Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “physical samples”

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 OSTI2023

H i -rich but low star formation galaxies in MaNGA: physical properties and comparison to control samples

ABSTRACT Gas-rich galaxies are typically star forming. We make use of H i-MaNGA, a programme of H i follow-up for the Mapping Nearby Galaxies at Apache Point Observatory (MaNGA) survey of the Sloan Digital Sky Surveys, to construct a sample of unusual neutral hydrogen (H i, 21 cm)-rich galaxies that have low star formation rates (SFRs), using infrared colour from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer as a proxy for specific SFR. Out of a set of 1575 MaNGA galaxies with H i-MaNGA detections, we find that 83 (5 per cent) meet our selection criteria to be H i rich with low SFR. We construct two stellar mass-matched control samples: H i-rich galaxies with typical SFR (high SF control) and H i-poor galaxies with low SFR (low H i control). We investigate the properties of each of these samples, comparing physical parameters such as ionization state maps, stellar and ionized gas velocity and dispersion, environment measures, metallicity, and morphology to search for the reasons why these unusual H i-rich galaxies are not forming stars. We find evidence for recent external accretion of gas in some galaxies (via high counter-rotating fractions), along with some evidence for active galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback (from a high central low-ionization emission-line region and/or red geyser fraction), and bar quenching (via an enhanced strong bar fraction). Some galaxies in the sample are consistent with simply having their H i in a high angular momentum, large-radius, low-density disc. We conclude that no single physical process can explain all H i-rich, low-SFR galaxies.

Astronomy & Astrophysics↗
DOE OSTI2022

A comprehensive study of non-adaptive and residual-based adaptive sampling for physics-informed neural networks

Physics-informed neural networks (PINNs) have shown to be effective tools for solving both forward and inverse problems of partial differential equations (PDEs). PINNs embed the PDEs into the loss of the neural network using automatic differentiation, and this PDE loss is evaluated at a set of scattered spatio-temporal points (called residual points). The location and distribution of these residual points are highly important to the performance of PINNs. However, in the existing studies on PINNs, only a few simple residual point sampling methods have mainly been used. Here, we present a comprehensive study of two categories of sampling for PINNs: non-adaptive uniform sampling and adaptive nonuniform sampling. We consider six uniform sampling methods, including (1) equispaced uniform grid, (2) uniformly random sampling, (3) Latin hypercube sampling, (4) Halton sequence, (5) Hammersley sequence, and (6) Sobol sequence. We also consider a resampling strategy for uniform sampling. To improve the sampling efficiency and the accuracy of PINNs, we propose two new residual-based adaptive sampling methods: residual-based adaptive distribution (RAD) and residual-based adaptive refinement with distribution (RAR-D), which dynamically improve the distribution of residual points based on the PDE residuals during training. Hence, we have considered a total of 10 different sampling methods, including six non-adaptive uniform sampling, uniform sampling with resampling, two proposed adaptive sampling, and an existing adaptive sampling. We extensively tested the performance of these sampling methods for four forward problems and two inverse problems in many setups. Our numerical results presented in this study are summarized from more than 6000 simulations of PINNs. Here, we show that the proposed adaptive sampling methods of RAD and RAR-D significantly improve the accuracy of PINNs with fewer residual points for both forward and inverse problems. Furthermore, the results obtained in this study can also be used as a practical guideline in choosing sampling methods.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS1981

Mineralogical, optical, geochemical, and particle size properties of four sediment samples for optical physics research

X-ray diffraction and spectroscopy were used to investigate the mineralogical and chemical properties of the Calvert, Ball Old Mine, Ball Martin, and Jordan Sediments. The particle size distribution and index of refraction of each sample were determined. The samples are composed primarily of quartz, kaolinite, and illite. The clay minerals are most abundant in the finer particle size fractions. The chemical properties of the four samples are similar. The Calvert sample is most notably different in that it contains a relatively high amount of iron. The dominant particle size fraction in each sample is silt, with lesser amounts of clay and sand. The indices of refraction of the sediments are the same with the exception of the Calvert sample which has a slightly higher value.

Bice, K.↗
NASA NTRS2020

The Scientific Value of Returned Samples

Most of the materials in the universe are so distant or inaccessible that the only way we can study them is remotely using various types of telescopes. However, in some cases we can study these materials directly because the samples become physically available to us. Some samples come to us of their own accord in the form of meteorites and cosmic dust. In other cases we have to work hard to carry out sample return missions like Apollo, Stardust, OSIRIS-REx, Hayabusa, and Hayabusa2 to go get the samples ourselves. Once samples are physically available in terrestrial laboratories, we can learn details about their compositions and histories that could never be established by remote observations. As part of this talk, the acquisition of samples in the form of meteorites from Antarctica, cosmic dust from the stratosphere, and comet and asteroid samples from spacecraft missions will be discussed and a few example of the scientific value of such samples will be presented.

Sandford, Scott↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The Unique Scientific Value of Returned Samples

Most of the materials in the universe are so distant or inaccessible that the only way we can study them is remotely using various types of telescopes. However, in some cases we can study these materials directly because the samples become physically available to us. Some samples come to us of their own accord in the form of meteorites and cosmic dust. In other cases we have to work hard to carry out sample return missions like Apollo, Stardust, OSIRIS-REx, Hayabusa, and Hayabusa2 in order to get the samples ourselves. Once samples are physically available in terrestrial laboratories, we can learn details about their compositions and histories that could never be established by remote observations. This talk will highlight some of the unique scientific advances that can be made through the study of extraterrestrial materials, and will describe the various ways in which samples become available for study, with a focus on the acquisition of samples by sample return spacecraft missions. Aspects of NASA’s Stardust comet sample return mission and JAXA’s Hayabusa asteroid sample return mission will be highlighted and scientific highlights of these missions will be discussed. Finally, the presentation will end with an overview of the current status of NASA’s OSIRIS-Rex mission, which will is currently at Asteroid (101955) Bennu and will be returning samples to Earth in 2023.

Extraterrestrial Samples↗
DOE OSTI2025

Modeling Protein–Protein and Protein–Ligand Interactions by the ClusPro Team in CASP16

ABSTRACT In the CASP16 experiment, our team employed hybrid computational strategies to predict both protein–protein and protein–ligand complex structures. For protein–protein docking, we combined physics‐based sampling—using ClusPro FFT docking and molecular dynamics—with AlphaFold (AF)‐based sampling, followed by AF‐based refinement. Our method produced numerous high‐accuracy complex models, including cases where AF alone failed, underscoring the critical role of physics‐based sampling alongside deep learning‐based refinement. For protein–ligand docking, we integrated the ClusPro LigTBM template‐based approach with a machine learning‐based confidence model for rescoring. The method preserves conserved interaction fragments derived from homologous complexes, followed by local resampling using physics‐based sampling and a diffusion model. Our template‐based strategy achieved a mean lDDT‐PLI of 0.69 across 233 targets, which was highly competitive. These results demonstrate that combining physics‐based modeling with AI‐driven refinement can significantly enhance the accuracy of both protein–protein and protein–ligand structure predictions.

Ashizawa, Ryota [Department of Applied Mathematics↗
NASA NTRS1983

Asteroids and meteorites - Parent bodies and delivered samples

Asteroid physical strengths, which critically affect the quantity of ejecta that can be placed in orbits evolving so as to cross that of the earth, vary widely due to initial composition and size, and subsequent geophysical and collisional evolutions. The meteorite yield on earth additionally depends on meteorite strength, which affects longevity in space and survival through the atmosphere. It is presently shown that meteorites may be primarily derived by cratering rather than disruptive fragmentation, and from large, main-belt asteroids rather than from small, earth-approaching bodies. The model presented combines a variety of evidence from various disciplines to yield results that are consistent with meteorite statistics, although no claim is made for the uniqueness of the model and many of its elements remain uncertain.

Greenberg, R.↗
DOE OSTI2020

Laser cutting apparatus for high energy density and diamond anvil cell science

In this paper, we present a low-cost, high-resolution laser cutting system designed for use in the fabrication of samples for high energy density physics. Such samples are necessarily small but require precision and repeatability, particularly with the recently available high repetition rates possible at modern facilities. The system allows simultaneous laser cutting, using nanosecond near-infrared laser pulses, and optical microscopy so that the cut can be monitored in real time. The capabilities of the system are demonstrated on a range of materials for both laser-matter interaction targets and components for high pressure diamond anvil cell experiment.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2021

A comparative study of the physical properties for a representative sample of Narrow and Broad-line Seyfert galaxies

ABSTRACT We present a comparative study of the physical properties of a homogeneous sample of 144 Narrow line Seyfert 1 (NLSy1) and 117 Broad-line Seyfert 1 (BLSy1) galaxies. These two samples are in a similar luminosity and redshift range and have optical spectra available in the 16th data release of Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS-DR16) and X-ray spectra in either XMM-NEWTON or ROSAT. Direct correlation analysis and a principal component analysis (PCA) have been performed using ten observational and physical parameters obtained by fitting the optical spectra and the soft X-ray photon indices as another parameter. We confirm that the established correlations for the general quasar population hold for both types of galaxies in this sample despite significant differences in the physical properties. We characterize the sample also using the line shape parameters, namely the asymmetry and kurtosis indices. We find that the fraction of NLSy1 galaxies showing outflow signatures, characterized by blue asymmetries, is higher by a factor of about 3 compared to the corresponding fraction in BLSy1 galaxies. The presence of high iron content in the broad-line region of NLSy1 galaxies in conjunction with higher Eddington ratios can be the possible reason behind this phenomenon. We also explore the possibility of using asymmetry in the emission lines as a tracer of outflows in the inner regions of Active Galactic Nuclei. The PCA results point to the NLSy1 and BLSy1 galaxies occupying different parameter spaces, which challenges the notion that NLSy1 galaxies are a subclass of BLSy1 galaxies.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS2024

Investigating the Physical Modification of the Bennu Sample During Entry, Descent, and Landing

On September 24, 2023, the OSIRIS-REx Sample Return Capsule (SRC) entered Earth’s atmosphere and landed in the Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR). Preliminary examination of the returned Bennu sample has confirmed that OSIRIS-REx sample mass exceeds the mission requirement of 60 g of material. The sample consists of particles that range from a few centimeters to microscopic fines. During the SRC’s entry, descent, and landing (EDL) sequence, it may have experienced (i) peak decelerations of 10s of g (ii) tumbling, and (iii) touchdown at approximately 10 m/s, which could have induced physical modification of the sample. In addition, the act of sampling may have altered or biased the physical properties of the collected materials. Here, we investigate the likelihood and extent of physical modification of the sample between collection and return using observations and modeling. This work addresses the mission’s hypothesis 12, which concerns, in part, the modification of the sample during collection and Earth entry.

asteroid↗
DOE OSTI2025

Flow annealed importance sampling bootstrap meets differentiable particle physics

High-energy physics requires the generation of large numbers of simulated data samples from complex but analytically tractable distributions called matrix elements. Surrogate models, such as normalizing flows, are gaining popularity for this task due to their computational efficiency. We adopt an approach based on flow annealed importance sampling bootstrap (FAB) that evaluates the differentiable target density during training and helps avoid the costly generation of training data in advance. We show that FAB reaches higher sampling efficiency with fewer target evaluations in high dimensions in comparison to other methods.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2026

FunDiff: diffusion models over function spaces for physics-informed generative modeling

Recent advances in generative modeling-particularly diffusion models and flow matching-have been widely used for synthesizing discrete data such as images and videos. However, adapting these models to physical applications remains challenging, as the quantities of interest are continuous functions governed by complex physical laws. To address this, we introduce FunDiff, an efficient and robust framework for generative modeling in function spaces. FunDiff combines a latent diffusion process with a function autoencoder architecture to handle input functions with varying discretizations, generates continuous functions that can be evaluated at arbitrary locations, and seamlessly incorporate physical priors. These priors are enforced through architectural constraints or physics-informed loss functions, ensuring that generated samples satisfy fundamental physical laws. We theoretically establish minimax optimality guarantees for density estimation in function spaces, demonstrating that diffusion-based estimators achieve optimal convergence rates under suitable regularity conditions. We further demonstrate the practical effectiveness of FunDiff across diverse applications in fluid dynamics and solid mechanics. Empirical results indicate that our method can generate physically consistent samples with high fidelity to the target distribution, and exhibit robustness to noisy and low-resolution data.

Wang, Sifan [Yale University, New Haven, CT (Unite↗
DOE OSTI2026

Design of a Molten Salt Flow Cell for Combined Absorbance and Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy for Online Measurements

A novel flow cell allowing for multiple optical spectroscopy measurements on flowing molten salts was designed, and demonstrative calibrations of impurities in aqueous samples were performed. Online compositional measurements of molten salts are of high interest to monitor the state of relevant solar and nuclear systems. Here, the Spectroscopic Configuration for Optical Real-Time Characterization of High-Temperature (SCORCH) fluids cell was designed to meet this need by providing optical access to a high-temperature molten salt sample stream without physical contact between the sample and window materials. Laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) was utilized to quantify Li, Cr, Fe, Ni, Sr, and Pr at concentrations ranging nominally from 0 to 315 mmol L −1 . Laser power, frequency, and plasma position were optimized to mitigate challenges associated with sample splashing. Univariate calibration models were built with R 2 > 0.98, percent root mean square error of cross-validation (%RMSECV) as low as 2.7%, and limits of quantification (LOQs) down to 4.1 mmol L −1 . Simultaneously, absorbance calibrations were developed for the applicable analytes (Cr, Ni, and Pr) using Beer’s law with a pathlength of 4.41 ± 0.10 mm. These models provide excellent quantification performance with R 2 > 0.999, %RMSECV as low as 0.6%, and LODs down to 0.08 mmol L −1 . Although these calibrations were performed for each spectroscopic technique separately, the two methods may be combined in the future through multivariate modeling and sensor fusion to provide more robust models with the benefits of both techniques (e.g., absorbance: oxidation state concentrations, LIBS: elemental concentration). Additionally, optimized spectrometers may be deployed to enhance sensitivity.

absorbance spectroscopy↗
NASA NTRS2015

Smart Optical Material Characterization System and Method

Disclosed is a system and method for characterizing optical materials, using steps and equipment for generating a coherent laser light, filtering the light to remove high order spatial components, collecting the filtered light and forming a parallel light beam, splitting the parallel beam into a first direction and a second direction wherein the parallel beam travelling in the second direction travels toward the material sample so that the parallel beam passes through the sample, applying various physical quantities to the sample, reflecting the beam travelling in the first direction to produce a first reflected beam, reflecting the beam that passes through the sample to produce a second reflected beam that travels back through the sample, combining the second reflected beam after it travels back though the sample with the first reflected beam, sensing the light beam produced by combining the first and second reflected beams, and processing the sensed beam to determine sample characteristics and properties.

Choi, Sang Hyouk↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗