SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “user identification”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

69 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Adapting Traditional Hazards Analysis Methods to Address Cyber Risks

Traditional hazards analysis (HA) methods, originally developed to address physical and operational risks, often fall short when it comes to identifying and mitigating cyber threats. These cyber threats pose unique and evolving risks to critical infrastructure and industrial control systems (ICS). This report explores the integration of Cyber-Informed Engineering (CIE) principles into existing HA methods to enhance their ability to address cyber-induced risks. CIE provides organizations with a practical, cost-effective approach to closing the gap between traditional HA methods and the need for cyber risk mitigation. By leveraging existing safety processes and controls, CIE allows users to examine and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities without overhauling existing HA methods. This report identifies areas where HA and CIE naturally align and where their approaches diverge. It emphasizes how CIE principles can be used to adapt HA methods, broadening their scope to include cyber risks and enabling the mitigation of cyber- induced impacts alongside traditional hazards and failure scenarios. This report examines how CIE can be applied across various HA methods—such as Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP), Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA), Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA), Systems-Theoretic Process Analysis (STPA), Hazard and Consequence Analysis for Digital Systems (HAZCADS), and Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA). It provides strategies for integrating CIE to strengthen the identification, assessment, and mitigation of cyber-induced risks. The findings offer a structured entry point for organizations to embed CIE concepts into hazards and safety analyses, as well as broader engineering processes, ultimately supporting the design and operation of a more resilient infrastructure.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2025

Adapting Traditional Hazards Analysis Methods to Address Cyber Risks

42 - ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2025

Discovering methylated DNA motifs in bacterial nanopore sequencing data with MIJAMP

Abstract Bacterial DNA methylation is involved in diverse cellular functions, including modulation of gene expression, DNA repair, and restriction–modification systems for defense against viruses and other foreign DNA. Restriction systems hinder efforts to engineer organisms to produce fuels and chemicals from waste and renewable feedstocks by degrading DNA during transformation. Methylome analysis allows identification of motifs within a bacterial chromosome that may be targeted by native restriction enzymes. Further expression of the corresponding methyltransferases in Escherichia coli allows plasmid DNA to be protected from restriction in the target organism, thereby drastically enhancing transformation efficiency. Nanopore sequencing can detect methylated bases, but software is needed to transform modified base coordinates into methylated motifs. Here, we develop MIJAMP (MIJAMP Is Just A MethylBED Parser), a software package that was developed to discover methylated motifs from the output of ONT’s Modkit or other data in the methylBED format. MIJAMP employs a human-driven refinement strategy that empirically validates all motifs against genome-wide methylation data, thus eliminating incorrect motifs. MIJAMP also reports methylation data on specific, user-defined motifs. Using MIJAMP, we determined the methylated motifs both in a control strain (wild-type E. coli) and in Synecococcus sp. strain PCC7002, laying the foundation for improved transformation in this organism. MIJAMP is available at https://code.ornl.gov/alexander-public/mijamp/. One Sentence Summary: Here we describe software written to discover DNA methylation motifs from nanopore sequencing data.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

FREDA: A Web Application for the Processing, Analysis, and Visualization of Fourier‐Transform Mass Spectrometry Data

The high-resolution measurement capability of Fourier-transform mass spectrometry (FT-MS) has made it a necessity for exploring the molecular composition of complex organic mixtures, like soil, plant, aquatic, and petroleum samples. This demand has driven a need for informatics tools to explore and analyze FT-MS data in a robust and reproducible manner. FREDA is an interactive web application developed to enable spectrometrists to format, process, and explore their FT-MS data without the need for statistical programming expertise. FREDA was built to explore outputs from a molecular identification tool, like CoreMS, and provide a suite of methods to filter data, compute chemical properties of peaks, statistically compare samples and groups of samples, conduct exploratory data analysis, and download the results with a report detailing all steps conducted. To demonstrate the utility of FREDA, an example analysis was conducted using FT-MS data from a soil microbiology study of samples collected in two different soil depths at the Sphagnum bog forest north of Grand Rapids, Minnesota. Differences between the two depths are observed using Kendrick, Gibbs free energy, and van Krevelen plots. G-tests are used to quantify a significant difference between the groups. All analyses and plotting are conducted using only the FREDA application. FREDA is an open-source and readily available web application that allows users to explore and make statistically valid conclusions about their FT-MS data. The application is available online (https://map.emsl.pnnl.gov/app/freda) with a tutorial web series (https://youtu.be/k5HLE2kNSBY?si=yB6sGoyvzxrFf5MP) and freely accessible code on Github (https://github.com/EMSL-Computing/FREDA).

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

DOE OSTI2025

Imaging Bragg Edge Analysis TooLs for Engineering Structures (iBeatles)

The Spallation Neutron Source (SNS) at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) provides pulsed neutrons with energies varying from epithermal to cold. In preparation for VENUS, the neutron imaging beamline to be located at beam port 10, we have performed a series of experiments focused on wavelength-dependent radiography and computed tomography for a broad range of applications, from materials science to biological tissues.One of the time-of-flight (TOF) techniques that is of interest to the scientific community is the 2-dimensional mapping of phases and average crystalline plane orientation in samples both ex-situ and during applied stresses such as tensile loading and heating. This technique is known as Bragg edgeimaging and relies on the identification of changes of transmission values, fitting of the edge to measure its displacement, and thus identify the shift in lattice parameter due to stresses. One of the challenges of TOF imaging measurements is the amount of data and the inability to observe Bragg edge shifts in real time during an experiment. Thus, we have been focusing on creating a Python-based interface that allows fast data processing and instantaneous mapping and fitting of the Bragg edges, and their evolution through time. Python libraries and Jupyter notebooks have been implemented to facilitate decision making during an experiment. The advantage of the notebooks is the possibility to guide an experiment as they can quickly process and display Bragg edge data. These notebooks can be used independently, or can be combined in a Python Graphical User Interface (GUI) tool called iBeatles. This interface permits visualization and fitting of the Bragg edges, and ultimately back-projects the fitting results onto the radiographs to display a strain map. Assuming data collection has sufficient statistics, the strain mapping analysis can be performed on a pixel-by-pixel basis. This development is a step forward toward a better user experience at the future VENUS beamline in terms of live feedback and productivity. Analysis that used to take days of switching between different applications can now be done in minutes within the

Bilheux, JeanChristophe [Oak Ridge National Labora↗

DOE OSTI2024

Mid-IR UAV-based sensing platform with deep learning to Identify and Quantify Gaseous Emission in Gas Flares

This report details the development and evaluation of a Mid-Infrared (Mid-IR) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV)-based sensing platform integrated with deep learning algorithms for the identification and quantification of gaseous emissions in gas flares. The project, spearheaded by Omega Optics, Inc., aimed to address environmental monitoring challenges by leveraging advanced photonic technologies and autonomous UAV operations. The research focused on designing, optimizing, and fabricating photonic crystal waveguides and grating couplers to enhance the sensitivity and accuracy of gas detection. A comprehensive drone-based system was developed, featuring a miniaturized sensor, GPS module, and microcontroller communication network for real-time gas concentration monitoring. The system's adaptive sampling algorithm, implemented using the Robot Operating System (ROS), enables autonomous detection and localization of gas emission sources. Preliminary results demonstrate the platform's capability to detect and monitor gas emissions with high precision, cost-effectiveness, and scalability. Future work will expand upon this foundation by introducing 3D wind model-based learning for dynamic environmental conditions and further enhancing the user interface and data processing algorithms to support broader environmental monitoring applications. Overall, this project represents a significant step forward in UAV-based environmental sensing technologies, offering robust solutions for detecting and mitigating the impacts of gaseous emissions on public health and safety.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

DOE OSTI2025

Phonon Olympics: Phonon property and lattice thermal conductivity benchmarking from open-source packages

Three widely used open-source packages for determining phonon properties and lattice thermal conductivities (ALAMODE, phono3py, and ShengBTE) are benchmarked by teams of expert users and the package developers. The phonons for Ge, RbBr, monolayer MoSe 2 , and AlN are modeled at zero temperature, and they scatter through three-phonon and phonon-isotope processes, with thermal conductivities obtained from the linearized Peierls–Boltzmann transport equation with input from density functional theory calculations. Over a wide range of temperatures, the thermal conductivities calculated by the teams fall within at most ±15% of their mean values for each of the four materials. The phonon frequencies, obtained from the harmonic force constants, do not show large differences between the calculations, indicating that the modal heat capacities and group velocities are not responsible for the thermal conductivity variations. It is the lifetimes associated with three-phonon scattering, obtained from the cubic force constants, that drive the variations. The many decisions required to calculate the cubic force constants (e.g., supercell size, atomic displacement, neighbor cutoff, and application of symmetries) make identification of the precise origin of the thermal conductivity variations challenging. The calculated thermal conductivities do not generally show agreement with experimental measurements, which is attributed to the limitations of the density functional theory calculations. Guidance for the development of best practices is provided, which will help to standardize protocols needed for building thermal conductivity databases. The results provide a baseline for future benchmarking of other packages and more advanced calculations.

McGaughey, Alan J. H. [Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pitt↗

DOE OSTI2026

A framework and tool for designing cost-effective, resilient, and circular net-zero supply chains under uncertainty with an application to multilayer plastic films

While 55% of Fortune 500 companies have committed to achieving net-zero emissions and/or zero-waste operations by 2035, only 2% are currently on track, revealing a critical gap between ambition and action. Designing supply chains that reduce both emissions and waste is a complex non-intuitive, multi-objective challenge, compounded by the high costs of new technologies and the need for resilient, profitable solutions. This paper aims to address this challenge by presenting a generic framework and multi-objective optimization formulation for designing cost-effective, circular, and resilient supply chains under uncertainty, implemented through a user-friendly decision-support tool with intuitive data visualization capabilities, enabling communication of results to both technical and non-technical stakeholders. We demonstrate the application of this framework in the context of multilayer plastic films (barrier films), which are widely used in food packaging and composite materials. The model quantifies trade-offs across three objectives: minimizing global warming potential, maximizing circularity, and minimizing cost. A key contribution of this work is the explicit modeling of technological resilience, the ability of supply chains to maintain function under disruption. In the cost-minimization case, the resilience constraint makes the design approximately three times more expensive in the short-term metric, but shifts the system from relying on a single recovery pathway to a portfolio of four recovery pathways, improving the robustness of the optimization solution under uncertainty. Lastly, we introduce TranZero, a decision-support tool that integrates material flow analysis, hotspot identification, and optimization-based scenario planning to support net-zero and circularity decisions.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Deep Learning for Fish Identification from Sonar Data (CRADA 481 Final Report)

In eastern regions of the United States, the American eel is a species of management and regulatory concern because of significant population declines, despite the species’ previous abundance in all tributaries of rivers flowing into the Atlantic Ocean. The American eel is also a candidate for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. While hydropower construction and operation are only one of several factors contributing to this population decline, such a listing could impose additional regulatory challenges for a large number of hydropower projects. In this CRADA project, we improved technologies for identifying migrating eels with the goal of reducing the cost and time required for future American eel hydropower impact assessment and mitigation studies, while maintaining accuracy. We built on results from a previous FOA project (FOA# DE-FOA-0001662), led by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), which developed a highly accurate, deep-learning method for identifying migrating eels from imaging sonar data. The current study aimed to further optimize this deep-learning model, originally designed for image classification, and to develop an object detection software capable of identifying fish from sonar videos in real time, enabling the detection of events like fish migrations and specific species, such as the American eel, at hydropower dams. The data conversion algorithms were packaged as software with a graphical user interface, and the software is evaluated by external collaborators. We focused on the American eel in this project and explored the transferability of the developed deep learning models to the sea lamprey, given the similar body shape and swimming behavior between the two species.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Quantifying leaf symptoms of sorghum charcoal rot in images of field‐grown plants using deep neural networks

Abstract Charcoal rot of sorghum (CRS) is a significant disease affecting sorghum crops, with limited genetic resistance available. The causative agent, Macrophomina phaseolina (Tassi) Goid, is a highly destructive fungal pathogen that targets over 500 plant species globally, including essential staple crops. Utilizing field image data for precise detection and quantification of CRS could greatly assist in the prompt identification and management of affected fields and thereby reduce yield losses. The objective of this work was to implement various machine learning algorithms to evaluate their ability to accurately detect and quantify CRS in red‐green‐blue images of sorghum plants exhibiting symptoms of infection. EfficientNet‐B3 and a fully convolutional network emerged as the top‐performing models for image classification and segmentation tasks, respectively. Among the classification models evaluated, EfficientNet‐B3 demonstrated superior performance, achieving an accuracy of 86.97%, a recall rate of 0.71, and an F1 score of 0.73. Of the segmentation models tested, FCN proved to be the most effective, exhibiting a validation accuracy of 97.76%, a recall rate of 0.68, and an F1 score of 0.66. As the size of the image patches increased, both models’ validation scores increased linearly, and their inference time decreased exponentially. This trend could be attributed to larger patches containing more information, improving model performance, and fewer patches reducing the computational load, thus decreasing inference time. The models, in addition to being immediately useful for breeders and growers of sorghum, advance the domain of automated plant phenotyping and may serve as a foundation for drone‐based or other automated field phenotyping efforts. Additionally, the models presented herein can be accessed through a web‐based application where users can easily analyze their own images.

Gonzalez, Emmanuel M.↗

DOE OSTI2025

DOE Repository Metadata Profile (DRMP): A Metadata Framework for Advancing Interoperability and AI Readiness Across Scientific Repositories

The Department of Energy (DOE) funds a diverse and distributed ecosystem of repositories that steward scientific data, publications, and software across its research programs, user facilities, and national laboratories. While significant progress has been made in standardizing dataset-level metadata, the metadata describing repositories themselves (their identity, governance, access interfaces, policies, and technical capabilities) remains inconsistent and fragmented across DOE-funded systems. This variability limits discoverability, interoperability, automated validation, and AI-driven analysis, all of which are increasingly essential for modern scientific workflows. To address this gap, the DOE Data Curation Working Group (DCWG) developed the DOE Repository Metadata Profile (DRMP). The DRMP is a practical, community-driven framework that defines how repositories can describe themselves in a consistent, machine-actionable, and scalable manner. The DRMP is not a new metadata schema. Instead, it is a mapping profile and structured element set capturing the essential characteristics of DOE repositories. It harmonizes repository-level metadata across six widely adopted community schemas: RE3Data; DCAT-US v3; Schema.org; Dublin Core; DataCite 4.6; and PREMIS 3.0. This harmonization eliminates reinvention and enables interoperability within DOE and across the broader scientific ecosystem. A core objective of the DRMP is to reduce burden on repositories by allowing them to reuse their existing metadata through a Rosetta-style crosswalk rather than redesigning local implementations. The profile introduces a three-level conformance model that supports incremental adoption: • Level 1 – Minimum Viable Record (MVR): foundational identification elements required for workflows, project registration, and basic repository presence. • Level 2 – Interoperable: structured metadata enabling alignment with national and international discovery systems. • Level 3 – AI-Ready: enhanced provenance, policy transparency, fixity, semantic context, and capabilities that support automated reasoning, model training governance, and machine-assisted curation. To support implementation, the DRMP includes JSON Schema definitions, OpenAPI patterns, and MCP templates that allow repositories to publish machine-readable metadata directly within existing platforms. These resources are modular and lightweight, enabling adoption without major architectural change. Adopting the DRMP enables repositories to: • Enhance discoverability and interoperability by aligning identifiers, classifications, and descriptive elements across widely used schema standards. • Support federated discovery and cross-registration across DOE systems, Data.gov, and international catalogs. • Enable AI agents and workflow orchestration systems to interpret repository-level metadata within the American Science Cloud (AmSC) through Model Context Protocol (MCP)-based context publication. • Demonstrate alignment with DOE’s open science, stewardship, and FAIR data priorities. This guidance represents a community-driven step forward. Through voluntary adoption and continued feedback, the DRMP advances a cohesive, machine-actionable description of DOE repositories that supports FAIR data practices, preparing the infrastructure for AI-enabled research, and strengthening the discoverability and reuse of DOE’s scientific outputs.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗

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 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 OSTI2021

AI-Batt (Autonomous Identification of Battery Life Models) [SWR 21-36]

Autonomous Identification of Battery Life Models (AI-Batt) AI-Batt is a MATLAB code base for developing lifetime models for batteries from accelerated aging data. The code base provides many functions for processing, visualizing, and modeling battery aging data, making the data processing, exploration, and modeling workflow substantially faster. These tools are tailored for working with battery aging data sets, which usually consist of many separate time-series for each cell, with many test conditions and possible replicates at each condition, which makes it difficult to simply process or visualize the data set. Complex modeling tasks, such as cross-validation, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty quantification have been implemented to enable thorough statistical investigation of model predictions. Additionally, several machine-learning algorithms are implemented to autonomously identify suitable models via symbolic regression. Data processing functions automatically cast data from the struct data type, which is commonly used to store experimental data, but is not an acceptable input for most algorithms, to the table data type, which can be easily used as input to any optimization algorithm. Also, the data can be separated into time-invariant and time-variant data tables, which is helpful for exploring the data set as well as developing separate models for time-variant and time-invariant aging mechanisms. For example, in aging tests with constant temperature, temperature is a time-invariant experimental condition. Visualization tools enable plotting of data, model fits, and model simulations possible with single-line function calls, empowering data exploration of complex data sets with both time-varying and time-invariant trends. Plots can be automatically generated for the whole data set, or separated by data group (groups of test replicates) or individual data series. Data points or data series can be automatically colored by the value of a variable with a variety of color maps, and model predictions can also be colored by the value of a fit statistic. Comparisons between data sets and the predictions/simulations of different models on the same data set can be easily plotted as well. Distributions of parameter values from bootstrap resampling can be plotted to visualize the reliability of parameter estimation, or determine any correlations between parameters. Modeling tools handle the complex task of creating and parsing symbolic equations for modeling battery lifetime. Equations are parsed to grab relevant data variables, parameter values, or specified sub-models for input into optimization, evaluation, or simulation functions. Models can be optimized locally (one set of parameters for each data series), bi-level (some parameters shared across the data set), or globally (single set of parameters for all data). Functions implementing symbolic regression algorithms help users to discover effective model equations, even in poorly sampled, high-dimensional data.

Smith, Kandler [National Renewable Energy Lab. (NR↗

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↗