Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Data access”

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 325 records · Page 18
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Community Resilience Indicator Analysis: Commonly Used Indicators from Peer-Reviewed Research (Updated for Research Published 2003-2021)

In 2017, FEMA’s National Integration Center (NIC) Technical Assistance (TA) Branch identified a need to establish a data-driven basis for prioritizing locations for TA investment and guiding local emergency management planning. To achieve this goal, FEMA tasked Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne) with identifying commonly used indicators of community resilience across the landscape of published peer-reviewed research. FEMA and Argonne completed the first Community Resilience Indicator Analysis (CRIA) in 2018 and repeated the process in 2022. The CRIA process begins with a literature review and cataloguing of published peer-reviewed assessment methodologies on social vulnerability and community resilience. The literature review findings are then filtered by inclusion criteria established by the CRIA research team to ensure the methodologies are: (1) Quantitative, (2) Data and methodology are publicly available, (3) Calculated at the county level or lower, (4) Examine generalized hazard risk (rather than a singular hazard), and (5) Focused on pre-disaster community conditions. After this, the research team identifies the commonly used indicators across these methodologies and selects the best data source for each indicator. Finally, the research team bins the data for visual display, conducts a correlation analysis and creates a composite index, the FEMA Community Resilience Index (FEMA CRI). In 2018, the CRIA identified eight resilience and vulnerability assessment methodologies and 20 commonly used indicators (indicators used in three or more of the eight methodologies). The FEMA CRI in 2018 was created from these 20 indicators and was produced for at the county level. The 2022 CRIA updated the literature review to expand the list of methodologies examined and followed the same process, resulting in an analysis of 14 methodologies published between 2003 and 2021 and 22 indicators identified as commonly used (indicators used in five or more of the 14 methodologies). In 2022, the research team produced the FEMA CRI at the county and the census tract levels. To make the CRIA data more accessible and more actionable, each individual indicator and the FEMA CRI is binned and included in FEMA’s Resilience Analysis and Planning Tool (RAPT). RAPT enables emergency managers and community partners to quickly visualize relative differences in potential resilience by county, tribe and census tract. By reviewing the data for each of these 22 indicators individually, emergency managers can gain insights for targeted outreach strategies, planning, mitigation investments and response and recovery operations. Communities, regional governments and others can use this data to better understand potential challenges to resilience. As the social science field of examining and validating indicators of resilience evolves, FEMA will update RAPT to provide emergency managers and community partners with additional data and tools to inform planning, mitigation, response and recovery. It is important to understand that the role of the emergency manager is not to change or to “improve” the data, but to plan appropriately for the community characteristics reflected in the data. These datasets are community characteristics that researchers have identified as important considerations for resilience. For example, people with disabilities may have greater challenges to be resilient to disasters. If a community has a high population of people with disabilities, the emergency manager(s) may need to create tailored preparedness outreach programs and strategies to ensure those residents have support if evacuation is necessary. Rather than label these indicators as an absolute measure of resilience, FEMA considers “potential challenges to resilience” a better frame to understand these indicators. Everyone is vulnerable to disasters. While scholars theorize that certain characteristics may make an individual or a household more socially vulnerable, the data does not reflect measures that individuals and/or communities have taken to address potential challenges, such as emergency management planning and outreach or household preparedness measures. To aid emergency managers in understanding how to use these indicators, calling them potential challenges to resilience supports a more positive and strategic application of the data in all phases of emergency management.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Commercial Building Sensors and Controls Systems: Barriers and Drivers: Preprint

Building sensors and controls systems, including building automation systems, comprise the sensor-based devices installed in buildings as well as the control and automation of those devices. Optimized sensors and controls systems could lead to 29% annual energy savings in commercial buildings and are integral to the growth of grid-interactive efficient buildings. Only 13% of small commercial buildings, however, have installed sensors and controls systems, largely because of cost barriers. To accelerate adoption, this work seeks to increase the transparency of system costs and identify specific barriers and drivers. To gather industry insights, the team reached out to building owners, vendors, and contractors and conducted 21 interviews with the goal of collecting cost data and market characteristics regarding building sensors and controls. We collected the cost data in the form of invoices and used it to develop a percentage-based cost category breakdown. The interview data were analyzed using grounded theory to identify overarching concepts such as barriers, drivers, and future directions. From this analysis, we found the primary barriers to be complex and confusing systems, lack of user skills, and financial concerns, and the primary drivers to be operational benefits, insight into operations, and remote access to data. The future directions analysis highlighted the potential technological solutions to address gaps and barriers, as well as predicted drivers to increase adoption. This greater understanding of the costs, barriers, and drivers associated with commercial building sensors and controls systems lays the groundwork for increasing system adoption, reducing energy consumption, and transforming the market.

building automation system↗
DOE OSTI2021

Estimating Surface Solar Irradiance Using Meteosat-8 Satellite for India and Surrounding Regions (2017-2019)

Using the Physical Solar Model, Version 3 (PSM V3), the National Renewable Energy Laboratory—in collaboration with the University of Wisconsin, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Solar Consulting Services—produced modeled surface solar irradiance based on Meteosat-8 satellite cloud information. PSM V3 implements a physics-based radiative transfer approach to model surface solar irradiance using cloud properties processed from raw satellite data and ancillary data such as aerosol optical depth and precipitable water vapor from the Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2). Further, the modeled surface solar irradiance was validated using 10 high-quality ground measurement data from the Baseline Surface Radiation Network. The modeled data showed good correlation with the ground measurement, and the overall uncertainty is less than 35% for all validation locations. Because of the satellite viewing geometry, the Indian and European locations demonstrated higher uncertainties than the African locations, where the Meteosat-8 satellite has a more nadir viewing geometry. Further, instruction on how to access the data is provided.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

First Plant Cell Atlas symposium report

The Plant Cell Atlas (PCA) community hosted a virtual symposium on December 9 and 10, 2021 on single cell and spatial omics technologies. The conference gathered almost 500 academic, industry, and government leaders to identify the needs and directions of the PCA community and to explore how establishing a data synthesis center would address these needs and accelerate progress. This report details the presentations and discussions focused on the possibility of a data synthesis center for a PCA and the expected impacts of such a center on advancing science and technology globally. Community discussions focused on topics such as data analysis tools and annotation standards; computational expertise and cyber-infrastructure; modes of community organization and engagement; methods for ensuring a broad reach in the PCA community; recruitment, training, and nurturing of new talent; and the overall impact of the PCA initiative. These targeted discussions facilitated dialogue among the participants to gauge whether PCA might be a vehicle for formulating a data synthesis center. The conversations also explored how online tools can be leveraged to help broaden the reach of the PCA (i.e., online contests, virtual networking, and social media stakeholder engagement) and decrease costs of conducting research (e.g., virtual REU opportunities). Major recommendations for the future of the PCA included establishing standards, creating dashboards for easy and intuitive access to data, and engaging with a broad community of stakeholders. The discussions also identified the following as being essential to the PCA's success: identifying homologous cell-type markers and their biocuration, publishing datasets and computational pipelines, utilizing online tools for communication (such as Slack), and user-friendly data visualization and data sharing. In conclusion, the development of a data synthesis center will help the PCA community achieve these goals by providing a centralized repository for existing and new data, a platform for sharing tools, and new analytical approaches through collaborative, multidisciplinary efforts. A data synthesis center will help the PCA reach milestones, such as community-supported data evaluation metrics, accelerating plant research necessary for human and environmental health.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Results From Invoking Artificial Neural Networks to Measure Insider Threat Detection & Mitigation

Advances on differentiating between malicious intent and natural “organizational evolution” to explain observed anomalies in operational workplace patterns suggest benefit from evaluating collective behaviors observed in the facilities to improve insider threat detection and mitigation (ITDM). Advances in artificial neural networks (ANN) provide more robust pathways for capturing, analyzing, and collating disparate data signals into quantitative descriptions of operational workplace patterns. In response, a joint study by Sandia National Laboratories and the University of Texas at Austin explored the effectiveness of commercial artificial neural network (ANN) software to improve ITDM. Overall, this research demonstrates the benefit of learning patterns of organizational behaviors, detecting off-normal (or anomalous) deviations from these patterns, and alerting when certain types, frequencies, or quantities of deviations emerge for improving ITDM. Evaluating nearly 33,000 access control data points and over 1,600 intrusion sensor data points collected over a nearly twelve-month period, this study's results demonstrated the ANN could recognize operational patterns at the Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory (NETL) and detect off-normal behaviors—suggesting that ANNs can be used to support a data-analytic approach to ITDM. Several representative experiments were conducted to further evaluate these conclusions, with the resultant insights supporting collective behavior-based analytical approaches to quantitatively describe insider threat detection and mitigation.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗
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

Weather radar utility in hazard detection and response

Publicly accessible weather radar data have significant capabilities for meteorological measurements and predictions and, further, have the potential to measure nonmeteorological events that include smoke, ash, and debris plumes as well as explosions. The ability to identify and track nonmeteorological events can be of assistance in emergency response, hazard mitigation, and related activities in locations where radar coverage both exists and is recorded and accessible to the user. Here, in this study, events from multiple locations in the United States that are reported in news outlets are assessed using a manual inspection process of Level 2 weather radar data to identify anthropogenic and nonbiological returns. Explosive events are also identified, and a large high-altitude debris cloud from the intentional destruction of the SpaceX Starship is tracked across a wide area. Finally, future efforts using a machine learning model are discussed as a means of automating the process and potentially enabling near-real-time nonmeteorological event identification in the same areas where the data are accessible. Using weather radar data can be a valuable new tool for Department of Defense systems to aid in military awareness, and for interagency emergency response and forensic mission experts to consider national weather service data in their mission profiles. Radar data can be effective in detecting several common types of emergencies and inform and aid response personnel.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Identifying location of data granules in global virtual address space

An approach is disclosed that identifies a home node of a data granule. The process is performed by an information handling system (a local node) that retrieves a global virtual address directory. The global virtual address directory maps shared virtual addresses to a number nodes that includes the local node with one of the nodes being the home node. The shared virtual addresses correspond to a plurality of memory addresses that are stored in a shared virtual memory that is shared amongst the plurality of nodes. The approach receives a selected shared virtual address, retrieves, from the global virtual address directory, the home node associated with the selected shared virtual address, and accesses the data granule corresponding to the selected shared virtual address from the home node.

Johns, Charles R.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Livewire Data Platform-A Solution for Energy Efficient Mobility Systems (EEMS) Data Sharing

This presentation is an overview of progress made on the Livewire Data Platform since June 2022. Livewire is a publicly accessible platform for sharing energy efficiency and mobility research data funded by DOE's Vehicle Technologies Office. Core services and platform capabilities of Livewire include: Free, secure data storage; Access management that allows data owners to control who sees their data; Data collection and preservation; Quality characterization; Detailed access and download metrics; and Increased visibility of projects and data. Anyone can create an account and access data at https://livewire.energy.gov/.

energy efficiency↗
DOE OSTI2022

Development of a Data Platform for High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP) Thermal-Fluid Experiments

Since the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) initiated the Nuclear Energy University Program (NEUP) in 2009, a total of 30 NEUP projects focused on High-Temperature Gas-cooled Reactor (HTGR) thermal-fluid experiments were funded up to fiscal year (FY) 2021. This represents a total DOE investment of approximately $23M over the 12-year period, covering thermal fluid phenomena important to both pebble bed and prismatic HTGR designs. The NEUP projects have produced a large amount of high-quality experimental and computational data that were published in final project reports, journal articles, dissertations, and conference proceedings, but in most cases the actual data sets and supporting information such as facility and instrumentation descriptions were not publicly disseminated to the HTGR community. To the authors’ best knowledge, a data platform that organizes and summarizes these NEUP-funded projects for HTGR research does not currently exist. To improve access to this HTGR validation data and optimize the return on the significant investment made by DOE, the Advanced Reactor Technologies (ART) Gas-Cooled Reactor (GCR) program started a survey of completed and ongoing HTGR NEUP projects with the aim of developing a public-access data platform that can be used to retrieve computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and system code validation data and guide future NEUP investments. This paper summarizes the status of the current ART-GCR database, provides an overview of the NEUP-funded HTGR-related research projects from FY2009 to FY2021 and identify validation knowledge gaps still existing in HTGR thermal-fluid research.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Wind speed data from NCEI Marcos A Gelabert station, Panama, Jan 2008 – Dec 2019

This data package contains wind speed data retrieved from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Center for Environmental Information (NCEI). Measurements were collected at the Marcos A. Gilbert airport in Panama City, Panama. This station can be considered as an analogue to the NGEE Tropics Parque Natural Metropolitano site in Panama. In the attached Excel file, wind speed units have been converted from MPH to m/s (1MPH = 0.447 m/s). Data from NCEI can be accessed at: https://gis.ncdc.noaa.gov/maps/ncei/, STATION NAME: MARCOS A GELABERT (Airport in Panama City). Within the attached zip file are three .csv data files, three PDF files containing an explanation of gap filling procedures and site information, and a read.me text file with metadata and instructions for accessing data from NCEI.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Using High-Resolution NSRDB Data to Evaluate Cloud Mask Forecast from WRF-Solar EPS

Validating spatiotemporal distributions of cloud forecasts using numerical weather prediction (NWP) models is difficult as this requires high-quality cloud-property at significantly high spatial and temporal resolution over extended periods of time. Observations of cloud properties, such as cloud mask, cloud optical thickness, and cloud type, are vital for assessing the capability of NWP models to forecast various types of clouds. Using the National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB), this research evaluates ensemble cloud-mask predictions from the WRF-Solar ensemble prediction system (WRF-Solar EPS). From the WRF-Solar EPS, day-ahead solar forecasts for the contiguous United States (CONUS) for 2018 are simulated. Given the NSRDB data is accessible at a resolution of 2 km, we can calculate the cloud fraction across the 9-km grid of WRF-Solar EPS. This allows us to spatially assess the cloud-mask forecasts using two methods against the high-resolution NSRDB: (a) considering all 2-km NSRDB clouds in the forecast domain (EMAll), and (b) using a minimum cloud fraction threshold of 50% to designate a pixel as cloudy (EMP50). The low-resolution cloud masks from WRF-Solar EPS are evaluated directly against the cloud-resolving scale gridded observations from NSRDB using EMAll. With EMP50, we presume that scenes with less than 50% cloud cover from the 2-km NSRDB are clear. Thus, this assessment approach allows for a fair comparison with WRF-Solar EPS resolved to a 9-km grid. A method of point-by-point verification is used to evaluate dichotomous (yes/no) cloud mask predictions against the NSRDB. For each pixel of model extent, cloud frequency and traditional metrics (e.g., probability of detection, false alarm rate, and hit rate, etc.) are computed and compared with satellite-derived data sets. Mismatched cloud frequency (MCF) is computed to measure the present capability of WRF-Solar EPS in representing various types of clouds, which are categorized using three levels of cloud top height (CTH) and cloud optical depth (COD) across entire CONUS. Preliminary results show that the WRF-Solar EPS provides MCF values ranging from 9% to 46%, 16% to 33%, and 8% to 27% for low-level, middle-level, and high-level clouds, respectively, for three CTHs. The model produces MCFs ranging from 27% to 46%, 13% to 34%, and 8% to 19% for thin, medium-thickness, and thick clouds, respectively, for three CODs. The presentation will include a detailed description of the current outcomes as well as potential future extensions. The evaluation approach established in this study is readily extensible to the evaluation of cloud predictions from different ensemble NWP models. In addition, the findings of the suggested evaluation technique aid in identifying model weaknesses and will ultimately lead to advances in WRF-Solar EPS's skill in predicting clouds and solar irradiance.

cloud mask forecast↗
DOE OSTI2022

MZA: A Data Conversion Tool to Facilitate Software Development and Artificial Intelligence Research in Multidimensional Mass Spectrometry

Modern mass spectrometry-based workflows employing hybrid instrumentation and orthogonal separations collect multidimensional data, potentially allowing deeper understanding in omics studies through adoption of artificial intelligence methods. However, the large volume of these rich data challenges existing data storage and access technologies, therefore precluding informatics advancements. Here we present MZA™ (pronounced m-za), the mass-to-charge (m/z) generic data storage and access tool designed to facilitate software development and artificial intelligence research in multidimensional mass spectrometry measurements. Composed by a data conversion tool and a simple file structure based on the HDF5 format, MZA provides easy, cross-platform and efficient programmatic access to raw MS-data, enabling fast development of new tools in data science programming languages such as Python and R. The software executable and example Python and R scripts are freely available at https://github.com/PNNL-m-q/mza.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2022

2.3.3.404 - National Lab and University Collaboration for MHK Instrumentation and Data Processing Tools

Field and laboratory validation, testing, demonstration, and operation are critical steps for increasing the technology readiness level of marine energy (ME) converters because they provide high-quality testing and performance data that are critical information used to feed all aspects of technology development. This project, in partnership with industry, enables the marine and hydrokinetic energy (MHK) community to reliably and efficiently collect, process, manage, and share quality data by facilitating access to and development of instrumentation, guidelines and data processing/QA tools. Under this project, open-source data processing code (MHKiT) and tools (ME Data Pipeline, MRE Code Hub, PRIMRE Code Catalog), instrumentation (loads measurements), data acquisition systems (miniDAQ), and measurement guidance tools (Telesto, high EMI guidance) were developed to facilitate the collection and processing of quality laboratory and field data. Overall, this project is intended to improve the quality of the data collected during laboratory and field demonstration projects by standardizing the collection and processing techniques, as well as by improving access to instrumentation, code, and measurement guidance. Quality data will, in turn, lead to improved knowledge capture following ME device testing.

data processing↗
DOE OSTI2025

Lowering the barrier to access information-rich transient kinetic data for machine learning methods

Transient kinetic data contain a wealth of information about intrinsic features of a catalyst as well as the reaction mechanism. Currently, high volume transient data is underutilized, and data science methods could both increase the value of information that can be extracted from this data, integrate experimental with theoretical data sources, and accelerate the pace of catalyst technology advancement. Transient kinetic characterizations with simple probe molecules exhibiting reversible adsorption, irreversible adsorption and bulk-surface diffusion are presented as training components for similar experiments with more complex surface reactions. In conclusion, by increasing the availability and accessibility of transient kinetic data through details of its structure and acquisition, we aim to decrease the barrier for data scientists to apply machine learning methods to this valuable data source.

Catalysis↗
DOE OSTI2021

Blockchain Smart Contract Reference Framework and Program Logic Architecture for Transactive Energy Systems

This paper proposes a reference framework for a transactive energy market based on blockchain. The framework was designed based on the engineering requirements of a distribution-scale market; including participant needs, expected market transactions, and the cybersecurity constructs required to support a fair, secure and efficient market operation. It leverages the existing blockchain primitives to provide clear value propositions to the transactive market, including identity management (access control), data security (integrity), resiliency (decentralization, scalability and performance). The validity of the proposed framework is demonstrated using a real-time 5-min double-auction market. The results highlight its benefits while providing strong validation of applicability to blockchain within transactive energy systems.

Gourisetti, Sri Nikhil Gupta↗