Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Open data”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 451 records · Page 25
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

EGS Collab Experiment 2: Shear Stimulation ERT Monitoring Data

This repository contains the electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) monitoring data that was collected before, during, and after shear stimulation attempts were conducted at EGS Collab. These tests were carried out on the SURF 4100 level during Experiment 2 in March, 2022. Flow and stimulation data corresponding to this dataset are available in a different GDR dataset, which is linked below. Also included here are the E4D input files that were used to process the ERT data. E4D is an open source ERT monitoring and inversion code which is linked for use below.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Toward Unified Autonomous Scattering Experiments: A Cross-Facility Case Study at ALS and PETRA III

Autonomous experiments rely on the integration of control, data acquisition, analysis, and decision-making frameworks. While such systems have been demonstrated at individual facilities, adapting them to additional instruments remains challenging due to differences in local infrastructure. We present a modular workflow that connects existing open-source tools for data access (Tiled), workflow orchestration (Prefect), analysis and visualization (pyFAI, Plotly Dash), and Gaussian-process-based adaptive sampling (gpCAM) into a unified framework for autonomous scattering experiments. The same configuration operates across two synchrotron beamlines (ALS 7.3.3 and PETRA III P03) with only minimal facility-specific adjustments, as shown in proof-of-concept demonstrations. This validates that a consistent design emphasizing modularity and shared interfaces can ease deployment across diverse experimental environments. The resulting framework provides a flexible foundation for extending autonomous control and analysis capabilities beyond a single beamline or instrument.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2022

RCSB Protein Data bank: Tools for visualizing and understanding biological macromolecules in 3D

Abstract Now in its 52nd year of continuous operations, the Protein Data Bank (PDB) is the premiere open‐access global archive housing three‐dimensional (3D) biomolecular structure data. It is jointly managed by the Worldwide Protein Data Bank (wwPDB) partnership. The Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics Protein Data Bank (RCSB PDB) is funded by the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and US Department of Energy and serves as the US data center for the wwPDB. RCSB PDB is also responsible for the security of PDB data in its role as wwPDB‐designated Archive Keeper. Every year, RCSB PDB serves tens of thousands of depositors of 3D macromolecular structure data (coming from macromolecular crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, electron microscopy, and micro‐electron diffraction). The RCSB PDB research‐focused web portal ( RCSB.org ) makes PDB data available at no charge and without usage restrictions to many millions of PDB data consumers around the world. The RCSB PDB training, outreach, and education web portal ( PDB101.RCSB.org ) serves nearly 700 K educators, students, and members of the public worldwide. This invited Tools Issue contribution describes how RCSB PDB (i) is organized; (ii) works with wwPDB partners to process new depositions; (iii) serves as the wwPDB‐designated Archive Keeper; (iv) enables exploration and 3D visualization of PDB data via RCSB.org ; and (v) supports training, outreach, and education via PDB101.RCSB.org . New tools and features at RCSB.org are presented using examples drawn from high‐resolution structural studies of proteins relevant to treatment of human cancers by targeting immune checkpoints.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

DEIMoS GUI: An Open-Source User Interface for a High-Dimensional Mass Spectrometry Data Processing Tool

In this paper, we report the creation of a graphical user interface (GUI) for the Data Extraction for Integrated Multidimensional Spectrometry (DEIMoS) tool. DEIMoS is a Python package to process data from high-dimensional mass spectrometry measurements. It is divided into several modules, each representing a data processing step, such as peak detection, alignment, and tandem mass spectra extraction and deconvolution. The inputs for and outputs from DEIMoS can include millions of N-dimensional data points, which can be challenging to visualize in a way that is interactive, informative, and responsive. Here, we used the HoloViz Python data stack, including DataShader and Param, to create an interactive visualization of mass spectrometry data. We believe the GUI will increase the accessibility of DEIMoS, and the visualization methods could be useful for other open-source mass spectrometry tools.

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

RCSB Protein Data Bank (RCSB.org): delivery of experimentally-determined PDB structures alongside one million computed structure models of proteins from artificial intelligence/machine learning

Abstract The Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics Protein Data Bank (RCSB PDB), founding member of the Worldwide Protein Data Bank (wwPDB), is the US data center for the open-access PDB archive. As wwPDB-designated Archive Keeper, RCSB PDB is also responsible for PDB data security. Annually, RCSB PDB serves >10 000 depositors of three-dimensional (3D) biostructures working on all permanently inhabited continents. RCSB PDB delivers data from its research-focused RCSB.org web portal to many millions of PDB data consumers based in virtually every United Nations-recognized country, territory, etc. This Database Issue contribution describes upgrades to the research-focused RCSB.org web portal that created a one-stop-shop for open access to ∼200 000 experimentally-determined PDB structures of biological macromolecules alongside >1 000 000 incorporated Computed Structure Models (CSMs) predicted using artificial intelligence/machine learning methods. RCSB.org is a ‘living data resource.’ Every PDB structure and CSM is integrated weekly with related functional annotations from external biodata resources, providing up-to-date information for the entire corpus of 3D biostructure data freely available from RCSB.org with no usage limitations. Within RCSB.org, PDB structures and the CSMs are clearly identified as to their provenance and reliability. Both are fully searchable, and can be analyzed and visualized using the full complement of RCSB.org web portal capabilities.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Biolink Model: A universal schema for knowledge graphs in clinical, biomedical, and translational science

Abstract Within clinical, biomedical, and translational science, an increasing number of projects are adopting graphs for knowledge representation. Graph‐based data models elucidate the interconnectedness among core biomedical concepts, enable data structures to be easily updated, and support intuitive queries, visualizations, and inference algorithms. However, knowledge discovery across these “knowledge graphs” (KGs) has remained difficult. Data set heterogeneity and complexity; the proliferation of ad hoc data formats; poor compliance with guidelines on findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability; and, in particular, the lack of a universally accepted, open‐access model for standardization across biomedical KGs has left the task of reconciling data sources to downstream consumers. Biolink Model is an open‐source data model that can be used to formalize the relationships between data structures in translational science. It incorporates object‐oriented classification and graph‐oriented features. The core of the model is a set of hierarchical, interconnected classes (or categories) and relationships between them (or predicates) representing biomedical entities such as gene, disease, chemical, anatomic structure, and phenotype. The model provides class and edge attributes and associations that guide how entities should relate to one another. Here, we highlight the need for a standardized data model for KGs, describe Biolink Model, and compare it with other models. We demonstrate the utility of Biolink Model in various initiatives, including the Biomedical Data Translator Consortium and the Monarch Initiative, and show how it has supported easier integration and interoperability of biomedical KGs, bringing together knowledge from multiple sources and helping to realize the goals of translational science.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

A global anthropogenic emission inventory of atmospheric pollutants from sector- and fuel-specific sources (1970–2017): an application of the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS)

Global anthropogenic emission inventories remain vital for understanding the sources of atmospheric pollution and the associated impacts on the environment, human health, and society. Rapid changes in today's society require that these inventories provide contemporary estimates of multiple atmospheric pollutants with both source sector and fuel type information to understand and effectively mitigate future impacts. To fill this need, we have updated the open-source Community Emissions Data System (CEDS) (Hoesly et al., 2019) to develop a new global emission inventory, CEDSGBD-MAPS. This inventory includes emissions of seven key atmospheric pollutants (NOx; CO; SO2; NH3; non-methane volatile organic compounds, NMVOCs; black carbon, BC; organic carbon, OC) over the time period from 1970–2017 and reports annual country-total emissions as a function of 11 anthropogenic sectors (agriculture; energy generation; industrial processes; on-road and non-road transportation; separate residential, commercial, and other sectors (RCO); waste; solvent use; and international shipping) and four fuel categories (total coal, solid biofuel, the sum of liquid-fuel and natural-gas combustion, and remaining process-level emissions). The CEDSGBD-MAPS inventory additionally includes monthly global gridded (0.5°?×?0.5°) emission fluxes for each compound, sector, and fuel type to facilitate their use in earth system models. CEDSGBD-MAPS utilizes updated activity data, updates to the core CEDS default scaling procedure, and modifications to the final procedures for emissions gridding and aggregation. Relative to the previous CEDS inventory (Hoesly et al., 2018), these updates extend the emission estimates from 2014 to 2017 and improve the overall agreement between CEDS and two widely used global bottom-up emission inventories. The CEDSGBD-MAPS inventory provides the most contemporary global emission estimates to date for these key atmospheric pollutants and is the first to provide global estimates for these species as a function of multiple fuel types and source sectors. Dominant sources of global NOx and SO2 emissions in 2017 include the combustion of oil, gas, and coal in the energy and industry sectors as well as on-road transportation and international shipping for NOx. Dominant sources of global CO emissions in 2017 include on-road transportation and residential biofuel combustion. Dominant global sources of carbonaceous aerosol in 2017 include residential biofuel combustion, on-road transportation (BC only), and emissions from the waste sector. Global emissions of NOx, SO2, CO, BC, and OC all peak in 2012 or earlier, with more recent emission reductions driven by large changes in emissions from China, North America, and Europe. In contrast, global emissions of NH3 and NMVOCs continuously increase between 1970 and 2017, with agriculture as a major source of global NH3 emissions and solvent use, energy, residential, and the on-road transport sectors as major sources of global NMVOCs. Due to similar development methods and underlying datasets, the CEDSGBD-MAPS emissions are expected to have consistent sources of uncertainty as other bottom-up inventories. The CEDSGBD-MAPS source code is publicly available online through GitHub: https://github.com/emcduffie/CEDS/tree/CEDS_GBD-MAPS (last access: 1 December 2020). The CEDSGBD-MAPS emission inventory dataset (both annual country-total and monthly global gridded files) is publicly available under https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3754964 (McDuffie et al., 2020c).

Mcduffie, Erin↗
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 OSTI2023

Performance analysis of single-phase immersion cooling system of data center using FC-40 dielectric fluid

Immersion cooling technologies have become an emerging cooling method for data center cooling. The studies available in open literature dealt with immersion cooling performance of data servers using mineral oil, EC-100, and Opticool 872552, but the studies focusing on the performance of FC-40 dielectric fluid is not available. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a single-phase liquid immersion cooling system using FC-40 dielectric fluid for a 1U (44.45 mm height) data server. The present study experimentally investigated the influence of different design and operating parameters, including the inlet/outlet port configuration (T and Z configurations), the bypass effect, the flowrate (1–3 LPM), the heating load (200–600 W), the inlet fluid temperature (15–35 °C), the presence of suction fan with various arrangements, and different heat sink bases (solid base, vapor chamber and heat pipe base). The results showed that the T-configuration could provide a 12.6% and 0.5–2.8 °C reduction in thermal resistance and case temperature compared to the Z-configuration, respectively. Additionally, the heat sink with heat pipe and vapor chamber base offered a minimum case temperature of 56.7 °C and 55.2 °C against the 60 °C experienced in the heat sink with flat plate base, respectively.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Scalable Data Center Capacity for DOE's AI Prototype: A Rapidly Available Gigawatt Data Center for DOE

The multilaboratory Gigawatt Data Center working group was commissioned to identify approaches to rapidly establish federal data centers with scalable capacities up to 1,000 MW. These state-of-the-art facilities will serve as hubs for interdisciplinary collaboration, industry partnerships, and transformative applications of artificial intelligence. The proposed strategic shift includes facilitating multilaboratory collaboration, prioritizing operational efficiency, expanding public–private partnerships, optimizing investments, ensuring long-term contractual flexibility, supporting open science and secure data enclaves, and exploiting high-speed national networks. Owing to their extensive experience and best practices, the US Department of Energy national laboratories are uniquely positioned to lead this initiative. We recommend conducting a feasibility analysis to rapidly identify the optimal sites for this initiative, and the effort will likely involve private industry for design, construction, financing, and operational integration. We also propose establishing multiple geographically diverse sites to ensure energy resilience, high operational reliability, and a diverse user base, thereby effectively addressing the nation’s critical needs.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2023

Open quantum system violates generalized Pauli constraints on quantum device

Abstract The Pauli exclusion principle governs the fundamental structure and function of fermionic systems from molecules to materials. Nonetheless, when such a fermionic system is in a pure state, it is subject to additional restrictions known as the generalized Pauli constraints (GPCs). Here we verify experimentally the violation of the GPCs for an open quantum system using data from a superconducting-qubit quantum computer. We prepare states of systems with three-to-seven qubits directly on the quantum device and measure the one-fermion reduced density matrix (1-RDM) from which we can test the GPCs. We find that the GPCs of the 1-RDM are sufficiently sensitive to detect the openness of the 3-to-7 qubit systems in the presence of a single-qubit environment. Results confirm experimentally that the openness of a many-fermion quantum system can be decoded from only a knowledge of the 1-RDM with potential applications from quantum computing and sensing to noise-assisted energy transfer.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2023

KG-Hub—building and exchanging biological knowledge graphs

Knowledge graphs (KGs) are a powerful approach for integrating heterogeneous data and making inferences in biology and many other domains, but a coherent solution for constructing, exchanging, and facilitating the downstream use of KGs is lacking. Here we present KG-Hub, a platform that enables standardized construction, exchange, and reuse of KGs. Features include a simple, modular extract–transform–load pattern for producing graphs compliant with Biolink Model (a high-level data model for standardizing biological data), easy integration of any OBO (Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies) ontology, cached downloads of upstream data sources, versioned and automatically updated builds with stable URLs, web-browsable storage of KG artifacts on cloud infrastructure, and easy reuse of transformed subgraphs across projects. Current KG-Hub projects span use cases including COVID-19 research, drug repurposing, microbial–environmental interactions, and rare disease research. KG-Hub is equipped with tooling to easily analyze and manipulate KGs. KG-Hub is also tightly integrated with graph machine learning (ML) tools which allow automated graph ML, including node embeddings and training of models for link prediction and node classification.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Onslow Beach Washover Fan Morphology from 2012 to 2015

Critical military training and testing on lands along the nation’s coastal and estuarine shorelines are increasingly placed at risk because of encroachment pressures in surrounding areas, impairments due to other anthropogenic disturbances, and changes in climate and sea level. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) intends to enhance and sustain its training and testing assets and also optimize its stewardship of natural resources through the development and application of an ecosystem-based management approach on DoD installations. To accomplish this goal, particularly for installations in estuarine/coastal environments, the Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program (SERDP) launched the Defense Coastal/Estuarine Research Program (DCERP) as a 10-year effort at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (MCBCL) in North Carolina. The results of the second 5 years of the program (DCERP2) are presented in the DCERP2 Final Report.There were four overarching objectives of DCERP2. The first objective was to understand the effects of climate change impacts, including warming temperatures, variability in the hydrological cycle, storm events, and sea level rise on the coastal ecosystems at MCBCL from observations and measurements made over the 10-year program. The second objective was to understand the carbon cycle of the coastal and terrestrial ecosystems at MCBCL through a highly integrated sampling program. The third objective was to develop models, tools, and indicators to evaluate current and projected future ecosystem state changes and translate scientific findings into actionable information for installation managers. The last objective was to recommend adaptive management strategies to sustain ecosystem natural resources within the context of an active military installation.These grid files were created from data collected using a Riegl 3-D laser scanner. Millions of x, y, and z points from the F2 Washover Fan on Onslow Beach were processed using the MARS software package to define a bare-earth model. Grid files were imported into Golden Software Surfer version 19 for editing and exported from that application as .grd files. Files can be opened in Surfer or ArcMap, but the coordinate system information will be lost if opened in ArcMap. These data were collected to quantify the morphological changes that occur on a washover fan through time.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-Oho Oak Openings

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-Oho Oak Openings. This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-Oho Oak Openings produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - The Ohio Oak Openings site is located within the Oak Openings Preserve Metropark of northwest Ohio, one of the few remaining oak woodlands/savanna/prairie complexes in the Midwest. Declared one of the "One of America's Last Great Places" by the Nature Conservancy the area consists of four main vegetation types: Oak Woodlands, Oak Savanna, Floodplain Forests and Wet Prairies. The stand surrounding the tower is mainly Oak Woodlands dominated by red, white and black oaks with a relatively abundant population of red maples indicating high soil moisture retention and a history of limited fire disturbances. Most of the area was cleared for agriculture at the time of Euro-American settlements in the mid to late-19th century. A large fraction of the cleared land was later abandoned due to the poor sandy soils. These areas reverted to Oak Savannas and in cases where fire was limited progressively made the transition to Oak Woodlands. Today patches of the forest are burned every few years as part of prescribed burning cycle to control stand density.

Chen, Jiquan↗