Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Residual point distribution”

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.

50 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2021

The SAMI Galaxy Survey: stellar population and structural trends across the Fundamental Plane

ABSTRACT We study the Fundamental Plane (FP) for a volume- and luminosity-limited sample of 560 early-type galaxies from the SAMI survey. Using r-band sizes and luminosities from new multi-Gaussian expansion photometric measurements, and treating luminosity as the dependent variable, the FP has coefficients a = 1.294 ± 0.039, b = 0.912 ± 0.025, and zero-point c = 7.067 ± 0.078. We leverage the high signal-to-noise ratio of SAMI integral field spectroscopy, to determine how structural and stellar population observables affect the scatter about the FP. The FP residuals correlate most strongly (8σ significance) with luminosity-weighted simple stellar population (SSP) age. In contrast, the structural observables surface mass density, rotation-to-dispersion ratio, Sérsic index, and projected shape all show little or no significant correlation. We connect the FP residuals to the empirical relation between age (or stellar mass-to-light ratio Υ⋆ ) and surface mass density, the best predictor of SSP age amongst parameters based on FP observables. We show that the FP residuals (anti)correlate with the residuals of the relation between surface density and Υ⋆ . This correlation implies that part of the FP scatter is due to the broad age and Υ⋆ distribution at any given surface mass density. Using virial mass and Υ⋆, we construct a simulated FP and compare it to the observed FP. We find that, while the empirical relations between observed stellar population relations and FP observables are responsible for most (75 per cent) of the FP scatter, on their own they do not explain the observed tilt of the FP away from the virial plane.

D’Eugenio, Francesco↗
DOE OSTI2026

Monitoring of Liquid Metal Reactor Heater Zones with Recurrent Neural Network Learning of Temperature Time Series

Advanced high-temperature fluid reactors (ARs), such as sodium fast reactors (SFRs) and molten salt cooled reactors (MSCRs) utilize high-temperature fluids at ambient pressure. To melt the fluid during reactor startup and prevent fluid freezing during cooldown, the thermal–hydraulic systems of such ARs include heater zones consisting of specific heaters with controllers, temperature sensors, and thermal insulation. The failure of heater zones due to insulation material degradation or improper installation, resulting in parasitic heat losses, can lead to fluid freezing. The detection of faults using a heat-transfer model is difficult because of a lack of knowledge of the experimental details. Data-driven machine learning of heater zone temperature time series offers a viable alternative. In this study, we benchmarked the performance of recurrent neural networks (RNNs) in an analysis of heat-up transient temperature time series of heater zones installed on a liquid sodium vessel. The RNN models include long short-term memory (LSTM) and gated recurrent unit (GRU) networks, as well as their bi-directional variants, BiLSTM and BiGRU. Anomalous temperature points were designated using a percentile-based threshold applied to residual fluctuations in the detrended temperature time series. Additionally, the impact of the exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) method on detection accuracy was examined. The RNN models’ performance was assessed using precision, recall, and F 1 score metrics. Results demonstrated that RNN models effectively detect anomalies in temperature time series with the best models for each heater zone achieving F 1 scores of over 93%. To explain the variations in RNN model performance across different heater zones, we used Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence to quantify the relative entropy between training and testing data, and the Detrended Fluctuation Analysis (DFA) to assess long-range temporal correlations. For datasets with strong long-range correlations and minimal relative entropy between training and testing data, GRU is the best-performing model. When the data exhibits weaker long-term correlations and a significant relative entropy between training and testing distributions, BiGRU shows the best performance. For the data sets with intermediate values of both KL divergence and DFA, the best performance is obtained with LSTM and BiLSTM, respectively.

gated recurrent unit↗
DOE OSTI2020

Planck 2018 results XII. Galactic astrophysics using polarized dust emission

Observations of the submillimetre emission from Galactic dust, in both total intensity I and polarization, have received tremendous interest thanks to the Planck full-sky maps. In this paper we make use of such full-sky maps of dust polarized emission produced from the third public release of Planck data. As the basis for expanding on astrophysical studies of the polarized thermal emission from Galactic dust, we present full-sky maps of the dust polarization fraction p, polarization angle ψ, and dispersion function of polarization angles S . The joint distribution (one-point statistics) of p and NH confirms that the mean and maximum polarization fractions decrease with increasing NH. The uncertainty on the maximum observed polarization fraction, pmax = 22.0 -1.4 +3.5% at 353 GHz and 80' resolution, is dominated by the uncertainty on the Galactic emission zero level in total intensity, in particular towards diffuse lines of sight at high Galactic latitudes. Furthermore, the inverse behaviour between p and S found earlier is seen to be present at high latitudes. This follows the S ∝ p -1 relationship expected from models of the polarized sky (including numerical simulations of magnetohydrodynamical turbulence) that include effects from only the topology of the turbulent magnetic field, but otherwise have uniform alignment and dust properties. Thus, the statistical properties of p, ψ, and S for the most part reflect the structure of the Galactic magnetic field. Nevertheless, we search for potential signatures of varying grain alignment and dust properties. First, we analyse the product map S × p, looking for residual trends. While the polarization fraction p decreases by a factor of 3-4 between NH = 10 20 cm -2 and NH = 2 x 10 22 cm -2 , out of the Galactic plane, this product S × p only decreases by about 25%. Because S is independent of the grain alignment efficiency, this demonstrates that the systematic decrease in p with N H is determined mostly by the magnetic-field structure and not by a drop in grain alignment. This systematic trend is observed both in the diffuse interstellar medium (ISM) and in molecular clouds of the Gould Belt. Second, we look for a dependence of polarization properties on the dust temperature, as we would expect from the radiative alignment torque (RAT) theory. We find no systematic trend of S × p with the dust temperature T d , whether in the diffuse ISM or in the molecular clouds of the Gould Belt. In the diffuse ISM, lines of sight with high polarization fraction p and low polarization angle dispersion S tend, on the contrary, to have colder dust than lines of sight with low p and high S . We also compare the Planck thermal dust polarization with starlight polarization data in the visible at high Galactic latitudes. The agreement in polarization angles is remarkable, and is consistent with what we expect from the noise and the observed dispersion of polarization angles in the visible on the scale of the Planck beam. The two polarization emission-to-extinction ratios, R P/p and R S/V , which primarily characterize dust optical properties, have only a weak dependence on the column density, and converge towards the values previously determined for translucent lines of sight. We also determine an upper limit for the polarization fraction in extinction, p V /E(B - V), of 13% at high Galactic latitude, compatible with the polarization fraction p ≈ 20% observed at 353 GHz. Taken together, these results provide strong constraints for models of Galactic dust in diffuse gas.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Targeted engineering of camelina and pennycress seeds for ultrahigh accumulation of acetyl-TAG

Acetyl-TAG (3-acetyl-1,2-diacylglycerol), unique triacylglycerols (TAG) possessing an acetate group at the sn -3 position, exhibit valuable properties, such as reduced viscosity and freezing points. Previous attempts to engineer acetyl-TAG production in oilseed crops did not achieve the high levels found in naturally producing Euonymus seeds. Here, we demonstrate the successful generation of camelina and pennycress transgenic lines accumulating nearly pure acetyl-TAG at 93 mol% and 98 mol%, respectively. These ultrahigh acetyl-TAG synthesizing lines were created using gene-edited FATTY ACID ELONGASE1 ( FAE1 ) mutant lines as an improved genetic background to increase levels of acetyl-CoA available for acetyl-TAG synthesis mediated by the expression of EfDAcT, a high-activity diacylglycerol acetyltransferase isolated from Euonymus fortunei . Combining EfDAcT expression with suppression of the competing TAG-synthesizing enzyme DGAT1 further enhanced acetyl-TAG accumulation. These ultrahigh levels of acetyl-TAG exceed those in earlier engineered oilseeds and are equivalent or greater than those in Euonymus seeds. Imaging of lipid localization in transgenic seeds revealed that the low amounts of residual TAG were mostly confined to the embryonic axis. Similar spatial distributions of specific TAG and acetyl-TAG molecular species, as well as their probable diacylglycerol (DAG) precursors, provide additional evidence that acetyl-TAG and TAG are both synthesized from the same tissue-specific DAG pools. Remarkably, this ultrahigh production of acetyl-TAG in transgenic seeds exhibited minimal negative effects on seed properties, highlighting the potential for production of designer oils required for economical biofuel industries.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Fluid-Kinetic Coupling: Advanced Discretizations for Simulations on Emerging Heterogeneous Architectures (LDRD FY20-0643)

Plasma physics simulations are vital for a host of Sandia mission concerns, for fundamental science, and for clean energy in the form of fusion power. Sandia's most mature plasma physics simulation capabilities come in the form of particle-in-cell (PIC) models and magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) models. MHD models for a plasma work well in denser plasma regimes when there is enough material that the plasma approximates a fluid. PIC models, on the other hand, work well in lower-density regimes, in which there is not too much to simulate; error in PIC scales as the square root of the number of particles, making high-accuracy simulations expensive. Real-world applications, however, almost always involve a transition region between the high-density regimes where MHD is appropriate, and the low-density regimes for PIC. In such a transition region, a direct discretization of Vlasov is appropriate. Such discretizations come with their own computational costs, however; the phase-space mesh for Vlasov can involve up to six dimensions (seven if time is included), and to apply appropriate homogeneous boundary conditions in velocity space requires meshing a substantial padding region to ensure that the distribution remains sufficiently close to zero at the velocity boundaries. Moreover, for collisional plasmas, the right-hand side of the Vlasov equation is a collision operator, which is non-local in velocity space, and which may dominate the cost of the Vlasov solver. The present LDRD project endeavors to develop modern, foundational tools for the development of continuum-kinetic Vlasov solvers, using the discontinuous Petrov-Galerkin (DPG) methodology, for discretization of Vlasov, and machine-learning (ML) models to enable efficient evaluation of collision operators. DPG affords several key advantages. First, it has a built-in, robust error indicator, allowing us to adapt the mesh in a very natural way, enabling a coarse velocity-space mesh near the homogeneous boundaries, and a fine mesh where the solution has fine features. Second, it is an inherently high-order, high-intensity method, requiring extra local computations to determine so-called optimal test functions, which makes it particularly suited to modern hardware in which floating-point throughput is increasing at a faster rate than memory bandwidth. Finally, DPG is a residual-minimizing method, which enables high-accuracy computation: in typical cases, the method delivers something very close to the $L^2$ projection of the exact solution. Meanwhile, the ML-based collision model we adopt affords a cost structure that scales as the square root of a standard direct evaluation. Moreover, we design our model to conserve mass, momentum, and energy by construction, and our approach to training is highly flexible, in that it can incorporate not only synthetic data from direct-simulation Monte Carlo (DSMC) codes, but also experimental data. We have developed two DPG formulations for Vlasov-Poisson: a time-marching, backward-Euler discretization and a space-time discretization. We have conducted a number of numerical experiments to verify the approach in a 1D1V setting. In this report, we detail these formulations and experiments. We also summarize some new theoretical results developed as part of this project (published as papers previously): some new analysis of DPG for the convection-reaction problem (of which the Vlasov equation is an instance), a new exponential integrator for DPG, and some numerical exploration of various DPG-based time-marching approaches to the heat equation. As part of this work, we have contributed extensively to the Camellia open-source library; we also describe the new capabilities and their usage. We have also developed a well-documented methodology for single-species collision operators, which we applied to argon and demonstrated with numerical experiments. We summarize those results here, as well as describing at a high level a design extending the methodology to multi-species operators. We have released a new open-source library, MLC, under a BSD license; we include a summary of its capabilities as well.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

TDCOSMO. VII. Boxyness/discyness in lensing galaxies: Detectability and impact on H 0

In the context of gravitational lensing, the density profile of lensing galaxies is often considered to be perfectly elliptical. Potential angular structures are generally ignored, except to explain flux ratios of point-like sources (i.e. flux ratio anomalies). Surprisingly, the impact of azimuthal structures on extended images of the source has not been characterised, nor has its impact on the H 0 inference. We address this task by creating mock images of a point source embedded in an extended source and lensed by an elliptical galaxy on which multipolar components are added to emulate boxy or discy isodensity contours. Modelling such images with a density profile free of angular structure allows us to explore the detectability of image deformation induced by the multipoles in the residual frame. Multipole deformations are almost always detectable for our highest signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) mock data. However, the detectability depends on the lens ellipticity and Einstein radius, on the S/N of the data, and on the specific lens modelling strategy. Multipoles also introduce small changes to the time-delays. We therefore quantify how undetected multipoles would impact H 0 inference. When no multipoles are detected in the residuals, the impact on H 0 for a given lens is in general less than a few k ms -1 Mpc -1 , but in the worst-case scenario, combining low S/N in the ring and large intrinsic boxyness or discyness, the bias on H0 can reach 10-12 km s -1 Mpc -1 . If we now look at the inference on H 0 from a population of lensing galaxies with a distribution of multipoles representative of what is found in the light profile of elliptical galaxies, we find a systematic bias on H 0 of less than 1%. A comparison of our mock systems to the state-of-the-art time-delay lens sample studied by the H0LiCOW and TDCOSMO collaborations indicates that multipoles are currently unlikely to be a source of substantial systematic bias on the inferred value of H 0 from time-delay lenses.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2020

A Positive Charge in the Outer Coordination Sphere of an Artificial Enzyme Increases CO 2 Hydrogenation

The protein scaffold around the active site of enzymes is known to influence catalytic activity, but specific scaffold features responsible for favorable influences are often not known. This study focuses on using an artificial metalloenzyme to probe one specific feature of the scaffold, the position of a positive charge in the outer coordination sphere around the active site. Previous work showed that a small molecular complex, [Rh(P Et 2 N glycine P Et 2 )2 ] – , immobilized covalently within a protein scaffold was activated for CO 2 hydrogenation. In this work, using an iterative design where the effect of arginine, histidine, or lysine residues placed in the outer coordination sphere of the catalytic active site were evaluated, we tested the hypothesis that positively charged groups facilitate CO 2 hydrogenation with seven unique constructs. Single-, double-, and triple-point mutations were introduced to directly compare catalytic activity, as monitored by turnover frequencies (TOFs) measured in real time with 1 H NMR spectroscopy, and evaluate related structural and electronic properties. Two of the seven constructs showed a 2- and 3-fold increase relative to the wild type, with overall rates ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 h –1 , and a crystal structure of the fastest of these shows the positive charge positioned next to the active site. A crystal structure of the arginine-containing complex shows that the arginines are positioned near the metal. Molecular dynamics (MD) studies also suggest that the positive charge is oriented next to the active site in the two constructs with faster rates but not in the others and that the positive charge near the active site holds the CO 2 near the metal, all consistent with a positive charge appropriately positioned in the scaffold benefiting catalysis. The MD studies also suggest that changes in the water distribution around the active site may contribute to catalytic activity, while modest structural changes and movement of the complex within the scaffold do not.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Signal-preserving CMB component separation with machine learning

Analysis of microwave sky signals, such as the cosmic microwave background, often requires component separation using multifrequency methods, whereby different signals are isolated according to their different frequency behaviors. Many so-called blind methods, such as the internal linear combination (ILC), make minimal assumptions about the spatial distribution of the signal or contaminants, and only assume knowledge of the frequency dependence of the signal. The ILC produces a minimum-variance linear combination of the measured frequency maps. In the case of Gaussian, statistically isotropic fields, this is the optimal linear combination, as the variance is the only statistic of interest. However, in many cases the signal we wish to isolate, or the foregrounds we wish to remove, are non-Gaussian and/or statistically anisotropic (in particular for the case of Galactic foregrounds). In such cases, it is possible that machine learning (ML) techniques can be used to exploit the non-Gaussian features of the foregrounds and thereby improve component separation. However, many ML techniques require the use of complex, difficult-to-interpret operations on the data. We propose a hybrid method whereby we train an ML model using only combinations of the data that , and combine the resulting ML-predicted foreground estimate with the ILC solution to reduce the error from the ILC. We demonstrate our methods on simulations of extragalactic temperature and Galactic polarization foregrounds and show that our ML model can exploit non-Gaussian features, such as point sources and spatially varying spectral indices, to produce lower-variance maps than ILC—e.g., reducing the variance of the B-mode residual by factors of up to 5—while preserving the signal of interest in an unbiased manner. Moreover, we often find improved performance even when applying our ML technique to foreground models on which it was not trained. Published by the American Physical Society 2025

McCarthy, Fiona (ORCID:0000000253893565)↗
DOE OSTI2021

Detection of Outliers in LiDAR Data Acquired by Multiple Platforms over Sorghum and Maize

High-resolution point cloud data acquired with a laser scanner from any platform contain random noise and outliers. Therefore, outlier detection in LiDAR data is often necessary prior to analysis. Applications in agriculture are particularly challenging, as there is typically no prior knowledge of the statistical distribution of points, plant complexity, and local point densities, which are crop-dependent. The goals of this study were first to investigate approaches to minimize the impact of outliers on LiDAR acquired over agricultural row crops, and specifically for sorghum and maize breeding experiments, by an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) and a wheel-based ground platform; second, to evaluate the impact of existing outliers in the datasets on leaf area index (LAI) prediction using LiDAR data. Two methods were investigated to detect and remove the outliers from the plant datasets. The first was based on surface fitting to noisy point cloud data via normal and curvature estimation in a local neighborhood. The second utilized the PointCleanNet deep learning framework. Both methods were applied to individual plants and field-based datasets. To evaluate the method, an F-score was calculated for synthetic data in the controlled conditions, and LAI, the variable being predicted, was computed both before and after outlier removal for both scenarios. Results indicate that the deep learning method for outlier detection is more robust than the geometric approach to changes in point densities, level of noise, and shapes. The prediction of LAI was also improved for the wheel-based vehicle data based on the coefficient of determination (R2) and the root mean squared error (RMSE) of the residuals before and after the removal of outliers.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Bayesian Approach to Estimation of Water Table Elevations Using Historical Rasters as Prior Information 2019 - 20430

In cases of complex but only partially known geology and a lack of spatial control in observation well locations, water table elevation estimation is very challenging. In some cases, auxiliary information, such as observations of the movement of tracers, operation of injection and extraction wells, and calibration of groundwater models against the historical elevation data, can be combined with expert judgement to estimate flow directions in areas of sparse data and to aid in the production of more reliable contour maps (and associated rasters) than could be produced by relying on sparse well elevation data alone. Given a historical sequence of these raster maps, the question arises how to automate, to the extent possible, the process of producing new raster maps to reflect data from previous times, the current data and the operation of expert judgement. One solution is to adopt a Bayesian point of view and to regard the historical well elevation data, auxiliary information and historical raster maps as prior information. The well elevations for water table wells, as well as those for injection/extraction wells and the data associated with other relevant variables, can be viewed as predictors for the raster surface. From this prior information, we can, conditional on the values of these predictors for a new time period, compute an expected value map and a standard deviation map for the new raster. These then can be taken to specify a prior predictive distribution for the pixels in the new raster map. Then we condition the pixels, corresponding to water level observation wells within the raster, on the observed values in those wells (which in general will differ from the regression estimate) for the new time period. Given the smoothness of the water table surface, we then smooth the surface of deviations from the mean surface, based on the variograms of the historical rasters, and add this smoothed surface to the regression mean surface. The error structure of the produced raster map is defined by the regression error structure and the error due to smoothing based on the estimated variograms. This methodology has been developed and is being further refined for groundwater monitoring and remediation at LANL. It is a very flexible method that can also be applied with a variety of other predictors applied to model the water level wells in the area of interest over the historical record. The smoothness of the spatial process and its possible evolution over time can then be estimated from the residuals from this regression. This can be augmented by expert hydrogeological opinion based on site topography and hydrogeology. (authors)

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Opportunities to Implement Solutions to Achieve Remedial Action Objectives in Consideration of Stakeholder Interests - 20365

A case study in the implementation of a soils excavation and removal project conducted at a Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) Maywood Superfund Site (FMSS) vicinity property; an active commercial business, in a densely populated area, with significant operational, technical and, logistical constraints that were expected to limit areas that could be remediated. The United States Army Corps of Engineers-led (USACE) team successfully navigated complex overlapping stakeholder interests to achieve a more efficient and complete removal of contaminated soils and debris while minimizing unnecessary excess costs to the Government. This paper centers on FUSRAP activities at the FMSS vicinity property located at 149-151 Maywood Avenue, Maywood, Bergen County, New Jersey. For most of its FUSRAP history, this ∼109,000 square meter (27-acre) property housed a now-demolished ∼26,000 square meter (6.5-acre) warehouse operated by Sears Logistics Services, a unit of the Sears Roebuck Company (Figure 2). Sears ended its property lease and vacated the warehouse in December 2016. Given that long history and for the purposes of this paper, the property will be referred to as the 'Sears property' or simply 'the property.' The Sears property is approximately 109,000 square meters (27-acres) and is currently zoned for commercial use. The property is bound to the north and northwest by 100 West Hunter Avenue (the Stepan Company), to the northeast by 205 Maywood Avenue, to the east by Maywood Avenue, to the south by 23 West Howcroft Road, and to the west by businesses on NJ Route 17 and the NJ Route 17 roadway. Until December 2016, the property housed a warehouse and distribution center operated by Sears Logistical Services. On-site structures were demolished by the property owner in 2017. The warehouse covered the north section of the property along the Stepan Company property line. A railroad spur from the adjacent property now known as the Maywood Interim Storage Site (MISS) ended at the northeast corner of the warehouse. Wetlands were located east of the warehouse; the rest of the property was covered with paved parking lots and grassed areas. During remediation at the property, opportunities frequently arose where the project team was able to coordinate effectively with stakeholders to sequence remediation activities to facilitate removal of otherwise inaccessible soils and identify opportunities for materials reuse when supported by residual radiological and chemical levels. Some specific opportunities include: - remediating individual truck loading dock bays to maintain tenant operations; - working along a busy highway and in a utility corridor containing a 30-inch high pressure gas main; - remediating Lodi Brook and associated wetlands requiring bypass pumping and other diversionary structures to maintain local community stormwater drainage; - protecting during remediation and supporting access to facilitate tenant/owner maintenance of critical fire protection and water supply system service lines buried in contaminated soils and necessary for safe warehouse operations; and - coordinating with stakeholders to ensure non-radiological contaminants of concern for the site (unaffiliated with FUSRAP) were addressed by the responsible party in a manner that maximized benefit to all parties while supporting an efficient overall site remediation program. Once the property was vacant and the warehouse structure and radiologically non-impacted above-grade structures were demolished, the project identified an opportunity to significantly reduce the volume of waste associated with the foundation of the former warehouse, a foundation suspected of being partially constructed in radiologically contaminated soils. The project developed and implemented supplemental radiological verification survey and sampling strategies based on radiological cross-contamination risk potential with process flow-charts and screening-level based decision points; a program that classified saw-cut sections of concrete based on observed residual surface radioactivity conditions using a combination of gamma sensitive sodium-iodide scans and beta sensitive Geiger-Muller direct measurements. The proposed approach was reviewed with stakeholders with feedback, including consideration of applicable State of New Jersey Site Remediation Program criteria and guidance before implementation. Once classified, additional sampling was performed at frequencies driven by screening. The sampling methods, stockpile sampling frequencies, criteria and, approach to data evaluation were developed in consideration of existing site cleanup standards, regional background ranges, State of New Jersey radiological remediation program guidance, and specific stakeholder input With the property remediation and survey efforts nearly completed, it is relevant to examine retrospectively the objectives, assumptions and limitations in the remedial design (i.e., what was planned) versus what was able to be accomplished through effective teaming. Benefits to other environmental remediation site programs include better understanding of how to work effectively with stakeholders to achieve win-win outcomes, and approaches to site remediation, waste minimization and materials reuse that were successful in their overall outcomes. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
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 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↗