Soot Formation and its Impact on Flame RadiatioSoot Formation and its Impact on Flame Radiation during Turbulent Non-Premixed Oxygen-Enriched Combustion of Methane
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Sandia journal manuscript; Not yet accepted for publication
Organophosphates are widely used for peaceful (agriculture) and military purposes (chemical warfare agents). The extraordinary toxicity of organophosphates and the risk of deployment, make it critical to develop means for their rapid and efficient deactivation. Organophosphate hydrolase (OPH) already plays an important role in organophosphate remediation, but is insufficient for therapeutic or prophylactic purposes primarily due to low substrate affinity. Current efforts focus on directly modifying the active site to differentiate substrate specificity and increase catalytic activity. Here, we present a novel strategy for enhancing the general catalytic efficiency of OPH through computational redesign of the residues that are allosterically coupled to the active site and validated our design by mutagenesis. Specifically, we identify five such hot-spot residues for allosteric regulation and assay these mutants for hydrolysis activity against paraoxon, a chemical-weapons simulant. A high percentage of the predicted mutants exhibit enhanced activity over wild-type (kcat =16.63 s-1), such as T199I/T54I (899.5 s-1) and C227V/T199I/T54I (848 s-1), while the Km remains relatively unchanged in our high-throughput cell-free expression system. Further computational studies of protein dynamics reveal four distinct distal regions coupled to the active site that display significant changes in conformation dynamics upon these identified mutations. These results validate a computational design method that is both efficient and easily adapted as a general procedure for enzymatic enhancement.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Current techniques for building detection in Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) imagery can be computationally expensive and/or enforce stringent requirements for data acquisition. I present two techniques that are effective and efficient at determining an approximate building location. This approximate location can be used to extract a portion of the SAR image to then perform a more robust detection. The proposed techniques assume that for the desired image, bright lines and shadows, SAR artifact effects, are approximately labeled. These labels are enhanced and utilized to locate buildings, only if the related bright lines and shadows can be grouped. In order to find which of the bright lines and shadows are related, all of the bright lines are connected to all of the shadows. This allows the problem to be solved from a connected graph viewpoint, where the nodes are the bright lines and shadows and the arcs are the connections between bright lines and shadows. For the first technique, constraints based on angle of depression and the relationship between connected bright lines and shadows are applied to remove unrelated arcs. The second technique calculates weights for the connections and then performs a series of increasingly relaxed hard and soft thresholds. This results in groups of various levels on their validity. Once the related bright lines and shadows are grouped, their locations are combined to provide an approximate building location. Experimental results demonstrate the outcome of the two techniques. The two techniques are compared and discussed.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Sandia journal manuscript; Not yet accepted for publication
Discrete-optimal model-reduction techniques such as the Gauss{Newton with Approximated Tensors (GNAT) method have shown promise, as they have generated stable, accurate solutions for large-scale turbulent, compressible ow problems where standard Galerkin techniques have failed. However, there has been limited comparative analysis of the two approaches. This is due in part to difficulties arising from the fact that Galerkin techniques perform projection at the time-continuous level, while discrete-optimal techniques do so at the time-discrete level. This work provides a detailed theoretical and experimental comparison of the two techniques for two common classes of time integrators: linear multistep schemes and Runge{Kutta schemes. We present a number of new ndings, including conditions under which the discrete-optimal ROM has a time-continuous representation, conditions under which the two techniques are equivalent, and time-discrete error bounds for the two approaches. Perhaps most surprisingly, we demonstrate both theoretically and experimentally that decreasing the time step does not necessarily decrease the error for the discrete-optimal ROM; instead, the time step should be `matched' to the spectral content of the reduced basis. In numerical experiments carried out on a turbulent compressible- ow problem with over one million unknowns, we show that increasing the time step to an intermediate value decreases both the error and the simulation time of the discrete-optimal reduced-order model by an order of magnitude.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
We lay the foundation for a benchmarking methodology for assessing current and future quantum computers. We pose and begin addressing fundamental questions about how to fairly compare computational devices at vastly different stages of technological maturity. We critically evaluate and offer our own contributions to current quantum benchmarking efforts, in particular those involving adiabatic quantum computation and the Adiabatic Quantum Optimizers produced by D-Wave Systems, Inc. We find that the performance of D-Wave's Adiabatic Quantum Optimizers scales roughly on par with classical approaches for some hard combinatorial optimization problems; however, architectural limitations of D-Wave devices present a significant hurdle in evaluating real-world applications. In addition to identifying and isolating such limitations, we develop algorithmic tools for circumventing these limitations on future D-Wave devices, assuming they continue to grow and mature at an exponential rate for the next several years.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.
Abstract not provided.