Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Model”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 307 records · Page 17
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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

Adaptive Protection and Validated Models to Enable Deployment of High Penetrations of Solar PV (PV-MOD)

The availability and validation of various PV models in commercial tools differ, with some models not yet thoroughly validated for advanced inverter functionalities and reliable performance under weak system conditions. Many existing models do not fully incorporate new inverter control functions, which can affect system stability. The increasing deployment of solar PV and other inverter-based resources (IBRs), including distributed energy resources (DERs), is influencing the reliable operation of protection schemes in distribution systems and microgrids. Emerging adaptive protection schemes (APS) offer new opportunities for protecting these systems during varying configurations and DER operating conditions, though their demonstration and validation remain limited. Adaptive protection schemes face similar challenges, as they are typically designed for specific configurations. There is a growing need for tools and methodologies to streamline the deployment of adaptive protection for safe and reliable DER integration. The project main objective was to develop and validate high-fidelity generic models of solar PV facilities for stability, protection, EMT, and QSTS analyses. This objective was achieved, and these models can now be integrated into commercial software tools, enabling utilities, vendors, and developers to study high-penetration PV systems more confidently. The project also demonstrated advanced applications of these models, including the design and deployment of adaptive protection schemes in high-penetration field applications and microgrids, supporting grid safety and reliability. Several milestones were reached by the end of the project. A sophisticated inverter test plan was developed, and inverters representative of the North American marketplace were selected. EPRI and NREL tested various inverters, conforming to IEEE standards. Improvements were made to existing generic models of IBR units, IBR plants, and aggregated feeders for various analyses. The first generic electromagnetic transient (EMT) model for a solar PV plant was developed, conforming to IEEE Std 2800™-2022 and validated against laboratory measurements of a 2.2 MVA large-scale battery energy storage system (BESS) inverter. That model was then used to produce reference responses illustrating examples of validated and verified IBR plant models that pass or fail tests for technical minimum capability and performance as specified in the IEEE standard. The developed, tested, and validated generic models can be used for transmission planning, stability assessments, expansion planning, and evaluating potential future IBR interconnection requirements. They can also support interconnection screens and conformity assessments of IBR plants, including solar PV. The project significantly contributed to the ongoing standardization and model-based representation and verification of IBR responses. The project further addressed challenges of common distribution protection schemes with increasing deployment of DER by developing, validating, and demonstrating adaptive protection schemes (APS) that can improve the reliable and safe integration of DER into distribution systems. New APS were designed using improved DER models for three common distribution systems: a radial feeder, a meshed network, and a microgrid. Modeling and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testing of the APS were conducted, successfully showing their effectiveness and selectivity. Proof-of-concept field demonstration was achieved for two APS, i.e., one on a radial feeder and another one in a microgrid. Field demonstration could not be achieved for the APS on a meshed network, primarily due apprehension of one utility partner and also due to limited access to the protective algorithms in the network protectors. Guidelines developed from the lessons learned in the project lay out the general process followed in the design, installation, and commissioning of APS for various distribution systems. Distribution utility partners’ apprehension about field demonstration of the new APS were addressed—with varying success—by taking a stepped risk-management approach of modeling of a wide range of sensitivities first, performing in-depth proof-of-concept testing in the laboratory including HIL next, and finally deliberately implementing and commissioning the actual protection equipment and algorithms into parts of—or in parallel operation to—the three real distribution systems. Future work should include pilot projects that further show the acceptable performance of the developed APS before these schemes be rolled out more widely. Inclusion of both utility and original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) in future projects could increase chances of successful field demonstration. Despite challenges in achieving the field demonstration goal of the project for all three APS, the research significantly contributed to the innovation of adaptive protection solutions for scalable and reliable DER integration into distribution systems. This project significantly enhances the understanding of the impact of using appropriate inverter models on distribution and transmission (T&D) systems. By addressing the limitations of existing generic models, the project introduces high-fidelity models for stability, protection, electromagnetic transient (EMT), and quasi-static time series (QSTS) analyses. These models, integrated into commercial software tools, enable utilities, vendors, and developers to confidently study high-penetration PV systems. The project also demonstrates advanced applications, including adaptive protection schemes (APS) for distribution systems and microgrids, ensuring grid safety and reliability. The technical effectiveness and economic feasibility of the methods are evident through the development and validation of sophisticated inverter test plans and the selection of representative inverters. Testing by EPRI and NREL on retail, commercial, and utility-scale inverters, conforming to IEEE standards, underscores the robustness of the models. Improvements to existing generic models for various analyses further enhance their validity and applicability. The project also identifies gaps in common distribution protection schemes and designed new APS using improved DER models, demonstrating their effectiveness through modeling and hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testing. The project’s benefits to the public are manifold. By advancing the standardization and model-based representation of IBR response, it supports transmission planning, stability assessments, and future IBR interconnection requirements. The generic models can facilitate better communication between transmission planners and developers, supporting expected IBR plant capability and performance. Additionally, the development of APS for radial feeders, meshed networks, and microgrids supports the integration of distributed energy resources (DERs) into distribution systems, enhancing grid reliability and safety. The project’s emphasis on thorough testing and simplicity in design ensures practical and scalable solutions for DER integration.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Moving beyond post hoc explainable artificial intelligence: a perspective paper on lessons learned from dynamical climate modeling

AI models are criticized as being black boxes, potentially subjecting climate science to greater uncertainty. Explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) has been proposed to probe AI models and increase trust. In this review and perspective paper, we suggest that, in addition to using XAI methods, AI researchers in climate science can learn from past successes in the development of physics-based dynamical climate models. Dynamical models are complex but have gained trust because their successes and failures can sometimes be attributed to specific components or sub-models, such as when model bias is explained by pointing to a particular parameterization. We propose three types of understanding as a basis to evaluate trust in dynamical and AI models alike: (1) instrumental understanding, which is obtained when a model has passed a functional test; (2) statistical understanding, obtained when researchers can make sense of the modeling results using statistical techniques to identify input–output relationships; and (3) component-level understanding, which refers to modelers' ability to point to specific model components or parts in the model architecture as the culprit for erratic model behaviors or as the crucial reason why the model functions well. We demonstrate how component-level understanding has been sought and achieved via climate model intercomparison projects over the past several decades. Such component-level understanding routinely leads to model improvements and may also serve as a template for thinking about AI-driven climate science. Currently, XAI methods can help explain the behaviors of AI models by focusing on the mapping between input and output, thereby increasing the statistical understanding of AI models. Yet, to further increase our understanding of AI models, we will have to build AI models that have interpretable components amenable to component-level understanding. We give recent examples from the AI climate science literature to highlight some recent, albeit limited, successes in achieving component-level understanding and thereby explaining model behavior. The merit of such interpretable AI models is that they serve as a stronger basis for trust in climate modeling and, by extension, downstream uses of climate model data.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Demonstrate new plasticity models for doped UO 2 that capture dislocation mechanisms

In light water reactors, fuel vendors are investigating the use of dopants to modify the properties of UO 2 pellets, with the goal of improving pellet-cladding mechanical interactions during operation. Dopants are expected to ‘soften’ the pellets; that is, the doped pellets have higher plastic deformation than conventional UO 2 . This leads to a reduction in the severity of mechanical pellet-cladding interactions, helping to reduce the hoop strain on the cladding. By minimizing the strain exerted by the pellet on the cladding, it is anticipated that cladding performance under accident conditions can be enhanced (i.e., lowering the risk of burst during a LOCA). Dopants such as chromium (Cr) promote grain growth during pellet fabrication, leading to larger grains; therefore, understanding the link between chemistry, microstructure and mechanical deformation (enhanced creep rates) behavior of UO 2 is critical to helping operators further substantiate the benefits of doping UO 2 . Historically, the nuclear energy industry has relied on empirical models to make assessments of performance. Compared to empirical models, mechanistic physics-based models provide benefits, such as, fewer data points for validation and better extrapolation where experimental data is scarce or non-existent. In this report, Bayesian inference techniques have been applied to a previously developed lower length-scale-informed diffusional creep model. The objective is to i) infer lower-length-scale parameter distributions from available experiment and then ii) determine the uncertainties in the measurable quantity (in this case creep rates) after propagating the inferred lower length scale parameter uncertainties. The approach requires many evaluations of the model, which becomes computationally insurmountable; therefore, a neural-network model is trained to data obtained by sampling the full model over the most important parameters. This neural-network is then used in the Bayesian inference approach to determine probability distributions in the parameter values that represent the uncertainty in the model given what is known from the experiments (posterior). A significant reduction compared to conservative initial (prior) uncertainties is achieved through inference against the experimental data, demonstrating the efficacy of this approach. Furthermore, by accounting for uncertainties in the experimental conditions and sample non-stoichiometry, it is possible to resolve apparent discrepancies in experimental measurements within a self-consistent grain boundary (Coble) creep model that is sensitive to chemistry. This work has been written up and submitted to Nuclear Technology for a special issue on accelerated fuel qualification (AFQ). This uncertainty quantification (UQ) work not only improves the diffusional model, while accounting for uncertainty, but also establishes a framework which can readily be applied to the mechanistic models of dislocation deformation developed in this study. The most likely values from the Bayesian analysis are incorporated into our UO 2 diffusional creep model and a lower length scale-informed irradiation UO 2 creep mechanistic model to generate a dataset. This dataset has been provided to our INL collaborators for training an artificial neural network surrogate model, which will be implemented in the BISON fuel performance code to assess how the results differ from those currently obtained using a fully empirical model and that of using the nominal (uncalibrated) atomic scale parameters in our mechanistic model. Plastic deformation (creep and glide) in UO 2 is a complex phenomenon, governed by multiple underlying processes such as local defect concentrations, applied stresses, and microstructural characteristics. Consequently, there is a need for a meso-scale model with polycrystalline resolution capable of extrapolating to large grain sizes applicable to doped UO 2 , where data is limited and the model can help bridge the knowledge gap. By integrating atomistic data into the polycrystal LApx code, it becomes possible to predict dislocation climb and glide plasticity that simple analytical models cannot accurately represent. The application of atomic-scale data within LApx demonstrated the importance of climb and glide mechanisms in reproducing high-stress UO 2 behavior. Behaviors such as this are crucial to capture and implement in BISON, as parts of the fuel pellet can reach temperatures where glide can occur before pellet cracking. This model which captures dislocation based mechanisms for UO 2 is then used to stand up the doped model accounting for larger grain sizes. It was found that larger grain sizes can lead to enhanced deformation rates in the glide regime, and therefore can help with the pellet cladding mechanical interaction. Therefore if the fuel pellet reaches conditions (stress/temperature) where glide is active, the enhanced creep rates for larger grains in the glide regime (doped UO 2 ) can help with pellet cladding mechanical interactions. Plastic deformation in UO 2 involves multiple mechanisms, including diffusional creep, dislocation climb, and glide. This milestone contains two parts: (1) UQ of a pre-existing lower length scale informed mechanistic diffusional creep model, and (2) development of a new LApx based model for dislocation-mediated creep mechanisms in UO 2 , with application to large-grain doped UO 2 .

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2026

ML-based Micro-CT SOFC Microstructure Models (from Kent 2026 Microstructural Augmentation paper)

Overview -------------------------- This repository contains datasets from the manuscript **"Enhanced Generalizability to Deep-Learning Quantification of 3D Microstructural Characteristics through Microstructurally Aware Augmentation of Scarce Data"** (*William F. Kent, Rochan Bajpai, Rachel C. Kurchin, William K. Epting, Harry W. Abernathy, Paul A. Salvador. Submitted 2026*). The methods are also described in the dissertation **Data Intensive Analysis of Solid Oxide Cell Microstructures** (*Doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, 2025*). The datasets here are trained convolutional neural network (CNN) models for predicting key microstructural properties of solid oxide cell (SOC) electrodes from low-res, 2-channel 3D images, as well as some helpful code. The parameters for input images are provided in the paper. Sample data is provided in the file `Combined_anode_aug_dual_1k_examples` - that particular data was used to train `anode_all_aug.pth` and will work most accurately with that model. Please familiarize yourself with all caveats on accuracy and applicability, as detailed in the associated paper. Usage -------------------------- The basic usage is as follows, assuming `model_fn` is the path to the .pth file, and `X` is 2-channel input image(s) of the proper dimensions (either one image of shape `[2,12,24,24]`, or a batch of N input images of shape `[N,2,12,24,24]`): from CNN_inferencer import load_model_for_inference model = load_model_for_inference(model_fn) y_predicted = model(X) The model object automatically handles input scaling and output de-scaling based on the way the models were trained - in other words, pass in a 2-channel micro-CT image, and it will output microstructural property values in real units. ## Other model object attributes Note that model has useful attributes other than its forward pass model(X). * `model.output_descaler` - returns the output descaler object. Model does the de-scaling when generating inferences, but you may want to re-use this de-scaler on other values to e.g. compare predictions to ground truth from already-scaled training data. * `model.prop_names` - Gives the property names of the predicted y values, in order. Only exists if there's an output scaler as part of the model object, which there will be in the models provided here. ## Usage with sample data Here is a short script to use with the included sample data. from CNN_inferencer import display_predictions, load_model_for_inference, calculate_mape, parity_plot import h5py import numpy as np model_fn = 'anode_all_aug.pth' data_fn = 'Combined_anode_aug_dual_1k_examples.h5' N_samples = 200 figure_outdir = '.' model = load_model_for_inference(model_fn) with h5py.File(data_fn,'r') as f: XX = f['X'] #These are the 2-channel 3D images yy = f['y'] #These are the ground-truth microstructural properties, but they have been scaled for training - need to de-scale below N = XX.shape[0] #How many images total in the input data file #Run inferences on N_samples random samples from XX. #Run in a batch, much more efficient than one at a time. ii = np.random.choice(N,N_samples,replace=False) ii.sort() y_pred = model(XX[ii]) #Get the original/true (but normalized/scaled) values from the training dataset... #Because they were normalized, they are not in real units yet. So let's also de-scale them using model.output_scaler. y_true = model.output_scaler.transform(yy[ii]) #Let's display actual values for just 5 random ones for i in np.random.choice(N_samples,5,replace=False): display_predictions(y_true[i], y_pred[i], model.prop_names) #Make parity plots for each property (ground truth vs predicted values) #Also label each plot with the mean abs. percent error (MAPE) of the predicted values for i,key in enumerate(model.prop_names): mape = calculate_mape(y_true[:,i], y_pred[:,i]) parity_plot(y_true[:,i], y_pred[:,i], figure_outdir, key, extra_title=f' ({mape:.2f}% MAPE)')

3D microstructure↗
DOE OSTI2024

Towards a NEAMS-based high-fidelity model of the MARVEL reactor

This report outlines the progress of Idaho National Laboratory in developing a high-fidelity and high-resolution model of the Microreactor Applications Research Validation and Evaluation reactor. The model was developed under the Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation microreactor application driver at Idaho National Laboratory. The overarching objective of this activity is the development of a high-fidelity multiphysics MARVEL model using NEAMS tools, and to verify and validate NEAMS tools against MARVEL reference simulation and experimental data, respectively. This is a unique opportunity to conduct multiphysics analysis on a soon-to-be-deployed microreactor. This multiphysics model developed under the NEAMS-funded INL microreactor application driver leverages three single-physics models coupled via the MOOSE’s MultiApp and Transfer systems. The latter systems enable in-memory data transfer between MOOSE-based and MOOSE-wrapped applications. The first single-physics model, that functions as main application, leverages Griffin to model the neutron transport in the core through the discontinuous finite element (DFEM) discrete ordinates solver (SN). Several optimization flags that were developed by the Griffin developer team were beta-tested to enhance the solver’s performance. These include the combined use of using_average_xs and update_averaged_xs_on that enable to avoid expensive on-the-fly cross sections evaluations at each linear iterations in favor of evaluations of the macroscopic cross sections at each Picard iteration. The second single-physics model uses BISON to handle solid heat transfer and asymptotic hydrogen redistribution analysis in the fuel. While the model returns consistent results for the temperature and hydrogen distribution in the fuel, a mismatch was noticed in the calculated temperature in the reflector due to the value of the gap conductance used in our model. Ongoing investigations are being performed to assess the origin of this discrepancy. Finally, the System Analysis Module (SAM) was used to model the flow of the sodium-potassium eutectic in the primary loop. A first verification was also performed showing good agreement in terms of mass flow rate and inlet temperature. All mesh files were generated using the MOOSE Reactor module, removing the need for external meshing tools. Notably, this workscope represents one of the initial applications of the MOOSE Reactor module for modeling highly irregular geometries. The use of the reactor module significantly streamlined the mesh generation process. The full multiphysics mode, that combines all the single physics models, was leveraged to conduct initial steady-state multiphysics simulations to compute power, and temperature distribution in the reactor. Initial testing was performed for transient simulations as well. In this case, the new checkpoint restart capability for eigenvalue calculations was tested showing the capability for streamlined restart of transient calculations. Future work will focus on improving the fidelity of the model by performing comprehensive code-to-code comparisons. For instance, the full-core Griffin neutronics model will be benchmarked against MCNP reference results, that were provided by the MARVEL design team. Additionally, the SAM T/H model will be verified against reference RELAP-5 results for selected accident scenarios. Besides code-to-code verification exercises, the model fidelity will be improved by replacing the single-channel SAM model with a more complex SAM-Pronghorn coupled model, in which the sub-channel capability is deployed to obtain radial temperature resolution in the coolant. This model will be developed in synergy with the NEAMS thermal hydraulics team.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Novel artificial neural network model for instantaneous power losses and operational efficiency mapping of MW-scale vanadium redox flow battery for improved technoeconomic analysis

A novel data-driven, machine-learning-based method for modeling the instantaneous power losses of a distribution-sited 2 MW/8MWh vanadium redox flow battery (VRFB), a grid-scale electrochemical storage technology, is introduced and compared against benchmark empirical modeling approaches, including symmetric and asymmetric models, as well as a recent convex hull modeling approach. The novel loss modeling method introduces several advantages over the benchmark models and over simplistic efficiency estimates, the most significant of which is that the model can accurately reflect the stepwise and non-linear parasitic losses associated with the duty cycles of mechanical auxiliary systems like pump motor drives and blower fans. Residuals of the models are compared; the proposed data driven model features significantly improved accuracy over the benchmark models. The model's coefficient of determination is also improved relative to that of the benchmark models. Furthermore, a novel method for visualization of operational efficiency of the grid-scale storage technology is introduced. To demonstrate the benefits of the novel data-driven method for modeling the VRFB, the benchmark models and the proposed models are embedded into an Open DSS distribution network model to study two applications of the grid-scale electrical storage system: load leveling for grid support and energy arbitrage. This article demonstrates that the accuracy of the instantaneous power loss model significantly impacts the understanding of the state of charge of the VRFB. In turn, the accuracy of the efficiency modeling of the VRFB impacts the understanding of the potential economic value and technical benefits to the distribution network operators. In conclusion, the presented power loss modeling approach is, therefore, highly relevant for utility-stakeholders, battery asset owners, system engineers, system designers, and financial planners interested in evaluating or optimizing the operation of grid-scale VRFBs.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗