Long Period Voltage Oscillations Associated with Reaction Changes between CO 2 Reduction and H 2 Formation in Zero-Gap-Type CO 2 Electrochemical Reactor
Not Available
37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “format and availability”
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.
Anthropogenic extremely low volatility organics (ELVOCs) Govern the Growth of Molecular Clusters over the Southern Great Plains during the Springtime
New particle formation (NPF) and growth govern cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) concentrations in many regions. The mechanisms governing the nucleation of molecular clusters vary substantially in different regions of the atmosphere. Additionally, the growth of these clusters from ~2 to 20 nm sizes is often governed by the availability of extremely low volatility organic vapours (ELVOCs). While the pathways to ELVOC formation from the oxidation of biogenic monoterpenes with ozone is better understood, the chemical and mechanistic pathways for ELVOC formation from oxidation of anthropogenic organics are not well understood. We integrate measurements and three-dimensional regional model simulations with the Weather Research and Forecasting Model coupled to chemistry (WRF-Chem) to understand the processes governing new particle formation and growth and secondary organic aerosol (SOA) formation during the Holistic Interactions of Shallow Clouds, Aerosols and Land Ecosystems (HI-SCALE) field campaign at the Southern Great Plains (SGP) observatory in Oklahoma, and contrast it with a site within the Bankhead National Forest (BNF), Alabama in Southeast USA, where 5-year long measurements will begin in 2024. Simulations show that nucleation rates are at least an order of magnitude higher at SGP compared to BNF during the springtime days (April 28 and May 14, 2016), largely due to lower H2SO4 concentrations at BNF, which are needed for nucleation. In addition, the larger CS at BNF (compared to SGP) increase the loss of molecular clusters by coagulation to pre-existing particles. Among the 8 different nucleation mechanisms in WRF-Chem, we find that the amine+H2SO4 nucleation mechanism dominates at the SGP site, while the pure organic ion induced nucleation mechanism dominates over BNF. Through various WRF-Chem sensitivity simulations, we find that anthropogenic ELVOCs are critical for explaining the growth of newly formed particles and the resulting number size distribution observed near the surface at the SGP site during the daytime. In addition, we show that treating organic particles as semisolid, with strong diffusion-limited uptake of organic vapours, brings model predictions into closer agreement with the observed evolution of particle size distribution. Simulations also predict that anthropogenic SOA, formed by the oxidation of aromatic volatile organic compounds (VOCs), is the dominant organic aerosol component at SGP, while biogenic SOA dominates particle composition at the BNF site in Southeast USA on these days.
Shrivastava, ManishKumar B.↗
Compilation of Experimental Yield Data for Spontaneous Fission of 252 Cf
We present a comprehensive compilation and curation of experimental fission yield (FY) data for the spontaneous fission of 252 Cf, extracted from the EXFOR database. The compilation follows a structured methodology developed for prior compilations of neutron-induced fission yields, and incorporates both independent (IFY) and cumulative (CFY) yields. A total of 62 datasets were reviewed, with entries spanning from 1955 to 2021. A significant portion of the literature reports pre-neutron emission yields, which were excluded from the present compilation due to limitations in format compatibility. Each accepted dataset was processed into a standardized JSON format, including metadata, uncertainties, and bibliographic references. Where available, decay radiation information was used to update the FY data using the latest ENSDF evaluations; 237 data points were corrected accordingly. These corrections are fully traceable and preserve original values. The result is a curated dataset suitable for use in nuclear data evaluations. This work is part of an ongoing effort to modernize the handling of FY data and provide evaluators with high-quality, machine-readable experimental inputs
73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
Transient kinetic insights into selective propene oxidation over industrial bismuth molybdate catalysts
Selective oxidation of propene to acrolein over industrial multicomponent bismuth molybdate (BMO) catalysts significantly depends on reaction conditions that include operating parameters and catalyst state. Here, this work investigates selective propene oxidation in the intrinsic kinetic paradigm of Temporal Analysis of Products (TAP) reactor by systematically varying catalyst redox state, temperature, and oxygen-to-propene feed ratio. A 93 % propene conversion with an acrolein yield of 80 % is achieved at elevated temperatures (450 °C) on oxidized catalysts under oxygen-rich conditions (O 2 :C 3 H 6 = 10). However, these conditions diminish acrolein-to-CO 2 selectivity due to enhanced total oxidation to CO 2 . In contrast, a reduced catalyst state, moderate temperature (350 °C), and lower oxygen feed (O 2 :C 3 H 6 = 1) nearly doubles the acrolein to-CO 2 selectivity, albeit at a lower acrolein yield (33 %). Transient kinetic studies together with a kinetic model that simplify the major product formation pathways in lumped non-elementary forms reveal that the availability of surface oxygen species plays a pivotal role in governing reaction pathways. Additionally, density functional theory (DFT) calculations on pure BMO catalysts inform the role of surface redox states on propene and oxygen activation barriers. Lattice oxygen at acrolein-selective sites drives both acrolein and CO 2 formation, while adsorbed oxygen at activation sites favors unselective CO 2 generation. This work establishes a critical relationship between transient product selectivity and surface oxygen availability, which is strongly influenced by catalyst redox state, feed ratio, and reaction temperature. These insights underscore the importance of dynamic reactor operation strategies and offer a foundation for designing next-generation propene oxidation processes with tunable acrolein selectivity.
42 - ENGINEERING↗
FTTN: Feature-Targeted Testing for Numerical Properties of NVIDIA & AMD Matrix Accelerators
While NVIDIA has been the dominant provider of GPUs for HPC and ML, now AMD has several offerings of GPUs. This encourages programmers to try out AMD GPUs for new codes and also port existing codes over. Unfortunately, without understanding the floating-point differences between these GPU types, software development or porting can introduce bugs—and currently such an understanding is lacking. The magnitude of this open question becomes clear if one imagines the the number of floating-point precision choices (FP16, FP32, etc.), floating-point formats (standard floats, brain-float, etc.), and execution units available (elementary units, matrix/tensor cores, etc.) Questions such as rounding modes and subnormal support are also important. Most of these answers are unknown today or are hard to access. We provide the first testing-guided approach that answers a significant number of these questions. We also devise tests to reveal internal information (e.g., extra bits kept) to make sure that our findings are reliable. Many of our tests employ systematically generated random-programs, others apply fast-math flags and some involve fused multiplyadd. Especially for tensor/matrix cores, the tests have nontrivial logic that we present Our testing approach is reusable for the plethora of GPUs yet to be introduced. Our findings include up to 7 ulps of difference between NVIDIA and AMD for sin and cos at FP32 precision and 3 ulp at FP64. In our study of matrix cores (NVIDIA) and tensor cores (AMD), we have extensively characterized rounding modes (truncation versus round-to-nearest), the number of extra internal bits kept (whether 3 bits are kept or not), subnormal support for inputs and outputs across four different floating-point formats and across NVIDIA A100 and AMD MI250X GPUs. We believe that this wealth of data becoming available for the first time may help avoid significant porting bugs when migrating code across these platforms.
Li, Xinyi↗
Efficient data-driven regression for reduced-order modeling of spatial pattern formation
We present an efficient data-driven regression approach for constructing reduced-order models (ROMs) of reaction-diffusion systems exhibiting pattern formation. The ROMs are learned non-intrusively from available training data of physically accurate numerical simulations. The method can be applied to general nonlinear systems through the use of polynomial model form, while not requiring knowledge of the underlying physical model, governing equations, or numerical solvers. The process of learning ROMs is posed as a low-cost least-squares problem in a reduced-order subspace identified via Proper Orthogonal Decomposition (POD). Numerical experiments on classical pattern-forming systems–including the Schnakenberg and Mimura–Tsujikawa models–demonstrate that higher-order surrogate models significantly improve prediction accuracy while maintaining low computational cost. The proposed method provides a flexible, non-intrusive model reduction framework, well suited for the analysis of complex spatio-temporal pattern formation phenomena.
Data-driven modeling↗
Experimental and numerical study of soot formation in hydrocarbon sprays under high-pressure fuel pyrolysis conditions
Not Available
Sim, Hyung Sub (ORCID:000000024191041X)↗
Structure and Formation Mechanisms in Tantalum and Niobium Oxides in Superconducting Quantum Circuits
Not Available
37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
Epitaxial strain-tuned oxygen vacancy formation, reduction behavior, and electronic structure of perovskite SrIr O 3
Not Available
Sweers, Matthew E. (ORCID:0000000240406502)↗
GEESS as a Mechanism to Facilitate the Commercialization of Geologic Carbon Sequestration
This is a presentation featuring an overview of the Geoanalytical Economic Evaluation of Saline Storage (GEESS) project and latest results. The GEESS project has worked towards characterizing 57 geologic saline formations targeted for geologic carbon sequestration (GCS) using publicly available datasets. The GEESS system consists of high spatial resolution datasets (up to a 5 km grid spacing) that characterize critical geologic parameters such as depth, thickness, porosity, permeability, fracture pressure, and more. Further, GEESS geologic data were exercised using the FECM/NETL Saline Storage Cost Model (CO2_S_COM) to estimate CO2 plume sizes and the first-year break-even price of CO2 at the grid point level. GEESS is now available on NETL’s Energy Data Exchange (EDX).
Eppink, Jeffrey↗
BioC2G Tool v1
The BioC2G tool provides an interface for running technoeconomic analyses and life-cycle assessments of biofuel and bioproduct production pathways. Models for the pathways are currently built into the tool: limonene, limonane, bisabolene, bisabolane, ethanol, isoprenol, DMCO, and HEFA. Additionally, a "Custom" option is available for analyzing a bioproduction pathway not included among the built-in examples. Users must supply key product properties and process parameters. Three types of model runs are available in the tool: minimum selling price (MSP), water consumption, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Running the MSP model yields a breakdown of MSP by major process stage of production, along with a a table of estimated capital expenditures (CAPEX) and annual operating expenditures (OPEX). Running the water consumption and GHG models yields a breakdown of water consumed and carbon emissions respectively, per unit of end product. A breakdown of these metrics by major process stage is also provided. Model run results can be viewed in the web interface numerically and graphically, as well as downloaded in CSV format. Detailed documentation on model methodology and assumptions is also available for download.
Huntington, Tyler↗
Achieving high strength-ductility synergy via Guinier-Preston zone formation in a new Mg–Zn–Al–Ca–Mn–Ce sheet alloy
Not Available
Materials Science↗
Evolution and persistence of SiO emission in nanosecond laser ablation plumes
Analyzing laser-produced plasmas in a controlled oxygen-containing environment provides insight into the formation and evolution of molecular species through gas-phase oxidation. This study explores the role of ambient pressure and oxygen availability in forming SiO molecular species in laser ablation plumes. The self-emission emanating during the reactive ablation of Si targets was characterized by optical emission spectroscopy and optical time-of-flight techniques. Our results showed that the SiO species formation was greatly influenced by both the ambient pressure and oxygen availability. The intensity and the persistence of SiO emission bands are lower at higher oxygen concentrations, indicating they are depopulated by the formation of more complex silicon oxides. The oxygen partial pressure effects on plume chemistry showed that SiO formation is favored even with a minimal oxygen concentration in the environment.
37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
Underground Hydrogen Storage: Transforming Subsurface Science into Sustainable Energy Solutions
As the global economy moves toward net-zero carbon emissions, large-scale energy storage becomes essential to tackle the seasonal nature of renewable sources. Underground hydrogen storage (UHS) offers a feasible solution by allowing surplus renewable energy to be transformed into hydrogen and stored in deep geological formations such as aquifers, salt caverns, or depleted reservoirs, making it available for use on demand. This study thoroughly evaluates UHS concepts, procedures, and challenges. This paper analyzes the most recent breakthroughs in UHS technology and identifies special conditions needed for its successful application, including site selection guidelines, technical and geological factors, and the significance of storage characteristics. The integrity of wells and caprock, which is important for safe and efficient storage, can be affected by the operating dynamics of the hydrogen cycle, notably the fluctuations in pressure and stress within storage formations. To evaluate its potential for broader adoption, we also examined economic elements such as cost-effectiveness and the technical practicality of large-scale storage. We also reviewed current UHS efforts and identified key knowledge gaps, primarily in the areas of hydrogen–rock interactions, geochemistry, gas migration control, microbial activities, and geomechanical stability. Resolving these technological challenges, regulatory frameworks, and environmental sustainability are essential to UHS’s long-term and extensive integration into the energy industry. This article provides a roadmap for UHS research and development, emphasizing the need for further research to fully realize the technology’s promise as a pillar of the hydrogen economy.
25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
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↗
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↗
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↗