Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “packaged”

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 343 records · Page 19
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Hydrologic Model Data for the East Fork Poplar Creek Watershed Simulated with the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS): Streamflow and Network Expansion–Contraction Dynamics

This dataset supports hydrologic modeling and stream network expansion–contraction analysis for the East Fork Poplar Creek (EFPC) Watershed in Tennessee. It includes a Jupyter notebook for model setup, model configuration files, simulation outputs, and derived products used to evaluate model performance and investigate stream dynamics under varying hydrologic conditions. The dataset was generated using the Watershed Workflow Python package and the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), enabling integrated surface–subsurface hydrologic simulations using a stream-aligned mesh. Outputs include high-resolution time series of streamflow, active network length, water table depth, and related hydrologic variables. Also included are spatially explicit stream persistency indices and classifications of reaches as perennial or non-perennial. These data facilitate reproducibility and support further research on stream intermittency and variability in network extent.The model data archive is organized in following directories:1) model_setup_inputsContains the Watershed Workflow Jupyter notebooks (accessed through any open source code editor), selected input datasets, and resulting ATS input files, including XML files (access through any open source code editor), computational mesh (.exo files can be viewed using Paraview), and meteorological forcing files (.h5 files can be accessed through h5py python package and HDFView open source software). 2) model_outputsIncludes ATS simulation outputs relevant to this study. Time series of spatially integrated or averaged variables (e.g., streamflow, water table depth) are provided as CSV files. Select spatial fields (e.g., ponded depth and water table depth) are saved as pickled Python objects to reduce file size, and can be accessed through pickle package in Python. Key geometry objects from Watershed Workflow—such as the surface mesh and river tree—are also included to support analysis of streamflow persistency and expansion–contraction dynamics. These files can also be accessed through Watershed Workflow Python package.3) model_evaluationProvides observed streamflow time series and field survey-based flow regime classifications used to evaluate model performance. Jupyter notebooks for processing ATS outputs and comparing model predictions with observations to build confidence in the model prior to scientific analysis are also included.4) Q_L_relationshipsContains workflows for generating time series of discharge, active network length, and related hydrologic variables used in the stream network expansion–contraction analysis. Includes routines for delineating baseflow-dominated periods. For each catchment, notebooks and processed data (as pickled DataFrames accessed through Pandas Python package) are provided. 5) figure_scriptsProvides the Jupyter notebooks used to generate the figures presented in the paper.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Organic Matter Composition in June 2023 and September 2023 Across the McKenzie Sub-Basin Impacted by the 2020 Holiday Farm Fire

This dataset represents results from a field study aiming to understand the variability in post-fire responses of dissolved organic matter and determine drivers of post-fire responses. Samples were collected at 58 sites within the McKenzie River Watershed (Oregon, USA) that were upstream, within, and downstream of the Holiday Farm Fire burn perimeter. The samples were collected in June 2023 and September 2023 during storm events, approximately 3 years post-fire. Samples were characterized for benezenepolycarboxylic acids (BPCA) and ultra-high resolution mass spectrometry. Dissolved organic carbon and optics (absorbance and fluorescence) data can be found in a separate data packages (https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/datasets/zc77sz60m, https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/datasets/mc87q034m). Related data from a subset of sites from 2020-2022 can be found at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1869708 and https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/2478546. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. This dataset contains (1) file-level metadata; (2) data dictionary; (3) data package readme; (4) metadata; (5) methods information; (6) benzene polycarboxylic acid (BPCA) concentration data; (7) Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) methods; (8) folder of high resolution characterization of organic matter via 12 Tesla FTICR-MS data generated through the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory (EMSL; https://www.pnnl.gov/environmental-molecular-sciences-laboratory). This package contains the following file types: csv, xml, pdf.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil biogeochemical properties and metrics of tree-mycorrhizal dominance for a 25-Ha forest in South Central Indiana, USA.

This data package contains a dataset used in the papers “Seeing the forest for all the trees: Mycorrhizal-associated nutrient economies are modulated by stem density and the synchrony between overstory and understory communities” and “Mycorrhizal associations of tree species influence soil nitrogen dynamics via effects on soil acid–base chemistry”. Four csv files are included along with a dataset. The dataset features chemical soil properties for a single sampling campaign within the 25 Ha Lilly-Dickey Woods Smithsonian Forest Global Earth Observatory (ForestGEO) plot in South Central Indiana, USA (ldw_dat_raw.csv). Also included are separate files focused on pH (pH_data.csv), carbon and nitrogen (CN_data.csv), and nitrification rates (Nitrification_data.csv). These variables are commonly associated with the tree-mycorrhizal dominance of forest stands. In these data subsets, each soil variable was matched to a 10 meter radius neighborhood wherein metrics of tree-mycorrhizal dominance (basal area, stem count, importance value, etc.) were calculated. Models between these soil variables and dominance metrics were used to investigate how different assessments of mycorrhizal associated nutrient economies (MANE) capture these relationships. This research was performed as a part of the Smithsonian ForestGEO project. This data package can be used to explore spatial variability in soil chemistry within a mature hardwood forest, or it can be combined with the included tree data, other fine-scale spatial information, or other tree inventory data for the site to evaluate how soil chemistry varies with tree community composition or edaphic or topographic properties.

Craig, Matthew [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000288907920)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Model Data Archive Associated with Manuscript "Fire-altered Carbon Pools Create Disturbance Memory in Stream Dissolved Organic Carbon"

This data package supports the publication “Fire-altered Carbon Pools Create Disturbance Memory in Stream Dissolved Organic Carbon” by Li et al. (2026). The package contains processed model inputs, configuration files, restart files, simulation outputs, scripts, and visualization products used to evaluate post-fire dissolved organic carbon (DOC) dynamics in the Naches River Watershed, Washington, USA, following the 2021 Schneider Springs Fire. The modeling workflow couples ELM-BGC, the biogeochemistry-enabled Energy Exascale Earth System Model Land Model; ATS, the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator for integrated surface-subsurface hydrology; and PFLOTRAN, a reactive transport model for multicomponent aqueous geochemistry. Together, these models simulate how wildfire-induced changes in vegetation, litter, coarse woody debris, and soil organic matter influence DOC production, transport, and reaction from burned hillslopes to stream networks. The archive includes preprocessed meteorological, geospatial, hydrologic, and biogeochemical forcing data; ELM-BGC-derived DOC source terms; ATS mesh files; PFLOTRAN reactive-transport inputs; model configuration files; spin-up and transient restart files; watershed-scale diagnostic outputs; stream concentration time series; and figures or visualization files used to inspect and reproduce key results. File types include Hierarchical Data Format 5 (HDF5) files for gridded forcing and model-coupling data, model input and configuration files for ELM-BGC, ATS, and PFLOTRAN, restart and simulation-output files generated by the modeling workflow, tabular or time-series diagnostic outputs, scripts for post-processing and figure generation, and image or visualization products associated with the manuscript. Use of the package depends on the intended task. Re-running the simulations requires the relevant modeling software, including ELM-BGC, ATS, and PFLOTRAN as ATS's geochemical engine. Inspecting outputs and reproducing figures requires Python with scientific plotting libraries such as Matplotlib, and three-dimensional model outputs may be viewed with ParaView. Geographic information system files or maps may be inspected with ArcGIS Pro or comparable GIS software. The data package is intended to enable traceability, reuse, and partial reproduction of the coupled land-to-watershed hydro-biogeochemical modeling workflow used to test how wildfire disturbance affects terrestrial carbon pools and downstream DOC dynamics.

ATS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Model scripts associated with “Revisiting controls on hyporheic respiration with knowledge-guided machine learning at continental scale”

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data/scripts may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final scripts and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the publication “Revisiting controls on hyporheic respiration with knowledge-guided machine learning at continental scale” submitted to Environmental Science & Technology (Zheng et al. 2026). The project combines mechanistic process modeling with knowledge-guided machine learning (KGML) to evaluate how organic matter chemistry, microbial biomass, and physical substrate accessibility regulate realized respiration rates across river corridors. All data used in this paper have been previously published and can be accessed at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/1729719 (Goldman et al., 2020). This data package contains 3 R-markdown (Rmd) preprocessing scripts for the previously published data and subsequent modelling workflows. The full workflow with input and output data can be found in the associated GitHub repository at https://github.com/jianqiuz/KGML-WHONDRS.

Biogeochemistry↗
DOE OSTI2026

Post-fire time series of sensor and geochemistry sample data from surface water, groundwater, precipitation, soil, and vegetation across Oak Creek watershed, Washington

This dataset supports a broader study examining wildfire impacts on hydrologic connectivity across 5 sites within the Oak Creek watershed and the resulting biogeochemical impacts. Stream sites were selected using the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS) hydrologic model to identify locations with varying groundwater contributions and hydrologic responses across different burn severity scenarios. The Retreat Fire burned from July 23 to August 2 in 2024, affecting the five study sites at varying burn severities. Each site is equipped with YSI EXO2 sondes logging sub-hourly throughout the year, and grab samples are collected approximately every six weeks. YSI sondes are used to measure temporally resolved proxies for groundwater inputs (specific conductivity) and organic matter (fluorescent dissolved organic matter; fDOM) along with basic water quality and depth. Grab samples of surface water, groundwater, and precipitation are analyzed for water stable isotopes and conductivity to understand endmembers for hydrologic mixing Grab samples of surface water, groundwater, soil water, and litter/vegetation/soil leachates are analyzed for organic matter composition measured by Fourier-Transform Ion Cyclotron Resonance Mass Spectrometry (FTICR-MS) to understand organic matter dynamics. Game camera photos are provided in a separate data package available at https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/datasets/doi:10.15485/3018598. Future versions of this dataset will include time series data from YSI EXO2 sondes (fDOM, dissolved oxygen, temperature, depth, specific conductance, turbidity, pH), BaroTROLL sensors (air temperature and barometric pressure), rain gauges (precipitation), and data from the soil and vegetation samples. Because this study is ongoing, this data package will be updated regularly to include newly collected data and the additional data types. For details on how to navigate data packages generated by this project, see https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/PNNLRiverCorridorSFA/About. In addition to a readme, this data package also includes a file-level metadata (FLMD) file that describes each file and a data dictionary (DD) that describes all column/row headers and variable definitions. This dataset is comprised of (1) a folder of field photos; (2) a folder of surface water sample data; (3) a folder of raw Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) data; (4) a data checks report; (5) file-level metadata; (6) data dictionary; (7) field metadata; (8) readme; (9) international generic sample number (IGSN) mapping file; and (10) field protocols. The sample data subfolder contains (1) dissolved organic carbon (DOC, measured as non-purgeable organic carbon, NPOC) data and averages; (2) total dissolved nitrogen data and averages; (3) stable water isotopes and averages; (4) methods codes; (5) FTICR-MS methods; and (15) a subfolder of 9.4 Tesla (9.4T) FTICR-MS data. This folder contains the processed data and three subfolders, one containing the .xml files, one containing the water CoreMS output files, and the other containing instructions and scripts for processing the files in CoreMS (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/CoreMS). All files are .csv, .pdf, .R, .xml, .d, .html, .Rmd, .py, .cal, .json, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .mov, or .mp4.

Biogeochemistry↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data & Code from Phoenix CPPP Phase 2 Analysis

This data and code package supports the analysis presented in “Beyond Surface Cooling: Comprehensive Field Assessment of Reflective Pavement Thermal Performance in Phoenix, Arizona” and provides fully reproducible workflows for evaluating the thermal performance of cool pavement treatments in a hot urban environment. The dataset integrates multi-modal field measurements collected across residential and nonresidential settings, including mobile air temperature traverses, stationary air temperature monitoring, residential mean radiant temperature (MRT) measurements, subsurface temperature profiles, and controlled testbed observations. The data package contains raw and processed datasets in comma-separated value (CSV) format, accompanying metadata files describing site characteristics and measurement protocols, and R scripts (.R files) used for data cleaning, time synchronization, spatial and temporal matching, quality control filtering, statistical comparison, and figure generation. All analyses were conducted using R (version ≥ 4.2.0) with commonly available packages (e.g., tidyverse, lubridate, data.table, ggplot2). No proprietary software is required to reproduce results. Field campaigns were designed to quantify the effects of high-reflectance pavement coatings on surface temperature, near-surface air temperature, subsurface heat propagation, and radiative heat exposure. Temporal alignment procedures include standardized timestamp conversion and nearest-neighbor matching of high-frequency sensor measurements to stop-based metadata within defined tolerance windows to ensure comparability across instruments. The workflows generate summary statistics, treatment–control contrasts, depth-dependent thermal gradients, and time-series visualizations used in the associated publication. By integrating mobile, stationary, radiative, and subsurface measurements within a unified and transparent processing framework, this package enables comprehensive evaluation of cool pavement performance across multiple thermal exposure pathways and supports reuse in future urban heat mitigation and climate resilience studies.

AIR TEMPERATURE↗
DOE OSTI2026

CHESS 2025: Leaf Area Index (LAI) for meadow, shrub, tree, and understory vegetation

This dataset contains Leaf Area Index (LAI) measurements made as part of the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) during June and July of 2025. Data were collected in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, across three study domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). Field observations of LAI were collected within 72 hours of airborne data collection by the National Ecological Observatory Network’s Aerial Observation Platform (NEON AOP). The NEON AOP collected waveform LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and imaging spectrometer data in 426 spectral bands from the visible to shortwave infrared. LAI measurements were collected using the LICOR LAI-2200C Plant Canopy Analyzer following protocols outlined in the instrument manual (LI-COR 2019). Sampling targeted four distinct vegetation types: meadows, shrubs, trees, and aspen forest understory. We have archived data separately by site type because different field methods were used for each. At meadow sites, measurements were made at the four corners of 1m x 1m plots, with the instrument moving inward toward the center of the plot. At shrub sites, we measured the canopies of individual shrubs. At tree sites, we made measurements within a 10m x 10m subplot centered around a focal tree, with 30 observations taken on a regular grid. At aspen understory sites, we measured overstory trees following the tree protocol and understory herbaceous vegetation following the meadow protocol. All measurements included above-canopy (A) and below-canopy (B) readings, with specific protocols for scattering correction measurements in direct-sun conditions. Data were processed using the R package `rlai` (Worsham 2025). This package includes functions to calculate LAI, gap fraction, apparent clumping factor (Ω), scattering correction, and other canopy metrics. Package contents: Full file descriptions appear in ‘flmd.csv’. Files named according to the convention ‘lai_*_summary_data_cleaned.csv’ contain summary values of LAI, apparent clumping factor (Ωapp), and scattering correction factors for each site. These are the analysis-ready products that most data users will work with. Files named ‘lai_*_metadata_cleaned.csv’ contain additional site-level observations made during field collection. We have also archived intermediate and supplementary data for users who wish to check our processing approach or apply alternative methods. ‘raw_lai_2200C.zip’ contains the raw files as read from the LI-COR instrument, with no processing applied, in TXT format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type, which are further subdivided by sampling area. Filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘intermediate_results.zip’ contains detailed output from the processing routines, in JSON format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘scattering_correction_logs.zip’ contains logfiles from the implementation of Kobayashi et al.'s (2013) scattering correction algorithm. The logfiles report values of several parameters at each iteration of the algorithm, as the model converges toward a stable solution. They are intended for users who want to verify scattering correction performance. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘spot_checks.csv’ reports LAI and other values for a small number of files processed with LI-COR FV2200 software (LI-COR 2013) using the same control parameters as in our R-based approach. Additional metadata are provided in a data dictionary describing column names and definitions (dd.csv), and in a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv). All zip files can be expanded with common archive utilities. TXT, CSV, and JSON files can be ingested into R or Python computing environments or read in common text editor utilities. Geospatial information: Geospatial data for mapping measurement site locations are in the files CHESS_polygons_lai_UTM.geojson, CHESS_polygons_shrub_UTM.geojson, and CHESS_polygons_meadow_UTM.geojson in the companion geospatial package for the 2025 CHESS campaign, ‘CHESS 2025: Location data for field observations and sampling’ (Henderson et al., 2026). CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgement: Field and remote-sensing data acquisition was performed under a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC24K1005). This work was also 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. * Todorov and Worsham are co–first authors.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2026

Meteoric 10Be Flux Calibration Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, USA

This data package contains tabular and geospatial data used to quantify and model meteoric beryllium-10 fluxes in the East River watershed, Colorado, USA. The tabular component includes calibration-site data from five glacial moraine sites and includes environmental variables used to evaluate spatial controls on meteoric 10Be delivery, including elevation, mean annual precipitation (MAP), mean snow depth, and mean snow water equivalent (SWE). These site-level data were used to compare observed fluxes with environmental gradients across the watershed and to evaluate the effects of erosion correction on flux estimates. The package also includes supporting slope and curvature values used to assess topographic inputs to the erosion analysis. A second component of the data package contains updated manuscript tables and regression outputs used to summarize the relationships between meteoric 10Be flux and environmental predictors. These tables include meteoric 10Be sample information and AMS results, site-level environmental values, site-level meteoric 10Be inventory and flux values, watershed-averaged predicted fluxes, soil bulk density measurements, fine-fraction values, soil pH measurements, and regression statistics including slope, intercept, coefficient of determination, and p-value. The regression products include both standard linear regressions and regressions in which the intercept is constrained to pass through zero, and they support the analyses presented in the companion manuscript. Together, these tabular files provide the numerical basis for the manuscript tables and the regression-based interpretation of meteoric 10Be flux variability in a snow-dominated mountain watershed. The geospatial component of the package consists of GeoTIFF raster files used to generate the map products presented in Figures 2 and 6 of the companion manuscript. These rasters represent watershed-scale spatial layers for environmental variables and regression-based predictions of meteoric 10Be flux. This dataset contains comma-separated values files (.csv), Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx), GeoTIFF raster files (.tif), and upporting metadata files, including CSV data dictionaries and readme text files (.csv, .txt). The tabular files can be opened with standard spreadsheet software, and the raster files can be viewed and analyzed in GIS software such as ArcGIS Pro or QGIS. Together, these files document the numerical and spatial datasets used to calibrate and predict meteoric 10Be delivery in the East River watershed.

East River↗
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 OSTI2026

Automated point dendrometer, soil moisture and temperature, and meteorological variables datasets, Oct 2024 – Nov 2025, G.A. Pearson Natural Area, Flagstaff, AZ, USA

This data package includes parsed, cleaned, and calibrated data from 48 TOMST automated point dendrometers, 48 TOMST 15 cm soil moisture sensors, and 12 TOMST 30 cm soil moisture sensors. The point dendrometers were cleaned with the “dendRoAnalyst” package in RStudio. The soil sensors were cleaned and calibrated for volumetric water content (VWC) with the “myClim” package in RStudio using the soil texture of the site (sandy clay loam). Additionally, this data package also includes raw data from 2 METER weather stations. Dendrometers and soil sensors have both their sensor ID, as well as the ID for the specific tree they were instrumented on at the G.A. Pearson Natural Area (GPNA) site and their experimental group. The purpose of these data is to understand how ponderosa pine trees in restored (thinned and burned) vs. unrestored (no treatment) areas are responding to drought and seasonal precipitation. These data use radial growth and soil moisture data to answer the following question: how are active season length, growth on different time scales (weekly, monthly, seasonally, and annually), growth during dry periods and after precipitation events, and environmental and biological drivers of radial growth different between restored versus unrestored areas?

Air temperature↗
DOE OSTI2024

xesn: Echo state networks powered by Xarray and Dask

Xesn is a Python package that allows scientists to easily design Echo State Networks (ESNs) for forecasting problems. ESNs are a Recurrent Neural Network architecture introduced by Jaeger (2001) that are part of a class of techniques termed Reservoir Computing. One defining characteristic of these techniques is that all internal weights are determined by a handful of global, scalar parameters, thereby avoiding problems during backpropagation and reducing training time significantly. Because this architecture is conceptually simple, many scientists implement ESNs from scratch, leading to questions about computational performance. Xesn offers a straightforward, standard implementation of ESNs that operates efficiently on CPU and GPU hardware. The package leverages optimization tools to automate the parameter selection process, so that scientists can reduce the time finding a good architecture and focus on using ESNs for their domain application. Importantly, the package flexibly handles forecasting tasks for out-of-core, multi-dimensional datasets, eliminating the need to write parallel programming code. Xesn was initially developed to handle the problem of forecasting weather dynamics, and so it integrates naturally with Python packages that have become familiar to weather and climate scientists such as Xarray (Hoyer & Hamman, 2017). However, the software is ultimately general enough to be utilized in other domains where ESNs have been useful, such as in signal processing (Jaeger & Haas, 2004).

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Heterogeneous Integration Technologies for High-temperature, High-density, Low-profile Power Modules of Wide Bandgap Devices in Electric Drive Applications (Final Technical Report)

The goal of this project is to develop packaging technologies for making high-temperature, high-density, and low-profile wide-bandgap (WBG) power electronics modules for electric drives. These modules are aimed at enabling the DOE’s University Consortium to reach its 2025 inverter targets of ≥ 100 kW/L and ≤ 2.7 $/kW. The specific objectives are to: design and fabricate SiC half-bridge power modules with double-sided cooling and parasitic inductances < 5 nH, heat flux density > 400 W/cm 2 , and working junction temperature of 200 o C; design, fabricate, and deliver a gate driver with double-sided cooled modules for the construction of a 100 kW/L inverter at Oak Ridge National Lab; and design and prototype intelligent gate drivers with integrated current sensor and a low-profile DC-DC power supply with air-core transformer for testing power modules at 200 o C junction temperature. We followed an iterative technical approach of design, simulation, fabrication, and testing of various versions of modules, current sensors, and power supply. The state-of-the-art silicon carbide devices rated at 1.2 kV and 149 A were packaged by sintered-silver bonding on an aluminum nitride direct-bond-copper substrate for high thermal conductivity, high working temperature, and high joint reliability. Porous silver posts were used to interconnect the device’s source pads to the other direct-bond-copper substrate for low mechanical stresses, ease of manufacturing, and double-sided cooling. A current sensor based on package parasitic inductance was developed to measure switching current. A dynamic feedback scheme was developed to compensate the effect of parasitic resistance and temperature variation. A constant-current class-E dc-dc converter with air-core transformer was developed. Air-core transformer was used due to the unavailability of magnetic core at high temperatures. Gate driver and power supply were integrated with the double-side cooled, high temperature SiC power modules for testing the modules at 200 o C junction temperature. Double-pulse and continuous testing of the integrated technologies validated the design and fabrication of the three component technologies. Throughout the project, we overcame the challenge for design verification caused by low prototyping yield, which then helped train the graduate students, the future workforce, to learn the engineering know-how for low-cost manufacturing of reliable products. Below is a summary of the major accomplishments of this project: development of a prototyping process for fabricating double-side cooled (1200 V, 149 A) SiC phase-leg modules capable of working to 200 o C Tj; simulation and experimental verification of the improvement of thermo-mechanical reliability of the double-side cooled SiC phase-leg module by using rigid encapsulant; design and experimental validation of a current sensor based on package parasitic inductance and a compensation solution for eliminating the effect of parasitic resistance; design and experimental validation of a low-profile power supply with six-output air-core transformer for gate driver; functional demonstration of a SiC phase-leg module integrated with its gate driver, current sensor, and an air-core power supply at 200 o C Tj in a double-pulse switching test setup and Buck converter continuous test setup; successful completion of six PhD and two MS students who are or will work at Apple Inc., Tesla Inc., Wolfspeed Inc., Microchip Inc., Monolithic Power Systems Inc., and LG Magna Inc.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Technical Information Needs and Regulatory Considerations for Front-End Transportation Activities of HALEU Fuel Feed Material

This report fulfills task order number 31310022F0033 Task 1 Assessment of technical information needs and considerations for front-end transportation activities for HALEU fuel feed material. This assessment primarily focuses on the transportation outlook and packaging requirements for transporting high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) fuel feed material. The regulatory framework is described in section 3.0. In section 4.0 the specific issues associated with reviewing HALEU feed material packages are discussed. The rest of the report discusses the need for new packages and Department of Energy progress on HALEU production. Through this evaluation it is shown that the 5% enrichment barrier between low-enriched uranium and HALEU is a significant challenge to transportation packaging. However, there are licensed designs and concepts that can be used to transport HALEU feedstock. No significant issues were identified through the HALEU range up to 20% enriched.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2024

DECOVALEX-2023: Task F1 Final Report

DECOVALEX-2023 Task F is a comparison of models and methods for post-closure performance assessment (PA) of a deep geologic repository for radioactive waste. The general aims of Task F are to build confidence in the models, methods, and software used for PA and to stimulate additional research and development in PA methodologies. The task objectives are to motivate development of PA modelling skills and capabilities, to examine the influence of model choices on calculated repository performance, and to compare the uncertainties introduced by model choices to other sources of uncertainty. Task F involves no actual experiment or site. It is a PA modelling exercise that requires the conceptual development of hypothetical repository designs and geologic settings. Because three of the teams were interested in salt and the rest of the teams were interested in crystalline rock, Task F was split into two branches: Task F1 for crystalline rock and Task F2 for salt. This report is for Task F1, crystalline rock. Teams from seven countries (Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Korea, Sweden, Taiwan, and United States) participated in Task F1. The teams worked together to define the features, events, and processes of the reference case repository and established a set of performance measures. In addition, they defined a set of benchmark problems designed to test and compare modelling capabilities for fracture flow and transport at different scales. The repository design and benchmark problems are documented in a Task Specification that evolved over time as the group honed the specifications. The benchmark problems verified that each team can aptly model flow and transport in fractured media in 1-, 2-, and 3-dimensions. Two general approaches were used for the 3-dimensional benchmarks: discrete fracture network (DFN) and equivalent continuous porous medium (ECPM). DFN modelling involves explicit meshing of each fracture while ECPM modelling aims to capture the effective porosity and directional permeability of each cell in a space-filling mesh as affected by intersecting fractures. In some models, a combination of the two is used, i.e., DFN for large known fractures and ECPM for the rest of the domain. Transport is solved by using either the advection-dispersion equation or particle tracking. Although some variation is observed among model breakthrough curves in the benchmark problems, there is strong agreement in breakthrough behaviour up to at least the 75 th percentile for all benchmarks. At the 90 th percentile, breakthrough results show larger differences, suggesting several models retain substantially higher fractions of tracer in regions of slower moving water. In addition to the flow and transport benchmarks, several teams completed the source term benchmark, verifying capabilities for modelling radionuclide decay and ingrowth, waste package breach, instant release fractions, fuel matrix degradation rates, and radionuclide solubility limitations. The reference case is conceptualized as a generic spent fuel repository at a depth of 450 m in fractured crystalline rock. The repository has 50 parallel backfilled drifts, each with 50 deposition holes 6 m apart. Each deposition hole contains a 4-PWR waste package and bentonite buffer. The rock domain is 5 km in length, 2 km in width, and 1 km in depth. It has 6 deterministic fractured deformation zones and a multitude of stochastic fractures. Teams generally used the ECPM approach for the entire rock or a hybrid approach in which the deterministic fracture zones are modelled with a DFN and the rest of the rock is modelled by ECPM. Of the reference case problems specified, only the results of the initial reference case problem are compared in this report. The initial problem focuses on transport from the deposition holes to the surface, i.e., it neglects waste package performance. Tracers are released at all waste package locations at time zero and tracked for their releases to the near field and ground surface. The water fluxes calculated at the ground surface entry and exit regions of the domain are similar for all models except for two that have considerably lower fluxes. For tracer transport, large differences are observed among models in the magnitude of tracer transported. Much of the difference appears to be due to how the repository is implemented and hence the different degrees of repository simplification. Models that exclude the drifts, buffer, and backfill from the domain tend to show greater release of tracers and radionuclides from the repository. The initial study presented here indicates that major differences in modelling important processes within the repository (e.g., diffusion through buffer and backfill) can produce broadly different release and transport results, especially when those processes are excluded. Even for the models that included all specified features, events, and processes, the results show significant differences and demonstrate the importance of examining multiple modelling approaches in performance assessment. The differences in results observed in this study are expected to motivate teams to either increase complexity in future versions of the reference case models or to improve methods to account for the effects of simplified features and processes. Either way, future improvements in these models are expected to produce results that more closely agree.

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

Draft Prototype Microreactor Transportation Safety Program

Microreactors are compact reactors capable of producing less than 50 megawatts of electrical energy. Typically, these reactors are factory-fabricated and designed to be easily transportable by truck, rail, vessel, or air. Microreactor designs often assume that the unit can be transported containing either unirradiated or irradiated fuel. The interest in microreactors is driven by several factors, including the need to generate power on at remote locations, at military installations, at facilities such as data centers, and in areas recovering from natural disasters. The U.S. Department of Defense is actively pursuing the microreactor concept to meet the increasing energy demands of military operations that require portable and dense power sources. Commercial vendors are also exploring microreactor concepts. The report Microreactor Transportation Emergency Planning Challenges (Maheras et al. 2024) outlined the emergency planning challenges associated with the transportation of microreactors by road, rail, and by barge/ship. The successful commercial deployment and redeployment of microreactors will also require the development of microreactor transportation safety programs. The elements in these safety programs are not specific to microreactors; however, the transport of microreactors may pose unique challenges in these areas. This report builds on the report Microreactor Transportation Emergency Planning Challenges (Maheras et al. 2024) and develops the elements of a prototype microreactor transportation safety program that describes the elements that should be contained vendor-developed microreactor transportation safety programs, identifying the unique elements associated with microreactor transport. This will provide vendors and their transportation contractors a basis for their transportation planning and will accelerate the commercial deployment and redeployment of microreactors by identifying those issues unique to microreactor transport. The emphasis of this report is on highway transport of microreactors. This is based on a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission transportation package approval strategy of crawl-walk-run, where transport by highway is evaluated first (Coles et al. 2021, 2024, Maheras et al. 2021), then other surface modes (rail and barge/ship), and finally air transport. Evaluation of maritime transport of microreactors was recently initiated (Rigato et al. 2024, Maheras et al. 2025). The report first discusses microreactors in general and microreactor transportation safety program planning assumptions. The report then provides a description of the transportation safety planning process and provides an extensive discussion of the elements of transportation safety programs. Specific elements examined included transportation roles and responsibilities, transportation planning, transportation mode and route selection, carrier selection, transportation packaging, advance notification of shipments, public information and communications, emergency response plans and procedures, inspections, security, safe parking, shipment tracking, weather and road conditions, medical preparedness, training and exercises, and program evaluation. The report then identifies the unique elements of a transportation safety program associated with microreactor transport. These unique elements were in the areas of: the unusual nature of microreactor designs, compensatory measures, increased radiation dose rates in the vicinity of microreactors, transportation package approval versus 10 CFR 50.59, and the use of a risk-informed transportation package approval process.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗