Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “surface metering”

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 235 records · Page 13
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2020

Life cycle Management of 324 Project High-Activity, Mixed/Low-Level Radioactive Waste - 20506

U.S. DOE contractor CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Company (CHPRC) manages the 324 Building and is preparing to remotely excavate and disposition the radioactive soil beneath the building to allow further deactivation of the building. The 324 Building is a non-reactor Category 2 Nuclear Facility located in the 300 Area of the Hanford Site. Records indicate that in October 1986, approximately 516 liters of a concentrated liquid waste stream containing cesium-137 ({sup 137}Cs) and strontium-90 ({sup 90}Sr) spilled onto the floor of a hot cell, B-Cell, in the 324 Building. The spill contained an estimated 1.3 million curies (Ci) of radioactivity. A breach in the sump of B-Cell was discovered in November 2009 during characterization of the soil under the building. Exposure rates in excess of 10,000 R/hr were detected through a system of access pipes installed under the hot cell, and an estimated 1.557 E+05 Ci of {sup 137}Cs and 6.842 E+04 Ci of {sup 90}Sr are in the soil beneath B-Cell. The magnitude of the soil contamination below B-Cell represents one of the most challenging remediation activities in the DOE complex. The objective of CHPRC's 324 Project is to remotely excavate and disposition the highly contaminated soil under the hot cell so building deactivation and stabilization activities can resume. Depending on the volume and radioactivity of contaminated soil under B-Cell, the material will be dispositioned either at the Hanford Site's Environmental Restoration Disposal Facility (ERDF) or in grout monoliths that will be created in the hot cells (A, C and D) next to B-Cell during future building demolition activities. The current project scope includes installing structural supports under the walls of B-Cell and using remotely operated equipment to remove debris from the hot cell, remove debris mixed with grout on the floor, saw through and remove the cell floor and liner, and excavate contaminated soil under B-Cell to a depth of up to 3.66 meters (12 feet). Addition or removal of debris in A-Cell may be required to support B-Cell cleanout and excavation activities. The base approach is to disposition debris and soil bins in the Radiochemical Engineering Cell (REC) monoliths, and subsequently disposition the monoliths during building demolition. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Integrated Approach to Investigating Historic Cemeteries

Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and terrestrial laser scanning (TLS) surveys were conducted at a historic cemetery at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida, U.S., in order to confirm the presence of burials corresponding to grave markers and detect potential unmarked burials. Noise in the GPR data from surface features and subtle terrain differences must be addressed to determine the extent of anomalies of interest. We use singular value decomposition (SVD) to isolate and remove energy from GPR data. SVD allows one to remove unwanted signals that traditional processing techniques cannot. With SVD filtering, we resolve an anomaly adjacent to confirmed burials otherwise overprinted by unwanted signal. The migration of SVD-filtered data produces more distinct, spatially constrained point reflectors. Ground elevation is derived from georeferenced TLS data and compared to that from airborne laser scanning (ALS) to highlight subtle terrain that can assist data interpretation. TLS elevations show a subtle modern mound over the burial plot where ALS elevations show a depression. The targets of interest are approximately 20–30 cm higher in elevation if a topographic correction is performed using TLS versus ALS. In archaeological applications, a notable change is often recorded at the sub-meter scale. The combined approach presented here better resolves geophysical response of buried features and their positions in the ground relative to each other.

Downs, Christine (ORCID:0000000237229381)↗
DOE OSTI2025

Active Divertor Heat Flux Control using Impurity Powder Dropper

Divertor plasma-facing components (PFCs) in a tokamak are typically designed to withstand average steady-state heat loads of about 5–10 MW/m 2 , a limit that applies to both solid and liquid lithium (LL) PFCs. Exceeding these design values can result in surface damage to tungsten PFCs or excessive lithium (Li) evaporation in liquid lithium divertor (LLD) PFCs. Since exceeding the divertor heat load limits has serious consequences, it is therefore prudent to develop a tool to reduce the divertor heat load and bring the heat load to within the design limit without affecting the plasma performance. Active low Z impurity injection such as Li has been suggested as a potential solution to mitigate excess heat flux as suggested previously, given that non-coronal radiation can be quite large ~ 20–30 MJ per mole of injected Li. Li is considered desirable for reducing the edge neutral recycling helping to improve plasma energy confinement. In this paper, we model the Impurity Power Dropper (IPD) to investigate its potential of divertor heat flux control. The IPD is typically located at the top of the tokamak device and uses a vertical drift tube of a few meters. In the 2 m drift tube case, the IPD powder is accelerated to ~ 6 m/sec before reaching the plasma with the upper divertor configuration, matching the condition for the in-board side pellet injection case. By modeling the IPD geometry we determined the IPD powder deposition profile, and thus the non-coronal radiation and ionization profiles in time as well. From the enhanced radiation power loss, it is therefore possible to reduce the divertor heat load using the divertor simulation code. In conclusion, the IPD divertor heat flux control can be tested in the facilities with IPD including ST-40, DIII-D, EAST, WEST and NSTX-U.

Active lithium injection↗
DOE OSTI2020

Field Test Bed for Vadose-Zone Monitoring Approaches - 20404

In the Central Plateau at the U.S. Department of Energy Hanford Site, a large inventory of contaminants resides in unsaturated sediments within the approximately 100-meter-thick vadose zone, posing a potential continuing risk to groundwater. Vadose zone remedies used to address these contaminants will require performance monitoring to provide feedback during implementation and for long-term verification that remedial action objectives have been met. Passive approaches may also need long-term monitoring to demonstrate that the flux of contaminants from the vadose zone to the groundwater are below thresholds established to meet groundwater protection goals. Collection of physical (e.g., groundwater or sediment) samples is a common method for identifying contaminant concentration distributions, but this approach is limited by the number of locations and the frequency with which data can be collected. In situ vadose zone measurements have evolved over the past few years to include key measurements of water content, soil water pressure, temperature, and chemical concentration. However, the current generation of sensors is designed for relatively short-term use in near-surface soils or sediments. Geophysical methods have been evolving but are also limited in that they have not been designed for the specific long-term vadose zone monitoring needs at the Hanford Site. Overall, monitoring under unsaturated conditions can be difficult due to the need to install and maintain instrumentation over a large area and depth and the need to identify preferential flow pathways due to geologic and chemical heterogeneities over long periods. Thus, a vadose zone monitoring test bed was initiated to address these challenges and identify cost-effective approaches for implementation and postclosure monitoring of the deep vadose zone. The monitoring test bed is expected to provide valuable field-scale information for the design of vadose zone monitoring systems. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2024

Lifetime extension drop-test of real-world corroded 5 Quart Hagan nuclear material storage container

A 5Qt Hagan container with a 20-year history of nuclear material storage was challenged with three successive drop tests at a height of 3.7 meters. The total mass of the test package was 12.1 kg. The 1st and 2nd drop tests (center of gravity over the container bottom corner but 180 degrees apart on the container bottom face) passed the pre- and post- impact helium leak criterion at less than 1.00E-6 atm-cc/sec (ambient cubic centimeters per second). The 3rd and final test (center of gravity over top corner) failed with a post-impact gross leak of 1.1E-1 atmcc/sec. The RRFMC (Respirable Release Fraction Measurement Chamber) is a drop tower test system that is critical for the sustainability of the SAVY-4000™ series and Hagan-type (NFT Inc. Golden CO) nuclear material storage containers. These are the primary in-use nuclear material storage container types at the Los Alamos National Laboratory TA-55 facility. Results are presented to expand the technical knowledge basis for container lifetime, regarding actual exposure to corrosive gas species on the container inner surfaces. The primary source of general corrosion throughout the container is gaseous hydrogen chloride (HCl). This gas is generated by the degradation of the polyvinylchloride (PVC) bag-out bag. Additionally, in most cases, the nuclear material itself also releases HCl gas (due to residual chemical components associated with the material formation). The RRFMC drop tower gives the end-user the ability record and analyze high-speed video and photography and if needed aerosol mass release measurements. In this report the principal issue is the physical deformation of the 5Qt Hagan container. There were no mass release experiments of test aerosol mass in the present study.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Method used in Tokunaga, T. et al. 2018 for simulating time- and depth- dependent temperature variations in soil and sediment in Rifle, Colorado, 2013-2016.

This data package contains temperature, moisture content, matric potential, and carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration data from the Rifle, Colorado field site and from a 2 meter tall laboratory soil/sediment column designed to simulate field conditions. In addition, redox potential data from the laboratory column are included. The purpose of the data and paper is to demonstrate how a laboratory column was constructed to reproduce the dynamics of nonisothermal conditions in the field, such that CO2 production above a variable-depth water table can be studied in the laboratory. The data package contains 3 data files corresponding to the figures in the related paper (Tokunaga, T. et al. 2018) and 1 README file with the paper information.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Characterizations of Five Urban Sites in Knoxville, Tennessee. 2024-2025

This dataset includes soil characterizations from five urban parks in Knoxville, Tennessee, USA: Cumberland Estates Park (CEP), Socially Equal Energy Efficient Development (SEED), West View Park (WVP), Victor Ashe Park (VAP), and West Hills Park (WHP). The dataset consists of seven CSV files reporting the data from the measurements of gravimetric moisture content, pH, total carbon and nitrogen, soil texture, dissolved organic carbon and nitrogen, and microbial biomass carbon and nitrogen derived from these soil cores. During five separate sampling events conducted in 2024 and 2025, five soil cores were collected at each site within 3 meters of the remote soil monitoring equipment. In 2025, an additional three soil cores were collected adjacent to the monitoring equipment at each site to assess soil bulk density. This dataset is part of a larger study investigating the effects of soil moisture and plant evapotranspiration on ambient temperature and relative humidity across multiple urban parks in Knoxville, Tennessee.

Mayes, Melanie A [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000163689210)↗
DOE OSTI2023

Development of a molecularly informed biogeochemical framework for reactive transport modeling of subsurface carbon inventories, transformations and fluxes (Final Report)

The overall objective of the project was to combine new molecular-level characterization strategies with soil carbon flux measurements to develop and evaluate model representations of subsurface carbon cycling. We expanded on existing studies in the East River watershed, Colorado, in collaboration with the Berkeley Lab Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA), SLAC Groundwater Quality SFA, and Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) to develop an elevation and vegetation gradient that is now the subject of long-term monitoring by the USGS. To achieve the overall objective, we combined field studies of soil respiration with laboratory analyses, ranging from spectroscopy to incubation studies. This combination of techniques enabled us to develop a new understanding of the drivers of high-elevation soil respiration. In the process, we developed three new modeling approaches that improve our ability to conceptualize and ultimately to represent soil respiration in numerical models. The first approach is a plot-scale transient inverse model that can be used to determine in situ CO 2 production rates from measured concentration profiles and surface fluxes. Application of this method revealed the importance of plant phenology and deep CO 2 production in moderating CO 2 fluxes to the atmosphere. The second modeling approach is a molecular-scale tool that enables spectroscopic and elemental data for carbon speciation to be transformed into functional group abundances, or the ‘SOC-fga model’. This method uniquely enables carbon speciation to be tracked within a reactive transport framework to partition carbon among different pathways and storage zones within the soil. The third modeling tool builds strongly on the previous approaches and captures the microbial processes driving heterotrophic respiration. This ‘dormancy model’ allows the native soil microbial population to respond transiently to the presence or absence of water in order to catalyze carbon respiration. This approach was also compared to the simpler and more widely used first-order model using two experimental datasets with different temporal and spatial resolutions. Our results illustrate that the simpler first order model provides a robust and efficient representation of deep (>1 meter) soil respiration, but that shallow soils, where most respiration occurs, require explicit representation of moisture-dependent activation and dormancy rates. By assessing soil organic carbon turnover at multiple scales, we see a complex array of controls emerge. Atte scale of a hillslope, spatial heterogeneity in soil respiration rates dominates and is uncorrelated with instantaneous soil moisture and plant community. At the profile scale, the balance between plant inputs and water availability is the dominant control. At the microbial to molecular scale, physiological processes associated with carbon use and carbon speciation are important controls. These scale-dependent controls emphasize the need for new modeling approaches that examine their interactions and hierarchies.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Atmospheric and Soil Parameters in Five Urban Sites in Knoxville, Tennessee. 2024

This dataset, which contains ten csv files, reports several meteorological conditions such as temperature, wind speed, solar radiation, and net radiation measured in several urban parks in Knoxville, Tennessee, USA: Cumberland Estates Park (CEP), Socially Equal Energy Efficient Development (SEEED), West View Park (WVP), Victor Ashe Park (VAP), and West Hills Park (WHP). Also, hourly average of soil parameters such soil temperature, moisture, and matric potential measured in the five sites are included in this dataset. Air temperature, wind speed and direction, and solar radiation data were obtained from a METER ATMOS 41 All-in-One Weather Station (Pullman, Washington, USA). Soil moisture and temperature parameters were measured the METER Teros 12 probes embedded to a depth of 5 cm into the soil, while soil matric potential was measured with a METER Teros 21 probe. Incident and emitted radiation (shortwave and longwave) measurements were made using an Apogee (Logan, Utah, USA) net radiometer (Model SN-500-SS). This work is a part of a larger study which investigates the impact of soil moisture and plant evapotranspiration on ambient temperature and relative humidity in several city parks in Knoxville, Tennessee.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Final Report on Development of Microwave Resonant Cavity Transducer for Fluid Flow Sensing: Development of Microwave Cavity Flow Meter for Advanced Reactor High Temperature Fluids

We are investigating a microwave resonant cavity transducer for flow sensing in the vessel of a high temperature fluid advanced reactor (AR), such as a molten salt cooled reactor (MSCR) or a sodium fast reactor (SFR). This transducer is a hollow metallic cylindrical cavity, with one of the flat walls of the cylinder flexible enough to undergo microscopic deflection due to dynamic fluid pressure. Membrane deflection leads to a shift in the microwave resonant frequency, which can be detected with a spectrum analyzer. We have developed a continuum electromechanics model of the microwave resonant cavity transducer performance. The deflection of the membrane is calculated using equations from the theory of plates and shells for deflection of radially constrained thin circular disk under uniform load. The microwave frequency shift is calculated using the equations from the microwave cavity perturbation theory. The transducer model was validated with proof-of-concept experimental data of water flow sensing with a Brass 360 right circular cylinder with 22.2mm diameter and 203µm thick wall. The cavity was excited through a subwavelength hole in TE 011 mode with resonant frequency f ≈ 17.8GHz. Subsequently, we have performed a preliminary proof-of-principle test of flow sensing in high temperature liquid sodium in environment. For this test, we have developed a cylindrical resonator with the same dimensions as for the Brass 360 cavity. The resonator for high temperature liquid sodium test was machined from stainless steel 316 and electroplated with silver on the interior surfaces. We have also developed and insertion probe consisting of a 50cm WR-42 brass waveguide enclosed in a protective SS316 tube. The cavity was excited through a subwavelength hole on the side of the wall of the cylinder in the TE 011 mode with resonant frequency f ≈ 17.8GHz. The liquid sodium setup consists of a cylindrical vessel with a center feed line, where a transducer inserted through the top cap of the vessel measures velocity of the impinging liquid jet. The sodium flow sensing study was performed in a liquid sodium vessel at 340°C temperature and ambient pressure. The flow rate was changed by varying sodium pump power, and a frequency shift of several hundred kHz was observed. The transducer was removed after 70 days of testing. No visual damage was observed, and the electromagnetic response remained the same. As a calibration experiment, we have assembled a water vessel with a center feed, and with dimensions similar to those of the liquid sodium setup. Water flow sensing was performed before and after liquid sodium test. The responses in both cases are similar and agree with COMSOL computer simulations. Because long-term (multi-year) experimental tests of transducer resilience to harsh environment are not practical, we have developed a probabilistic model of creep to estimate transducer resilience to the harsh environment. The probabilistic model considers diffusion creep under the condition of high temperature and low stress, where the stress and temperature are allowed to be random variables with Gaussian distributions. Using the probabilistic model, we estimate inelastic membrane deflections due to creep for several temperature ranges. We conclude that for temperatures less than 650°C, creep has negligible long-term effect on the transducer performance.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

3D seismic imaging of a fracture damage zone controlling reservoir compartmentalization at the Raft River EGS using multi-azimuth walkaway VSP

Accurate imaging of steeply dipping fracture zones in crystalline enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) is critical for constraining permeability architecture and guiding stimulation design. However, such structures remain poorly resolved by conventional surface seismic methods. We present a fully three-dimensional (3D) elastic-waveform inversion-migration workflow applied to multi-azimuth walkaway vertical seismic profiling (VSP) data acquired in a deviated borehole at the Raft River EGS. The workflow integrates first-arrival traveltime tomography, multi-scale elastic waveform inversion (EWI), and elastic least-squares reverse-time migration (ELSRTM) to recover high-resolution compressional-and shear-wave velocity models and to image structural discontinuities in the crystalline basement. The results reveal a laterally continuous low-velocity anomaly, with shear-wave velocity reductions of 25-30%, consistent with fractureinduced mechanical weakening. Two steeply dipping discontinuities bound a 50-80 m wide fracture damage zone. Independent constraints from microseismic clustering and geochemical compartmentalization corroborate the geometry and structural significance of this feature. Synthetic modeling further confirms that structures of this scale are resolvable (~30 m). These findings indicate that the Narrows structure is a distributed fracture damage zone rather than a discrete fault plane. By resolving fracture-zone geometry at the tens-of-meters scale using a single borehole, this workflow provides a practical and transferable approach for improving structural characterization, reducing uncertainty in permeability architecture, and supporting reservoir modeling and stimulation design in fractured crystalline EGS reservoirs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

In-Situ Monitoring Assisted Large-Scale Additive Manufacturing of Mild Steel and 316L Alloys for Nuclear Application

The Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies (AMMT) Program is aimed at developing cross-cutting technologies in support of a broad range of nuclear reactor parts, and to maintain U.S. leadership in materials and manufacturing technologies for nuclear energy applications. The overarching vision of the AMMT program is to accelerate the development, qualification, demonstration and deployment of advanced materials and manufacturing technologies to enable reliable and economical nuclear energy. One of its three goals is to target big challenges and game-changing technologies, to realize the mission and vision of AMMT program. Based on this context, this multi-year work package focuses on understanding the current state of large-scale additive manufacturing (AM) technology for the deposition of 316L stainless steel materials for final components and mild steel for use in nuclear manufacturing processes. The targeted AM modality is directed energy deposition (DED), capable of fabricating components on the size scale of meters including valves, pumps, impellers. etc. that are challenging or difficult to source, especially when developing new systems or replacing obsolete components. Accordingly, the current writeup aims at providing a baseline literature survey on structure-property relationships in mild steel and 316L alloys. Also, information on preliminary trials to date involving these two alloys show tremendous potential of printing parts having complex geometry and thin- walled structures, such as nuclear valve and Hot isostatic Press (HIP) can, using wire based (Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing and Hybrid Additive Manufacturing) as well as blown powder DED machines. All of this is aimed towards (i) demonstrating the ability to fabricate large components for pressure boundary applications relevant to the nuclear community and nuclear manufacturing technology, and (ii) understanding the effect of different manufacturing technology on AM can production and post HIPed material for nuclear applications. Another target of this writeup is to compile various in-situ monitoring tools that have been incorporated for different DED AM modalities, in order to understand process variability during the entire fabrication process. This can be correlated with processing-structure-property response surfaces and would add confidence around process quality verification and ultimately component certification for nuclear applications.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Field-Scale Lysimeter Studies of Glass and Cementitious Waste Forms at the Hanford Site - 20392

The Hanford site Integrated Disposal Facility (IDF) will receive waste forms from vitrification activities at the Hanford Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP). The waste form inventory to be disposed of at the IDF will consist of vitrified low-activity waste (LAW) in glass forms and solidified (or encapsulated) secondary wastes in cementitious forms. The IDF is a near-surface burial facility located near Hanford's Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant in the 200 East Area of the site's Central Plateau. An extensive set of laboratory experimental data has been collected to support IDF performance assessment calculations of the eventual degradation of waste forms and mobility of contaminants. This paper describes the start of a field experiment to generate waste-form performance data on a larger scale (tens of centimeters), over a longer duration (five years or more), and under field conditions representative of the IDF. Results from this study are expected to improve model descriptions of contaminant mobility, reduce uncertainties about the representativeness of laboratory results in the IDF performance assessment, improve stakeholder confidence in the safe disposal of treated waste at the IDF, and facilitate the adoption of informed facility designs with the potential to reduce operational costs. A lysimeter test facility near Hanford's 200 West Area has been repurposed to carry out long-term assessments of waste forms buried in sediments excavated from the IDF. The waste forms are buried in large drainage lysimeters, open caissons that are two meters in diameter and three meters deep. Waste forms are buried in up to six locations in each lysimeter. Samplers collect pore water and drainage water beneath the waste forms and air from the pore space adjacent to waste forms. Sensors measure temperature, soil water content, soil water tension, and drainage flux. One lysimeter containing cementitious waste forms and one containing glass waste forms have been completed, along with a control lysimeter (without waste forms). The cementitious waste forms are Cast Stone grout formulations using a liquid secondary waste simulant and a generic Hanford high-salt simulant, as well as a hydrated lime-based grout formulation using a liquid secondary waste simulant. Technetium-99 and iodine-127 were added as tracers to monitor contaminant mobility. Glass waste forms were fabricated in two formulations (LAWA44 and ORLEC28), with rhenium and molybdenum tracers to monitor waste form degradation. The predicted performance of the waste forms in the lysimeters was modeled prior to installation to determine waste form size, tracer concentration/activity, and locations of sensors and samplers. (authors)

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

Diagenesis is key to unlocking outcrop fracture data suitable for quantitative extrapolation to geothermal targets

Exceptionally large, well-exposed sandstone outcrops in New York provide insights into folds, deformation bands, and fractures that could influence permeability, heat exchange, and stimulation outcomes of geothermal reservoir targets. Cambrian Potsdam Sandstone with <5% porosity contains decimeter-scale open, angular-limbed monoclines <0.5 km apart with associated low-porosity mm-wide cataclastic deformation bands. Crossing and abutting relationships among sub-vertical opening-mode fractures show four chronological Sets A–D, striking NNW, NE, NW, and ENE, respectively. Fracture lengths and heights range from millimeters to tens of meters. Sets A and C macro-fractures, and possibly B and D, contain quartz deposits. All sets have abundant associated quartz cemented microfractures that also record set orientations and crosscutting relations. Quartz cement deposits—evidence of diagenesis—are the key to identifying attributes of outcrop fractures suitable for extrapolation to geothermal targets in sandstones because they show which fractures formed in the subsurface. Set A fluid inclusion homogenization temperatures (120°C–129°C) are compatible with fracture at >3 km depth. Fractures are stiff and those ≥0.05 mm (Set C) and ≥0.1 mm (Set A) are open and potentially conducive to flow. Sets A and D are abundant in outcrops with close fracture spacing—0.18 m and 0.68 m, respectively—and define a rectangular connectivity network dominated by crossing and abutting X and Y nodes. Set A aperture distributions follow a power law with slope –0.8 up to 0.15 mm; other sets have lognormal distributions. Set A and D microfractures are weakly clustered, while macro-fractures commonly have 1D anticlustered (regular or periodic) arrangements at shorter length scales (<0.2 m). Sub-horizontal fractures are barren and may have formed near the surface. Fracture heights, lengths, and spatial arrangements show good trace connectivity but low open connectivity. For geothermal applications, outcrop results predict low initial well-test permeabilities owing to quartz disconnecting open fractures, but stimulation of closely spaced microfractures and partly open macro-fractures could yield high surface area for heat exchange. Quantitative extrapolation of key fracture attributes like abundance, orientation, spatial arrangement, length, and open fracture connectivity is possible from outcrops to fractured reservoirs if differing thermal histories and diagenesis are accounted for.

02 PETROLEUM↗
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 OSTI2026

Meteorological and Soil Data from Ecohydrology Sensor Towers at Pump House and Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado, 2019-2025

This data package includes hourly meteorological and soil sensor data at eight ecohydrology monitoring sites in East River Watershed, Colorado as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) research led by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL). Four field sites were located on the hillslope of East River (ER) near Pump House (PH) at Mount Crested Butte (ER-PHS1 to 4), and the other four are in the Snodgrass Mountain (SG) area (SG-EHS5 to 8). In terms of vegetation cover, three sites are in montane grasslands (ER-PHS1, ER-PHS2, and SG-EHS5), three are below evergreen conifer canopy (ER-PHS3, SG-EHS6, and SG-EHS7), and two are below deciduous aspen canopy (ER-PHS4 and SG-EHS8). The monitoring period began in October 2019 at the East River sites, in October 2020 at SG-EHS5 and SG-EHS6, and in October 2021 at SG-EHS7 and SG-EHS8. In September 2024, all four East River sites were fully retired. The four Snodgrass Mountain sites remain active. Each site is equipped with a comprehensive suite of meteorological sensors on a tripod and soil sensors that measure weather, energy fluxes, and soil variables. This data package includes measurements from ten different types of sensors and up to thirteen individual sensors per site, including (1) a weather station (measurement height ranges from 2.8~3.8 meters (m) above ground), (2) a quantum sensor for photosynthetic active radiation (PAR) (2.4~3.3m), (3) a net radiometer (1.7~2.1m), (4) an infrared radiometer (1.6~2.2m), (5) a sonic distance sensor (1.5~1.9m), (6) a soil carbon dioxide (CO2) flux chamber (0m), (7) a soil heat flux plate (-0.05m below ground), (8) a soil oxygen sensor (-0.3m), (9) a soil water potential sensor (-0.3m), and (10) soil water content sensors at 3~4 depths (-1.15 ~ -0.1m). A total of twenty-three variables is reported in this data package, including (1) atmospheric variables: air temperature (TA), atmospheric pressure (PA), vapor pressure (VP), and vapor pressure deficit (VPD), (2) precipitation variables: rain precipitation (P) and snow depth (D_SNOW), (3) energy fluxes variables: four-component net radiation (NETRAD) (shortwave/longwave incoming/outgoing radiation, SW_IN, SW_OUT, LW_IN, LW_OUT), photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD), and soil heat flux (G), (4) soil variables: soil water content (SWC), soil water potential (SWP), soil temperature (TS), soil bulk electrical conductivity (COND_SOIL), and soil gaseous oxygen concentration (O2_SOIL), (5) wind variables: two-dimensional wind speed (WS), gust speed (WS_MAX), and wind direction (WD), and (6) surface variables: surface infrared temperature (T_CANOPY) and soil CO2 flux (CO2_SOIL). Please see the Methods section for data processing and QA/QC steps taken to generate the hourly datasets. The following files are included in this data package (notes on version: v{x}-{y}, where x is the metadata version, and y is the data version, when applicable): (1) “metadata_site_v{x}-{y}.csv” - a site metadata file that summarizes location information of all sites, including site ID, description, coordinates, timeframe, elevation, and vegetation cover, (2) “metadata_instrument_v{x}-{y}.csv” - an instrument metadata file that summarizes sensor information of all sites, including sensor manufacturer and model, measurement height, and sampling and averaging interval of all variables, (3) "data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.csv" - eight data files that contain hourly data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (4) “/figure/data_{SITE_ID}_v{x}-{y}.png" - eight figures that help visualize data of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, (5) “/photo/*” - photos of each site indicated by {SITE_ID} in the filename, and (6) four file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (*_dd.csv) files that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. Notes: (1) Measurement height: Each variable name is followed by conventional positional qualifiers “H_V_R”, where H indicates the relative horizontal positions of that specific variable, V the vertical positions, and R the replicates. In this data package, only the vertical qualifier V varies, and V increases from the highest vertical position (V=1) to the lowest. Variables with the same qualifier are not necessarily measured by the same sensor, and the same variable with the same qualifier across different sites are not necessarily measured at the same height. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor information and measurement heights, and whether a variable is measured below the canopy. (2) Variable availability: Snow depth is not available at ER-PHS3 and SG-EHS7. SWC, soil temperature, and soil bulk EC at the deepest depth (<-1m) are not available at SG-EHS6 and SG-EHS7. The missing value code for numeric variables is -9999, except for SWP. For SWP, the missing value code is +9999, because SWP values are negative. (3) Sampling frequency: Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the increase of sampling frequency of some variables from 30-min to 1-min at ER-PHS1 to 4 in July 2020. (4) Sensors: While the methods of each sensor are not detailed, all sensors are commercially available, and their methods can be found in their manuals. Please refer to “metadata_instrument.csv” for the sensor manufacturer and model information. 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.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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↗