Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Data Summarization”

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 307 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Analysis Program (2023 Annual Progress Report)

This document summarizes the progress of VTO Analysis projects supported during the fiscal year 2023. The VTO Analysis Program supports mission-critical technological, economic, and interdisciplinary analyses to assist in prioritizing VTO technology investments and to inform research portfolio planning. These efforts provide essential vehicle and market data, modeling and simulation, and integrated and applied analyses, using the unique capabilities, analytical tools, and expertise resident in the DOE’s national laboratory system. VTO Analysis projects also demonstrate additional capabilities and expertise provided by research partnerships that may include academia, the private sector, and non-profit organizations.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Advances in Experimental Design, Optimal Control, and Learning for Uncertain Complex Systems (Final Report for AEOLUS)

The AEOLUS Center is dedicated to developing a unified optimization-under-uncertainty framework for: (1) learning predictive models from data; and (2) optimizing experiments, processes, and designs governed by these models, all driven by complex, uncertain energy systems. AEOLUS addresses the critical need for principled, rigorous, scalable, and structure-exploiting capabilities for exploring parameter and decision spaces of complex forward simulation models. This report summarizes the key highlights of our research during the period of performance.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Residential Vehicle-to-Home Backup Power Capabilities: Key Findings from a ComEd Beneficial Electrification R&D Pilot

This report summarizes key findings from a collaborative technical study of residential, non-grid-tied vehicle-to-home (V2H) backup power systems in Commonwealth Edison’s (ComEd’s) service territory. The work integrates (1) a feeder-level technoeconomic analysis (TEA) using historical outage-event data and simulated electric-vehicle (EV) driving/charging profiles to estimate potential reliability and customer interruption-cost impacts under V2H and vehicle-to-grid (V2G) adoption scenarios; (2) controlled laboratory performance testing of a representative V2H backup ecosystem to characterize transfer-to-backup behavior, sustained power delivery, efficiency trends, and repeatable reliability limitations; and (3) a cybersecurity assessment aligned with NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 and ISO/SAE 21434 to evaluate interface-level risk drivers and identify program-relevant mitigations. Results indicate that V2H can provide measurable resilience value, but outcomes are strongly context dependent on outage patterns and the share of events that are “V2H-applicable.” Typical transfer-to-backup behavior clustered on the order of minutes, but rare long-delay edge cases were observed (including an event approaching 30 minutes) and should be treated as a reliability risk. High-power testing showed that peak-rated output is not necessarily continuously deliverable; stable operation may require operation below nameplate ratings and attention to thermal and installation constraints. The cybersecurity assessment highlights a broad attack surface spanning commissioning, home networks, embedded services, and cloud/OTA pathways, motivating minimum controls for secure onboarding, signed updates, patch cadence, and coordinated vulnerability response for any scaled deployment.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

SAM Code Enhancements for Modeling of Liquid Metal-Cooled Fast Reactor Concepts

The SAM code is under development and supported by DOE-NE’s Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation program as a modern system-level modeling and simulation tool for advanced non-light water reactor safety analyses. These advanced reactor concepts incorporate novel and improved approaches to achieve safety and economic feasibility. This report summarizes two major efforts in addressing the modeling gaps in SAM for liquid-metal-cooled fast reactor (LMFR) applications, i.e. thermal mixing and stratification phenomena in large pools and corrosion-oxidation of components in flowing lead. A new one-dimensional model for thermal mixing and stratification effects in large pools and enclosures is developed and implemented. Thermal mixing and stratification occur when fluid enters a pool at a temperature different than the bulk fluid itself, a scenario often encountered during transients in pool-type systems. These phenomena are critical for the safety of reactors, impacting phenomena like natural circulation, which is essential for passive cooling. The improved model in SAM addresses limitations of state-of-the-art approaches by combining one-dimensional (1D) channels, representing the coolant jet flow, with lumped-parameter zero-dimensional (0D) pools, representing the rest of coolant in the tank. Energy exchange between the 1D jet and the 0D pools is based on heat transfer correlations calibrated against 3D simulations. It is verified that this model can handle various flow configurations, including hot jets in colder pools, cold jets in hotter pools, and the presence of features like ceilings, free surfaces, and obstacles. Additionally, validation against experimental data demonstrates the ability of the model to capture mixing and stratification effects in a wide range of conditions. The flexibility and improved accuracy of the new model make it a valuable tool for reactor safety analysis, allowing for the simulation of different geometries encountered in advanced reactors. A system-level corrosion modeling capability is developed and implemented in SAM to support Lead Fast Reactor (LFR) development. Although the initial focus of this capability will be on LFR application, this can later be expanded to include other liquid metals such as Lead-Bismuth Eutectic (LBE) and PbLi. This report summarizes the common corrosion mitigation strategies and outlines the progress on implementing and validating a corrosion-oxidation model in SAM. Verification and validation of the corrosion-oxidation portion of the model was performed using analytical solution and measured data from samples tested in the non-isothermal pumped lead loop at IPPE Obninsk. The iron transport and corrosion/precipitation portion of the model was assessed using an analytical model and measured corrosion depths from a natural convection lead loop experiment performed at CEA. It is demonstrated that the model implemented in SAM performed well in these assessments.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Summary of Responses to the Request for Information (RFI) on Partnerships for Transformational Artificial Intelligence Models

The Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Request for Information (RFI) in December 2025 inviting public comments regarding partnerships for transformational Artificial Intelligence (AI) models for the Genesis Mission Consortium, a public-private partnership platform. This RFI solicited feedback from industry, nonprofit organizations, universities, independent research organizations and other stakeholders. Specifically, the RFI asked three questions on (1) mobilizing DOE National Laboratories to curate the scientific data in a responsible and privacy-preserving manner, (2) the extent to which existing general-purpose AI models can be leveraged and which scientific disciplines are priorities for such model development, and (3) mechanisms by which these AI models can be provided to scientific communities. This document summarizes the input from 194 unique nonproprietary responses from businesses, universities, nonprofit organizations, research institutes and laboratories as well as a variety of other contributors, including individual contributions.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Load Profiles Data for the EVI-RoadTrip Web Tool

The dataset contains EVI-RoadTrip outputs, minute-by-minute load profiles in kW for each station in the simulation based on assumed utilization and network density. The load profiles are aggregated to lower spatial resolution (e.g., state-level, corridor-level) by summation of all station loads associated with the respective geography. This results in a load profile for each scenario that summarizes the corridor's, state's, or county's load profile in minute-level resolution.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

AEOLUS: Advances in Experimental Design, Optimal Control, and Learning for Uncertain Complex Systems

The AEOLUS Center is dedicated to developing a unified optimization-under-uncertainty framework for (1) learning predictive models from data and (2) optimizing experiments, processes, and designs governed by these models, all driven by complex, uncertain energy systems. AEOLUS addressed the critical need for principled, rigorous, scalable, and structure-exploiting capabilities for exploring parameter and decision spaces of complex forward simulation models---the so-called outer loop. This report summarizes the work done under DE-SC0021077 on (1) nonlocal models for solidification problems, (2) a multifidelity method for a nonlocal diffusion model, and (3) multifidelity Monte Carlo methods.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Laser calibration system and lost muons correction in the g-2 experiment

The Muon g-2 experiment at Fermilab has the main goal to measure the muon anomalous magnetic moment $a_{µ}$ = ($g$ − 2)/2 to a precision of 0.14 parts per million (ppm), which means 4 times improvement in precision with respect to the final result from BNL: $a_{µ}$ (expt. BNL) = 11659208.0(6.3) × 10$^{−10}$ (0.54 ppm) In this report I summarize the work done at the $g$-2 experiment during my summer internship at Fermilab. In the first two weeks my first task has been to replace the NIM logic used in the Laser Calibration System with a new FPGA. Then, I was involved in the Lost Muons analysis studying both real data and MonteCarlo simulations.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Contaminant Investigation and Pre‐Processing Opportunities for Textile‐To‐Textile Recycling

Millions of metric tons of textiles are landfilled or incinerated each year in the United States, with less than 1% of textiles recycled into new clothing or fabrics. To counter this trend, a growing number of companies and researchers are exploring how a circular economy can be applied to support textile‐to‐textile recycling. A significant barrier they face comes down to quickly and efficiently extracting pure feedstock material from post‐consumer garments that feature a mix of natural and synthetic fibers. Textile recyclers prefer pure feedstocks, as working with mixed sources typically means lower throughput, higher risk of equipment failure, and diminished business margins. To facilitate a circular economy for textiles, methods, and technologies are needed that can efficiently separate out materials and contaminants from end‐of‐life textiles to increase the flow of pure feedstocks to recyclers. This paper summarizes findings from interviews with a cross section of textile recyclers and from a review of literature to define basic feedstock requirements. In addition to our qualitative research, we deconstruct a bale of post‐consumer textiles and analyze them using computer‐vision imaging, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and machine learning. The resulting data are used to set system‐level design inputs for an automated contaminant removal system to process post‐consumer clothing into appropriate feedstocks for recycling. To set the system's levels for automated real‐time near‐infrared analysis, we identify the minimum percentage of primary material that any single garment in a load of used clothing must contain for the average of the full output stream to meet the target purity levels of recyclers. Here, the envisioned automated system can also address undesirable trace materials that might contaminate the processed stream by using imaging cameras coupled with artificial intelligence to identify sections of clothing for de‐trimming. Proof‐of‐concept machine learning algorithms are evaluated to locate and identify trims or garment areas with hidden contaminant materials. Integrating these methods into automated textile cutting systems can provide a cost‐effective means for increasing feedstock purity from used clothing, which can advance circularity for textiles by helping recyclers to reach production volumes and quality targets that were not possible solely with manual dismantling operations.

Parsons, Ryan [Rochester Institute of Technology, ↗
DOE OSTI2024

Toward Realistic Models of the Electrocatalytic Oxygen Evolution Reaction

The electrocatalytic oxygen evolution reaction (OER) supplies the protons and electrons needed to transform renewable electricity into chemicals and fuels. However, the OER is kinetically sluggish; it operates at significant rates only when the applied potential far exceeds the reversible voltage. The origin of this overpotential is hidden in a complex mechanism involving multiple electron transfers and chemical bond making/breaking steps. Our desire to improve catalytic performance has then made mechanistic studies of the OER an area of major scientific inquiry, though the complexity of the reaction has made understanding difficult. While historically, mechanistic studies have relied solely on experiment and phenomenological models, over the past twenty years ab initio simulation has been playing an increasingly important role in developing our understanding of the electrocatalytic OER and its reaction mechanisms. In this Review we cover advances in our mechanistic understanding of the OER, organized by increasing complexity in the way through which the OER is modeled. We begin with phenomenological models built using experimental data before reviewing early efforts to incorporate ab initio methods into mechanistic studies. We go on to cover how the assumptions in these early ab initio simulations-no electric field, electrolyte, or explicit kinetics-have been relaxed. Through comparison with experimental literature, we explore the veracity of these different assumptions. We summarize by discussing the most critical open challenges in developing models to understand the mechanisms of the OER.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2026

Flexible Operation of Natural Gas Power Plants in Texas: Startup and Shutdown Durations and Nitrogen Dioxide Emissions

This dataset provides insights into historical flexible operation of natural gas power plants in Texas, with a focus on startup and shutdown events. The dataset includes tables summarizing startup and shutdown durations as well as nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission factors during these events, and compares these emission factors with those observed during all other operating phases (referred to here as “steady-state operation”). The dataset is derived using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Clean Air Markets Program Data (CAMPD). Historical hourly data from 2015–2024, including electricity generation, heat input, and NOx emission factors, are used for natural gas combined cycle units, combustion turbine units, and steam turbine units in Texas. This work was authored by the National Laboratory of the Rockies, operated by the Alliance for Energy Innovation, LLC, for the U.S Department of Energy (DOE) under contract no. DE-AC36-08GO28308. Funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy as part of its Grid Modernization Laboratory Consortium, a strategic partnership between DOE and the national laboratories to bring together leading experts, technologies, and resources to collaborate on the goal of modernizing the nation’s grid. The views expressed in the dataset do not necessarily represent the views of the DOE or the U.S. Government.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Testbed and Experiments for Quantum-Conventional Networking

The realization of quantum networks requires the development of devices and methods unprecedented in conventional networks, and yet they critically depend on the latter for implementing foundational blocks and essential operations. We describe a testbed to support the development and testing of their functionality and performance by providing quantum and conventional data planes and devices, together with a secure conventional control plane. It incorporates a variety of entangled photon sources, qubit technologies, detector technologies, photonic components, and supporting conventional switches and workstations. It implements a novel fiber telescoping scheme that provides suites of connections using fiber spools and inground-aerial fiber loops. We briefly summarize a variety of experiments conducted over this testbed including: (i) flex-grid quantum connection experiments, (ii) quantum state and channel tomography, (iii) utilization of quantum key distribution keys to secure conventional encryption and firewall devices, (iv) comparative study of analytical capacity estimates and entanglement throughput, (v) deployed squeezing coexisting with conventional communications, and (iv) measurement of polarization time variation.

Rao, Nageswara [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000234085941)↗
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 Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE 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 OSTI2024

Regulatory Testing of RPP-WTP HLW Glasses to Support Delisting Compliance, VSL-04R4780-1, Rev. 0 (Sep 2004)

The primary goal of the testing described in this report was to collect data to demonstrate compliance of the immobilized high-level waste (IHLW) glasses with delisting requirements. The collected data will be used to support a petition to delist the IHLW glasses destined for the national disposal facility. The Delisting Data Quality Objectives (DQO) (Cook and Blumenkranz 2003) identified a list of (16) inorganic constituents of potential concern (COPCs) and their associated limits for delisting. These COPCs can be divided into three groups, Cases 1, 2, and 3, based on their Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) responses versus their respective delisting limits. To briefly summarize, Case 1 COPCs are those that, when loaded at their highest expected concentration in Waste Treatment Plant (WTP) glasses, are not expected to leach at their respective delisting limits when the glasses are exposed to the TCLP. Case 2 COPCs may reach the delisting limits in TCLP leachates of WTP glasses if loaded to concentrations near their maximum expected concentrations in glass. Finally, Case 3 COPCs are components that are likely to be present in concentrations sufficient to exceed their respective delisting limits in TCLP leachates of some possible glasses. The test objective was to show that, for (i) the expected range of inorganic contents in the waste feed to the Hanford WTP high level waste (HLW) vitrification facility, (ii) the expected range of glass product compositions, and (iii) the Case 1 and Case 2 COPCs identified by the DQO, the IHLW glasses meet all the relevant requirements for delisting. For Case 3 COPCs (i.e., Cd), the testing was to demonstrate the relationship between glass composition and TCLP cadmium (Cd) release, and then employ the results to develop TCLP-composition response models. During WTP operations, TCLP-composition models can be used to predict, within the required statistical uncertainties, TCLP responses of IHLW production glasses that are within the compositional region used to develop the model.

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

Technology Integration 2023 Annual Progress Report

This document summarizes the progress of VTO Technology Integration projects supported during the fiscal year 2023. VTO's Technology Integration Program supports a broad technology portfolio that includes alternative fuels, energy efficient mobility systems and technologies, and other efficient advanced technologies that can reduce transportation energy costs for businesses and consumers. The program provides objective, unbiased data and real-world lessons learned to inform future research needs and support local decision making. It also includes projects to disseminate data, information, and insight, as well as online tools and technology assistance to cities and regions working to implement alternative fuels and energy efficient mobility technologies and systems.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Artificial intelligence tools for enzyme engineering and metabolic engineering

Enzyme engineering and metabolic engineering drive innovation in energy biotechnology. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has supported successful applications in designing effective enzymes and productive microbial cell factories. This review summarizes recent advances in enzyme redesign using protein language models, de novo enzyme design with generative models, and AI tools for engineering metabolism and related cellular phenotypes. Across these areas, AI models are shifting from single modality inputs to integrated representations of protein function, metabolic pathways, and cell states. We emphasize that unifying the diverse data representations across scales will be necessary for advancements in energy biotechnology.

Volk, Michael [Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champai↗