SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “VISUAL TASK”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2024

Results of Long-Term Analyses of the Salt (Macro) Batch 13 Tank 42H Qualification Sample

Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) analyzed samples from Tank 42H in support of qualification of Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) Salt Batch 13. This document reports the long-term results of the analyses of the sample of Tank 42H. Analysis of this sample indicates that the material does not display any unusual characteristics or observations, such as visually apparent solids. This report satisfies Deliverable 3 of the Technical Task Request (TTR).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2025

Results of Long-Term Analyses of the Salt (Macro) Batch 14 Tank 21H Qualification Sample

Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) analyzed samples from Tank 21H in support of qualification of Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) Salt Batch 14. This document reports the long-term results of the analyses of the sample of Tank 21H. Analysis of this sample indicates that the material does not display any unusual characteristics or observations, such as visually apparent solids. This report satisfies Deliverable 3 of the Technical Task Request (TTR).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

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 OSTI2025

Developing Digital Twin Visualizations: A Methodology and Case Study on Chemical Separation Processing

As advances in digital engineering continue to push the technological boundaries, digital twin (DT) visualizations for diagnostics and safeguards advancement become much more feasible and practical. DTs generate large and complex data streams that require effective user interfaces to provide monitoring and diagnostic capabilities. Unfortunately, while these frameworks exist, there is not much research on the systematic documentation of human–computer interaction (HCI) for DT visualization. This work presents a dual-mode visualization methodology (two dimensional [2D] graphical user interface dashboard and 3D mixed reality) designed to support diagnostic tasks in DT systems and building on a validated framework and applying established HCI principles. The methodology is demonstrated through a case study of aqueous processing at Idaho National Laboratory, using experimental data from the chemical solvent extraction runs. Our interfaces display real-time alerts and monitoring to inform users of safeguards anomalies. The interfaces use immersive 3D mixed-reality visualization for further system and experiment investigation. This work demonstrates how the systematic application of HCI principles can inform DT visualization design for diagnostic and safeguards applications. While formal user evaluation studies remain as future work, this paper documents the systematic design methodology and demonstrates a proof-of-concept implementation.

3D visualization↗

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

Autonomous Coupler Alignment Using Position-Based Visual Servoing in a ROS 2 Framework

As robotic arms are becoming increasingly common alongside humans as collaborative robots, their high precision in motion enables tasks to be performed at significantly higher speeds with reduced disruption in the environment. The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory is exploring this application by incorporating a UR16e from Universal Robots in a cleanroom setting during assembly of couplers to superconducting radio frequency cavities as part of the PIP-II project. The goal of the robotic assembly process is to precisely position the UR16e robot so that the coupler flange, mounted on the robot’s end-effector, is accurately aligned with and pressed against the cavity flange, requiring only final fastening by a lab technician. This thesis builds upon an initial system in which the robotic process was limited to the alignment phase using position-based visual servoing with an eye-in-hand camera to only align the coupler to the cavity with an offset distance. The objective of this thesis is to further advance autonomous robotic assembly by extending the process. To this end, the entire software framework was reconstructed, as the previous development environment posed significant challenges in modifying the software and adapting to hardware changes. The main contributions of this thesis are as follows: (i) a modular and scalable software framework based on ROS~2 was developed to facilitate performance expansion and interchangeability of software and hardware components; (ii) the desired alignment position for position-based visual servoing was parameterized to enable flexible configuration; and (iii) a methodology was developed to close the offset distance between the coupler and cavity utilizing the internal force-torque sensing capability of the UR16e, as visual feedback is not available during the offset-closing phase. The proposed autonomous robotic assembly reduces assembly time and technician involvement, thereby minimizing the risk of airborne particulate contamination, which is essential in the cleanroom setting. Moreover, the ROS~2-based framework provides a foundation for further expansion and continued advancement of robotic automation in Fermilab.

Giffen, Nickolas [Northern Illinois U.]↗

DOE OSTI2024

Results of Long-Term Analyses of the Salt (Macro) Batch 11 Tank 21H Qualification Sample

Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) analyzed samples from Tank 21H in support of qualification of Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) Salt Batch 11. This document reports the long-term results of the analyses of the sample of Tank 21H. Analysis of this sample indicates that the material does not display any unusual characteristics or observations, such as visually apparent solids. However, the sample was dark colored. This report satisfies Deliverable 3 of the Technical Task Request (TTR).

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2024

Results of Long-Term Analyses of the Salt (Macro) Batch 11 Tank 21H Qualification Sample

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2024

Improving I/O-aware Workflow Scheduling via Data Flow Characterization and trade-off Analysis

The scientific computing paradigm has transitioned from compute-intensive to I/O-intensive and memory-intensive in the past decade, especially when data-driven science has become common practice. Numerous empirical I/O-aware scheduling optimizations have been developed by incorporating I/O capacity and bandwidth as constraints into scheduling. Unfortunately, there is a lack of data flow (I/O) characterization tool and an understanding of trade-offs between concurrency, locality, and I/O bandwidth. To bridge the gap, this work 1) presents a set of descriptors to characterize, organize, and visualize I/O profiles, including flow size, I/O bandwidth, and operation count, which group data flows by I/O types, tasks, and files; 2) proposes an I/O Roofline model-based trade-off analysis to find the optimal trade-off between flow operational intensity, concurrency, and flow performance. The I/O descriptors generate useful insights into complicated I/O behaviors, suggesting distinct concurrency, storage, and scheduling to be used by types, tasks, and files. The proposed trade-off analysis guides scheduling decisions that generate resource assignment with the best flow parallelism. We evaluate our I/O-aware scheduling methodology on a highly I/O-intensive workflow–1000 Genomes. The experimental results demonstrate speedups of up to 2.4× compared to the state-of-the- art methods.

Guo, Luanzheng [BATTELLE (PACIFIC NW LAB)]↗

DOE OSTI2025

MultiTaskDeltaNet: change detection-based image segmentation for operando ETEM with application to carbon gasification kinetics

Transforming in situ transmission electron microscopy (TEM) imaging into a tool for spatially-resolved operando characterization of solid-state reactions requires automated, high-precision semantic segmentation of dynamically evolving features. However, traditional deep learning methods for semantic segmentation often face limitations due to the scarcity of labeled data, visually ambiguous features of interest, and scenarios involving small objects. To tackle these challenges, we introduce MultiTaskDeltaNet (MTDN), a novel deep learning architecture that creatively reconceptualizes the segmentation task as a change detection problem. By implementing a unique Siamese network with a U-Net backbone and using paired images to capture feature changes, MTDN effectively leverages minimal data to produce high-quality segmentations. Furthermore, MTDN utilizes a multi-task learning strategy to exploit correlations between physical features of interest. In an evaluation using data from in situ environmental TEM (ETEM) videos of filamentous carbon gasification, MTDN demonstrated a significant advantage over conventional segmentation models, particularly in accurately delineating fine structural features. Notably, MTDN achieved a 10.22% performance improvement over conventional segmentation models in predicting small and visually ambiguous physical features. This work bridges key gaps between deep learning and practical TEM image analysis, advancing automated characterization of nanomaterials in complex experimental settings.

08 HYDROGEN↗

DOE OSTI2024

FLARE: field line analysis and reconstruction for 3D boundary plasma modeling

The FLARE code is a magnetic mesh generator that is integrated within a suite of tools for the analysis of the magnetic geometry in toroidal fusion devices. A magnetic mesh is constructed from field line segments and permits fast reconstruction of field lines in 3D boundary plasma codes such as EMC3-EIRENE. Both intrinsically non-axisymmetric configurations (stellarators) and those with symmetry breaking perturbations of an axisymmetric equilibrium (tokamaks) are supported. The code itself is written in Modern Fortran with MPI support for parallel computing, and it incorporates object-oriented programming for the definition of the magnetic field and the material surface geometry. Extended derived types for a number of different magnetohydrodynamic equilibrium and plasma response models are implemented. The core element of FLARE is a field line tracer with adaptive step-size control, and this is integrated into tools for the construction of Poincaré maps and invariant manifolds of X-points. A collection of high-level procedures that generate output files for visualization is build on top of that. The analysis modules are build with Python frontends that facilitate customization of tasks and/or scripting of parameter scans.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

PDB-IHM: A System for Deposition, Curation, Validation, and Dissemination of Integrative Structures

Structures of many large biomolecular assemblies are now being determined using integrative approaches. In these approaches, information derived from multiple experimental and computational methods is combined to compute three-dimensional structures of multi-protein complexes and other macromolecular machines. A standalone prototype data resource for integrative structures called PDB-Dev was built, based on recommendations of the Integrative and Hybrid Methods (IHM) Task Force of the Worldwide Protein Data Bank (wwPDB). This effort included developing data standards and software tools for collecting, curating, validating, visualizing, archiving, and disseminating integrative structures that span diverse spatiotemporal scales and conformational states. Mechanisms have been created to validate integrative structures based on the experimental data underpinning them. Building upon this foundational framework, PDB-Dev has been further expanded to handle large dynamic macromolecular systems and integrative structures that combine, for example, experimental restraints with atomic coordinates computed by machine learning algorithms. Data standards and supporting tools have also been extended to capture information about biomolecular dynamics, such as conformational transitions and related kinetic data derived from biophysical methods. Recently, PDB-Dev was unified with the PDB archive and rebranded as PDB-IHM (pdb-ihm.org), further promoting FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles of data stewardship for integrative structural biology.

IHMCIF↗

DOE OSTI2025

Uncertainty Visualization of Critical Points of 2D Scalar Fields for Parametric and Nonparametric Probabilistic Models

This paper presents a novel end-to-end framework for closed-form computation and visualization of critical point uncertainty in 2D uncertain scalar fields. Critical points are fundamental topological descriptors used in the visualization and analysis of scalar fields. The uncertainty inherent in data (e.g., observational and experimental data, approximations in simulations, and compression), however, creates uncertainty regarding critical point positions. Uncertainty in critical point positions, therefore, cannot be ignored, given their impact on downstream data analysis tasks. Here, in this work, we study uncertainty in critical points as a function of uncertainty in data modeled with probability distributions. Although Monte Carlo (MC) sampling techniques have been used in prior studies to quantify critical point uncertainty, they are often expensive and are infrequently used in production-quality visualization software. We, therefore, propose a new end-to-end framework to address these challenges that comprises a threefold contribution. First, we derive the critical point uncertainty in closed form, which is more accurate and efficient than the conventional MC sampling methods. Specifically, we provide the closed-form and semianalytical (a mix of closed-form and MC methods) solutions for parametric (e.g., uniform, Epanechnikov) and nonparametric models (e.g., histograms) with finite support. Second, we accelerate critical point probability computations using a parallel implementation with the VTK-m library, which is platform portable. Finally, we demonstrate the integration of our implementation with the ParaView software system to demonstrate near-real-time results for real datasets.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2024

Topological Characterization and Uncertainty Visualization of Atmospheric Rivers

Atmospheric rivers (ARs) are long, narrow regions of water vapor in the Earth's atmosphere that transport heat and moisture from the tropics to the mid-latitudes. ARs are often associated with extreme weather events in North America and contribute significantly to water supply and flood risk. However, characterizing ARs has been a major challenge due to the lack of a universal definition and their structural variations. Existing AR detection tools (ARDTs) produce distinct AR boundaries for the same event, making the risk assessment of ARs a difficult task. Understanding these uncertainties is crucial to improving the predictability of AR impacts, including their landfall areas and associated precipitation, which could cause catastrophic flooding and landslides over the coastal regions. In this work, we develop an uncertainty visualization framework that captures boundary and interior uncertainties, i.e., structural variations, of an ensemble of ARs that arise from a set of ARDTs. We first provide a statistical overview of the AR boundaries using the contour boxplots of Whitaker et al. that highlight the structural variations of AR boundaries based on their nesting relationships. We then introduce the topological skeletons of ARs based on Morse complexes that characterize the interior variation of an ensemble of ARs. We propose an uncertainty visualization of these topological skeletons, inspired by MetroSets of Jacobson et al. that emphasizes the agreements and disagreements across the ensemble members. Through case studies and expert feedback, we demonstrate that the two approaches complement each other, and together they could facilitate an effective comparative analysis process and provide a more confident outlook on an AR's shape, area, and onshore impact.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

PySIDT: Subgraph Isomorphic Decision Trees for Molecular Property Prediction

Accurate molecular property prediction is important across all fields of chemistry. Deep neural networks (DNNs) have become increasingly popular due to their ability to train automatically, avoiding the incredibly tedious process of constructing and extending traditional property estimation schemes. However, DNNs require large amounts of training data, are challenging to interpret, require large amounts of memory to load even during inference, and have severe difficulties incorporating qualitative chemical knowledge, which are often desired for molecular property prediction tasks. Here, in this study, we present PySIDT (https://github.com/zadorlab/PySIDT), a software for training and running inference on Subgraph Isomorphic Decision Trees (SIDTs). SIDTs are graph-based decision trees made of nodes associated with molecular substructures. Inference is done by descending target molecular structures down the decision tree to nodes with matching subgraph isomorphic substructures and making predictions based on the final (most specific) nodes matched. SIDTs scale down well to dataset sizes much smaller than is feasible for DNNs. As trees of molecular substructures, SIDTs are inherently readable and easy to visualize, making them easy to analyze. They are also straightforward to extend and retrain, facilitate uncertainty estimation, and enable easy integration of expert knowledge. We demonstrate the SIDT approach discussing its application to a diverse range of molecular prediction tasks: rate coefficient estimation, diffusion coefficient estimation, thermochemistry estimation, transition state bond stretch prediction, p K a prediction, stability of molecular structures, stability of surface structures, and prediction of surface lateral interaction energetics. Additionally, we demonstrate the power of the SIDT algorithms in two direct learning curve vanilla comparisons with the popular DNN-based software Chemprop and the popular gradient boosted trees-based software XGBoost on enthalpy of formation and rate coefficient prediction tasks. In particular, in the enthalpy of formation case, vanilla PySIDT is able to outperform vanilla Chemprop and XGBoost across the full range of training/validation set sizes out to 11,560 data points.

Johnson, Matthew Sean [Sandia National Laboratorie↗

DOE OSTI2025

Autoencoding is All You Need (for MSTd)

We explore various neural network task and architectural constraints to find the minimal set that produces network activity similar to that found in primate MSTd. MSTd is a brain region in the dorsal visual pathway associated with self motion estimation from visual motion (i.e. optic flow).

Layton, Oliver W [Colby College]↗