Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “sensor model”

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 181 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

A Synoptic System for Capturing Ecosystem Control Points Across Terrestrial‐Aquatic Interfaces

Interconnected landscape features such as terrestrial‐aquatic interfaces play an outsized role in biogeochemical cycles as ecosystem control points, but it is notoriously challenging to characterize these. Here, we document a synoptic sensor network design that is (a) flexible to accommodate diverse ecosystem interfaces and gradients, (b) adaptable to monitoring and modeling needs of small and large projects alike, (c) standardized for intercomparability across sites and field experiments, and (d) adequately replicated to capture heterogeneity of each parameter monitored. This real‐time monitoring of surface water, groundwater, soil, and vegetation supports configuration and evaluation of models that span upland, wetland, open water strata, and transitions between them. We established the network at seven sites along the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie coastlines, including large‐scale flood manipulation experiments in both regions. A central design element is “one data logger program to rule them all”—a collection of sensor‐specific modules deployed on 40 loggers controlling ∼2,000 sensors, with the goal of streamlining maintenance, debugging, and reproducible data processing. The network generates ∼6 M observations per month, capturing system dynamics at the broad spatial and fine temporal scales needed to initialize and benchmark models; measurement frequency can be modified remotely to capture events. This network design has also revealed behaviors not represented in Earth system models, such as transient groundwater oxygen pulses. Completely documented and open source, this standardized, flexible, and efficient sensor network design can reduce barriers to understanding environmental changes and ecosystem responses across systems and scales.

Ward, Nicholas D. [Pacific Northwest National Labo↗
DOE OSTI2026

Development of a Digital Twin for Hydrogen Dispersion and Safety Assessment in an Electrolyzer-Based Hydrogen Production Facility: Preprint

Digital twin models are virtual representations of physical systems that use real-time data to simulate and optimize performance. This study presents the development and initial implementation of a digital twin (DT) for the electrolyzer-based hydrogen production facility at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)'s Advanced Research on Integrated Energy Systems (ARIES), focused on enhancing safety and optimizing sensor placement through physics-based simulations and metadata integration. The DT incorporates detailed facility-specific information, including component layout, leak locations, and controlled release parameters, to model hydrogen dispersion under varying environmental conditions. Using steady-state computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations informed by real meteorological data, such as wind speed, direction, and vertical wind profiles, the DT enables visualization of hydrogen plume behavior and spatial concentration distributions. Comparative analysis between high and low wind speed scenarios illustrates the significant influence of wind dynamics on plume shape and extent, with horizontal momentum dominating dispersion at higher speeds, while buoyancy effects become more prominent under low wind conditions. These simulations generate a rich dataset embedded within the DT, allowing users to assess potential leak outcomes and identify optimal sensor locations based on concentration thresholds. The model supports scenario-based analysis to guide safety strategies and equipment deployment for open-area hydrogen infrastructure. The digital twin thus serves as a dynamic platform for virtual prototyping, providing predictive insight into hydrogen behavior and enhancing risk-informed decision-making. This initial phase establishes a validated foundation for future integration of transient, uncontrolled leak scenarios and real-time sensor feedback, positioning the DT as a critical tool for safety design, operational planning, and adaptive monitoring in hydrogen systems. Overall, the approach demonstrates the value of combining environmental data with digital simulations to inform safer and more efficient deployment of hydrogen technologies.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2025

A co-registered in-situ and ex-situ dataset from wire arc additive manufacturing process

Recent progress in sensing techniques and data analytics tools have significantly accelerated the development of Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) systems. This data-centric approach emphasizes leveraging sensor data available throughout the production process to optimize performance. Integration of extensive data analysis provides opportunities for improving precision, reducing waste, and enhancing the quality of produced parts. This method relies on AI/ML models and optimization techniques, which are developed using the data collected from various sources, including in-situ sensors, ex-situ imaging, and manufacturing process parameters. The quality and diversity of this data, along with the alignment between different data streams (achieved through spatiotemporal registration) are critical for the successful development of AI/ML and optimization models. In this work, we present a spatiotemporally registered dataset generated during the WAAM process of deposition of a rectangular block. The dataset includes a comprehensive description of the deposition process, process parameters, welding characteristics and acoustic data collected in-situ, and X-Ray Computed Tomography data of the build.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Ion concentration polarization causes a nearly pore-length-independent conductance of nanopores

There has been a great amount of interest in nanopores as the basis for sensors and templates for preparation of biomimetic channels as well as model systems to understand transport properties at the nanoscale. The presence of surface charges on the pore walls has been shown to induce ion selectivity as well as enhance ionic conductance compared to uncharged pores. Here, using three-dimensional continuum modeling, we examine the role of the length of charged nanopores as well as applied voltage for controlling ion selectivity and ionic conductance of single nanopores and small nanopore arrays. First, we present conditions where the ion current and ion selectivity of nanopores with homogeneous surface charges remain unchanged, even if the pore length decreases by a factor of 6. This length-independent conductance is explained through the effect of ion concentration polarization (ICP), which modifies local ionic concentrations, not only at the pore entrances but also in the pore in a voltage-dependent manner. We describe how voltage controls the ion selectivity of nanopores with different lengths and present the conditions when charged nanopores conduct less current than uncharged pores of the same geometrical characteristics. The manuscript provides different measures of the extent of the depletion zone induced by ICP in single pores and nanopore arrays, including systems with ionic diodes. In conclusion, the modeling shown here will help design selective nanopores for a variety of applications where single nanopores and nanopore arrays are used.

Cain, DaVante↗
DOE OSTI2026

Virtual Inspection of Advanced Manufacturing via Process-Scale Digital Twins (Abbreviated Report)

Inspection and certification comprise the most significant bottlenecks in advanced manufacturing for NNSA applications, often requiring far more time and resources than the fabrication of the parts themselves. Traditional methods, such as manual review and X-ray computed tomography, are not only slow and costly, but also struggle to provide a clear connection between manufacturing instructions and the final performance of critical components. This gap limits both the agility and assurance needed to support the modernization and safety of the United States nuclear stockpile. In response, our Strategic Initiative established a digital twin framework that integrates realtime process monitoring, automated data analysis, and immersive virtual reality collaboration into a unified inspection pipeline. By leveraging data from sensors, machine instructions, and imaging, we created high-fidelity virtual models of manufactured parts that could be rapidly analyzed and certified. This approach was first demonstrated with Direct Ink Write, and then extended to other manufacturing settings, including conventional (or “subtractive”) manufacturing and to predict the end of life performance of parts per the aging and lifetimes programs. The result is a transformational capability: inspection times have been reduced by a factor of 120,000 without loss of accuracy and while simultaneously improving traceability and confidence in part quality. This framework not only streamlines certification for critical applications, but also positions the national security enterprise to respond more flexibly to emerging challenges, supporting agile manufacturing and digital engineering practices across a broad range of mission-relevant domains.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Wireless Patch Antenna Characterization for Live Health Monitoring Using Machine Learning

Temperature monitoring in extreme environments, such as coal-fired power plants, was addressed by designing and testing wireless patch antennas for use in machine learning-aided temperature estimation. The sensors were designed to monitor the temperature and health of boiler systems. Wireless interrogation of the sensor was performed using a Vector Network Analyzer (VNA) and a pair of interrogation antennas to capture resonance behavior under varying thermal and spatial conditions with sensitivities ranging from 0.052 to 0.20 $\frac{𝑀𝐻𝑧}{°C}$. Sensor calibration was conducted using a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model, which leveraged temporal patterns to account for hysteresis effects. The calibration method demonstrated improved performance when combined with an LSTM model, achieving up to a 76% improvement in temperature estimation error when compared with Linear Regression (LR). The experiments highlighted an innovative solution for patch antenna-based non-contact temperature measurement, which addresses limitations with conventional methods such as RFID-based systems, infrared, and thermocouples.

20 FOSSIL-FUELED POWER PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

NREL Hydrogen Sensor Testing Laboratory

Relevance: Detection is recognized as a critical element for hydrogen facility safety design and supports risk mitigation. Detection methodologies will support validation of H2 behavior research. Hydrogen point sensors play a critical role for safety and process monitoring, but other methodologies can be developed. Approach: NREL Sensor Laboratory tests and verifies sensor performance for manufacturers, developers, end-users, regulatory agencies and SDOs/CDOs NREL deployment activity supports regulatory requirement verification, hydrogen behavior models, and method development for use by stakeholders. Accomplishments and Progress: NREL's R&D accomplishments have supported developers, industry, and SDOs by providing sensor performance and deployment expertise not otherwise available. Development of alternative detection strategies for hydrogen applications have been initiated. HyWAM and advanced detection methodologies deployments at H2@Scale Facilities are being implemented. Collaborations: Collaboration with government laboratories, universities, private organizations and regulatory agencies has leveraged the NREL Sensor Laboratory's success in advancing hydrogen safety sensors and process control. Proposed Future Work: NREL will support hydrogen deployment by the proper implementation of hydrogen sensors and advanced detection strategies. NREL will continue to support science-based codes and standards. This effort will be guided by the needs of the hydrogen community.

codes and standards↗
DOE OSTI2025

Observation and Simulation of Methane Plumes During the Morning Boundary Layer Transition

Abstract Methane (CH 4 ) contributes significantly to global warming. However, accurate identification of CH 4 sources for reducing CH 4 emissions is often hampered by inadequate accuracy and spatiotemporal coverage of CH 4 detection, and lack of accurate CH 4 forward modeling used in top‐down inversion systems. In this study, a field experiment was conducted in Pampa, Texas using two CH 4 sensors (LI‐COR and OGI camera) to detect CH 4 releases. We investigated whether high‐resolution simulations using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model with greenhouse gases (WRF‐GHG) could accurately simulate the CH 4 plumes in the presence of evolving atmospheric boundary layer from sunrise to noon. CH 4 plumes showed substantial variation in time. At a release rate of ∼17.5 kg hr −1 , the maximum enhancement of CH 4 measured by LI‐COR was 2.6 ppm at sunrise (7:36 a.m.), 250 m from the release location. Within half an hour after sunrise, this enhancement decreased to 0.3–0.4 ppm. The enhancement was 0.2 ppm by 10:00 a.m. and further dropped to less than 0.1 ppm after 11:30 a.m. Due to the low temperature at sunrise, the OGI camera failed to detect the CH 4 plume. The WRF‐GHG large‐eddy simulation (LES) with 32 m grid spacing successfully reproduced these CH 4 enhancements. In situ measurements together with numerical simulations illustrate the impact of the transition from a stable boundary layer in the early morning to a convective boundary layer at noon on the dispersion of CH 4 plumes. Additionally, CH 4 plumes from a cattle farm in Oklahoma are briefly examined using the same modeling approach.

Hu, Xiao‐Ming [Center for Analysis and Prediction ↗
DOE OSTI2025

Measuring Local Turbulence Along the Optical Path: Multi-Beam Optical Seeing Sensor

Deflection of light along the optical path is a major source of image degradation for ground-based telescopes. Methods have been developed to measure upper atmospheric seeing based on models of the turbulence in the atmosphere, but due to boundary conditions, transmission within telescope enclosures is more complex. The Multi-beam Optical Seeing Sensor (MOSS) directly measures the component of the image quality degradation from inhomogeneity of the index of refraction within the telescope dome. MOSS outputs four near-parallel beams of light that travel along the optical path and are imaged by the telescope’s detector, landing like starlight on the telescope’s focal plane. By using a strobed light source, we can ‘freeze’ the instantaneous index variations transverse to the optical path. This system captures both ‘dome’ and ‘mirror’ seeing. Through plotting the standard deviation of differential motion between pairs of beams, MOSS enables characterization of the length scale of turbulence within the dome. The temporal coherence of temperature gradients can be probed with different pulse lengths, and the spatial coherence by comparing pairs at different separations across the aperture of the telescope. Optical path turbulence measurements, alongside other telemetry metrics, will guide thermal and airflow management to optimize image quality. A MOSS prototype was installed in the 1.2[Formula: see text]m Auxiliary Telescope (AuxTel) at the Vera C. Rubin Observatory in Chile, and preliminary data constrain the optical path turbulence with a lower bound of 1.4 arcsec. The optical path turbulence varied throughout the night of observing.

Astronomical seeing↗
DOE OSTI2026

Sensor Reduction for Diversion Detection in a Realistic Heat Pipe Microreactor Using Supervised Machine Learning

Microreactors are designed as a smaller, cheaper, and safer alternative to traditional nuclear power plants. Their non-traditional characteristics and prospect of mass production and deployment will likely require new approaches to nuclear safeguards. The primary proliferation concern with microreactors is the diversion of fuel material. Such diversion may produce measurable defects in key physical attributes like neutron flux, which may in turn be detectable using machine learning models. Preliminary work has demonstrated this ability for modeled nominal and diversion scenarios using large quantities of energy integrated neutron flux data. In practice, the number of available sensors for such measurements will be limited and energy integrated flux information will not be available. This work explores the ability of tree-based gradient boosted ensemble models to classify a given microreactor core is nominal or diversion, and determine the number of fuel pins diverted in the case of diversion with reduced numbers of sensors and more realistic detector responses. Classification accuracy of greater than 98% and regression errors as low as 5% of the total number of fuel pins were achieved with as few as 15 sensors, compared to 99% and 4.1% with a maximum of 240 sensors.

22 - GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

One-shot gas detection with transformer paired neural networks in Mako collected longwave infrared hyperspectral imagery

To date, careful data treatment workflows and statistical detectors are used to perform hyperspectral image (HSI) detection of any gas contained in a spectral library, which is often expanded with physics models to incorporate different spectral characteristics. In general, surrounding evidence or known gas-release parameters are used to provide confidence in or confirm detection capability, respectively. This makes quantifying detection performance difficult as it is nearly impossible to develop an absolute ground truth for gas target pixel presence in collected HSI. Consequently, developing and comparing new detection methods, especially machine learning (ML)-based methods, is susceptible to subjectivity in derived detection map quality. Here, in this work, we demonstrate the first use of transformer-based paired neural networks (PNNs) for one-shot gas target detection for multiple gases while providing quantitative classification and detection metrics for their use on labeled data. Terabytes of training data are generated from a database of long-wave infrared HSI obtained from historical Mako sensor campaigns over Los Angeles. By incorporating labels, singular signature representations, and a model development pipeline, we can tune and select PNNs to detect multiple gas targets that are not seen in training on a quantitative basis. We additionally assess our test set detections using interpretability techniques widely employed with ML-based predictors, but less common with detection methods relying on learned latent spaces.

Hyperspectral imaging↗
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 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 OSTI2025

A digital twin platform for building performance monitoring and optimization: Performance simulation and case studies

Advancements in sensor technology, data analytics, affordable compute, and communication infrastructure have paved the way for Digital Twin technology in optimizing building operations and controls. This study presents the development of an open and interoperable web-based Digital Twin platform for integrating diverse data streams and facilitating effective user interactions. The platform utilizes modern technologies for the web framework and time-series data management, ensuring scalability and responsiveness. The backend supports seamless integration of diverse data sources and emulators, incorporating data from building sensors and meters, external weather Application Programming Interfaces, and advanced EnergyPlus simulation models of the building and its energy systems including the Distributed Energy Resources that are formulated in Functional Mockup Units. A simulation case study was conducted with FlexLab, a test facility on Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory campus. The case study includes normal operations, Distributed Energy Resource integration, and power outage scenarios, to illustrate the Digital Twin’s ability to provide critical insights into energy performance and thermal resilience. The results demonstrated the platform’s potential as a decision-support tool for optimizing building energy performance and enhancing resilience against extreme weather events. Future work will focus on deploying the Digital Twin platform to a real building for field validation, extending its capabilities to cover more scenarios such as bidirectional Electric Vehicle interactions, and enhancing user engagement.

EnergyPlus↗
DOE OSTI2024

SIMULATION CLONING FOR DIGITAL TWINS: A SCALABLE APPROACH

Digital Twin (DT) methods represent an important technology in which a simulated model of the operations of a physical system uses real-time sensor data to simulate, monitor, and consequently, improve its operations. One of the primary objectives of such a DT is to inform the physical system of measures to be taken in response to one or multiple intervening events that can change the state of the physical system. As such, a capability that is able to carry out multiple scenario assessments in real time in readiness for such events is a very effective tool in the use of simulations as DTs. However, continuous evaluation with highly probable event simulation scenarios are challenging due to the constraints of finite memory and a large exploration space. This paper reports a novel methodology for the continuous evaluation of $k$ probabilistic \textit{what-if} event scenarios under finite resource constraints and demonstrates its use as a digital-twin for a real-world application.

Yoginath, Srikanth↗
DOE OSTI2024

A Co-Registered In-Situ and Ex-Situ Dataset of Electrical, Acoustic, and CT Characteristics from Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing Process

Recent progress in sensing techniques and data analytics tools have significantly accelerated the development of Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM) systems. This data centric approach emphasizes leveraging available data throughout the production process to optimize performance. Integration of extensive data analysis provides the opportunity to improve precision, reduce waste, and enhance the quality of produced parts. This method relies on AI/ML models and optimization techniques, which are developed using the data collected from various sources, including in-situ sensors, ex-situ imaging, and manufacturing process parameters. The quality and diversity of this data, along with the alignment between different data streams (achieved through spatiotemporal registration) are critical for the successful development of AI/ML and optimization models. In this work, we present a spatiotemporally registered dataset generated during the WAAM process of deposition of a rectangular block. The dataset includes the comprehensive description of deposition process, process parameters, in-situ collected welding characteristics, acoustic data, and X-Ray Computed Tomography analysis data for the build. Dataset A Co-Registered In-Situ and Ex-Situ Dataset of Electrical, Acoustic, and CT Characteristics from Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing Process has arisen under UT-Battelle, LLC’s Prime Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to manage and operate the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. UT-Battelle, LLC will not assert any rights under United States law or under the Prime Contract it has in the dataset against any user of the dataset, including any copyrights or patent rights. UT-Battelle, LLC requests that attribution to the dataset is provided as academically appropriate.

42 ENGINEERING↗
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 OSTI2025

Classifying thermodynamic cloud phase using machine learning models

Vertically resolved thermodynamic cloud-phase classifications are essential for studies of atmospheric cloud and precipitation processes. The Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Thermodynamic Cloud Phase (THERMOCLDPHASE) value-added product (VAP) uses a multi-sensor approach to classify the thermodynamic cloud phase by combining lidar backscatter and depolarization, radar reflectivity, Doppler velocity, spectral width, microwave-radiometer-derived liquid water path, and radiosonde temperature measurements. The measured pixels are classified as ice, snow, mixed phase, liquid (cloud water), drizzle, rain, and liq_driz (liquid+drizzle). We use this product as the ground truth to train three machine learning (ML) models to predict the thermodynamic cloud phase from multi-sensor remote sensing measurements taken at the ARM North Slope of Alaska (NSA) observatory: a random forest (RF), a multi-layer perceptron (MLP), and a convolutional neural network (CNN) with a U-Net architecture. Evaluations against the outputs of the THERMOCLDPHASE VAP with 1 year of data show that the CNN outperforms the other two models, achieving the highest test accuracy, F1 score, and mean intersection over union (IOU). Analysis of ML confidence scores shows that ice, rain, and snow have higher confidence scores, followed by liquid, while mixed, drizzle, and liq_driz have lower scores. Feature importance analysis reveals that the mean Doppler velocity and vertically resolved temperature are the most influential data streams for ML thermodynamic cloud-phase predictions. Lidar measurements exhibit lower feature importance due to rapid signal attenuation caused by the frequent presence of persistent low-level clouds at the NSA site. The ML models' generalization capacity is further evaluated by applying them at another Arctic ARM site in Norway using data taken during the ARM Cold-Air Outbreaks in the Marine Boundary Layer Experiment (COMBLE) field campaign. The models demonstrated similar performance to that observed at the NSA site. Finally, we evaluate the ML models' response to simulated instrument outages and signal degradation and show that a CNN U-Net model trained with input channel dropouts performs better when input fields are missing.

ARM Aerial Facility↗