Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “data sharing”

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 649 records · Page 36
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2001

Automation of Data Traffic Control on DSM Architecture

The design of distributed shared memory (DSM) computers liberates users from the duty to distribute data across processors and allows for the incremental development of parallel programs using, for example, OpenMP or Java threads. DSM architecture greatly simplifies the development of parallel programs having good performance on a few processors. However, to achieve a good program scalability on DSM computers requires that the user understand data flow in the application and use various techniques to avoid data traffic congestions. In this paper we discuss a number of such techniques, including data blocking, data placement, data transposition and page size control and evaluate their efficiency on the NAS (NASA Advanced Supercomputing) Parallel Benchmarks. We also present a tool which automates the detection of constructs causing data congestions in Fortran array oriented codes and advises the user on code transformations for improving data traffic in the application.

Frumkin, Michael↗
NASA NTRS1996

An MPA-IO interface to HPSS

This paper describes an implementation of the proposed MPI-IO (Message Passing Interface - Input/Output) standard for parallel I/O. Our system uses third-party transfer to move data over an external network between the processors where it is used and the I/O devices where it resides. Data travels directly from source to destination, without the need for shuffling it among processors or funneling it through a central node. Our distributed server model lets multiple compute nodes share the burden of coordinating data transfers. The system is built on the High Performance Storage System (HPSS), and a prototype version runs on a Meiko CS-2 parallel computer.

Jones, Terry↗
NASA NTRS1996

An MPI-IO Interface to HPSS

This paper describes an implementation of the proposed MPI-IO standard for parallel I/O. Our system uses third-party transfer to move data over an external network between the processors where it is used and the I/O devices where it resides. Data travels directly from source to destination, without the need for shuffling it among processors or funneling it through a central node. Our distributed server model lets multiple compute nodes share the burden of coordinating data transfers. The system is built on the High Performance Storage System (HPSS), and a prototype version runs on a Meiko CS-2 parallel computer.

Parallel Processing↗
NASA NTRS2006

Implementing EVM Data Analysis Adding Value from a NASA Project Manager's Perspective

Data Analysis is one of the keys to an effective Earned Value Management (EVM) Process. Project Managers (PM) must continually evaluate data in assessing the health of their projects. Good analysis of data can assist PMs in making better decisions in managing projects. To better support our P Ms, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) - Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) recently renewed its emphasis on sound EVM data analysis practices and processes, During this presentation we will discuss the approach that MSFC followed in implementing better data analysis across its Center. We will address our approach to effectively equip and support our projects in applying a sound data analysis process. In addition, the PM for the Space Station Biological Research Project will share her experiences of how effective data analysis can benefit a PM in the decision making process. The PM will discuss how the emphasis on data analysis has helped create a solid method for assessing the project s performance. Using data analysis successfully can be an effective and efficient tool in today s environment with increasing workloads and downsizing workforces

Counts, Stacy↗
NASA NTRS2005

GLIDE: a grid-based light-weight infrastructure for data-intensive environments

The promise of the grid is that it will enable public access and sharing of immense amounts of computational and data resources among dynamic coalitions of individuals and institutions. However, the current grid solutions make several limiting assumptions that curtail their widespread adoption. To address these limitations, we present GLIDE, a prototype light-weight, data-intensive middleware infrastructure that enables access to the robust data and computational power of the grid on DREAM platforms.

PRISM-MW↗
NASA NTRS2014

Collaborative WorkBench for Researchers - Work Smarter, Not Harder

It is important to define some commonly used terminology related to collaboration to facilitate clarity in later discussions. We define provisioning as infrastructure capabilities such as computation, storage, data, and tools provided by some agency or similarly trusted institution. Sharing is defined as the process of exchanging data, programs, and knowledge among individuals (often strangers) and groups. Collaboration is a specialized case of sharing. In collaboration, sharing with others (usually known colleagues) is done in pursuit of a common scientific goal or objective. Collaboration entails more dynamic and frequent interactions and can occur at different speeds. Synchronous collaboration occurs in real time such as editing a shared document on the fly, chatting, video conference, etc., and typically requires a peer-to-peer connection. Asynchronous collaboration is episodic in nature based on a push-pull model. Examples of asynchronous collaboration include email exchanges, blogging, repositories, etc. The purpose of a workbench is to provide a customizable framework for different applications. Since the workbench will be common to all the customized tools, it promotes building modular functionality that can be used and reused by multiple tools. The objective of our Collaborative Workbench (CWB) is thus to create such an open and extensible framework for the Earth Science community via a set of plug-ins. Our CWB is based on the Eclipse [2] Integrated Development Environment (IDE), which is designed as a small kernel containing a plug-in loader for hundreds of plug-ins. The kernel itself is an implementation of a known specification to provide an environment for the plug-ins to execute. This design enables modularity, where discrete chunks of functionality can be reused to build new applications. The minimal set of plug-ins necessary to create a client application is called the Eclipse Rich Client Platform (RCP) [3]; The Eclipse RCP also supports thousands of community-contributed plug-ins, making it a popular development platform for many diverse applications including the Science Activity Planner developed at JPL for the Mars rovers [4] and the scientific experiment tool Gumtree [5]. By leveraging the Eclipse RCP to provide an open, extensible framework, a CWB supports customizations via plug-ins to build rich user applications specific for Earth Science. More importantly, CWB plug-ins can be used by existing science tools built off Eclipse such as IDL or PyDev to provide seamless collaboration functionalities.

Ramachandran, Rahul↗
DOE OSTI2026

HPC ODA Commons [SWR-26-003]

HPC ODA Commons is a community-driven platform for standardizing HPC operational data analytics. HPC sites generate enormous volumes of operational data - scheduler logs, accounting records, monitoring streams - but turning that data into actionable insight is needlessly hard. Each site builds bespoke parsers, schemas, and evaluation pipelines. Results can't be compared across institutions. Promising analytics ideas stay siloed because there's no shared language for describing the data, the experiments, or the outcomes. HPC ODA Commons fixes this by establishing community-governed contracts - versioned schemas, canonical artifacts, and benchmark recipes - that make ODA workflows discoverable, reproducible, and comparable. It pairs these standards with a practical, CLI-first toolkit that lets operators and researchers go from raw logs to standardized results without sending data off-cluster.

Menear, Kevin [National Laboratory of the Rockies ↗
DOE OSTI2025

NGEE Arctic Phase 4 Plant Functional Type Framework for Pan-Arctic Vegetation

The NGEE-Arctic research team identified a common set of hierarchical plant functional types (PFTs) for pan-arctic vegetation that we will use across our research activities. Interdisciplinary work within a large team requires agreement regarding levels of functional organization so that knowledge, data, and technologies can be shared and combined effectively. The team has identified plant functional types as a crucial area where such interoperability is needed. PFTs are used to represent plant pools and fluxes within models, summarize observational data, and map vegetation across the landscape. Within each of these applications, varying levels of PFT specificity are needed according to the specific scientific research goal, computational limitations, and data availability. By agreeing on a specific hierarchical framework for grouping variables in our vegetation data, we ensure the resulting research products will be robust, flexible, and scalable. In this document, we lay out the agreed upon PFT framework with definitions and references to existing literature. Table 1 included in the "NGA700_Phase4PFTFramework_about*" file outlines the relationship between NGEE-Arctic Phase 4, Tier 1 PFTs and the PFTs used within prominent arctic literature as well as publications by the NGEE-Arctic team during phases 1-3.This dataset consists of a table detailing a hierarchical PFT framework that spans 4 tiers with the most granular PFTs listed in tier 1 and the most general PFTs in tier 4. The PFTs within each tier has a single column in the dataset where the PFTs are named and a separate column where the characteristics used to define that PFT are listed. Grey fill of the cells is used to indicate where a given PFT starts to “lose” tier 1 details as you look from left to right. Note the excel file has merged cells to indicate grouping of PFTs across the Tiers- it will not translate into a delimited filetype (.csv, .txt, etc) without modification thus the hierarchical PFT framework table is available in three different file formats: 1) NGA700_Phase4PTS.xlsx – maintains the merged cells and grey fill; 2) NGA700_Phase4PTS.csv – merged cells are split, and grey fill is removed; 3) NGA700_Phase4PTS.pdf – image of the table with merged cells and grey fill. Metadata document included as a *.pdf and file-level metadata and data dictionary as *.csv files.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

The NASA Open Science Data Repository: Biomedical Data, Analysis Tools, and Informatic Collaborations

Increased biomedical risks and challenges associated with deep space missions require knowledge discovery, health countermeasures, and biomedical support capabilities. Maximally open-access and reusable data is needed by developers, scientists, and engineers to develop these systems. The NASA Open Science Data Repository (OSDR) is a maximally open access and FAIR database (ie., findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable), and meets various scientific, technical, and operational needs. It offers users and submitters the ability to upload, download, search, share, analyze, cite, and visualize data across ‘omics, physiological, phenotypic, payload, hardware, behavioral, bioimaging, video, and environmental monitoring telemetry datasets. OSDR is an expanded database, based upon the successes of NASA GeneLab. OSDR has >460 studies with datasets covering model organisms to non-NASA human astronauts. There are ~12 datasets from the Inspiration 4 (I4) mission, spanning metagenomics, comprehensive metabolic panels, clonal hematopoiesis, spatial transcriptomics, proteomics, and cytokine panels. In the interest of data privacy, two I4 datasets with raw files relating to the epitranscriptome, and a new request feature is live in OSDR (with a backend review process established) developed from industry norms. OSDR is collecting and curating biomedical human data from a new sub-orbital research flight and is open to more space life science/biomedical submissions from the international and commercial sectors. OSDR also recently began a collaboration with the European Space Agency (ESA) to collect and curate >200 terabytes of human and model organism data. The OSDR submission portal is designed to ingest and curate ~25 ‘omics and ~50 physiological-phenotypic-imaging assay data types. Tools available for OSDR users include: 1) an Environmental Data Application to compare radiation, CO2, relative humidity, temperature, and other telemetry across missions and subjects, 2) the RadLab database, a collaboration between NASA, ESA, the German and Italian Space Agencies, and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, and 3) a Multi-study visualization tool which enables users to look across and combine ‘omics datasets. There are ~600 volunteer OSDR Analysis Working Group (AWG) members providing feedback on scientific data/metadata standards and collaborating to mine-reuse OSDR in research. OSDR/GeneLab has enabled ~60 publications reusing data as of October 2023.

space biology↗
DOE OSTI2025

House Advantage or House of Cards? Stacking the Deck for Data Videos Leads to Null Results: Preprint

Videos are becoming a ubiquitous means of sharing information on social media platforms. In response, data videos - short clips combining visualization with dynamic storytelling, audio descriptions, and spatial referencing - have gained popularity for communicating data. These affordances suggest that data videos might communicate data patterns, trends, and concepts more effectively than static visualizations, enhancing comprehension. However, existing research has not systematically tested this claim. To address this gap, we conducted three controlled studies to measure comprehension differences between data videos and static visualizations. Despite leveraging visual cues and audio explanations, no data video led to significantly better comprehension than an analogous static visualization. Our results suggest data videos are not categorically better and that future research should examine the tradeoffs between their engagement benefits and costs.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Computing Sparse Tensor Decompositions via Chapel and C++/MPI Interoperability without Intermediate I/O

We extend an existing approach for efficient use of shared mapped memory across Chapel and C++ for graph data stored as 1-D arrays to sparse tensor data stored using a combination of 2-D and 1-D arrays. We describe the specific extensions that provide use of shared mapped memory tensor data for a particular C++ tensor decomposition tool called GentenMPI. We then demonstrate our approach on several real-world datasets, providing timing results that illustrate minimal overhead incurred using this approach. Finally, we extend our work to improve memory usage and provide convenient random access to sparse shared mapped memory tensor elements in Chapel, while still being capable of leveraging high performance implementations of tensor algorithms in C++.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS1983

The UARS and open data system concept and analysis study. Executive summary

Alternative concepts for a common design for the UARS and OPEN Central Data Handling Facility (CDHF) are offered. The designs are consistent with requirements shared by UARS and OPEN and the data storage and data processing demands of these missions. Because more detailed information is available for UARS, the design approach was to size the system and to select components for a UARS CDHF, but in a manner that does not optimize the CDHF at the expense of OPEN. Costs for alternative implementations of the UARS designs are presented showing that the system design does not restrict the implementation to a single manufacturer. Processing demands on the alternative UARS CDHF implementations are discussed. With this information at hand together with estimates for OPEN processing demands, it is shown that any shortfall in system capability for OPEN support can be remedied by either component upgrades or array processing attachments rather than a system redesign.

Mittal, M.↗
NASA NTRS1983

Standard format data units - Tools for automatic exchange of space mission data

A set of standard formatting rules for the data sets, and a standard computer-readable language with which to describe the data, are two tools which are used to create the Standard Format Data Unit (SFDU). The NASA/JPL proposal for creation and utilization of SFDUs is presented, and its relationship to recommendations from the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) is discussed. Several current and planned implementations of the SFDU concept among major space flight projects are identified. The purpose of creating the concept of an SFDU is to allow members of the science community to share national and global resource data independently of project or program. The feedback from SFDU implementation efforts is considered an essential part of the CCSDS activity. Even though the CCSDS specifically deals with space data systems, the SFDU concept can be applied to practically every data system on an open network. The SFDU is in the early phase of CCSDS standard definition work, and must go through several other phases before being formally recommended as an international standard.

Willett, J. B.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Delta Cp RMS and Shadowgraph Data from t11-0377 (ATAT)

The plots included in this NF-1676 were collected during a recent wind tunnel test at the 11’x11’ Transonic test section of the Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel. The data is not SBU or ITAR since the images are qualitative and do not share model measurements. The on-body data is Delta Cp RMS. The off-body data is Time-Variance of the Shadowgraph intensity. No tunnel conditions other than Mach, Alpha, Beta, and Tunnel Drive Speed (RPM) are shared. Most importantly, dynamic pressure and static pressure are not included.

Aerodynamics↗
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↗
NASA NTRS1992

Programming in Vienna Fortran

Exploiting the full performance potential of distributed memory machines requires a careful distribution of data across the processors. Vienna Fortran is a language extension of Fortran which provides the user with a wide range of facilities for such mapping of data structures. In contrast to current programming practice, programs in Vienna Fortran are written using global data references. Thus, the user has the advantages of a shared memory programming paradigm while explicitly controlling the data distribution. In this paper, we present the language features of Vienna Fortran for FORTRAN 77, together with examples illustrating the use of these features.

Chapman, Barbara↗