Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “missing information”

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 541 records · Page 30
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2001

Simulator Evaluation of Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing (AILS) Concept

The Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing (AILS) concept is designed to support independent parallel approach operations to runways spaced as close as 2500 ft. This report describes the AILS operational concept and the results of a ground-based flight simulation experiment of one implementation of this concept. The focus of this simulation experiment was to evaluate pilot performance, pilot acceptability, and minimum miss-distances for the rare situation in which all aircraft oil one approach intrudes into the path of an aircraft oil the other approach. Results from this study showed that the design-goal mean miss-distance of 1200 ft to potential collision situations was surpassed with an actual mean miss-distance of 2236 ft. Pilot reaction times to the alerting system, which was an operational concern, averaged 1.11 sec, well below the design-goal reaction time 2.0 sec.These quantitative results and pilot subjective data showed that the AILS concept is reasonable from an operational standpoint.

Abbott, Terence S.↗
NASA NTRS2015

UAS Air Traffic Controller Acceptability Study: Evaluating Detect and Avoid Technology and Communication Delays in Simulation - 2

This study evaluated the effects of communications delays and winds on air traffic controller ratings of acceptability of horizontal miss distances (HMDs) for encounters between Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) and manned aircraft in a simulation of the Dallas-Ft. Worth (DFW) airspace. Fourteen encounters per hour were staged in the presence of moderate background traffic. Seven recently retired controllers with experience at DFW served as subjects. Guidance provided to the UAS pilots for maintaining a given HMD was provided by information from Detect and Avoid (DAA) self-separation algorithms (Stratway+) displayed on the Multi-Aircraft Control System. This guidance consisted of amber "bands" on the heading scale of the UAS navigation display indicating headings that would result in a loss of well clear between the UAS and nearby traffic. Winds tested were successfully handled by the DAA algorithms and did not affect the controller acceptability ratings of the HMDs. Voice communications delays for the UAS were also tested and included one-way delay times of 0, 400, 1200, and 1800 msec. For longer communications delays, there were changes in strategy and communications flow that were observed and reported by the controllers. The aim of this work is to provide useful information for guiding future rules and regulations applicable to flying UAS in the NAS. Information from this study will also be of value to the Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA) Special Committee 228 - Minimum Performance Standards for UAS.

Comstock, James R., Jr.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Recent Improvements in the National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB)

The National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB) has significantly evolved since the first release of the point source database in 1993. The NSRDB has been widely used by the solar energy industry to provide long-term time-series solar resource data for various project phases. The NSRDB represents the state of the art in the satellite-based estimation of solar resource information and uses a unique physics-based modeling approach that allows improvements in accuracy with the deployment of the next-generation geostationary satellites. This poster provides an overview of (1) the improved spatiotemporal resolution; (2) on-demand services and their applications; (3) future Improvements, such as a new direct normal irradiance model and new methods to gap-fill missing data using physics-guided machine learning; (4) data quality; and (5) data dissemination.

MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING,SOLAR ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2019

Predictive Modeling for Differential Diagnosis and Mortality Risk Assessment

The prevalence of electronic health record (EHR) systems has brought prodigious biomedical informatics opportunity. Automated machine learning methods can effectively utilize such data and have become common tools for healthcare predictive modeling. Researches in medical informatics have explored the potential of deep learning and classical models in emergent care scenarios. In particular, predicting differential diagnoses for admissions have proven useful in decreasing unnecessary lab tests and improving inpatient triage decision-making. Moreover, identification of high-risk patients for in-hospital mortality is vitally important to maximize allocation of medical resources.The Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-III) database, containing de-identified critical care inpatient was used in our study. This data set captures hospital patient laboratory measurements, pharmacologic prescriptions, diagnostic data and procedure event recordings. When considering adult patients and discounting admissions with ICU length of stay less than 24 hours, there were 37,787 unique admissions and 30,414 total patients. We examined the top 25 most prevalent ICD-9 group-level disease specificities in MIMIC-III using a multi-label classification model. In-hospital mortality was modeled as binary classification with 4,155 (13%) adult patients that expired, of which 3,138 (75.5%) were in the ICU setting. The metrics AUC, F1 score, sensitivity and specificity values calculated for each disease label measured prediction performance.The usage of ICD-9 group codes reduced feature dimension from 14,567 to 942 and greatly improved distribution of patient diagnostic categories. Disease temporal patterns were captured by considering the most frequently sampled 6 vital signs and 13 laboratory values. Missing data were imputed at each time-stamp. Time-series raw hourly average values were converted into 5 summary features (mean, standard deviation, number of observations, min & max values). Patient demographic variables such as age, gender, marital status and ethnicity were also factored into the modeling. Choi et al showed that contextual embedding of medical data, diagnostic and procedural codes alone can predict future diagnoses with sensitivity as high as 0.79. We utilized an embedding technique called word2vec which allowed sparse representations of medical history to be transformed into dense word vectors. The mappings captured contextual information by treating each admission as a sentence and learning the most likely neighboring words in a sliding window fashion. Binary and multi-label classification was achieved via collapse models, which do not consider temporal information, as well as recurrent neural networks with regularization, Softmax output layer activation together with categorical cross-entropy as the loss function.

US Army collaboration↗
NASA NTRS2013

Analyses Made to Order: Using Transformation to Rapidly Configure a Multidisciplinary Environment

Aerospace problems are highly multidisciplinary. Four or more major disciplines are involved in analyzing any particular vehicle. Moreover, the choice of implementation technology of various subsystems can lead to a change of leading domain or reformation of the driving equations. An excellent example is the change of expertise required to consider aircraft built from composite or metallic structures, or those propelled by chemical or electrical thrusters. Another example is in the major reconfiguration of handling and stability equations with different control surface configuration (e.g., canards, t-tail v four-post tail). Combinatorial problems are also commonplace anytime that a major system is to be designed. If there are only 5 attributes of a design to consider with 4 different options, this is already 1024 options. Adding just 5 more dimensions to the study explodes the space to over one million. Even generous assumptions like the idea that only 10% of the combinations are physically feasible can only contain the problem for so long. To make matters worse, the simple number of combinations is only the beginning. Combining the issue of trade space size with the need to reformulate the design problem for many of the possibilities makes life exponentially more difficult. Advances in software modeling approaches have led to the development of model-driven architecture. This approach uses the transformation of models into inferred models (e.g. inferred execution traces from state machines) or the skeletons for code generation. When the emphasis on transformation is applied to aerospace, it becomes possible to exploit redundancy in the information specified in multiple domain models into a unified system model. F1urther, it becomes possible to overcome the combinatorial nature of specifying integrated system behavior by manually combining the equations governing a given component technology. Transformations from a system specification combined with a system-analysis mapping specification enable one-click combination of domain analyses. This is a flexibility that has been missing from many engineering codes, which often entangle design specification and physical examination much more than is required to conduct the analysis. This capability has been investigated and cultivated within the DARPA F6 program by a team of JPL and Phoenix Integration engineers building the Adapatable Systems Design and Analysis (ASDA) framework. By embracing system modeling with SysML and the Query-View-Transformation (QVT) language, the ASDA team has been able to build a flexible, easily reconfigurable framework for building up and solving large tradespaces. Examples of application and lessons learned in building the framework will be described in this paper. In addition, the motivation will be laid for various tool vendors to develop open model description standards while being able to maintain competitive advantage through proprietary algorithms and approaches. These standards will also be compared to the underpinnings of model-driven architecture and the OMG standards of the Meta-Object Facility (MOF), SysML, and QVT.

Cole, Bjorn↗
DOE OSTI2023

Design and requirements of a hydrogen component reliability database (HyCReD)

Hydrogen technologies are expected to play a key role in the decarbonization of several sectors including energy storage and transportation. Rigorous investigation and quantification of the risk and reliability issues associated with hydrogen technologies will be critical to ensuring both their wider adoption and safe, economical operations. Quantitative risk assessment (QRA) is an important tool that has been used to enable the safe deployment of many engineering systems, including hydrogen fueling stations and hydrogen storage systems. However, QRA studies require reliability data which is currently lacking for expanding applications of hydrogen systems. Here, to address this gap, we present a new structure for a hydrogen component reliability database (HyCReD) that can be used to generate reliability data to be used in QRA, reliability, safety studies, maintenance planning, and more. Building on our previous work examining four major hydrogen safety data collection tools (West et al., 2022) [1], our approach in this work was to consult scientific literature on reliability data collection as well as a number of existing reliability engineering databases in the oil & gas, chemical processing, and nuclear power plant sectors. The evaluation of these databases led to identifying best practices to be implemented in a data collection framework for a hydrogen component reliability database. Based on these best practices, a set of 24 requirements for the proposed database are presented, covering its characteristics and the types of data to be collected. We define the structure of the HyCReD database and 25 data elements to be collected, spanning system description, failure, shutdown, or near-miss events, and maintenance events. The data elements are then defined according to international standards used in the safety and reliability practice and potential choice lists are provided for each field. Since this database is being piloted for hydrogen fueling stations, a generic station component hierarchy developed by West (2021) [2] is used to standardize system data. Finally, we demonstrate populating the database with information extracted from five narrative reports on hydrogen fueling station incidents.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2016

Sci-Fri AM: Quality, Safety, and Professional Issues 06: An Evaluation of Incident Reporting and Learning using the Canadian National System for Incident Reporting – Radiation Treatment

We report on the development and clinical deployment of an in-house incident reporting and learning system that implements the taxonomy of the Canadian National System for Incident Reporting – Radiation Treatment (NSIR-RT). In producing our new system, we aimed to: Analyze actual incidents, as well as potentially dangerous latent conditions. Produce recommendations on the NSIR-RT taxonomy. Incorporate features to divide reporting responsibility among clinical staff and expedite incident categorization within the NSIR-RT framework. Share anonymized incident data with the national database. Our multistep incident reporting workflow is focused around an initial report and a detailed follow-up investigation. An investigator, chosen at the time of reporting, is tasked with performing the investigation. The investigation feature is connected to our electronic medical records database to allow automatic field population and quick reference of patient and treatment information. Additional features include a robust visualization suite, as well as the ability to flag incidents for discussion at monthly Risk Management meetings and task ameliorating actions to staff. Our system was deployed into clinical use in January 2016. Over the first three months of use, 45 valid incidents were reported; 31 of which were reported as actual incidents as opposed to near-misses or reportable circumstances. However, we suspect there is ambiguity within our centre in determining the appropriate event type, which may be arising from the taxonomy itself. Preliminary trending analysis aided in revealing workflow issues pertaining to storage of treatment accessories and treatment planning delays. Extensive analysis will be undertaken as more data are accrued.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Assessing variation in faecal glucocorticoid concentrations in gray whales exposed to anthropogenic stressors

Understanding how individual animals respond to stressors behaviourally and physiologically is a critical step towards quantifying long-term population consequences and informing management efforts. Glucocorticoid (GC) metabolite accumulation in various matrices provides an integrated measure of adrenal activation in baleen whales and could thus be used to investigate physiological changes following exposure to stressors. In this study, we measured GC concentrations in faecal samples of Pacific Coast Feeding Group (PCFG) gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) collected over seven consecutive years to assess the association between GC content and metrics of exposure to sound levels and vessel traffic at different temporal scales, while controlling for contextual variables such as sex, reproductive status, age, body condition, year, time of year and location. We develop a Bayesian Generalized Additive Modelling approach that accommodates the many complexities of these data, including non-linear variation in hormone concentrations, missing covariate values, repeated samples, sampling variability and some hormone concentrations below the limit of detection. Estimated relationships showed large variability, but emerging patterns indicate a strong context-dependency of physiological variation, depending on sex, body condition and proximity to a port. Our results highlight the need to control for baseline hormone variation related to context, which otherwise can obscure the functional relationship between faecal GCs and stressor exposure. Therefore, extensive data collection to determine sources of baseline variation in well-studied populations, such as PCFG gray whales, could shed light on cetacean stress physiology and be used to extend applicability to less-well-studied taxa. GC analyses may offer greatest utility when employed as part of a suite of markers that, in aggregate, provide a multivariate measure of physiological status, better informing estimates of individuals’ health and ultimately the consequences of anthropogenic stressors on populations.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Economic and environmental performance of biomass gasification for renewable natural gas production in the context of the U.S. natural gas supply

Bioenergy technologies offer potential for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. One such promising technology is biomass gasification, which is the conversion of biomass into renewable natural gas (RNG) for use with a natural gas combined-cycle power generation system. However, the associated economic and emission effects need to be better understood to enable optimal decision-making and avoid missed opportunities for enhancing efficiency and increasing system circularity. This analysis explores opportunities to (1) decarbonize natural-gas-based systems and (2) leverage the extensive US natural gas infrastructure to mobilize biomass resources to achieve environmental and economic benefits. Here, in this analysis, the research team used a spatially explicit biomass logistics model (integrated with relevant biomass availability, technoeconomic analysis, and life cycle assessment information) to simulate economically optimal biomass allocation for RNG production and use for decarbonization in the United States. Results show that the United States has the potential to produce 9203 million GJ of RNG within the expected range of $\$$12–30/GJ. Further analyses tested the overall RNG production system's sensitivity to economic and emissions parameters of nine different processes. The sensitivity analysis results indicate that the median carbon abatement cost of RNG is most sensitive to changes in emissions associated with conversion processes and land use changes. These findings provide a deeper understanding of RNG's economic and emission potential for decision-making and guiding future research.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2014

Development of Bayesian analysis program for extraction of polarisation observables at CLAS

At the mass scale of a proton, the strong force is not well understood. Various quark models exist, but it is important to determine which quark model(s) are most accurate. Experimentally, finding resonances predicted by some models and not others would give valuable insight into this fundamental interaction. Several labs around the world use photoproduction experiments to find these missing resonances. The aim of this work is to develop a robust Bayesian data analysis program for extracting polarisation observables from pseudoscalar meson photoproduction experiments using CLAS at Jefferson Lab. This method, known as nested sampling, has been compared to traditional methods and has incorporated data parallelisation and GPU programming. It involves an event-by-event likelihood function, which has no associated loss of information from histogram binning, and results can be easily constrained to the physical region. One of the most important advantages of the nested sampling approach is that data from different experiments can be combined and analysed simultaneously. Results on both simulated and previously analysed experimental data for the K{sup +}Λ channel will be discussed.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2018

Machine Learning to Improve Retrieval by Category in Big Volunteered Geodata

Nowadays, Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) is commonly used in research and practical applications. However, the quality assurance of such a geographic data remains a problem. In this study we use machine learning and natural language processing to improve record retrieval by category (e.g. restaurant, museum, etc.) from Wikimapia Points of Interest data. We use textual information contained in VGI records to evaluate its ability to determine the category label. The performance of the trained classifier is evaluated on the complete dataset and then is compared with its performance on regional subsets. Preliminary analysis shows significant difference in the classifier performance across the regions. Such geographic differences will have a significant effect on data enrichment efforts such as labeling entities with missing categories.

Sorokine, Alexandre↗
DOE OSTI2023

Reducing Artifacts in BF and HAADF-STEM Images of Pt/C Fuel Cells using MBIR-ARAR

Electron tomography is a powerful tool for characterization of three-dimensional (3D) nanoscale materials and devices. Bright-field (BF) and high-angle annular dark-field (HAADF) scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) are two widely used imaging modes in electron tomography. These imaging modalities have proven to be useful for characterizing the structure of carbon-supported platinum (Pt/C) electrocatalysts used in fuel cells, which are an important class of clean energy conversion systems. BF and HAADF-STEM images are typically simultaneously acquired due to the complementary information they contain, as BF-STEM is more suitable for characterizing carbon due to its ability to detect lighter elements, while HAADF-STEM is more suitable for characterizing platinum due to its sensitivity to atomic number. However, the quality of BF- and HAADF-STEM images is often compromised by various artifacts, such as local blurring due to abrupt contrast changes as well as missing wedge artifacts which can severely impact the accuracy of the reconstructed 3D images. The traditional methods of reconstruction, such as Filtered Back-projection (FBP), Simultaneous Iterative Reconstruction Technique (SIRT), and Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR), are often not suitable for removing these artifacts effectively. Here, to address this challenge, we present a novel approach called MBIR with Artifact Reduction and Adaptive Regularization (MBIR-ARAR).

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2024

COMPASS-FME Synoptic Sites Level 1 Sensor Data v1-2

This is the version 1-2 Level 1 (L1) data release for COMPASS-FME environmental sensors located at our synoptic field sites. COMPASS-FME is studying sites in two distinct regions, the Chesapeake Bay and the Western Lake Erie Basin. We established the network at seven "synoptic" (observational) sites along the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie coastlines, collectively generating over three million observations per month, to track and comprehend environmental changes where land and water intersect. Additionally, the two regions provide an interesting contrast of saltwater and freshwater coasts that allow us to differentiate the impacts of inundation and coastal water chemistries in two nationally important coastal systems.L1 data are close to raw, but are units-transformed and have out-of-instrument-bounds and out-of-service flags added. Duplicates and missing data are removed but otherwise these data are not filtered, and have not been subject to any additional algorithmic or human QA/QC. Any scientific analyses of L1 data should be performed with care. **This dataset will be updated quarterly with new data for the duration of the project**This dataset includes:- An overall dataset README file that describes the current version, gives citation and contact information, etc.- Site- and year-specific folders, each holding up to 12 CSV (comma separated value) data files for each site and plot in that year.- Metadata files within each site-year folder provide full information on data units, expected ranges, contact information, as well as a general description of the site.- Environmental sensor types that appear in the data files include weather (ClimaVUE50, CS, RM Young, and LI instruments in the graphs below); soil conditions (TEROS12); soil redox state (Redox); groundwater variables (AquaTROLL200 and AquaTROLL600); open water sondes (Exo); tree sap velocity (Sapflow); and system voltage and state (Datalogger). Data are normally logged every 15 minutes. Please see v1-2 Synoptic L1 Sensor Package Quick Start.pdf for detailed information on data package structure, temporal coverage, and versioning.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

COMPASS-FME Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments (TEMPEST) Experiment Level 1 Sensor Data v1-2

This is the version 1-2 Level 1 (L1) data release for COMPASS-FME environmental sensors located at our Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments (TEMPEST) experimental site. This manipulative, ecosystem-scale TEMPEST experiment addresses the potential for freshwater and estuarine-water disturbance events to alter tree function, species composition, and ecosystem processes in a deciduous coastal forest in MD, USA. The experiment uses a large-unit (2000 m2), un-replicated experimental design, with three 50 m × 40 m plots serving as control, freshwater, and estuarine-water treatments.L1 data are close to raw, but are units-transformed and have out-of-instrument-bounds and out-of-service flags added. Duplicates and missing data are removed but otherwise these data are not filtered, and have not been subject to any additional algorithmic or human QA/QC. Any scientific analyses of L1 data should be performed with care. **This dataset will be updated quarterly with new data for the duration of the project**This dataset includes:- An overall dataset README file that describes the current version, gives citation and contact information, etc.- Site- and year-specific folders, each holding up to 12 CSV (comma separated value) data files for each site and plot in that year.- Metadata files within each site-year folder provide full information on data units, expected ranges, contact information, detailed flood times, as well as a general description of the site.- Environmental sensor types that appear in the data files include weather (ClimaVUE50, CS, RM Young, and LI instruments in the graphs below); soil conditions (TEROS12); soil redox state (Redox); groundwater variables (AquaTROLL200 and AquaTROLL600); open water sondes (Exo); tree sap velocity (Sapflow); and system voltage and state (Datalogger). Data are normally logged every 15 minutes.Please see v1-2 TEMPEST L1 Sensor Package Quick Start.pdf for detailed information on data package structure, temporal coverage, and versioning.The TEMPEST flood events occurred on the following dates. They lasted for ~10 hours each day and delivered ~80,000 gallons to each plot; many data streams are available at 1 or 5 minute frequency during these periods.* Tests: Aug 25 (fresh plot) and Sep 9 (salt plot), 2021* TEMPEST 1: June 22, 2022* TEMPEST 2: June 6-7, 2023* TEMPEST 3: June 11-13, 2024

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

COMPASS-FME Synoptic Sites Level 1 Sensor Data v2-1

This is the version 2-1 Level 1 (L1) data release for COMPASS-FME environmental sensors located at our synoptic field sites. COMPASS-FME is studying sites in two distinct regions, the Chesapeake Bay and the Western Lake Erie Basin. We established the network at seven "synoptic" (observational) sites along the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie coastlines, collectively generating over three million observations per month, to track and comprehend environmental changes where land and water intersect. Additionally, the two regions provide an interesting contrast of saltwater and freshwater coasts that allow us to differentiate the impacts of inundation and coastal water chemistries in two nationally important coastal systems. L1 data are close to raw, but are units-transformed and have out-of-instrument-bounds, out-of-service, and outlier flags added. Duplicates and missing data are removed but otherwise these data are not filtered, and have not been subject to any additional algorithmic or human QA/QC. Any scientific analyses of L1 data should be performed with care. **This dataset will be updated quarterly with new data for the duration of the project** This dataset includes: - An overall dataset README file that describes the current version, gives citation and contact information, etc. - Site- and year-specific folders, each holding up to 12 CSV (comma separated value) data files for each site and plot in that year. - Metadata files within each site-year folder provide full information on data units, expected ranges, contact information, as well as a general description of the site. - Environmental sensor types that appear in the data files include weather (ClimaVUE50, CS, RM Young, and LI instruments in the graphs below); soil conditions (TEROS12); soil redox state (Redox); groundwater variables (AquaTROLL200 and AquaTROLL600); open water sondes (Exo); tree sap velocity (Sapflow); and system voltage and state (Datalogger). Data are normally logged every 15 minutes. Please see v2-0 Synoptic L1 Sensor Package Quick Start.pdf for detailed information on data package structure, temporal coverage, and versioning. This dataset was updated 2026-03-12: (i) data now go through 2025-12-31 (previous end was 2025-06-30) and (ii) dataset and file names updated to “…v2-1” (previously was “v2-0”).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗