report from SNL

The capability of a 1-D PFLOTRAN model to simulate the S1-3 bentonite saturation experiment has been demonstrated and validated against experimental data. Work remains to be done to refine 1-D PFLOTRAN simulations of the experiment S1-4 which include evaluation of parameter sensitivities on the prediction of material saturation and relative permeabilities. This and further testing of PFLOTRAN capabilities will be done as part of DECOVALEX 2023 Task D contributions by the SNL team in the coming months.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

Advective gas flow in bentonite: Development and comparison of enhanced multi-phase numerical approaches

Understanding the impact of repository gas, generated from degradation of waste and its interaction with the host rock, is essential when assessing the performance and safety function of long-term disposal systems for radioactive waste. Numerical models based on conventional multi-phase flow theory have historically been applied to predict the outcome and impact of gas flow on different repository components. However, they remain unable to describe the full complexity of the physical processes observed in water-saturated experiments (e.g., creation of dilatant pathways) and thus, the development of novel representations for their description is required when assessing fully saturated clay-based systems. This was the primary focus of Task A within the international cooperative project DECOVALEX-2019 (D-2019) and refinement of these approaches is the primary focus of this study (Task B in the current phase of DECOVALEX-2023). This paper summarises development of enhanced numerical representations of key processes and compares the performance of each model against high-quality laboratory test data. Experimental data reveals that gas percolation in water-saturated compacted bentonite is characterised by four key features: (i) a quiescence phase, followed by (ii) the gas breakthrough, which leads to a (iii) peak value, which is then followed by (iv) a negative decay. Three models based on the multiphase flow theory have been developed. These models can provide good initial values and reasonable responses for gas breakthrough (although some of them still predict a too-smooth response). Peak gas pressure values are in general reasonably well captured, although maximum radial stress differences are observed at 48 mm from the base of the sample. Here, numerical peak values of 12.8 MPa are predicted, whereas experimental values are about 11 MPa. These models are also capable of providing a reasonable representation of the negative pressure decay following peak pressure. However, other key specific features (such as the timing of gas breakthrough) still require a better representation. The model simulations and their comparison with experimental data show that these models need to be further improved with respect to model parameter calibration, the numerical representation of spatial heterogeneities in material properties and flow localisation, and the upscaling of the related physical processes and parameters. To further understand gas flow localisation, a new conceptual model has been developed, which shows that discrete channels can possibly be induced through the instability of gas-bentonite interface during gas injection, thus providing a new perspective for modeling gas percolation in low-permeability deformable media.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Simulation Center for Runaway Electron Avoidance and Mitigation (SCREAM SciDAC) (Technical Final Report)

Runaway electrons can severely damage the plasma facing components on ITER during a major disruption and pose a major risk for tokamak fusion. It has been recognized that an adequate disruption mitigation system (DMS) is essential for the safe operation of ITER. The United States is responsible for the design and implementation of the disruption mitigation system on ITER, and in July 2016 the Simulation Center for Runaway Electron Avoidance and Mitigation (SCREAM) was launched by DOE, in a joint Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) and Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) collaboration. SCREAM was a comprehensive theory and simulation SciDAC center that provided physics guidance in the avoidance and mitigation of runaway electrons, and in tandem with domestic and international experiments, helped establish the qualitative and quantitative bases for safe operational scenarios and viable mitigation techniques. The SCREAM center assembled a national team of experts in runaway electron physics, tokamak disruptions, magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation, and advanced algorithms and computing. The team combined advanced simulation and analysis capability facilitated by direct participation of ASCR SciDAC institutes with theoretical models and code development by FES scientists to focus on the runaway risk for ITER and tokamaks in general. The research scope was focussed on integrated simulations of kinetic runaway electrons, including MHD and fluid models of impurity transport, within a research plan guided by theory. The specific research tasks were (1) establish the fundamental physics of runaway generation, saturation, and dynamical evolution in a tokamak; (2) examine the critical path toward runaway avoidance; and (3) investigate the viability and effectiveness of the leading candidate schemes for runaway mitigation. In all three areas, members of the team carried out scoping studies that established the readiness for rapid and critical advances, especially in the deployment and further development of large-to extreme-scale simulation tools. Our multi-pronged computational approach included (1) relativistic Fokker-Planck solvers with discretization in phase space, (2) self-consistent particle-in-cell techniques, (3) particle-based Monte-Carlo, and (4) MHD-particle hybrid simulations. Cross-check between these different methods provided an additional means for verification and further bolstered the fidelity of our physics prediction. Validation against experimental results brings confidence to the predictive capability for ITER and frequently leads to new ideas for understanding and mitigating the thermal quench driven runaway electron phenomenon.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
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 OSTI2024

ML-Based Rock Properties and Seismic Volume Enhancement

This project aims to improve field-scale Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) assessments by enhancing petrophysical and geophysical log predictions through machine learning and neural networks. In our work during EY23, we applied Conditional Variational Autoencoders (CVAEs) to predict compressional velocity (Vp) and assess CO2 saturation levels in geological formations at the Illinois Basin Decatur Project (IBDP). In another task, we improved full-waveform inversion (FWI) methods with machine-learning approaches using lithological constraints. Full-waveform inversion (FWI) of seismic data estimates the elastic properties of subsurface rocks with high spatial resolution.

Nathanail, Athanasios↗
DOE OSTI2021

Big Adaptive Rotor Phase I (Final Report)

The Big Adaptive Rotor (BAR) project was initiate by DOE in 2018 with the goal of identifying novel technologies that can enable large (>100m) blades for low specific power (SP) turbines. Five distinct tasks were completed to achieve this goal: 1. Assess trends, impacts, and value of low-SP turbines, 2. Wind turbine blade cost reduction roadmap study, 3. Research and Development (R&D) opportunity screening, 4. Detailed design and analysis, and 5. Low-cost carbon fiber. These tasks were completed by the national lab team consisting of Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). The objective of Task 1 was to assess the historical trends of low-SP of onshore deployments, and to assess the impact and value of low-SP turbines. Analysis under this task showed that there is significant value for low-SP turbines, especially in markets where there is a higher saturation of wind energy on the grid. This has to do with the fact that low-SP turbines have increased capacity factors, and can contribute more reliable energy to the grid, even in lower wind conditions. This bodes well as higher renewable scenarios are likely in the coming years. Task 2 was a detailed analysis on the logistical challenges of deploying very large (>100m) onshore blade. This work was completed by experts at DNV-GL. The report looked at various ways to get around the current transportation constraints which are estimated to be around 75m in length. The report concluded that there are viable solutions to this issue including: segmented blades (which the industry is already pursuing), lighter than air (LTA) transportation, on-site manufacturing, and controlled bending of blades on rail. The final option was recommended for further analysis and study by DOE and the national labs because keeping a single piece blade reduces manufacturing and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs. Task 3 focused on identifying novel concepts that are capable of enabling a cost effective 5MW 206m rotor for onshore deployment. The findings from the first two tasks were considered in the analysis, in that the concepts identified must be able to overcome the transportation logistics challenges. Around 20 concepts were identified and evaluated by experts within the industry. Additionally, science and engineering challenges were identified for each concept. Based on these evaluations six concepts were deemed the most impactful and were selected for further analysis in Task 4. The concepts were: highly flexible rail transportable blades, downwind rotors, distributed aerodynamic control (DAC) devices, inflatable blade, bi-wing blade, and 4/5 bladed rotors. Task 4 conducted detailed design, optimization, and analysis on the selected BAR concepts. A modeling gaps analysis was conducted, and modeling improvements were implemented that allowed for the study and design of the novel concepts. The BAR team established a set of baseline designs by which to compare the selected designs through a technoeconomic analysis. It was found that the highly flexible rail transportable blade, the downwind rotor, and the DAC devices have the most promise to deliver the BAR targets. A Phase II for BAR has been proposed to further mature these concepts and address the open science and engineering challenges identified in Task 3. Task 5 conducted research on optimized carbon fiber materials that were used throughout the BAR Phase I project. Overall, the BAR project has identified low-SP turbines as important to continued LCOE reductions for onshore turbines. Furthermore, the project has identified viable solutions to the technical and logistical challenges to realizing these goals. The most promising technologies that were identified in Phase I of the project will be further matured and de-risked in Phase II of the BAR project.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Deep Learning for Subsurface Flow: A Comparative Study of U‐Net, Fourier Neural Operators, and Transformers in Underground Hydrogen Storage

Subsurface flow research is essential for the sustainable management of natural resources and the environment. Deep learning (DL) has significantly advanced this field by developing efficient and accurate surrogate models to replace computationally expensive physics‐based simulations. These surrogate models are commonly used to predict the spatiotemporal evolution of state variables, such as gas saturation and reservoir pressure, in heterogeneous geological formations. Despite the various DL models applied to this task, there is a lack of studies systematically comparing their performance. This absence of comparative analysis leads to somewhat arbitrary DL model selection in subsurface flow research, resulting in suboptimal performance and potentially inaccurate predictions. To bridge this gap, we conduct a systematic comparison study of three popular DL architectures—U‐Net, Fourier Neural Operators (FNO), and Segmentation Transformer (SETR)—in surrogate modeling of underground hydrogen storage (UHS). We focus on UHS due to its promise of enhancing clean energy resilience and its cyclic operational conditions that represent common scenarios in various subsurface applications. We evaluate the models based on accuracy, training cost, and inference speed. The comparison shows that U‐Net achieves the highest accuracy, followed by SETR and FNO. Despite its lower accuracy, FNO has the highest inference speed. SETR offers competitive accuracy with the least training memory usage, demonstrating the potential of transformers in learning subsurface flow. Our results provide guidance for selecting DL models for surrogate modeling in a wide range of subsurface flow problems.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Increasing the Usability of Sockeye: Implementing Customer-Driven Modeling Improvements, Features, and Documentation of Sockeye

A number of tasks for the heat pipe simulation tool Sockeye were identified based on customer needs and included both user documentation and code development: (a) Implement saturation-dependence in the capillary pressure model; (b) Provide an analytic utility to analyze the frozen startup limit; (c) Demonstrate custom friction closures; (d) Develop examples for different types of heat transfer sources and boundary conditions; (e) Demonstrate the capillary and sonic limits; and (f) Provide discretization details in the theory manual. These tasks were all completed, and results are given where applicable.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Characterization of the Sulfur-Saturated Melt Versions of the HFG1 Study Glasses

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for building the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) at the Hanford Site in Washington to remediate 55 million gallons of radioactive waste that is temporarily stored in 177 underground tanks. The Office of River Protection (ORP) has requested that the Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) contribute to current glass studies to support successful startup of the WTP, due to SRNL’s recognized capabilities and expertise for glass waste form development. As part of this effort, the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is developing, batching, and fabricating simulated high-level waste (HLW) glasses to generate the associated property data needed to validate or identify areas of potential characterization improvements in the current glass property/ composition models. Currently, the models cover only a small fraction of the waste compositions projected in the Hanford tank farm; therefore, the models must be expanded to include high fluoride compositions to successfully complete the WTP mission. SRNL support of this work is defined in the Task Technical and Quality Assurance Plan (TTQAP). This report provides results from the chemical analyses of a series of sulfur-saturated melt (SSM) versions of simulated nuclear waste glasses fabricated at PNNL. The glasses were selected as part of a broader study of the influence of glass composition on chemical durability, sulfur retention, and other properties. The glasses were designated the High Fluoride Glasses-1 (HLG1).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Application of Electromagnetic Methods for Reservoir Monitoring with Emphasis on Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage

The Controlled-Source ElectroMagnetic (CSEM) method provides crucial information about reservoir fluids and their spatial distribution. Carbon dioxide (CO2) storage, enhanced oil recovery (EOR), geothermal exploration, and lithium exploration are ideal applications for the CSEM method. The versatility of CSEM permits its customization to specific reservoir objectives by selecting the appropriate components of a multi-component system. To effectively tailor the CSEM approach, it is essential to determine whether the primary target reservoir is resistive or conductive. This task is relatively straightforward in CO2 monitoring, where the injected fluid is resistive. However, for scenarios involving brine-saturated (water-wet) or oil-wet (carbon capture, utilization, and storage—CCUS) reservoirs, consideration must also be given to conductive reservoir components. The optimization of data acquisition before the survey involves analyzing target parameters and the sensitivity of multi-component CSEM. This optimization process typically includes on-site noise measurements and 3D anisotropic modeling. Based on our experience, subsequent surveys tend to proceed smoothly, yielding robust measurements that align with scientific objectives. Other critical aspects to be considered are using magnetotelluric (MT) measurements to define the overall background resistivities and integrating real-time quality assurance during data acquisition with 3D modeling. This integration allows the fine tuning of acquisition parameters such as acquisition time and necessary repeats. As a result, data can be examined in real-time to assess subsurface information content while the acquisition is ongoing. Consequently, high-quality data sets are usually obtained for subsequent processing and initial interpretation with minimal user intervention. The implementation of sensitivity analysis during the inversion process plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the acquired data accurately respond to the target reservoirs’ expected depth range. To elucidate these concepts, we present an illustrative example from a CO2 storage site in North Dakota, USA, wherein the long-offset transient electromagnetic method (LOTEM), a variation of the CSEM method, and the MT method were utilized. This example showcases how surface measurements attain appropriately upscaled log-scale sensitivity. Furthermore, the sensitivity of the CSEM and MT methods was examined in other case histories, where the target reservoirs exhibited conductive properties, such as those encountered in enhanced oil recovery (EOR), geothermal, and lithium exploration applications. The same equipment specifications were utilized for CSEM and MT surveys across all case studies.

Barajas-Olalde, César↗
DOE OSTI2023

Machine learning and deep learning for mineralogy interpretation and CO 2 saturation estimation in geological carbon Storage: A case study in the Illinois Basin

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a promising approach to simultaneously maintaining energy security and reducing carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions under the current energy portfolio that is dominated by fossil fuel energy. Pre-injection formation characterization and post-injection CO 2 monitoring are two critical tasks to guarantee storage efficiency in CCS. The CCS projects in the Illinois Basin, the first large-scale CO 2 injection into saline aquifers in the United States, employed conventional and the latest pulsed neutron logging (PNL) tools for mineralogy interpretation and CO 2 saturation estimation, which provide valuable references for future CCS projects. Because of the inherent fuzziness of petrophysical measurements and complex subsurface heterogeneity, interpreting well-logging data is time-consuming, and its accuracy can be user-biased. In recent years, data-driven methods have been widely used to capture the non-linear patterns between input features and interpretation results. This work applied and evaluated four commonly used machine learning (ML) models, including ridge regression (RR), random forest (RF), gradient boosting regression (GBR), support vector regression (SVR), and one deep learning (DL) model, the artificial neural network (ANN). We optimized the hyperparameters of the four ML models and the DL model using the simulated annealing algorithm and the grid search strategy, respectively. The input features of the mineralogy interpretation models were eleven conventional well-logging parameters, and the label data (i.e., ground truth) were the porosity and volumetric fractions of six minerals, including quartz, feldspar, dolomite, calcite, clay, and iron minerals. The results demonstrated that the GBR and RF models were superior in predicting volumetric fractions of minerals and porosity; label data with low coefficient of variation (CV) values tended to yield better performance. For CO 2 saturation estimation, the RF was the best-performing model, followed by SVR, ANN, GBR, and RR. Furthermore, we conducted feature importance ranking using the permutation importance algorithm and found that the formation sigma and well pressure were the most important features in this study. In conclusion, the study of CCS projects in the Illinois Basin bridges the gap between the limited knowledge and understanding of geological carbon storage and the increasing demand for reliable, cost-effective, and sustainable energy solutions.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Neural Scaling Laws for Jet Generation

Recently observed empirical scaling laws describe the performance of foundation-type models as three independent key quantities -- dataset size, compute, and model parameters -- are modified. Extracting these scaling laws informs the training of large complex models for which the tuning of hyperparameters in traditional ways is not feasible. This work for the first time explores if scaling laws can also be observed for the task of particle jet generation -- both relevant as a pre-training objective for foundation models and as in-situ simulation by itself. We indeed replicate the key logarithmic scaling law behavior for model-size scaling. Beyond studying the next token prediction validation loss of the generative model, we also study the sliced Wasserstein distance of five physical quantities that are not immediately available to the model during training. Our study shows that this quantity is monotonically related to the next token prediction validation loss, meaning that this loss is indeed a good proxy for the physics performance. For the scaling with dataset size and compute, we observe substantially weaker scaling behavior of both the loss and the sliced Wasserstein distance. We analyze this behavior by introducing the concept of a learnable window, and argue that autoregressive next token prediction on jet constituents exhibits comparatively rapid saturation relative to language-model studies. We discuss possible origins of this behavior, including the stochastic nature of QCD radiation and differences between generative and supervised learning tasks in collider physics.

Amram, Oz [Fermilab]↗
DOE OSTI2023

BTRIC Technical Support for Appalachia: FY 2023 Summary Report on Net Negative Carbon Building Demonstration with AgPod

This study investigates the effects of various concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) on the photosynthesis and biomass accumulation of crops growing in an Agricultural Pod (AgPod). The initial test crop was kale. It has been found that increasing the CO 2 concentration in the AgPod promotes higher photosynthetic rates in kale plants up to 1300 ppm (highest CO 2 concentration). An interesting finding was that net photosynthetic rates of kale leaves remain unsaturated until unusually high levels of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR, > 1200 µmolm-2s-1) and CO 2 concentration (> 1100 ppm) are reached. Such high levels of saturating PAR and CO 2 concentration values rarely occur under natural conditions, suggesting a promising potential for carbon capture via enriched greenhouse crop production. This task is one part of an overall plan to incorporate an AgPod to utilize carbon captured from the atmosphere to achieve net negative carbon emissions in a small neighborhood or community.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Development of lean, efficient, and fast physics-framed deep-learning-based proxy models for subsurface carbon storage

In this work, we present deep-learning-based surrogate models for CCUS developed with four different algorithms and a physics-framed two-phase flow problem involving displacement of water by CO 2 . The deep-learning models were trained using 3D datasets describing the pressure plume, CO 2 saturation plume, and water extraction rate generated by numerical simulation. The hyperparameters defining the architecture of the neural networks were optimized to determine the slimmest network size and training parameters that give the most efficient performance at the least training cost. To develop a robust model that closely mimics the governing physical laws, the discretized form of the two-phase fluid transport equation was used to formulate the supervised deep-learning task. The algorithms investigated in this study predicted the data to above 95% accuracy, with the multi-layer perceptron model demonstrating the best performance by balancing training speed, prediction time, and prediction accuracy with lean network capacity. Furthermore, the surrogate models simultaneously predict reservoir pressure and CO 2 saturation in every grid block, including the surface well extraction rate and bottomhole pressure, at all simulation times for a given static model realization in just a few seconds on a standard desktop computer. A key outcome of this study is that limits can be placed on network design parameters to avoid over designing neural networks, with associated efficiencies in training and prediction times. This is very useful because large volumes of data may be generated in CCUS projects and over-design of neural network architectures imposes penalties that are antithetical to the goal of near-real time forecasting.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Evaluation of Engineered Barrier Systems FY20 Report

This report describes research and development (R&D) activities conducted during fiscal year 2020 (FY20) specifically related to the Engineered Barrier System (EBS) R&D Work Package in the Spent Fuel and Waste Science and Technology (SFWST) Campaign supported by the United States (U.S.) Department of Energy (DOE). The R&D activities focus on understanding EBS component evolution and interactions within the EBS, as well as interactions between the host media and the EBS. A primary goal is to advance the development of process models that can be implemented directly within the Generic Disposal System Analysis (GDSA) platform or that can contribute to the safety case in some manner such as building confidence, providing further insight into the processes being modeled, establishing better constraints on barrier performance, etc. The FY20 EBS activities involved not only modeling and analysis work, but experimental work as well. Despite delays to some planned activities due to COVID-19 precautions, progress was made during FY20 in multiple research areas and documented in this report as follows: (1) EBS Task Force: Task 9/FEBEX Modeling Final Report: Thermo-Hydrological Modeling with PFLOTRAN, (2) preliminary sensitivity analysis for the FEBEX in-situ heater test, (3) cement-carbonate rock interaction under saturated conditions: from laboratory to modeling, (4) hydrothermal experiments, (5) progress on investigating the high temperature behavior of the uranyl-carbonate complexes, (6) in-situ and electrochemical work for model validation, (7) investigation of the impact of high temperature on EBS bentonite with THMC modeling, (8) sorption and diffusion experiments on bentonite, (9) chemical controls on montmorillonite structure and swelling pressure, (10) microscopic origins of coupled transport processes in bentonite, (11) understanding the THMC evolution of bentonite in FEBEX-DP—coupled THMC modeling, (12) modeling in support of HotBENT, an experiment studying the effects of high temperatures on clay buffers/near-field, and (13) high temperature heating and hydration column test on bentonite.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗