Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Data modeling”

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 217 records · Page 12
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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↗
NASA NTRS2016

Ontologies for Aviation Data Management

Managing complex aviation data can be a significant challenge for any enterprise – whether a government agency, airline, airframe manufacturer, or aviation service provider. To handle this challenge, data models are typically developed to characterize and manage the data generated, used, and stored by a given enterprise. Unfortunately, different data providers employ qualitatively different data models, and this gives rise to problems exchanging data across organizational boundaries. Over the past decade, these problems have motivated data producers and consumers to look toward standardized data exchange models to address data interoperability. In this paper we examine some of these standardized data exchange models and compare them with a new type of data model based on ontologies. Ontology models have emerged in recent years from a confluence of research in the artificial intelligence, semantic web, and information science communities. This paper introduces ontology models, provides several use cases for ontologies relevant to aviation data management, and summarizes state of the art aviation prototype applications that utilize ontologies.

artificial intelligence↗
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 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↗
NASA NTRS2002

Technical Report Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation: A Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Radiative Model for Global Ocean Biogeochemical Models - Volume 22

An ocean-atmosphere radiative model (OARM) evaluates irradiance availability and quality in the water column to support phytoplankton growth and drive ocean thermodynamics. An atmospheric component incorporates spectral and directional effects of clear and cloudy skies as a function of atmospheric optical constituents, and spectral reflectance across the air-sea interface. An oceanic component evaluates the propagation of spectral and directional irradiance through the water column as a function of water, five phytoplankton groups, and chromophoric dissolved organic matter. It tracks the direct and diffuse streams from the atmospheric component, and a third stream, upwelling diffuse irradiance. The atmospheric component of OARM was compared to data sources at the ocean surface with a coefficient of determination (r2) of 0.97 and a root mean square of 12.1%.

Gregg, Watson W.↗
NASA NTRS1977

Acoustic loads on upper-surface-blown powered-lift systems

Powered-lift concepts are utilized in aircraft currently under development for STOL application. One of the concepts, upper surface blowing, places the jet exit just above the upper surface of the wing to produce powered lift from the jet exhaust blowing over the deflected flap. New data are presented to show the effects of airspeed, angle of attack, and angle of jet impingement. Scaling relationships are investigated concerning their applicability for extrapolating data to a different model size. The effects of a number of test parameters are examined and full-scale spectra are predicted from model data. It is concluded that scale models are an effective means for obtaining fluctuating pressure spectra for use in aircraft design. The prediction of full-scale loads from model data will require geometrically accurate models and closely spaced measurement locations.

Willis, C. M.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Towards a distributed information architecture for avionics data

Avionics data at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL consists of distributed, unmanaged, and heterogeneous information that is hard for flight system design engineers to find and use on new NASA/JPL missions. The development of a systematic approach for capturing, accessing and sharing avionics data critical to the support of NASA/JPL missions and projects is required. We propose a general information architecture for managing the existing distributed avionics data sources and a method for querying and retrieving avionics data using the Object Oriented Data Technology (OODT) framework. OODT uses XML messaging infrastructure that profiles data products and their locations using the ISO-11179 data model for describing data products. Queries against a common data dictionary (which implements the ISO model) are translated to domain dependent source data models, and distributed data products are returned asynchronously through the OODT middleware. Further work will include the ability to 'plug and play' new manufacturer data sources, which are distributed at avionics component manufacturer locations throughout the United States.

Information architecture↗
NASA NTRS1994

A lattice model for data display

In order to develop a foundation for visualization, we develop lattice models for data objects and displays that focus on the fact that data objects are approximations to mathematical objects and real displays are approximations to ideal displays. These lattice models give us a way to quantize the information content of data and displays and to define conditions on the visualization mappings from data to displays. Mappings satisfy these conditions if and only if they are lattice isomorphisms. We show how to apply this result to scientific data and display models, and discuss how it might be applied to recursively defined data types appropriate for complex information processing.

Hibbard, William L.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Introduction to Coupled Atmosphere/Ocean Modeling and Data Assimilation [for NWP, Subseasonal to Seasonal Prediction, Reanalysis]

An introduction to coupled modeling and data assimilation was presented, along with the current status of the community efforts. Motivation was shown for running forecasts with a coupled model from weather to seasonal scales, as was motivation for doing the data assimilation coupled as well. The different "flavors" of coupled data assimilation in use or planned at different modeling centers were discussed. Finally, a set of current and potential problem with coupled modeling and data assimilation were illustrated.

Molod, Andrea↗
DOE OSTI2026

Electromagnetic Transient Modeling of Large Data Centers for Grid-Level Studies

The magnitude and complexity of electricity usage patterns from large data centers are having significant impacts on the operation and dynamics of the power grid; grid operators and planners require a range of specialized data center models to properly evaluate these impacts and specify technical solutions as needed. Towards addressing this need, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has developed a library of electromagnetic transient (EMT) models for grid-level studies of data centers called the data center model library (DML). This report describes how the DML was created and how it may properly be used. The models present in the DML are generic models; subject matter expertise and additional technical data are needed to modify these models before they can represent any real data center. However, they will significantly reduce the level of effort required to develop site-specific models and can serve as a common starting point to guide industry towards a more refined consensus. Most of the models within DML are dedicated to representing the power electronics interfaces commonly used in modern data centers, such as double-conversion uninterruptible power supplies and single-phase power factor correction converters. These models are intended for use in grid-level studies and are a simplified aggregation of many small components. That said, background material on the physical and electrical design of large data centers is provided as companion material so that users can be aware of many of the details which have been omitted or streamlined as a matter of practical necessity. Additionally, guidance on the application of EMT analysis for data center interconnection studies is provided, which aids users in identifying when the DML is necessary and what sort of additional model development may be necessary for conducting real-world studies.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Electromagnetic Transient Modeling of Large Data Centers for Grid-Level Studies: Beta Release

The magnitude and complexity of electricity usage patterns from large data centers are having significant impacts on the operation and dynamics of the power grid; grid operators and planners require a range of specialized data center models to properly evaluate these impacts and specify technical solutions as needed. Towards addressing this need, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has developed a library of electromagnetic transient (EMT) models for grid-level studies of data centers called the data center model library (DML). This report describes how the DML was created and how it may properly be used. This report details the DML’s beta release, completed in July 2026. This is a revision and expansion of the alpha release, which was made available in January 2026 The models present in the DML are generic models; subject matter expertise and additional technical data are needed to modify these models before they can represent any real data center. However, they will significantly reduce the level of effort required to develop site-specific models and can serve as a common starting point to guide industry towards a more refined consensus. Most of the models within DML are dedicated to representing the power electronics interfaces commonly used in modern data centers, such as double-conversion uninterruptible power supplies and single-phase power factor correction converters. These models are intended for use in grid-level studies and are a simplified aggregation of many small components. That said, background material on the physical and electrical design of large data centers is provided as companion material so that users can be aware of many of the details which have been omitted or streamlined as a matter of practical necessity. Additionally, guidance on the application of EMT analysis for data center interconnection studies is provided, which aids users in identifying when the DML is necessary and what sort of additional model development may be necessary for conducting real-world studies.

electromagnetic transients↗
NASA NTRS1977

Behavior of volatiles in Mars' polar areas - A model incorporating new experimental data

A model has been developed to explain the north polar water vapor results obtained by the Viking orbiter Mars atmospheric water detector; it has also been used to compute the thickness of seasonally deposited CO2 frost, the variation of the total atmospheric pressure, and wind velocities due to mass motions associated with CO2 condensation. A north polar water ice thickness in excess of 1 m and an ice albedo a of 0.34(+0.06,-0.03) are inferred from a comparison of the model and experimental data. The model results confirm an earlier conclusion that the atmosphere over the ice is saturated. It is suggested that concentration of the atmospheric inert gases in the polar region, combined with local topography and arctic circulation patterns, could be responsible for the south remnant cap not being at the south pole

Davies, D. W.↗
NASA NTRS1994

FNAS UAH UVSP and complimentary data analysis and modeling

Several data sets obtained by the UVSP and HXIS instruments on board SMM were studied. From these data, several events of sequences of events were selected that are specially representative of the plethora of active region energetic phenomena that was simultaneously observed by UVSP and HXIS. The selection criteria was to have available both types of observations in active region flares that are not so bright that the UVSP instrument was switched off for protection, and at the same time flares that are not so dim in X-Rays that HXIS will have collected significant data. Another criteria of secondary importance was to select events where auxiliary optical data is available.

Fontenla, Juan M.↗
NASA NTRS1974

Rendezvous requirements and candidate worst case flights from the October 1973 space shuttle traffic model

Data appearing in the October 1973 space shuttle traffic model were analyzed to determine the rendezvous requirements for the proposed shuttle flights occurring between 1980 and 1991. Four families of flights have been identified, namely, single-payload rendezvous, multiple-payload rendezvous, payload and tug rendezvous, and tug only rendezvous. Charts have been prepared which summarize the respective data. Observations are presented for each of the four flight families, and worst case flights are proposed from each family for further analysis.

Kreiter, T. J.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Analysis of NASA Common Research Model Dynamic Data

Recent NASA Common Research Model (CRM) tests at the Langley National Transonic Facility (NTF) and Ames 11-foot Transonic Wind Tunnel (11-foot TWT) have generated an experimental database for CFD code validation. The database consists of force and moment, surface pressures and wideband wing-root dynamic strain/wing Kulite data from continuous sweep pitch polars. The dynamic data sets, acquired at 12,800 Hz sampling rate, are analyzed in this study to evaluate CRM wing buffet onset and potential CRM wing flow separation.

Balakrishna, S.↗
DOE OSTI2026

Electromagnetic Transient Modeling of Data Centers

This report serves as a user manual for the accompanying EMT model library developed by the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) for various equipment in large data centers. The EMT model library enables detailed modeling of large data center loads for conducting grid stability studies. The EMT model library for data centers include detailed models of a 5.5 kW power supply unit (PSU), a 2.5 uninterruptible power supply (UPS), a 260 MW gas turbine-generator, a 500 kW motor load, and a 33 kW IT rack. These components represent all major equipment in data centers that need to be modeled for performing grid stability studies for data centers.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS1997

The Benchmark Active Controls Technology Model Aerodynamic Data

The Benchmark Active Controls Technology (BACT) model is a part of the Benchmark Models Program (BMP). The BMP is a NASA Langley Research Center program that includes a series of models which were used to study different aeroelastic phenomena and to validate computational fluid dynamics codes. The primary objective of BACT testing was to obtain steady and unsteady loads, accelerations, and aerodynamic pressures due to control surface activity in order to calibrate unsteady CFD codes and active control design tools. Three wind-tunnel tests in the Transonic Dynamics Tunnel (TDT) have been completed. The first and parts of the second and third tests focused on collecting open-loop data to define the model's aeroservoelastic characteristics, including the flutter boundary across the Mach range. It is this data that is being presented in this paper. An extensive database of over 3000 data sets was obtained. This database includes steady and unsteady control surface effectiveness data, including pressure distributions, control surface hinge moments, and overall model loads due to deflections of a trailing edge control surface and upper and lower surface

Scott, Robert C.↗