Signe K. White

Velo: A Knowledge-Management Framework for Modeling and Simulation

Velo is a reusable, domain-independent knowledge-management infrastructure for modeling and simulation. Velo leverages, integrates, and extends Web-based open source collaborative and data-management technologies to create a scalable and flexible core platform tailored to specific scientific domains. As the examples here describe, Velo has been used in both the carbon sequestration and climate modeling domains.

Velo: riding the knowledge management wave for simulation and modeling

Modern scientific enterprises are inherently knowledge-intensive. In general, scientific studies in domains such as geosciences, climate, and biology require the acquisition and manipulation of large amounts of experimental and field data in order to create inputs for large-scale computational simulations. The results of these simulations must then be analyzed, leading to refinements of inputs and models and additional simulations. Further, these results must be managed and archived to provide justifications for regulatory decisions and publications that are based on these models. In this paper we introduce our Velo framework that is designed as a reusable, domain independent knowledge management infrastructure for modeling and simulation. Velo leverages, integrates, and extends open source collaborative and content management technologies to create a scalable and flexible core platform that can be tailored to specific scientific domains. We describe the architecture of Velo for managing and associating the various types of data that are used and created in modeling and simulation projects, as well as the framework for integrating domain-specific tools. To demonstrate a realization of Velo, we describe the Geologic Sequestration Software Suite (GS3) that has been developed to support geologic sequestration modeling. This provides a concrete example of the inherent extensibility and utility of our approach.

Knowledge annotations in scientific workflows: an implementation in Kepler

Scientific research products are the result of long-term collaborations between teams. Scientific workflows are capable of helping scientists in many ways including collecting information about how research was conducted (e.g., scientific workflow tools often collect and manage information about datasets used and data transformations). However, knowledge about why data was collected is rarely documented in scientific workflows. In this paper we describe a prototype system built to support the collection of scientific expertise that influences scientific analysis. Through evaluating a scientific research effort underway at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, we identified features that would most benefit PNNL scientists in documenting how and why they conduct their research, making this information available to the entire team. The prototype system was built by enhancing the Kepler Scientific Workflow System to create knowledge-annotated scientific workflows and to publish them as semantic annotations.

Benchmark Problems of the Geothermal Technologies Office Code Comparison Study

............................................................................................................................................. iii Summary ............................................................................................................................................. v Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................. vii Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. ix 1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1.1 1.1 Approach ......................................................................................................................... 1.3 1.1.1 Study Objectives .................................................................................................. 1.3 1.1.2 Study History and Structure ................................................................................. 1.3 1.2 Participants and Codes .................................................................................................... 1.5 1.3 Benchmark Problems ...................................................................................................... 1.9 1.3.1 Benchmark Problem 1: Poroelastic Response in a Fault Zone (PermeabilityPressure Feedback) ............................................................................................... 1.9 1.3.2 Benchmark Problem 2: Shear stimulation of randomly oriented fractures aby injection of cold water into a thermo-poro-elastic medium with stress-dependent permeability ........................................................................................................ 1.10 1.3.3 Benchmark Problem 3: Fracture opening and sliding in response to fluid injection .............................................................................................................. 1.11 1.3.4 Benchmark Problem 4: Planar EGS fracture of constant extension, pennyshaped or thermo-elastic aperture in impermeable hot rock .............................. 1.12 1.3.5 Benchmark Problem 5: Amorphous Silica dissolution/precipitation in a fracture zone .................................................................................................................... 1.13 1.3.6 Benchmark Problem 6: Injection into a fault/fracture in thermo-poroelastic rock1.14 1.3.7 Benchmark Problem 7: Surface deformation from a pressurized subsurface fracture ............................................................................................................... 1.15 1.4 Comparison Standard .................................................................................................... 1.16 2.0 Governing and Constitutive Equations .................................................................................... 2.1 2.1 Heat Transfer Modeling .................................................................................................. 2.1 2.2 Fluid Flow Modeling ....................................................................................................... 2.2 2.2.1 Fracture Transmissivity ........................................................................................ 2.2 2.3 Rock Mechanics Modeling .............................................................................................. 2.3 2.3.1 Continuum Geomechanics ................................................................................... 2.4 2.3.2 Discrete Fracture Geomechanics .......................................................................... 2.5 2.3.3 Joint Models ....................................................................................................... 2.10 2.4 Geochemical Reaction Modeling .................................................................................. 2.12 2.4.1 Aqueous Reaction Rates ..................................................................................... 2.14 3.0 Numerical Solution Schemes ................................................................................................... 3.1 3.1 Sequential Schemes ......................................................................................................... 3.1 3.2 Iterative Schemes ............................................................................................................ 3.1

Development of a low-level 39Ar calibration standard – Analysis by absolute gas counting measurements augmented with simulation

This paper describes the generation of 39Ar, via reactor irradiation of potassium carbonate, followed by quantitative analysis (length-compensated proportional counting) to yield two calibration standards that are respectively 50 and 3 times atmospheric background levels. Measurements were performed in Pacific Northwest National Laboratorys shallow underground counting laboratory studying the effect of gas density on beta-transport; these results are compared with simulation. The total expanded uncertainty of the specific activity for the ~50× 39Ar in P10 standard is 3.6% (k=2).

Methods for using argon-39 to age-date groundwater using ultra-low-background proportional counting

Argon-39 can be used as a tracer for age-dating glaciers, oceans, and more recently, groundwater. With a half-life of 269 years, 39Ar fills an intermediate age range gap (50-1,000 years) not currently covered by other common groundwater tracers. Therefore, adding this tracer to the data suite for groundwater studies provides an important tool for improving our understanding of groundwater systems. We present the methods employed for arriving at an age-date for a given sample of argon degassed from groundwater.

Outcomes of the 2013 GTO Workshop on Geothermal Code Comparison

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is supporting the Department of Energy (DOE) Geothermal Technologies Office (GTO) in organizing and executing a model comparison activity. This project is directed at testing, diagnosing differences, and demonstrating modeling capabilities of a worldwide collection of numerical simulators for evaluating geothermal technologies. A key element of the projct was the planning and implementation of a one-day project kickoff workshop, held February 14, 2013 in Palo Alto, CA. The primary goals of the workshop were to 1) introduce the project and its objectives to potential participating team members, and 2) develop an initial set of test problem descriptions for use in the execution stage. This report summarizes the outcomes of the workshop.