Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Databases”

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 199 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Multiscale ACI Satellite Database

The SATELLITE_EAGLES_PNNL NetCDF dataset contains a suite of satellite- and reanalysis-derived atmospheric and surface parameters on a regular latitude–longitude grid. The dataset includes core geophysical fields such as land fraction, aerosol optical depth at multiple wavelengths (465, 550, 667, and 865 nm), sea surface temperature, estimated inversion strength, and various thermodynamic and dynamic quantities (e.g., relative humidity, vertical velocity, boundary-layer height, and surface fluxes) from both MERRA and ERA reanalysis products, provided as daily-mean and instantaneous values. A major component of the dataset consists of MODIS-retrieved cloud microphysical properties, including cloud droplet number concentration, cloud effective radius, optical thickness, and liquid water path, provided for three compositing regimes (“All,” “Q06,” and “G18”). Corresponding cloud-top parameters—temperature, height, and pressure—along with total and domain-mean cloud fraction fields are also included. The file further integrates additional satellite data from AMSR-E (for cloud water, rain water, and surface precipitation retrievals) and CERES (for top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes, cloud fractions, and albedo). This dataset is designed to evaluate aerosol–cloud interactions in warm clouds, emphasizing the use of MODIS for deriving cloud droplet number concentration and liquid water path statistics. The complementary satellite and reanalysis fields are co-located and time-matched to the same instantaneous MODIS observations, enabling consistent comparisons between cloud properties, aerosol loading, and large-scale meteorological conditions. The dataset is recently featured in Christensen et al. (2025), Machine Learning Reveals Strong Grid-Scale Dependence in the Satellite Nd–LWP Relationship, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3850, 2025.

Christensen, Matthew [Pacific Northwest National L↗
DOE OSTI2025

Multiscale ACI Satellite Database

The SATELLITE_EAGLES_PNNL NetCDF dataset contains a suite of satellite- and reanalysis-derived atmospheric and surface parameters on a regular latitude–longitude grid. The dataset includes core geophysical fields such as land fraction, aerosol optical depth at multiple wavelengths (465, 550, 667, and 865 nm), sea surface temperature, estimated inversion strength, and various thermodynamic and dynamic quantities (e.g., relative humidity, vertical velocity, boundary-layer height, and surface fluxes) from both MERRA and ERA reanalysis products, provided as daily-mean and instantaneous values. A major component of the dataset consists of MODIS-retrieved cloud microphysical properties, including cloud droplet number concentration, cloud effective radius, optical thickness, and liquid water path, provided for three compositing regimes (“All,” “Q06,” and “G18”). Corresponding cloud-top parameters—temperature, height, and pressure—along with total and domain-mean cloud fraction fields are also included. The file further integrates additional satellite data from AMSR-E (for cloud water, rain water, and surface precipitation retrievals) and CERES (for top-of-atmosphere radiative fluxes, cloud fractions, and albedo). This dataset is designed to evaluate aerosol–cloud interactions in warm clouds, emphasizing the use of MODIS for deriving cloud droplet number concentration and liquid water path statistics. The complementary satellite and reanalysis fields are co-located and time-matched to the same instantaneous MODIS observations, enabling consistent comparisons between cloud properties, aerosol loading, and large-scale meteorological conditions. The dataset is recently featured in Christensen et al. (2025), Machine Learning Reveals Strong Grid-Scale Dependence in the Satellite Nd–LWP Relationship, EGUsphere [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-3850, 2025.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR)

From Lisk et al. (2024): "In the arid and semi-arid western U.S., access to water is regulated through a legal system of water rights. Individuals, companies, organizations, municipalities, and tribal entities have documents that declare their water rights. State water regulatory agencies collate and maintain these records, which can be used in legal disputes over access to water. While these records are publicly available data in all western U.S. states, the data have not yet been readily available in digital form from all states. Furthermore, there are many differences in data format, terminology, and definitions between state water regulatory agencies. Here, we have collected water rights data from 11 western U.S. state agencies, harmonized terminology and use definitions, formatted them consistently, and tied them to a western U.S.-wide shapefile of water administrative boundaries. We demonstrate how these data enable consistent regional-scale western U.S. hydrologic and economic modeling."

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2025

Capturing Historic Reliability Performance Through Graph Databases: A Model Based System Engineering Approach

With the goal of improving the performance and reliability of high dependable technological systems such as nuclear power plants, advanced monitoring and health management systems are employed to inform system engineers on observed degradation processes and anomalous behaviors of assets and components. This information is captured in the form of large amount of data which can be heterogenous in nature (e.g., numeric, textual). Such large data availability poses challenges when system engineers are required to parse and analyze them in order to track historic reliability performance of assets and components. This paper tackles directly this challenge by providing means to organize data in the form of a graph: a knowledge graph. The presented approach distinguish itself from current knowledge graph-based methods by the fact that model-based system engineering (MBSE) models are used to “put data into context”. In particular, MBSE models are used as skeleton of a knowledge graph; numeric and textual data elements, once processed, are associated to MBSE model elements. Thus, a knowledge graph captures both system architecture (though MBSE models) and health/performance data. Such feature opens the door to new data analytics methods designed to identify causal relations between observed phenomena.

97 - MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Topsoil bulk geochemical compositions - An updated harmonized global dataset

Mineral weathering is a key biogeochemical process because of the capacity of minerals to stabilize organic matter. However, predicting soil weathering status across large spatial areas still isn’t possible due to a lack of global data and theoretical frameworks. To address this knowledge gap, multiple global datasets of bulk topsoil geochemical compositions have been harmonized using R. These datasets document topsoil bulk geochemical compositions across five continents (n = ~16,000 observations). Source data for these observations include the EuroGEOSurveys Geochemical Baseline Database (FOREGS), the US Geological Survey National Geochemical Database (NASGLP), the Geochemical Atlas of Australia (GAA), the US Geological Survey Alaska Geochemical Database (AGD84), the National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS), the European Geochemical Mapping of Agricultural Soil (GEMAS), Ecorespira-Amazon (ERA), the New Zealand Geochemical Baseline Survey (NZ_GBS), and the African Soil Information Service (AFSIS). Major elements observed include Aluminum (Al), Calcium (Ca), Iron (Fe), Potassium (K), Magnesium (Mg), Sodium (Na), Titanium (Ti), Manganese (Mn), Phosphorus (P), Carbon (C), and Sulfur (S). This data package includes the harmonized dataset itself, and the R scripts necessary to harmonize these datasets, in addition to metadata that describes all columns, files, and databases used in this project. Methods & Sampling Step 1 – Databases of geochemical data identified This study aimed to leverage existing measurements of topsoil geochemical data. Databases were first identified and deemed appropriate for inclusion if they were measuring soils and performed these measurements on the <2mm soil fraction. Databases such as NCSS and AGD84 needed more post processing to include in the database and this was done using the NCSS_datamerge_031626 R file and Alaska_USGSmerge_031626 R file, respectively. Step 2 – Database harmonization Once appropriate databases were identified, they were harmonized for ease of analysis using the R script Database_Harmonization_031826. This included removing columns from original datasets that would not be used in analysis (removed columns are noted in the code). Then, data cleaning procedures specific to each dataset were undertaken. This includes standardizing columns to include units and adding metadata columns regarding procedures for analyzing specific elements. Functions for standardizing measurements and units are outline in R files: calculate element_mg_kg_031626, calculate_oxide_wt_perc_031626, change_oxide_caps_031626, and conv_2_numeric_031626. This also included adding a unique identifier for each sample to identify it with its respective database (see CD_ID in data dictionary). Geographic information: Data reflect a compilation of datasets collected globally. Geographic areas covered by each of the datasets include: - EuroGEOSurveys Geochemical Baseline Database (FOREGS) - European continent - North American Soil Geochemical Landscapes (NASGLP) - continental United States and limited parts of Canada (see database key for more details) - National Geochemical Survey of Australia (GAA) - Australia - Alaska geochemical database (AGDB4) - Alaska - National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) - Global measurements, but concentrated in the continental United States - Geochemical data for arable land and land under permanent grass cover in continental Europe (GEMAS) - continental Europe - Ecorespira-Amazon (ERA) - Geochemical data from the Amazon basin - Geochemical baseline data for New Zealand (NZGBS) - New Zealand - Geochemical data collected across continental Africa (AfSIS) - Measurements across Africa

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2025

Evaluation of New Additions to OLI Software in Predicting Mercuric and Mercurous Species in Liquid Waste Operations

Speciation of mercury during the pretreatment steps of tank waste processing is critical to successful mercury removal prior to vitrification during Liquid Waste Operations (LWO) at SRS. OLI software has been used to predict mercury speciation and activity throughout LWO. The OLI software operates based on a thermodynamic framework called the Mixed Solvent Electrolyte (MSE) framework. The MSE framework allows prediction in theoretically infinitely dilute to concentrated mixtures (e.g., purely solute solutions). Before modification to the MSE framework databanks, certain critical mercury species were missing in the MSE databank, and some thermodynamic data needed to be updated for the OLI software to accurately predict mercury chemical species in SRS waste tanks. To better reflect streams across LWO, new mercury species were integrated into the MSE database. To evaluate the changes to the OLI MSE framework per the Technical Task Request (TTR) and the Task Technical and Quality Assurance Plan (TTQAP), waste stream compositions from Tanks 38, 43, and Tank 50 decontaminated salt solution (DSS) were used as model inputs. Models were developed and executed using both the old and new databases. Compositional analyses from caustic Tank 50 DSS and caustic Tanks 38 and 43 were used as the input streams. These streams represent the most comprehensive chemical data sets where both mercury and tank constituents were measured together. Results for Tank 50 DSS predict HgO as the predominant species in both databases. Both methyl and dimethyl Hg species are present when the new database is ‘on’ and are not predicted with the new database turned ‘off’. The new database predicts a greater amount of HgO and a greater fraction of it in the solid phase. Pourbaix diagrams (potential vs. pH) generated for each Tank 50 DSS were identical regardless of which database was used. Elemental Hg and HgO were predicted in the water stable region under basic conditions. Tanks 38 and 43 follow similar trends as the Tank 50 DSS models. Unlike Tanks 38 and 50 DSS, the Tank 43 Pourbaix plot shows a region of stability for an aqueous HgOHCO3 - species between approximately pH 7-11. In all streams, when MeHg+ is included in the inputs, the new database predicts aqueous MeHgOH as the dominant species. If elemental or dimethyl mercury is in the waste stream, the new database model predicts they are unchanged and remain in those states and quantities. Additionally, the total mercury values are reported for both the measured input data and the OLI output data for all considered tanks. The summary indicates that the percentage error between the measured and calculated values is less than 1% in all cases The reconciliations and generation of the Pourbaix diagrams for Tank 50 DSS took approximately ten times longer with the new database ‘on’. In addition, over the course of that time, models with the new database ‘on’ were more likely to crash or display an error. Some modest performance improvements were noted when modeling with an i7 processor versus an i5. An example error is found in Appendix A. Furthermore, Appendix B provides V&V for two chemical systems analyzed with the OLI software, results were satisfactory. It is recommended to utilize the new databases (i.e., HCO.ddb and SR-Hg.ddb) in future Savannah River Mission Completion applications of OLI to represent pseudo steady-state. Furthermore, the integration and utilization of the new databases (i.e., HCO.ddb and SR-Hg.ddb) in modeling applications (e.g., Aspen) is also recommended.

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

Specifications of Legacy U(Pu)Zr Metallography Data

The DOE Nuclear Energy Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) Program has supported the creation of several databases with information describing the safety performance of fast reactors, components, and fuels. This growing collection of legacy experimental data, operating data, and analysis is available online to registered users. Metallography data is one of the most important types of PIE data being collected, organized and stored in several ART Fast Reactor Databases (https://frdb.ne.anl.gov), including the Fuels Irradiation & Physics Database (FIPD), Out-of-Pile Transient Database (OPTD), and TREAT (the Transient Reactor Test Facility) Experimental Relational Database (TREXR). These databases contain three main sets of metallography data. The first set is the metallography data from Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) and Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) irradiated fuel pins measured in the Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF); the second set is the metallography data from EBR-II irradiated fuel pins measured in the Alpha-Gamma Hot Cell Facility (AGHCF); the third set is the metallography data from transient tested fuel pins (the transients tests include the out-of-pile tests and TREAT tests) measured in AGHCF. Since both the second and third sets of data were measured in AGHCF, they are governed by the same specification. The metallography data in the databases are digital images scanned from either positive or negative photos. The quality of the images, including their resolution and contrast, relies on the preserved quality of the pictures and the scanning conditions. To analyze the microstructure of a fuel pin, a series of preparatory steps must be undertaken. These include sectioning, epoxy mounting, mechanical grinding and polishing, and often etching. The resulting samples were then transferred to a secondary hot cell, or glovebox (depending the strength of radiation field) for microscopy examination. The specifications provided herein focus on the metallography examinations. The sample grinding, polishing and etching processes are also discussed. The procedures involving sectioning and epoxy mounting are out of the scope of the current specification; details can be found in the corresponding operation manuals. If more data are collected and added to the ART Fast Reactor Databases, this specification will be updated to accommodate the additional data.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Hydropower Infrastructure - LAkes, Reservoirs, and RIvers (HILARRI), v4

HILARRI is a database of links between major datasets of operational hydropower dams and powerplants, and inland water bodies. These connections are critical for conducting large-scale analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated natural and engineered water systems. Features include: – Dams from the National Inventory of Dams (2025) and the Global Reservoir and Dam Database (GRanD v1.3) – Hydropower plants from the Existing Hydropower Assets dataset (EHA 2025) – Power plants that are listed in the 2025 U.S. Hydropower Development Pipeline Data or were listed in previous versions of the dataset These hydropower infrastructure features are linked to several major datasets that provide hydrologic and hydraulic information relevant for analysis of hydropower systems that includes the integral water resources. That information comes from: – Products from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) – NHDPlusV2 Medium Resolution river network flowlines, – NHD waterbodies (limited to lakes and reservoirs), – NHD Watershed Boundary Dataset (HUC12-level for the Conterminous United States (CONUS)) – NHD High Resolution waterbodies – HydroLAKES water bodies (lakes and reservoirs) – LAGOS-US lakes and reservoirs – EPA National Lakes Assessment (2007, 2012, 2017, and 2022) – The Reservoir Sedimentation Database (RESSED) – EPA SuRGE sampling locations Unique identifiers are used to facilitate joining to the original full datasets. For example, characteristics of NHD flowlines such as estimated average flow rate can be joined from the NHDPlusV2 dataset to a dam or power plant listed in HILARRI based on the ID field, “COMID”, that is common to both datasets. HILARRI only includes basic information about identifiers, location, and data quality or usage notes. It does not contain the attributes or time series data associated with these sites. The HILARRI dataset incorporates information from several datasets to facilitate more effective and accurate analysis of hydropower infrastructure and their associated waterbodies. For example, dams were checked against the most recent American Rivers Dam Removal Database to identify and flag facilities that may no longer exist. Additionally, dams that are listed multiple times in the NID are identified and flagged to avoid double-counting when analyzing and summarizing information. Other quality flags include certainty of operational hydropower (i.e., if one or more datasets indicates hydropower at a particular location), whether an associated water body is accurate or composed of multiple polygons, or whether there is a known issue with reported characteristics in one of the underlying datasets. These additional data flags are designed to increase confidence in data usage for individual to large-scale analyses.

Hansen, Carly [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000193280838)↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas

IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas Description This dataset contains locations of existing data center facilities in the United States. Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap (OSM), a crowd-sourced database. Data points from OSM are processed in various ways to determine additional variables provided in the data including: facility area (square feet), associated US county, and US state. This dataset can be used to identify areas of concentrated data center development and inform government and private sector planning strategies for future buildout of data centers and the infrastructure necessary to support it. Usage Notes Validation of OSM-derived data center locations is an ongoing development under the IM3 project, and the database will be updated as new information becomes available. In some instances, both the data center area (e.g., campus) and individual data center buildings are included as overlapping areas in the database. Both values are retained. Data center points, buildings, and campus areas are provided as separate layers in the downloadable data package. Note that data items are not necessarily complete across layers. That is, a specific data center may only be present as a single point geometry in the "point" layer while other data centers are represented in both the campus and building layers. In some cases, data center campuses and/or buildings straddle a county boundary line. Mappings to both counties are retained in the database as separate rows. These data rows will have the same data center id information, but each will have different county information. Crowd-sourced data, by nature, relies on individuals and communities to provide information. As a result, some data may be missing where it has not yet been reported. As we collect information on additional data center locations and as OSM receives additional contributions, the database will be updated to capture additional data points not yet shown. Data items will occasionally be removed from OSM if they are misidentified, if they no longer exist, if they are duplicates of another item, or similar. For that reason, updated versions of this database may not contain all data center locations included in previous versions. Technical Information Data is available for download under the following formats: GeoPackage (GPKG) CSV Geospatial data is provided in the WGS84 (EPSG:4326) coordinate reference system. The GeoPackage download contains the following layers. See usage notes for more information. "point" "building" "campus" The "point" layer includes all data from OSM that had POINT geometry type (i.e., individual coordinates). The "building" layer includes all OSM data that did not have POINT geometry and where the building tag in the OSM export was neither equal to "no" or null. Data that did not meet the "point" or "building" qualification was assumed to be a facility campus and included in the "campus" layer. The dataset contains the following parameters. Variables provided by OSM are labeled with (OSM-provided). id - unique identification number (OSM-provided with prefix of "node/", "relation/" and similar attributes removed) state - name of US state state_abb - two letter US state abbreviation state_id - state ID number county - name of US county county_id - county ID number ref - reference numbers or codes (OSM-provided) operator - the name of the company, corporation, or person in charge facility (OSM-provided) name - name of facility (OSM-provided) sqft - surface area of facility polygon, measured in square feet. Only available for "building" and "campus" layers lat - latitude of data centroid point lon - longitude of data centroid point type – represented spatial information. One of "point", "building", or "campus". geometry – POLYGON geometry of area footprint (in "campus" and "building" layers) or POINT geometry of locations (in "point" layer). This parameter is not included in the csv download. Attribution Data center locations were derived from OpenStreetMap, which is made available at openstreetmap.org under the Open Database License (ODbL). US state and county boundary information was collected from the US Census Bureau for the year 2024, which is made publicly available at https://www.census.gov/geographies/mapping-files.html Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License The IM3 Open Source Data Center Atlas is made available under the Open Database License: http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/. Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall [Pacific Northwest National Labor↗
DOE OSTI2024

Path Forward: Materials Data Modernization for ASME Codes and Standards in the Artificial Intelligence Era

Development of the ASME Materials Properties Database was initiated in the early 2010s to support the ASME Codes and Standards. As information technologies advance at an accelerated pace with the artificial intelligence era on the horizon, the ASME Materials Properties Database must be further modernized from a database to a knowledgebase to ride the wave of digital information revolution and effectively support the ASME Codes and Standards in the new era. This paper is intended to provide an overview of the ASME Materials Properties Database and discuss a roadmap for its future development to facilitate understanding of and participation from different sectors of the Codes and Standards community. Further, it first reviews the basic concepts of data, information, knowledge, database, and database system as well as the pros and cons in different types of data management and then discusses the path forward for a desired evolution of the database into a self-explanatory and machine-readable knowledgebase that is consistent with human cognitive processes for the Codes and Standards development and, furthermore, provides resources for data processing and analysis to reach an eventual goal of streamlining the Codes and Standards development from the initial inquiry, throughout data submission, analysis, …, to Codes and Standards rule establishment for final publication.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2024

M3SF-24LL010302062-NEA-TDB Management and International Collaborations in Sorption and Thermodynamic Modeling

This progress report (Level 3 Milestone Number M3SF-24LL010302062) summarizes research conducted at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) within the Crystalline International Collaborations Work Package Number SF-24LL01030206. The activity is focused on our long-term commitment to engaging our partners in international nuclear waste repository research. This includes participation in the Nuclear Energy Agency Thermochemical Database (NEA-TDB) Project and development of methodologies for integrating US and international thermodynamic databases for use in SFWST Generic Disposal System Assessment (GDSA) efforts. A continuing focus for FY24 efforts is to support the US participation in the NEA-TDB effort. The focus of FY24 activities was the development of an agreement for a Phase 7 activity that will start in Q1 of 2025. Mavrik Zavarin is now the US representative on both the Management Board and the Executive group to the NEA-TDB. He is also the POC for the Cements State of the Art Report that is undergoing peer review in FY24. In FY24, we used our position on the NEA-TDB MB and EG to facilitate the integration of NEA-TDB thermochemical data with LLNL’s SUPCRTNE thermodynamic database that supports the SFWST GDSA activities. This effort is coordinated with the Argillite work package SUPCRTNE database development efforts (Wolery, 2024). The goal is to provide a downloadable database that will be hosted on LLNL’s thermodynamics website which incorporates NEA-TDB data into the LLNL database where appropriate. We also began engagement with the EURAD2 program that was initiated in FY24 by our European collaborators at the Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Germany. The primary focus of the engagement is with WP20: DITUSC Thermodynamic database evaluation program. A kickoff meeting for this activity is planned for early FY25. Finally, we have been selected to co-host (with Clemson University) the International Conference on Chemistry and Migration Behaviour of Actinides and Fission Products in the Geosphere in 2025 (Migration2025). The meeting will be held September 21-26, 2025, in New Orleans, Louisiana, and will focus on international efforts to understand the risks of radionuclide releases into the environment. This central focus of this conference is on international efforts to develop safe disposal options for nuclear wastes. As such, we are developing a theme focused on US underground nuclear waste repository science.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗