Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “metadata recommender”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Metadata Standards for the NSE: Extended Field Standards

This standard presents a set of optional metadata fields for managed digital objects within the Nuclear Security Enterprise (NSE) and provides a deeper look at data representation in metadata by looking at the representation of 1) Records Management required metadata, and 2) common representations of technical/scientific data. Metadata standardization is a critical enabler for effectively sharing data, documents, and other digital objects between NSE sites, and for tracing the digital thread at the object level. Standardization is necessary for both schemas and vocabularies, meaning that both field standards and value standards must be specified. This document serves as a complementary field standard, recommending an optional set of fields that should be uniformly built for all managed digital objects within the NSE. This document specifically focuses on extending the shared discovery layer defined in the first white paper by introducing additional descriptive and data representation fields that improve cross-site search and interpretation.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Metadata Schemas and Ontologies for Building Energy Applications: A Critical Review and Use Case Analysis

With the increasing digitalization of processes throughout the lifecycle of buildings, data exchanged between stakeholders and between building systems has grown significantly. However, a lack of semantic interoperability between data in different systems is still prevalent, hindering the development of applications that can be reused across buildings and limiting the scalability of innovative solutions. Semantics refers to the description of the meaning of the data in a way that can be consistently understood by applications. Recently, several competing initiatives have been developing metadata schemas and ontologies to express this semantic information for different applications in the building domain. This paper systematically reviews these schemas and conducts an analysis of five of them to evaluate their applicability to three high-value use cases for building operations: energy audits, automated fault detection and diagnostics and optimal control. The survey finds 40 schemas published in the last 10 years but but their actual use in industry is difficult to estimate. Among the five selected ontologies, several gaps are highlighted in relation to the three use cases. Recommendations for the future include better harmonization of these initiatives, more centralized repositories and search engines for these schemas as well as better industry engagement to facilitate their adoption.

Smart Building, Sematic, Metadata, Ontology, Data ↗
DOE OSTI2023

A use-case-driven approach for demonstrating the added value of digitalisation in wind energy

Digitalisation is one of the key drivers for reducing the costs and risks of wind energy. When considering whether to embark on a digitalisation initiative, two key questions arise. The first is what business or operational opportunities might feasibly be addressed and the second is which of the many potential aspects of digitalisation are relevant to those opportunities. In this work, we show how these questions can be answered with a use-case-driven approach, based around a survey aiming to collect and collate the main "pain points" (or everyday challenges) of people in the wind energy sector. Although the relatively low number of participants of the survey (46) means that the results should only be used indicatively, it is still possible to make some general recommendations for priorities for digitalisation efforts in the wind energy sector. Firstly, digitalisation efforts should focus both on supporting people carrying out cross-lifecycle tasks, in particular sharing data, managing data, undertaking general data analyses and accessing data. Tools to do this should deal with varying data formats and naming conventions, make metadata more accessible, define data and metadata standards, make more data publicly available and improve the quality of data. Secondly, efforts should also focus on supporting people in the wind farm operational phase, in particular with failure detection, fault diagnosis, failure rate modelling and predictive maintenance. Solutions to do this should focus on accessible and validated tools for fault detection, cloud or other data pipeline solutions for SCADA data and tools for exhaustive data documentation. Finally, digitalisation efforts should focus on better communicating and helping people become aware of existing solutions and tools, as well as on helping people to exert a stronger influence on possible solutions.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Challenges and Vision for Standardization of Biopolymer Data Sets for Machine Learning

Machine learning (ML) is transforming materials research, yet potential for biopolymer discovery remains constrained by fragmented data and nonstandardized reporting. Biopolymers differ significantly from synthetic polymers, requiring specialized approaches to represent their biosynthetic origins, hierarchical structures, and application-specific metrics. In this Perspective, we identify three core challenges limiting biopolymer representation: information encoding, data quality, and data sharing. We describe the most pressing issues and propose commensurate approaches to address each key challenge. Recommendations include the design and adoption of biopolymer-specific fingerprinting and representation frameworks, development of hybrid human-large language model (LLM) data extraction strategies, and expanding Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable (FAIR)-compliant repositories. We propose a robust foundation to define interoperable, high-quality data sets that capture the full context of biopolymer materials. Standardized metadata, shared ontologies, and community-driven infrastructure would enable scalable, reproducible workflows and accelerate the ML-driven development of biopolymers.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Metadata Standards for the NSE: Core Fields

This standard presents a core set of metadata fields required for each managed digital object within the Nuclear Security Enterprise (NSE). Metadata standardization is a critical enabler for two primary objectives: 1) effectively sharing data, documents, and other digital objects between NSE sites; and 2) supporting digital engineering through the digital thread at the object level. Standardization is necessary for both schemas and vocabularies, meaning that both field standards and value standards must be specified. This document serves as a foundational field standard, recommending a core set of fields that should be uniformly required for all managed digital objects within the NSE.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Maps of Arctic vegetation leaf nitrogen concentration, albedo and plant functional type (PFT) derived from imaging spectroscopy data, Council watershed, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2019

Remote sensing maps of surface albedo, leaf nitrogen content, and plant functional types (PFTs) derived from NASA's Airborne Visible / Infrared Imaging Spectrometer Next Generation (AVIRIS-NG) by the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science & Technology (TEST) group at Brookhaven National Laboratory. The AVIRIS-NG imaging spectroscopy data (380 ~ 2510 nm) was collected as a part of the collaboration between NASA's Arctic-Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE; Miller et al., 2019) and DOE's Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment in the Arctic (NGEE-Arctic). This package includes maps for the NGEE-Arctic Council watershed created using AVIRIS-NG imagery collected on July 9th, 2019. The map data and metadata are provided as image (ENVI, *.png) and text (*.txt, *hdr) formats. Additional supporting map quicklooks are provided as *.png files and GIS *.kml files. Detailed description of the methods for each map are provided in this document. These datasets are provided in support of Figure 6 in Nelson et al., (2022), "Remote Sensing of Tundra Ecosystems using High Spectral Resolution Reflectance: Opportunities and Challenges". The full citation can be found within the references section. Note that the AVIRIS-NG leaf nitrogen product included in this dataset is a preliminary product and is provided for demonstration purposes only. It is not recommended that the map be used for scientific applications. For future updates on these products, please contact the authors.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

ESS-DIVE Reporting Format for Hydrologic Monitoring Data and Metadata

The ESS-DIVE Reporting Format (RF) for Hydrologic Monitoring Data and Metadata was designed for water level, temperature, electrical conductivity, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, and pH measured in situ using sensors deployed in water bodies. It can also be applied to a broader suite of variables beyond its original scope. The RF is intended to provide clear and easy guidance to data generators aiming to upload consistent findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable (FAIR) datasets. The RF includes instructions (pdf), a term guide (csv), templates (csv and xlsx), and a list of recommended vocabulary (csv) to equip the data generator with all of the tools needed to successfully apply the RF. There is also a crosswalk to some key data resources and standards (csv). Users should cite this dataset when using the RF but are encouraged to access the RF files on GitHub (https://github.com/ess-dive-community/essdive-hydrologic-monitoring) where the RF documentation is maintained and updated on the ESS-DIVE Community Space GitHub. Questions and suggestions for improvement can be submitted as GitHub issues.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Test Information Management System (Report FY 2020 and FY 2021)

Delivery Environments supported work in Fiscal Years 2020 and 2021 to develop the Test Information Management System (TIMS). This effort involved creating a suite of tools consisting of a database and the uploading and downloading scripts. It has been demonstrated that the TIMS database is suitable for archiving raw measurements performed on various measured test articles. The TIMS database has been populated with data from the TRUST projects in FY 20 and FY 21. This included the functional data in the Sensors records as well as metadata stored in records in several other tables. The performed work demonstrated that a database archiving validation test data and integrating it with engineering analysis simulations has a great potential to increase the efficiency, responsiveness, and confidence in the modeling, simulation, and validation efforts for future (and current) weapon systems and assemblies in normal and abnormal environments. In this report, we also discuss how the records belonging to the same project should be arranged, what are the minimum requirements for linking the records using the tabular links, and we provide several recommendations to the projects engineers and the database administrator to improve the TIMS database.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Templates for developing and versioning data standards and reporting formats using GitHub

This data package contains three templates that can be used for creating README files and Issue Templates, written in the markdown language, that support community-led data reporting formats. We created these templates based on the results of a systematic review (see related references) that explored how groups developing data standard documentation use the Version Control platform GitHub, to collaborate on supporting documents. Based on our review of 32 GitHub repositories, we make recommendations for the content of README Files (e.g., provide a user license, indicate how users can contribute) and so 'README_template.md' includes headings for each section. The two issue templates we include ('issue_template_for_all_other_changes.md' and 'issue_template_for_documentation_change.md') can be used in a GitHub repository to help structure user-submitted issues, or can be modified to suit the needs of data standard developers. We used these templates when establishing ESS-DIVE's community space on GitHub (https://github.com/ess-dive-community) that includes documentation for community-led data reporting formats. We also include file-level metadata 'flmd.csv' that describes the contents of each file within this data package. Lastly, the temporal range that we indicate in our metadata is the time range during which we searched for data standards documented on GitHub.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Videos, photos, and AI-derived grain size data associated with “High-throughput AI Video Surveys Enable Reproducible Multiscale Sediment Size Mapping, with Implications for Hydrobiogeochemical Parameterization”

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final dataset and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the manuscript “High-throughput AI Video Surveys Enable Reproducible Multiscale Sediment Size Mapping, with Implications for Hydrobiogeochemical Parameterization” under review. This data package includes five data types: 1) raw photos and videos from drone survey and walking smartphone surveys; 2) images derived from raw videos; 3) manual labeling of reference scales; 4) metadata for all images and photo resolution derived from artificial intelligence (AI) models or manual labels, 5) grain size data obtained from AI models for all photos, 6) metadata and grain size data after quality control, 7) summaries of sample efficiency for all data, and 8) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) data used to support hydro-biogeochemical (HBGC) parameter estimation. Such data is used to 1) demonstrate significant improvements in accuracy, efficiency, and quality control for grain size data collection with the help of AI models, 2) study the spatial heterogeneity of grain size and observation reproducibility based on tens of thousands of data points generated by the AI models, and 3) evaluate the impacts of grain size heterogeneity on key HBGC parameters across sediment-to-reach and hourly-to-yearly scales. In particular, the data package contains 116 folders and 179696 files. The files include 41 videos in .mov format, 64047 photos in .jpg format, 13541 video-derived photos in .png format, 12747 segmentation mask data in .tif format, 12747 segmentation data in .json format, 24771 .csv files that with metadata and grain size for each individual photo as well as water depth and velocity data from CFD and observation, 51791 .txt files of raw AI predicted labels, and 11 flight record data in .srt format. The summary for all metadata and grain size statistics information is included in “Scales_V3_NG.csv” and “Statistics_V3_NG.csv”. The summary for data that pass data quality control (QC) level 0-2 is included in “QCStatistics_V3_NG.csv”. The QC level 0 represents photos whose photo resolution is positive, excluding photos that miss reference scale. The QC level 1 means reference scale circularity uncertainty is less than 5% for smartphone images while representing photo resolution is larger than 0.44 mm/pixel for drone images. The QC level 2 means excluding photos whose grain number is less than 100, a minimum number of grains recommended by classic literature. The summary for each video’s name, length, frame rates, survey area, grain number, survey efficiency, etc. can be found in “QCSummary_V3_NG.csv”. The summary for site name, GPS coordinates, and number of images at each site can be found in “SitesSummary_V3_*.csv” files. Overall computational efficiency summary is reported in Table 4 of accompanying manuscript. Additionally, the nitrate concentration data used in this work was downloaded from an existing dataset published on ESS-DIVE (Boat-Dragged Sensor Hanford Reach.csv; Conner A. et al., 2020). We thank the United States Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Cowiche Canyon Conservatory, Port of Benton, and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation for access to field locations where the data were collected. We also thank the Yakama Nation Tribal Council and Yakama Nation Fisheries for working with us to facilitate data collection and optimization of data usage according to their values and worldview.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Improving the Quality of Geothermal Data Through Data Standards and Pipelines Within the Geothermal Data Repository: Preprint

For machine learning outputs to be applicable to real world problems, high quality data are needed to ensure high quality results. With the more recent emphasis on machine learning in geothermal, there is an increasing need for greater focus on the quality of the data available for use in these projects. For example, Geothermal Operational Optimization Using Machine Learning (GOOML) utilized large quantities of geothermal power plant operational data to inform power plant operational configurations to maximize power generation. High quality datasets result from dependable sensors or devices collecting data, high frequency of measurements, sufficient data points, adequate metadata, reliable storage of data, and sufficient data curation. Another component that contributes to high quality data is reusability, which can be enhanced through data standardization. Data Standardization creates consistency in formatting and contents of like datasets, lessening preprocessing requirements and ensuring adequate information provided by a given dataset. The Geothermal Data Repository (GDR) aims to help improve data quality through automated data standardization for high-value datasets through the implementation of data pipelines alongside reliable and accessible long-term storage for datasets. As such, the GDR has decided to shift away from recommending the use of Excel-based content models and towards the implementation of automated data pipelines. This takes the burden of data standardization off the user and project team and will increase the availability of standardized geothermal data available through the GDR. A set of recommendations, or a data standard for each data type will exist with each data pipeline in order to advise data collection for maximum usability for future research. This paper serves to describe the GDR's proposed transition towards data standardization through automated data pipelines, to discuss the need for and value of such a shift, and to call for suggestions from the community regarding the most useful data standards and pipelines.

data↗
DOE OSTI2022

Model Assumptions and Data Characteristics: Impacts on Domain Adaptation in Building Segmentation

Studies on domain adaptation (DA) for remote sensing (RS) imagery analysis lack consistency in selection and description of evaluation scenarios. Without properly characterizing datasets, model assumptions, and evaluation scenarios, it is difficult to objectively compare DA methods and reach conclusions about their suitability across different applications. With this motivation, this work seeks to empirically assess to which extent the interaction between data characteristics and model assumptions influences the effectiveness of DA methods. Using the widely explored task of building footprint segmentation as a case study, we perform a large-scale study across over 200 DA scenarios that include variations across view angles, areas observed, and sensors used for data acquisition. Rather than adopting different model architectures or optimization criteria, we contrast the performances of two DA methods based on adversarial learning that differ only in their assumptions about source and target domains. Informed by metadata and data characteristics unveiled using traditional computer vision (CV) techniques as well as pretrained deep models, we provide a detailed meta-analysis of experiments highlighting the importance of accurately considering data assumptions for DA in RS segmentation tasks. As demonstrated by a “cherry-picking” exercise, different claims regarding which model is best could be made by selecting different subsets of evaluation scenarios. While well-calibrated assumptions can be beneficial, mismatching assumptions can lead to negative biases in DA applications. Furthermore, this study intends to motivate the community toward more consistent evaluation protocols while providing recommendations and insights toward creating novel benchmark datasets, documenting data characteristics, application-specific knowledge, and model assumptions.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Call to Action for Global Access to and Harmonization of Quality Information of Individual Earth Science Datasets

Knowledge about the quality of data and metadata is important to support informed decisions on the (re)use of individual datasets and is an essential part of the ecosystem that supports open science. Quality assessments reflect the reliability and usability of data. They need to be consistently curated, fully traceable, and adequately documented, as these are crucial for sound decision- and policy-making efforts that rely on data. Quality assessments also need to be consistently represented and readily integrated across systems and tools to allow for improved sharing of information on quality at the dataset level for individual quality attribute or dimension. Although the need for assessing the quality of data and associated information is well recognized, methodologies for an evaluation framework and presentation of resultant quality information to end users may not have been comprehensively addressed within and across disciplines. Global interdisciplinary domain experts have come together to systematically explore needs, challenges and impacts of consistently curating and representing quality information through the entire lifecycle of a dataset. This paper describes the findings of that effort, argues the importance of sharing dataset quality information, calls for community action to develop practical guidelines, and outlines community recommendations for developing such guidelines. Practical guidelines will allow for global access to and harmonization of quality information at the level of individual Earth science datasets, which in turn will support open science.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds Developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall↗
DOE OSTI2026

Package Data for CERF-Data Centers

This dataset contains sample input 100m resolution raster files for running the CERF-DC python package (see https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/cerf_data_centers) at the state level across the CONUS. Due to data availability constraints, some of the items included in this dataset are proxies or assumptions for siting factors used in the model. These are individually noted in the item descriptions and can be exchanged with more detailed information upon availability. Data Descriptions The following raster files are included in the data download: state_siting_region.tif — State areas identified by state FIPS code composite_siting_suitability.tif — Value of 1 indicates suitable siting location, 0 otherwise. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands land_value_dollar_per_sqft.tif — USD per square foot (sqft) derived from USDA $/acre land cost personal_property_tax_rate.tif — Personal property tax rate by state. Uses an assumed 0.0125 personal property tax rate for states with personal property tax, 0 for states without personal property tax. real_property_tax_rate.tif — Real property tax rate. Based on county level residential real estate property tax rates. sales_tax_rate.tif — Sales tax rate by state. mechanical_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through mechanical processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. water_cooling_fraction.tif — Fraction of year (values between 0 and 1, inclusive) that the data center would be cooled through evaporative (water cooled) processes based on local water stress and humidity levels. distance_to_substation.tif — Distance to nearest substation in hundreds of meters (i.e., value of 1 equals a distance of 100m). Offshore areas have a value of 0. industrial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh industrial electricity rates. Represents the average industrial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. commercial_electricity_rates_dollar_per_kwh.tif — USD/kWh commercial electricity rates. Represents the average commercial rate across all utilities that operate within a given county. Values are derived from the US Utility Rate Database. data_center_market_locations.tif — Grid cells with positive values represent the centroid of existing data center market clusters. The value of non-zero grid cells represents the number of data centers in the market cluster. All other grid cells have a value of 0. Geospatial Metadata CRS: Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) Extent: -2415585.0000000023283064,-1441981.2605773280374706 : 2384414.9999999976716936,1708018.7394226719625294 Dimensions: X: 48000 Y: 31500 Bands: 1 Origin: -2415585.0000000023283064,1708018.7394226719625294 Pixel Size: 100,-100 Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hawaii Wave Surge Energy Converter (HAWSEC) OSU O.H. Hinsdale Basin

The following information and metadata applies to both the Phase I (Hydrodynamics) and Phase II (Full System Power Take-Off) zip folders which contain testing data from the OSU (Oregon State University) O.H. Hinsdale Wave Research Laboratory, from both OSU and the University of Hawaii at Manoa (UH). See zip folders provided further below in the downloads section. For experimental data of the full system, including PTO, see Phase II dataset. There are two main directories in each Phases's zip folder: "OSU_data" and "UH_data". The "OSU_data" directory contains data collected from their DAQ (data acquisition system), which includes all wave gauge observations, as well as body motions derived from their Qualisys motion tracking system. The organization of the directory follows OSU's convention. Detailed information on the instrument setup can be found under "OSU_data/docs/setup/instm_locations". The experiments conducted are documented in the "OSU_data/docs/daq_logs", which provides the trial number to the corresponding data located under "OSU_data/data" in several formats (e.g., ".mat" and ".txt"). Inside the trial directory, data is provided for each of the instruments defined in "OSU_data/docs/setup/instm_locations". The "UH_data" directory contains data collected from their DAQ. The data is stored in a ".tdms" file format. There are free plug-ins for Microsoft Excel and MathWorks MATLAB to read the ".tdms" format. Below are a few links providing methods to read in the data, but a Google search should identify alternatives sources if these no longer exist (valid as of January 2024): Excel: http://www.ni.com/example/27944/en/ MATLAB: https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/30023-tdms-reader The Excel plugin is recommend to get a quick overview of the data. The UH data is organized by directory name, in which the sub-directories for each experiment contains a directory whose name defines the wave height and period for the experimental data within. For example, a directory name "H02_T0275" corresponds to an experiment with wave height 0.1m and a period of 2.75s. For random wave data, the gamma value is also included in the directory name. For example, a directory name "H02_T0225_G18" corresponds to an experiment with a significant wave height of 0.2m, a peak period of 2.25s, and a gamma value of 1.8, with each spectra being a TMA spectrum. For the free decay experiments, the directory name is defined by the initial angular displacement. For example, a directory name "ang05_run01" corresponds to an experiment with an initial angular displacement of 5 degrees. There is a dataset in the UH data for each corresponding experiment defined in the OSU DAQ logs. The ".tdms" data is output from the DAQ at fixed intervals. Therefore, if multiple files are contained within the folder, the data will need to be stitched together. Within the UH dataset, there are two input channels from the OSU DAQ providing a random square wave signal for time synchronization ("ENV-WHT-0010") and a high/low signal ("ENV-WHT-0012") to identify when the wave maker is active (+5V). The UH data is logged as a collection of channel outputs. Channels not in use for the OSU testing (either Phase I or Phase II) are marked "nan" below. If the sensor is disconnected, it will record noise throughout the experiment. Below are the channel definitions in terms of what they measure: GPS Time = time CYL-POS-0001 = position between flap and fixed reference CYL-LCA-0001 = force between flap and hydraulic cylinder REC-LPT-0001 = nan REC-HPT-0001 = nan REC-HPT-0002 = nan REC-HPT-0003 = nan HHT-HPT-0001 = pressure at exhaust ("head" only) REC-FQC-0001 = nan REC-FQC-0002 = nan HHT-FQC-0001 = flow at exhaust ("head" only) ENV-WHT-0001 = nan ENV-WHT-0002 = nan ENV-WHT-0003 = nan ENV-WHT-0010 = random signal from OSU DAQ ENV-WHT-0012 = high/low signal from OSU DAQ Also included is a calibration curve to convert the string pot data to flap pi...

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
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↗