Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “convention equation”

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.

333 records · Page 19
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

TaV_BCC_SolidSolution_128atoms_VASP6

We performed density functional theory (DFT) calculations for body-centered-cubic (BCC) structures with 128 lattices sites of solid solution binary alloys tantalum-vanadium (Tanu-V). The electronic structures of alloys have been calculated using Vienna Ab initio Simulation Package (VASP). Within this package the DFT approach is used to reduce many-body Schrodinger equation to set of single particle Kohn-Sham (KS) equations. The generalized electronic exchange-correlation functional is described by generalized gradient approximation with the Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof parametrization. The electron-ion interactions is described by pseudopotentials developed within the plane-wave basis projector augmented-wave (PAW) approach. These pseudopotentials are available at the VASP portal (http://cms.mpi.univie.ac.at/vasp/). Our calculations have been run with the pseudopotentials treating s and p semi-core states as valence in case for the element V. For Ta, p semi-core states as valence were chosen. The electronic densities and potentials are expanded over plane-waves with energy cutoff of 350 eV. 2x2x2 k-mesh and normal precision were used. The alloys were modeled by supercell containing 128 randomly distributed atoms. At initial step the atoms occupy perfect bcc lattice cites. This initial structure was optimized until energy changes less than 1e-6 eV, while forces acting on atoms don't exceed 1e-2 eV/angstrom. The electron-ion interaction is described by PAW pseudopotentials. The calculations have been collected by sampling chemical compositions across the entire compositional range. The chemical compositions have been sampled by progressively changing the number of atoms per constituent by 4. For each chemical composition of binaries and ternaries, the first-principle calculations have been run for 100 randomized arrangements of the constituents on the BCC lattice sites. We collected data for a total of 3,100 randomized atomic structures over 31 chemical compositions. The calculations have been collected on NERSC-Perlmutter and OLCF-Summit using the VASP 6.3.2. The VASP calculations for every atomic structure have been performed in 2 main steps: 1. Starting from an ideal body-centered-cubic (BCC) structure, geometry optimization with low precision has been executed to perform a preliminary optimization of the atomic structure. The output for this calculations is available in the files 0.CONTCAR, 0.OUTCAR, rlx1.out. 2. Using the atomic structure resulting from the preliminary geometry optimization, a second geometry optimization has been performed using normal precision. The output for this calculations is available in the files CONTCAR, OUTCAR, rlx2.out, vaspout.h5, and vasprun.xml. Cases 1-10 have been run without generating the file 'vaspout.h5'. Every chemical composition sampled across the composition range in the dataset has its own directory. The convention used to name the directories for binary alloys is AXBY, where A and B refer to the constituents, whereas X and Y are positive integers that represent the number of atoms for each constituent and their values still sum up to 128. Each atomic structure associated with a specific chemical composition has its own sub-directory within the directory of the corresponding chemical composition. The sub-directories for each atomic structure for each chemical composition are named 'case-*', where * is a positive integer that spans all the values from 1 through 100, extremes included. The files contained in each sub-directory 'case-*' for each atomic structure are as follows: FILES contained in each subdirectory with name case-N where N ranges between 11 and 100, extremes included: 1. INCAR: input file that contains various parameters and settings for controlling the behavior of the electronic structure calculations 2. KPOINTS: input file that specifies the Bloch vectors (k points) used to sample the Brillouin zone 3. 0.POSCAR: input file that defines the atomic structure of a system 4. 0.CONTCAR: output file that provides the atomic positions and cell parameters after the first geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 5. 0.OUTCAR: output file that contains detailed information about the progress of a calculation after the first geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 6. rlx1.out: file with diagnostic information about the execution of the first geometry optimization with precision variable set to PREC=Low in the INCAR file 7. POSCAR: input file that defines the atomic structure of a system after the first geometry optimization has been run at low precision. This represents the input for the second geometry optimization run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 8. CONTCAR: output file that provides the atomic positions and cell parameters after the second geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 9. OUTCAR: output file that contains detailed information about the progress of a calculation after the second geometry optimization has been run with the precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 10. rlx2.out: file with diagnostic information about the execution of the second geometry optimization with precision variable set to PREC=Normal in the INCAR file 11. vaspout.h5: hierarchical HDF5 file containing the inputs and outputs of a VASP calculation. To analyze the data in this file we recommend using py4vasp. This file is only produced if the VASP version used is compiled with HDF5 support 12. vasprun.xml: contains similar information to OUTCAR, but in an xml format. Subdirectories with name case-N, where N ranges between 1 and 10 (extremes included) contain all the files listed above except 'vaspout.h5'. Subdirectories with name case-N, where N ranges between 41 and 60 (extremes included), contain a duplicate copy of the files listed above except for KPOINTS. The names of the duplicate files end with -bis, and correspond to a second VASP calculation that has converged to a different optimized geometry. This research is sponsored by the Artificial Intelligence Initiative as part of the Laboratory Directed Research and Development (LDRD) Program of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the US Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. This work used resources of the Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725, under Directorate Discretionary awards MAT025 (Materials Science) and LRN026 (Machine Learning), and INCITE award MAT201. This work also used resources of the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, which is supported by the Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231, under award ERCAP0025216. REFERENCES (1) Kresse, G. and Hafner, J. Ab initio molecular dynamics for liquid metals. Phys. review B 47, 558 (1993). (2) Kresse, G. and Hafner, J. Ab initio molecular-dynamics simulation of the liquid-metal-amorphous-semiconductor transition in germanium. Phys. Rev. B 49, 14251 (1994) (3) Kresse, G. and Furthmuller, J. Efficiency of ab-initio total energy calculations for metals and semiconductors using a plane-wave basis set. Comput. materials science 6, 15-50 (1996) (4) Kresse, G. and Furthmuller, J. Efficient iterative schemes for ab initio total-energy calculations using a plane-wave basis set. Phys. review B 54, 11169 (1996) (5) Kresse, G. and Joubert, D. From ultrasoft pseudopotentials to the projector augmented-wave method. Phys. review b 59, 1758 (1999)

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2022

Multi-harmonic Rutherford island theory

Rutherford island theory, which governs the nonlinear evolution of tearing modes in tokamak plasmas, is generalized to take into account situations in which the conventional one-harmonic approximation is not valid. The analysis incorporates non-inductive currents driven by radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic waves injected into the plasma. A multi-harmonic tearing mode dispersion relation is derived that takes the form of a nonlinear inhomogeneous matrix eigenvalue problem. The dispersion relation is solved in the so-called two-harmonic approximation, in which only the principal Fourier harmonic of the perturbed magnetic flux and its first overtone are included in the calculation. In the absence of RF current drive, the nonlinear behavior of a tearing mode predicted in the two-harmonic approximation does not differ substantially from that predicted in the one-harmonic approximation. On the other hand, RF current drive that is sufficiently localized in the vicinity of the O-points of the mode's magnetic island chain is capable of triggering bifurcations of the O-points (which is impossible in the one-harmonic approximation). However, the current drive is incapable of triggering bifurcations of the island X-points. This finding is significant because Bardóczi and Evans recently observed bifurcations of magnetic island chain O-points in the presence of RF current drive in the DIII-D tokamak but did not observe bifurcations of the X-points. Finally, the changes in the topology of the magnetic island flux-surfaces induced by RF current drive are found to facilitate the stabilization of the tearing mode.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2025

Accelerating multilevel Markov Chain Monte Carlo using machine learning models

Here, this work presents an efficient approach for accelerating multilevel Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling for large-scale problems using low-fidelity machine learning models. While conventional techniques for large-scale Bayesian inference often substitute computationally expensive high-fidelity models with machine learning models, thereby introducing approximation errors, our approach offers a computationally efficient alternative by augmenting high-fidelity models with low-fidelity ones within a hierarchical framework. The multilevel approach utilizes the low-fidelity machine learning model (MLM) for inexpensive evaluation of proposed samples thereby improving the acceptance of samples by the high-fidelity model. The hierarchy in our multilevel algorithm is derived from geometric multigrid hierarchy. We utilize an MLM to accelerate the coarse level sampling. Training machine learning model for the coarsest level significantly reduces the computational cost associated with generating training data and training the model. We present an MCMC algorithm to accelerate the coarsest level sampling using MLM and account for the approximation error introduced. We provide theoretical proofs of detailed balance and demonstrate that our multilevel approach constitutes a consistent MCMC algorithm. Additionally, we derive the expression for cost reduction due to machine learning model to facilitate cost analysis of the hierarchical sampling algorithm. Our technique is demonstrated on a standard benchmark inference problem in groundwater flow, where we estimate the probability density of a quantity of interest using a four-level MCMC algorithm. Our proposed algorithm accelerates multilevel sampling by a factor of two while achieving similar accuracy compared to sampling using the standard multilevel algorithm.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Crystal structure, compressibility, and thermal expansion of uranium mononitride

The behavior of the uranium mononitride (UN) crystal structure at nonambient conditions is disputed, with studies proposing various mutually exclusive distortions and transformations of the conventional face-centered-cubic structure at extreme temperatures and pressures. Here, in this study, we investigated the UN lattice with diamond anvil cell x-ray diffraction experiments at pressures up to 92 GPa and with density functional theory calculations at temperatures up to 1000 K and pressures up to 90 GPa. We determined that while the UN structure is nearly cubic at ambient conditions, its lattice angle (𝛼) varies as a function of pressure and temperature, meaning its structure can be more precisely described as face-centered-rhombohedral with 𝛼 ≈ 90∘. Over the range of conditions we investigated, UN exhibits a single, isostructural phase transition at ≈ 35 GPa, where 𝛼 collapses to ≈ 86°. Measurements and calculations agree that the compressibility of UN increases significantly beyond this transition, with the bulk modulus falling from ≈ 200 GPa in the low-pressure phase to 121 ± 3 GPa (according to calculations) or 58 ± 4 GPa (according to measurements) in the high-pressure phase. Our measurements also allowed us to constrain the bulk modulus of 𝛼−U 2 ⁢N 3 to 240 ± 10 GPa.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2023

Technology Strategy Assessment: Findings from Storage Innovations 2030 Bidirectional Hydrogen Storage

Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, comprising nearly 75% of all normal matter, and it has been used by scientists for centuries, but it was not fully recognized as an element until 1766, when it was isolated by Henry Cavendish. Early work focused on the generation of hydrogen through the oxidation of metals in water, which released hydrogen gas. Hydrogen’s lighter-than-air and flammable properties were immediately used in engines, zeppelins, and as feedstock for a wide variety of chemical reactions. Several approaches were developed for the production of hydrogen with the most common being associated with the production and conversion of hydrocarbon-based fuels. Coal gasification, steam methane reforming, and other reformation processes provide the majority of current hydrogen production due to the relatively low cost of hydrogen produced through these processes. More than 95% of hydrogen production is used for industrial processes rather than energy storage. To facilitate affordable decarbonization of these industrial processes and to advance the use of hydrogen as a fuel in transportation, DOE launched the Hydrogen Shot as part of the Energy Earthshots Initiative. The goal of the Hydrogen Shot is to reduce the cost of clean hydrogen by 80% to $1/kg of clean hydrogen production within one decade (known as the “1 1 1” goal). This is distinct from the Long-Duration Storage Shot, which is the primary focus of this report; however, it is intrinsically linked to bidirectional hydrogen storage. Several important chemical synthesis processes are dependent upon hydrogen, and the production and use of hydrogen is generally driven by its connection to one of these markets. For example, ammonia is one of the most highly produced chemicals in the world and it depends chiefly on hydrogen. Ammonia is primarily used for agricultural fertilizer and is considered to be largely responsible for a doubling of agricultural production per unit of land over the last century. Another one of hydrogen’s primary uses is as a catalyst in petroleum refining during the desulfurization process. Beyond chemical production, hydrogen is used as a reductant in the production of steel and has been demonstrated as a substitute for metallurgical coal in the production of raw iron. It is even used in the hydrogenation reaction for food products to create more shelf-stable semi-solid fats. However, while hydrogen is produced on the order of 100 million metric tons/year globally to feed these industries, more than 95% of hydrogen is produced from hydrocarbons that emit CO2 during the process. Conversely, electrolysis is a process by which electricity is used to separate hydrogen and oxygen in water molecules, usually across a membrane. Hydrogen production via electrolysis lowers the carbon intensity of produced hydrogen when coupled with low-carbon electricity. Currently, global electrolysis capacity is on the order of 1 GW, which equates to about 500 metric tons/day of hydrogen production. To support large-scale industrial decarbonization, capacity will likely need to increase by two to three orders of magnitude. Electrolysis technology is broadly separated into groups that are defined by the electrolyte used, with further subdivision based on the operating characteristics. The majority of commercial electrolyzer systems are based around three main technology groups: liquid alkaline, proton exchange membrane, and solid oxide. Liquid Alkaline (LA) electrolysis is the oldest, most mature, least expensive, and most common commercial technology, with 400 plants in operation by 1902. Its hydrogen output is low relative to the size of the system due to a low current density. LA electrolysis utilizes a liquid potassium hydroxide solution as the electrolyte. Proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolysis (also known as polymer electrolyte membrane electrolysis), described in 1960, relies on an acid-impregnated polymer membrane as the electrolyte and typically offers three to six times higher hydrogen production per unit cell area than LA electrolysis. Solid oxide electrolysis, or high-temperature electrolysis, utilizes a ceramic cell as the electrolyte and operates on steam rather than liquid water, enabling electrical efficiencies of more than 90%, which is up from 60% with PEM. Two pre-commercial electrolyzer technologies to note are alkaline exchange membrane (AEM) and proton-conducting solid oxide electrolysis cell (SOEC). AEM potentially has the advantages of both LA and PEM technologies in that it is able to use low-cost materials like LA but with the ability to operate at higher output pressures with a smaller footprint like PEM. Proton-conducting SOEC is similar to commercial SOEC, which uses an oxide-conducting ceramic; however, it uses a proton-conducting ceramic that has the potential to operate at lower temperatures and has lower capital costs. Each of these technologies is experiencing a rapid improvement in performance and a reduction in installed cost, and each appears to be well suited to specific applications. Besides differences in the type of electrolyzer used, the main difference in the architecture of bidirectional hydrogen systems is how the hydrogen is stored. Currently, the most cost-effective way to store large amounts of hydrogen gas is underground, such as in large salt caverns that have been hollowed out. These salt caverns are geographically concentrated in small portions of the United States and are not generally near large metropolitan areas; however, other subsurface architectures are being investigated to expand this reach. A more widely deployable option is aboveground pressurized tanks. These systems are about 10 times as expensive because of the materials and safety margins required to hold hydrogen at high pressures. A third option is using materials-based storage, such as liquid organic hydrogen carriers. By reversibly attaching the produced hydrogen to other molecules, it can be stored at near atmospheric pressure and room temperature. This has the potential to reduce the material cost of storage but may result in a reduction in the efficiency of the process because there are both hydrogen uptake and release processes. While materials-based storage has not been used extensively for large-scale hydrogen storage in the past, there is currently significant activity regarding developing materials and processes for use in large-scale hydrogen storage applications. Electrolysis-produced hydrogen offers an unusual opportunity for energy storage applications. Unlike more conventional energy storage approaches, such as batteries, which operate entirely within electrical markets, hydrogen is a valuable product beyond the electric market and can be directed to the most lucrative use. Hydrogen also can be directly converted back to electricity using either a fuel cell or turbine, or it can be sold to other markets, such as chemical synthesis, steel production, or even export. In this way, excess electricity can be upgraded to the most valuable product. Finally, its use can be actively managed between multiple off-takers; for example, local hydrogen storage can provide a specific amount of stored electricity and any excess can be exported to ammonia production. This flexibility is amplified by the fact that hydrogen storage has fully decoupled power and energy components, which allows for affordable scaling options. Together, this allows a substantial amount of creativity to enable the economic utilization of variable power resources while supporting decarbonization of the industry.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2021

ACCELERATED CREEP TEST (ACT) QUALIFICATION OF CREEP RESISTANCE USING THE WCS CONSTITUTIVE MODEL AND STEPPED ISOSTRESS METHOD (SSM)

In this study, a qualification of accelerated creep-resistance of Inconel 718 is assessed using the novel Wilshire-Cano-Stewart (WCS) model and the stepped isostress method (SSM) and predictions are made to conventional creep data. Conventional creep testing (CCT) is a long-term continuous process, in fact, the ASME B&PV III requires that 10,000+ hours of experiments must be conducted to each heat for materials employed in boilers and/or pressure vessel components. This process is costly and not feasible for rapid development of new materials. As an alternative, accelerated creep testing techniques have been developed to reduce the time needed to characterize the creep resistance of materials. Most techniques are based upon the time-temperature-stress superposition principle (TTSSP) that predicts minimum-creep-strain-rate (MCSR) and stress-rupture behaviors but lack the ability to predict creep deformation and consider deformation mechanisms that occur for experiments of longer duration. The stepped isostress method (SSM) has been developed which enables the prediction of creep deformation response as well as reduce the time needed for qualification of materials. The SSM approach has been successful for polymer, polymeric composites, and recently has been introduced for metals. In this study, the WCS constitutive model, calibrated to SSM test data, qualifies the creep resistance of Inconel 718 at 750°C and predictions are compared to CCT data. The WCS model has proven to make long-term predictions for stress-rupture, minimum-creep-strain-rate (MCSR), creep deformation, and damage in metallic materials. The SSM varies stress levels after time interval adding damage to the material, which can be tracked by the WCS model. The SSM data is calibrated into the model and the WCS model generates realistic predictions of stress-rupture, MSCR, damage, and creep deformation. The calibrated material constants are used to generate predictions of stress-rupture and are post-audit validated using the National Institute of Material Science (NIMS) database. Similarly, the MCSR predictions are compared from previous studies. Finally the creep deformation predictions are compared with real data and is determined that the results are well in between the expected boundaries. Material characterization and mechanical properties can be determined at a faster rate and with a more cost-effective method. This is beneficial for multiple applications such as in additive manufacturing, composites, spacecraft, and Industrial Gas Turbines (IGT).

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
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 Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗