Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “data modeling”

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 OSTI2016

SciDAC-Data, A Project to Enabling Data Driven Modeling of Exascale Computing

The SciDAC-Data project is a DOE funded initiative to analyze and exploit two decades of information and analytics that have been collected by the Fermilab Data Center on the organization, movement, and consumption of High Energy Physics data. The project will analyze the analysis patterns and data organization that have been used by the NOvA, MicroBooNE, MINERvA and other experiments, to develop realistic models of HEP analysis workflows and data processing. The SciDAC-Data project aims to provide both realistic input vectors and corresponding output data that can be used to optimize and validate simulations of HEP analysis. These simulations are designed to address questions of data handling, cache optimization and workflow structures that are the prerequisites for modern HEP analysis chains to be mapped and optimized to run on the next generation of leadership class exascale computing facilities. We will address the use of the SciDAC-Data distributions acquired from Fermilab Data Center’s analysis workflows and corresponding to around 71,000 HEP jobs, as the input to detailed queuing simulations that model the expected data consumption and caching behaviors of the work running in HPC environments. In particular we describe in detail how the Sequential Access via Metadata (SAM) data handling system in combination with the dCache/Enstore based data archive facilities have been analyzed to develop the radically different models of the analysis of HEP data. We present how the simulation may be used to analyze the impact of design choices in archive facilities.

Mubarak, M.↗
DOE OSTI2020

An open source fast fluid dynamics model for data center thermal management

Although computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has been widely adopted to improve data center thermal management, the high computational demand limits its applications, such as multivariate optimal design and operation. Fast fluid dynamics (FFD), which has been applied for fast airflow simulation, shows great potential. However, few research applied FFD for optimal design and operation of data center thermal management. This research improves the FFD model for data centers and conducts a comprehensive evaluation and demonstration. First, the FFD model is improved by solving the advection and diffusion equations together using an upwind scheme instead of a semi-Lagrangian advection solver in the conventional FFD model. Second, new features for data centers are added, such as a pressure correction method to simulate plenum airflow and dynamic boundary conditions for IT racks. The new FFD model is first validated with two indoor environment cases and the results show that the new FFD model has slightly better overall prediction accuracy and faster speed compared to the conventional FFD model. It is also observed that both FFD models achieve acceptable accuracy, except for a few localized disparities with experimental data, which might be due to simplified handling of turbulence viscosity near the boundaries. Furthermore, validation with a real data center shows that the FFD model achieves a similar level of accuracy as CFD when compared to the experimental measurements with some level of uncertainties. It is then demonstrated for data center optimal design and operation, which saves 53.4–58.8% of annual energy while still meeting the thermal requirements. In conclusion, with a much faster speed and comparable accuracy compared to CFD, the FFD model parallelized on a graphics processing unit is promising for practical model-based data center early design and operation.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
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↗
NASA NTRS2016

Ontologies for Aviation Data Management

Managing complex aviation data can be a significant challenge for any enterprise – whether a government agency, airline, airframe manufacturer, or aviation service provider. To handle this challenge, data models are typically developed to characterize and manage the data generated, used, and stored by a given enterprise. Unfortunately, different data providers employ qualitatively different data models, and this gives rise to problems exchanging data across organizational boundaries. Over the past decade, these problems have motivated data producers and consumers to look toward standardized data exchange models to address data interoperability. In this paper we examine some of these standardized data exchange models and compare them with a new type of data model based on ontologies. Ontology models have emerged in recent years from a confluence of research in the artificial intelligence, semantic web, and information science communities. This paper introduces ontology models, provides several use cases for ontologies relevant to aviation data management, and summarizes state of the art aviation prototype applications that utilize ontologies.

artificial intelligence↗
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 OSTI2022

Perspectives on the integration between first-principles and data-driven modeling

Efficiently embedding and/or integrating mechanistic information with data-driven models is essential if it is desired to simultaneously take advantage of both engineering principles and data-science. Further the opportunity for hybridization occurs in many scenarios, such as the development of a faster model of an accurate high-fidelity computer model; the correction of a mechanistic model that does not fully-capture the physical phenomena of the system; or the integration of a data-driven component approximating an unknown correlation within a mechanistic model. At the same time, different techniques have been proposed and applied in different literatures to achieve this hybridization, such as hybrid modeling, physics-informed Machine Learning (ML) and model calibration. In this paper we review the methods, challenges, applications and algorithms of these three research areas and discuss them in the context of the different hybridization scenarios. Moreover, we provide a comprehensive comparison of the hybridization techniques with respect to their differences and similarities, as well as advantages and limitations and future perspectives. Finally, we apply and illustrate hybrid modeling, physics-informed ML and model calibration via a chemical reactor case study.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
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↗
NASA NTRS2002

Technical Report Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation: A Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Radiative Model for Global Ocean Biogeochemical Models - Volume 22

An ocean-atmosphere radiative model (OARM) evaluates irradiance availability and quality in the water column to support phytoplankton growth and drive ocean thermodynamics. An atmospheric component incorporates spectral and directional effects of clear and cloudy skies as a function of atmospheric optical constituents, and spectral reflectance across the air-sea interface. An oceanic component evaluates the propagation of spectral and directional irradiance through the water column as a function of water, five phytoplankton groups, and chromophoric dissolved organic matter. It tracks the direct and diffuse streams from the atmospheric component, and a third stream, upwelling diffuse irradiance. The atmospheric component of OARM was compared to data sources at the ocean surface with a coefficient of determination (r2) of 0.97 and a root mean square of 12.1%.

Gregg, Watson W.↗
NASA NTRS1977

Acoustic loads on upper-surface-blown powered-lift systems

Powered-lift concepts are utilized in aircraft currently under development for STOL application. One of the concepts, upper surface blowing, places the jet exit just above the upper surface of the wing to produce powered lift from the jet exhaust blowing over the deflected flap. New data are presented to show the effects of airspeed, angle of attack, and angle of jet impingement. Scaling relationships are investigated concerning their applicability for extrapolating data to a different model size. The effects of a number of test parameters are examined and full-scale spectra are predicted from model data. It is concluded that scale models are an effective means for obtaining fluctuating pressure spectra for use in aircraft design. The prediction of full-scale loads from model data will require geometrically accurate models and closely spaced measurement locations.

Willis, C. M.↗
DOE OSTI2014

A Qualitative Readiness-Requirements Assessment Model for Enterprise Big-Data Infrastructure Investment

In the last three decades, there has been an exponential growth in the area of information technology providing the information processing needs of data-driven businesses in government, science, and private industry in the form of capturing, staging, integrating, conveying, analyzing, and transferring data that will help knowledge workers and decision makers make sound business decisions. Data integration across enterprise warehouses is one of the most challenging steps in the big data analytics strategy. Several levels of data integration have been identified across enterprise warehouses: data accessibility, common data platform, and consolidated data model. Each level of integration has its own set of complexities that requires a certain amount of time, budget, and resources to implement. Such levels of integration are designed to address the technical challenges inherent in consolidating the disparate data sources. In this paper, we present a methodology based on industry best practices to measure the readiness of an organization and its data sets against the different levels of data integration. We introduce a new Integration Level Model (ILM) tool, which is used for quantifying an organization and data system s readiness to share data at a certain level of data integration. It is based largely on the established and accepted framework provided in the Data Management Association (DAMA-DMBOK). It comprises several key data management functions and supporting activities, together with several environmental elements that describe and apply to each function. The proposed model scores the maturity of a system s data governance processes and provides a pragmatic methodology for evaluating integration risks. The higher the computed scores, the better managed the source data system and the greater the likelihood that the data system can be brought in at a higher level of integration.

Big data↗
DOE OSTI2019

Data and Models: A Framework for Advancing AI in Science

On June 5, 2019, the Office of Science (SC) organized a one-day roundtable to focus on enhancing access to high-quality and fully traceable research data, models, and computing resources to increase the value of such resources for artificial intelligence (AI) research and development and the SC mission.1 In this report, we consider AI to be inclusive of, for example, machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), neural networks (NN), computer vision, and natural language processing (NLP). We consider “data for AI” to mean the digital artifacts used to generate AI models and/or employed in combination with AI models during inference. In part, this roundtable was motivated by the recognition that a large portion of science data currently are not well suited for AI.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS2003

Towards a distributed information architecture for avionics data

Avionics data at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL consists of distributed, unmanaged, and heterogeneous information that is hard for flight system design engineers to find and use on new NASA/JPL missions. The development of a systematic approach for capturing, accessing and sharing avionics data critical to the support of NASA/JPL missions and projects is required. We propose a general information architecture for managing the existing distributed avionics data sources and a method for querying and retrieving avionics data using the Object Oriented Data Technology (OODT) framework. OODT uses XML messaging infrastructure that profiles data products and their locations using the ISO-11179 data model for describing data products. Queries against a common data dictionary (which implements the ISO model) are translated to domain dependent source data models, and distributed data products are returned asynchronously through the OODT middleware. Further work will include the ability to 'plug and play' new manufacturer data sources, which are distributed at avionics component manufacturer locations throughout the United States.

Information architecture↗
DOE OSTI2015

Quantifying properties of hot and dense QCD matter through systematic model-to-data comparison

We systematically compare an event-by-event heavy-ion collision model to data from the CERN Large Hadron Collider. Using a general Bayesian method, we probe multiple model parameters including fundamental quark-gluon plasma properties such as the specific shear viscosity η/s, calibrate the model to optimally reproduce experimental data, and extract quantitative constraints for all parameters simultaneously. Furthermore, the method is universal and easily extensible to other data and collision models.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
NASA NTRS1994

A lattice model for data display

In order to develop a foundation for visualization, we develop lattice models for data objects and displays that focus on the fact that data objects are approximations to mathematical objects and real displays are approximations to ideal displays. These lattice models give us a way to quantize the information content of data and displays and to define conditions on the visualization mappings from data to displays. Mappings satisfy these conditions if and only if they are lattice isomorphisms. We show how to apply this result to scientific data and display models, and discuss how it might be applied to recursively defined data types appropriate for complex information processing.

Hibbard, William L.↗
DOE OSTI2021

In Situ Inference for Earth System Predictability

An understanding of future evolution in precipitation extremes is critical to numerous DOE mission questions. Extreme events are by nature short time-scale events that are difficult to diagnose in available model data. Accurate modeling of extreme events necessarily requires high spatial resolution at the storm scale locally. However, the environment in which storms grow is dependent on global, remote, processes. These complex spatiotemporal relationships are impossible to diagnose at resolutions required to accurately model storms responsible for extreme precipitation. At exascale, climate simulations will produce results at fine enough resolution to investigate these relationships. However, the resulting data from these simulations will be far too large to save for post-simulation analysis. We advocate for fitting statistical models inside the simulations as they run, a context known as in situ, which will facilitate scientific investigations using the full fine-scale data stream. Figure 1 shows an example of the type of model we could consider, a Bayesian hierarchical spatial regression model. Precipitation extremes at each grid cell are modeled using extreme value distributions. Since extremes are rare, fitting models to individual grid cells can result in high variance and poor estimates. Instead, the model can be made more robust by smoothing the parameters of the extreme value model across space. Additionally, the parameters themselves can be functionally linked to other variables elsewhere in the simulation. Thus, we can use the fine-scale data to build more robust models for extremes that link extreme behavior to other climate patterns.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2012

CRADA NFE-07-00912: Development of Model Fuels Experimental Engine Data Base & Kinetic Modeling Parameter Sets (Final Report)

The automotive and engine industries are in a period of very rapid change being driven by new emission standards, new types of after treatment, new combustion strategies, the introduction of new fuels, and drive for increased fuel economy and efficiency. The rapid pace of these changes has put more pressure on the need for modeling of engine combustion and performance, in order to shorten product design and introduction cycles. New combustion strategies include homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI), partial-premixed combustion compression ignition (PCCI), and dilute low temperature combustion which are being developed for lower emissions and improved fuel economy. New fuels include bio-fuels such as ethanol or bio-diesel, drop-in bio-derived fuels and those derived from new crude oil sources such as gas-to-liquids, coal-to-liquids, oil sands, oil shale, and wet natural gas. Kinetic modeling of the combustion process for these new combustion regimes and fuels is necessary in order to allow modeling and performance assessment for engine design purposes. In this research covered by this CRADA, ORNL developed and supplied experimental data related to engine performance with new fuels and new combustion strategies along with interpretation and analysis of such data and consulting to Reaction Design, Inc. (RD). RD performed additional analysis of this data in order to extract important parameters and to confirm engine and kinetic models. The data generated was generally published to make it available to the engine and automotive design communities and also to the Reaction Design Model Fuels Consortium (MFC).

computational fluid dynamics↗