SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “reference”

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 361 records · Page 20

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2026

High-Mileage Courier Fleet Vehicle Laboratory Battery Pack Testing

For one of each of the AVTA's plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles, and some hybrid electric vehicles tested in high-mileage courier fleets, the high-voltage traction battery packs were removed from the vehicle and tested at the beginning and end of fleet testing. For some vehicles, batteries also were tested at periodic intervals during fleet testing. Standard reference performance tests were conducted to characterize battery degradation over time. This dataset contains results from two or more rounds of battery tests for 21 distinct year/make/model vehicles (see reference ["INL Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity: On-road Logger and Laboratory Battery Pack Testing Vehicle List"](https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/reports/DatasetVehicleList.pdf) for full list of vehicles). Each round of battery testing included the "Static Capacity Test" and the "Hybrid Pulse Power Characterization (HPPC) Test", conducted according to test procedures published in the United States Advanced Battery Consortium ["Battery Test Manual For Power-Assist Hybrid Electric Vehicles"](https://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=57), ["Battery Test Manual For Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles"](https://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=168), and ["Electric Vehicle Battery Test Procedures Manual"](https://www.uscar.org/commands/files_download.php?files_id=5) prior to the time of testing. These tests were performed by Intertek Testing Services, North America. This dataset is shared by API; a small sample of the vehicle battery and test data has been extracted and is also available for download.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2026

CalderaCast Web Interface

CalderaCast may be accessed as a web-based tool at the first link in the references section of this dataset. All of the necessary datasets to run the tool are built into the simulation software running behind the web interface. These input datasets are referenced by the additional links in the references section below. Many of those datasets are taken into machine-learning algorithms by the Caldera team and heavily processed to create internal datasets, which are then relied upon by the simulation to produce individual results. These internal datasets are not accessible and are not necessary for use of the CalderaCast tool.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2026

Vegetation classification map and covariates associated with NEON AOP survey, East River, CO 2018

This package includes geospatial data layers developed to investigate how environmental gradients—specifically topography and near-surface soil properties—drive the spatial arrangement of dominant plant communities in mountainous watersheds. The geospatial products, which support the analysis of these ecological relationships, are derived from airborne hyperspectral and LiDAR datasets acquired by the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Airborne Observation Platform (AOP), in conjunction with an extensive ground field campaign conducted in summer 2018. This work is part of the DOE Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA) and features geospatial datasets developed based on observations and ground data collected at East River, Colorado, in collaboration with the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) Airborne Observation Platform (AOP) survey in June 2018. Classification Map: - Classification Map (PNG, GeoTIFF): Derived from hyperspectral and LiDAR airborne data using a machine learning approach. - Class Code Mapper (CSV): Associates pixel values with corresponding vegetation/non-vegetation classes. - Classification Reference Data (CSV): Reference data used in the machine learning procedure. LiDAR-Derived Products: - Topographical Metrics (GeoTIFFs): Elevation, slope, curvature, TWI, TPI, solar insolation, and canopy height model (CHM), smoothed with a 5x5 pixel window. Vegetation Indices: - GeoTIFFs of NDVI, NDNI, NDWI: Vegetation indices derived from hyperspectral data. Urban Masks: - Urban Mask (GeoTIFF): Applied to the mapping to convert bare soil classes to urban classes. Software Compatibility: GeoTIFFs: Can be visualized with GIS software or libraries that support GeoTIFF images. CSV Files: Can be opened with any software that handles comma-separated values. The FLMD file provides details and links to the source datasets used to derive the products. The manuscript (in the Method session) provides details on how each product was derived. 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. Update on 2026-03-25: Since the original dataset publication date of 02/28/2020, this package has a new classification map derived by an improved methodology. This update also includes additional ground data that improved the representation of some of the communities. See the methods for further details on what has changed between versions.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗

DOE OSTI2024

Groundwater and Surface Water Flow (GSFLOW) model files to explore bedrock circulation depth and porosity in Copper Creek, Colorado

This data package contains integrated hydrological model input and output files for Copper Creek, Colorado (24 km2), a tributary of the East River located in the headwaters of the Upper Colorado River Basin. The model code is the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Groundwater and Surface Water Flow (GSFLOW) model. The model contains a 100-m grid resolution and a daily timestep. The land surface model is dynamically linked to a three-dimensional groundwater flow model that allows for streamflow gaining and losing conditions. The groundwater model contains 12 model layers and extends 400 m below land surface. The original Copper Creek model was modified to contain geologic layers representing saprolite, shallow bedrock, and deep bedrock. Endmember depth versus hydraulic conductivity relationships and porosity values for fractured crystalline rock are simulated. For the shallow case, median flow depths occur in the shallow saprolite at depths <8 m, while the deep case promotes a median groundwater flow depth of 100 m. With this modeling framework we compare streamflow response to a plausible worst-case drought lasting up to five years. Streamflow metrics of analysis include average streamflow, fraction of stream network that is dry, no-flow duration, average groundwater flow to streams and time to recovery following the drought. Results and implications are presented in a paper submitted to Geophysical Research Letters titled, "The role of bedrock circulation depth and porosity in mountain streamflow response to prolonged drought" by Rosemary WH. Carroll, Andrew H. Manning and Kenneth H Williams. A Readme.txt file provides instructions on how to download all model files and execute each model scenario. In addition to the GSFLOW output/prms/copper_drought.csv file containing daily basin water stores and fluxes (refer to GSFLOW manual) and the output/prms/copper_drought_statvar.dat file with output defined in the gsflow3.control file (refer to GSFLOW Manual), output files also include spatially distributed daily values of total evapotranspiration, canopy evaporation, precipitation, snowfall, infiltration, snow water equivalent, potential evapotranspiration, recharge, sublimation, soil moisture, contributing interflow, water table elevations, changes in groundwater storage, groundwater evapotranspiration, interbasin groundwater flow (limited to the alluvium below the stream outlet), and surface-groundwater exchanges within the river system.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Site and endmember spectra of terrestrial vegetation and soils for the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study, June-July 2025

This dataset provides site and endmember spectra collected during the 2025 Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign. The site spectra were collected to help validate airborne hyperspectral data acquired by the National Ecological Observatory Network's aerial observation platform (NEON AOP). Endmember spectra were collected to augment existing spectral libraries with additional samples of bare surfaces and non-photosynthetic vegetation. All measurements were acquired with an Analytical Spectral Devices (ASD) FieldSpec4 Hi-Res NG (Next Generation) spectroradiometer, which records radiance at 1nm (nanometer) intervals from the ultraviolet to the short-wave infrared (350-2500 nm). The dataset includes spectra measured at meadow sites where the CHESS team also collected vegetation samples for trait analyses. The site spectra were collected with the ASD FieldSpec4 palm grip attachment using an 8° field-of-view foreoptic. Site spectra are integrated measurements of the entire surface within the foreoptic’s field of view. For site-level spectra, the sun is the illumination source. A Spectralon panel mounted on a tripod was used for instrument optimization and white reference measurements for all site spectra. Site spectra were acquired within two hours of solar noon and within 48 hours of a NEON AOP overflight. Site spectra are labeled by date, sampling area, and site number according to the naming conventions of the CHESS campaign’s data management plan. The dataset also contains endmember spectra in the following categories: photosynthetic vegetation (PV), non-photosynthetic vegetation (NPV), bare (soil/rock), and flowers. Endmember measurements were acquired using either the contact probe or the leaf clip attachments of the ASD FieldSpec4. In these configurations, the bulb inside the spectrometer provides the light source for the measurements. The spectrometer was optimized and white reference measurements were recorded using the circular white pucks attached to the contact probe and leaf clip. Because they do not rely on solar illumination, contact probe and leaf clip measurements were collected during a broader time frame than the palm grip site spectra. Some endmembers were measured at CHESS meadow sites, while others were collected within the larger sampling area or in nearby locations (e.g. Gothic Townsite) with similar characteristics. Radiance, reflectance, and metadata files are split into three subfolders according to measurement type: proximal/palm grip (prx), contact probe (cp), and leaf clip (lc). Radiance spectra are provided in ASD file format (.asd file extension). All ASD files can be opened using the provided scripts. Metadata is provided in two formats: CSV file format (no geolocation) and GEOJSON file format (includes geolocation for each spectra). The dataset includes a set of pre-processed reflectance spectra as CSV files (yyyymmdd_rfl.csv). The python scripts and jupyter notebook used to calculate reflectance spectra from the ASD radiance data is included here and was previously published at: https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/2446. There is also a folder of JPEG photographs corresponding to selected spectra. We include a protocol document with detailed steps for ASD FieldSpec4 assembly and operations. This data additionally contains a file level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) file. 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 Acknowledgment: This research was carried out at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004) and was funded by EMIT Extended Mission Phase E Science.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗

DOE OSTI2025

Specific conductivity and salinity of the Parker River, PIE LTER, Plum Island Sound MA, August-November 2022

This dataset contains specific conductivity and calculated salinity data of Parker River water at a tidal brackish wetland dominated by Typha angustifolia at the upper estuary of the Plum Island Sound in Newbury, Massachusetts (MA) within the Plum Island Ecosystems Long Term Ecological Research site (PIE LTER). Measurements were taken to evaluate temporal changes in surface water salinity in high frequency to characterize boundary conditions of soil and plant responses to changes in salinity. A PVC pipe was installed in a low elevation spot in the creek bank so that the bottom of the pipe sat on the sediment surface allowing flushing with water during flooding. Raw measurements were collected using an Onset HOBO U24-002 Saltwater Conductivity/Salinity data logger. The specific conductance and salinity measurements were corrected and calculated respectively using Onset’s HOBOware software and reference specific conductivity measurements taken in tandem with the first and last points recorded by the HOBO sensor. These reference measurements were taken using a HACH HQ14D Portable Conductivity Meter. Because of the installation design, only data one hour before and after high tide are used. Metadata files Typha_ctd_salinity_dd.csv and Typha_ctd_salinity_flmd.csv contain detailed information on data variables, sampling and QA/QC methods, and site location.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Specific conductivity and salinity of the Parker River, PIE LTER, Plum Island Sound MA, March-November 2023

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

SPRUCE: Peat Core Sample Collection Metadata, Marcell Experimental Forest, Minnesota, August 2024

This data set contains metadata associated with peat core samples collected from the Spruce and Peatland Responses Under Changing Environments (SPRUCE) experiment in August 2024. This sample metadata contains no analytical results and is a reference for analytical datasets. To ensure accessibility and discoverability, each sample was assigned an International Generic Sample Number (IGSN), a persistent identifier, using System for Earth and Extraterrestrial Sample Registration (SESAR). These samples were used for downstream analysis by multiple teams of researchers the results of which will be reported separately. This dataset contains one data file in comma separate (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: one data dictionary and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format. An aliquot of most samples is stored at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and may be available for further analysis. Access this collection event on SESAR https://doi.org/10.58052/IEJ9B00VQ. To inquire about obtaining archived samples for analysis, reach out using the Contact Sample Owner form located on the bottom of the landing page in SESAR. Note: Only dried and ground material from C Cores are available for new analysis.

Birkebak, Joshua [ORNL] (ORCID:0009000955611494)↗

DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Proton beam power limits for stationary water-cooled tungsten target with different cladding materials

The proton beam power limit for a solid-tungsten spallation target is largely determined by beam induced thermomechanical structural loads and decay heat power deposition, while its lifetime is limited by radiation damage and fatigue life of the target materials. In this paper, we studied the power limits of a stationary water-cooled solid tungsten target concept. Tantalum clad tungsten was considered as a reference case. Being a low activation material, zircaloy 2 cladding option was studied and its decay heat driven power limit was compared with the reference case. Zirconium alloys have proven operations records in spallation target and nuclear fission environments, supported by materials data obtained from post irradiation examinations. Recent study also demonstrated feasibility of diffusion bonding zirconium to tungsten using vanadium foil inter layer. Particle transport simulations code FLUKA was used to calculate energy deposition and decay heat power deposition in the target, based on the beam parameters technically feasible at the Second Target Station of the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The energy deposition data were used for flow, thermal, and structural analyses to determine the beam intensity limit on the target concept studied. The decay heat deposition data were used to calculate the transient temperature evolution in the tungsten volumes in a loss of coolant accident (LOCA) scenario to determine its beam power limit. For a 1.3 GeV proton beam, the power limit on a stationary target was 400 kW for a tantalum clad target model and 800 kW for a zircaloy 2 clad target model.

Lee, Yong Joong↗

DOE OSTI2026

Evaluation of a Smoke Opacity Sensor for Improving Residential Wood Heater Combustion

Residential wood heating lacks real-time particulate matter (PM) monitoring technologies capable of measuring emissions directly from flue gases. This study evaluates the performance of the Octoring, an opacity-based smoke sensor developed to monitor wood heater emissions and provide feedback for improved combustion. The device was tested on catalytic and non-catalytic cordwood heaters and a pellet heater during startup, high-burn, and low-burn phases. Performance was assessed against reference particle instruments and gravimetric measurements using concordance, correlation, and agreement analyses. Results show that temperature-dependent drift is the primary limitation affecting sensor accuracy, with systematic drift observed across ambient and combustion conditions. Agreement with reference instruments ranged from poor to good depending on operating conditions, with the strongest performance observed during pellet heater high-burn operation. These findings establish a performance baseline for opacity-based sensing technologies and identify key areas for further development before practical deployment in residential wood combustion monitoring systems.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2024

Machine learning enhanced characterization and optimization of photonic cured MAPbI 3 for efficient perovskite solar cells

Photonic curing (PC) can facilitate high-speed perovskite solar cell (PSC) manufacturing because it uses high-intensity light pulses to crystallize perovskite films in milliseconds. However, optimizing PC conditions is challenging due to its many variables, and using power conversion efficiency (PCE) as the optimization metric is both time-consuming and labor-intensive. This work presents a machine learning (ML) approach to optimize PC conditions for fabricating methylammonium lead iodide (MAPbI 3 ) films by quantitatively comparing their ultraviolet-visible (UV-vis) absorbance spectra to thermal annealed (TA) films using four similarity metrics. We perform Bayesian optimization coupled with Gaussian process regression (BO-GP) to minimize the similarity metrics. Refining PC conditions using active learning based on BO-GP models, we achieve a PC MAPbI3 film with an absorbance spectrum closely matching a TA reference film, which is further verified by its crystalline and morphological properties. Thus, we demonstrate that the UV-vis absorption spectrum can accurately proxy film quality. Additionally, we use an AI-based segmentation model for a more efficient grain size analysis. However, when we use the optimized PC condition to fabricate PSCs, we find that interaction between MAPbI 3 and the hole transport layer (HTL) during PC critically degrades the PSC performance. By adding a buffer layer between the HTL and MAPbI 3 , the optimized PC PSCs produce a champion PCE of 11.8%, comparable to the TA reference of 11.7%. Using UV-vis similarity metrics instead of device PCE as the objective in our BO-GP method accelerates the optimization of PC processing conditions for MAPbI 3 films.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

solposx: A Python package for determining solar position and atmospheric refraction

solposx is a Python package of reference algorithms for calculating the sun’s position and atmospheric refraction. The package includes 11 solar position algorithms and 6 refraction models from the past 50 years. All functions follow a standardized design pattern, making it easy to compare different algorithms. The provided algorithm implementations have been thoroughly vetted, making the package a valuable research tool and a reliable reference for implementing solar position algorithms in other programming languages or applications.

Jensen, Adam R. [Technical University of Denmark, ↗

DOE OSTI2024

Joint Comments from the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE NNSA) Los Alamos Field Office and Triad National Security, LLC on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s New Mexico State-Wide Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Strawman General Permit

In December 2020 and March 2021, EPA issued two MS4 strawman permit drafts specific to the Los Alamos area. EPA made text changes in the 2 nd strawman permit based on stakeholder comments related to the initial draft. During the public meeting on the Los Alamos area designation decision held on February 13, 2024, EPA staff stated that comments from the past strawman permits would be incorporated into the new MS4 permit to be issued state-wide. However, it does not appear that any of the text changes from the 2 nd Los Alamos area strawman permit were included in this state-wide general MS4 strawman permit. For reference, the 2 nd Los Alamos area revised strawman permit is included with these comments as Attachment 2. Many of the following comments refer to or state EPA’s updated text included in the 2 nd Los Alamos area strawman permit. The updated text from this 2 nd strawman permit that are referenced in the following comments should be applicable state-wide and it is suggested that this past work be reconsidered and incorporated.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Meta-Analysis of Advanced Nuclear Reactor Cost Estimations

Supporting Data can be downloaded at: https://gain.inl.gov/content/uploads/4/2024/06/INL-RPT-24-77048-R1.xlsx Nuclear energy is a critical cornerstone of the current United States clean energy supply and may play a larger role in the future in support of a transition to a net-zero economy. The current fleet of nuclear reactors predominantly consists of large light-water reactors (LWRs), while many of the reactor designs under consideration are smaller and/or different technologies. Because these new designs have not yet been built, there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with their cost. This complicates energy-planning efforts because cost projections are not always standardized, consistent, and centralized in an easily accessible location. To help support energy planning in the US, this report provides advanced nuclear cost ranges using a transparent methodology along with other relevant information that can be used to help support decision making and energy planning. The purpose of this work was to conduct a methodical process for cost evaluation using only public information that was vetted with the end-goal to provide reference cost projections for nuclear energy. To provide a solid basis for these values, the approach and assumptions are explicitly laid out throughout the report allowing any user of the data to challenge or reconsider them. Because future US nuclear-reactor costs are still unknown due to little recent observed data, the report opted to compile a comprehensive list of bottom-up estimates and evaluate averages/trends within the data to identify reference ranges. This was deemed preferable to opining on the robustness or validity of one cost estimation versus another. To that end, the work evaluated thousands of lines of cost subaccounts from several bottom-up cost estimates. A wide variety of different reactor types captured in the data are of various sizes and technologies. Some of these reactors will be representative of advanced reactors under development while others will not. Thus, the results here are dependent on the data that are available and the accuracy of the estimates that are used. Each bottom-up estimate was reviewed to determine whether it was complete. Incomplete data sets were corrected to ensure an adequate basis of cross-comparison. The report is not without limitations and should be interpreted as an initial step to develop cost ranges for nuclear technology. Ultimately, future work can build upon the methodology with refined cost estimates to reduce uncertainty. US-based overnight capital cost (OCC) estimates were compiled from extensive data sets into ranges for both large and small reactor sizes for 2030. To project the cost declines over time, learning rates were sampled from literature sources. No SMRs were previously built; hence, learning rates based on bottom-up approaches (e.g., by quantifying the impact stemming from fabrication of different components, modular work, site construction, commissioning) were prioritized. For larger reactors, actual learning rates from deployments were used to project future costs (adjusted to account for standardization or lack thereof between designs). Other costs included are fixed and variable operations and maintenance costs. The final variables were capacity factors and ramp rates to support energy planning.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Non-Refrigerated Warehouse Design Guide [Slides]

Warehouses typically have a low energy use relative to their floor area. This make warehouses ideal to install solar panels and offset on-site energy use and have a surplus of energy if roof area is maximized. This surplus can be used to provide things like grid services or charge electric vehicle fleets. This document is intended to provide owners and operators of warehouse information on designing efficient/decarbonized warehouses and maximize on-site generation. The information here references outside publications to provide specific guidance, such as the ASHRAE Advanced Energy Design Guides, but tailors the information specifically to warehouses. This guide provides owners a better understanding of warehouse design as well as more specific information for themselves or outside designers to reference.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗