Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Open data”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 955 records · Page 53
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2012

Accuracy Assessment of Aqua-MODIS Aerosol Optical Depth Over Coastal Regions: Importance of Quality Flag and Sea Surface Wind Speed

Coastal regions around the globe are a major source for anthropogenic aerosols in the atmosphere, but the underlying surface characteristics are not favorable for the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) algorithms designed for retrieval of aerosols over dark land or open-ocean surfaces. Using data collected from 62 coastal stations worldwide from the Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) from approximately 2002-2010, accuracy assessments are made for coastal aerosol optical depth (AOD) retrieved from MODIS aboard Aqua satellite. It is found that coastal AODs (at 550 nm) characterized respectively by the MODIS Dark Land (hereafter Land) surface algorithm, the Open-Ocean (hereafter Ocean) algorithm, and AERONET all exhibit a log-normal distribution. After filtering by quality flags, the MODIS AODs respectively retrieved from the Land and Ocean algorithms are highly correlated with AERONET (with R(sup 2) is approximately equal to 0.8), but only the Land algorithm AODs fall within the expected error envelope greater than 66% of the time. Furthermore, the MODIS AODs from the Land algorithm, Ocean algorithm, and combined Land and Ocean product show statistically significant discrepancies from their respective counterparts from AERONET in terms of mean, probability density function, and cumulative density function, which suggest a need for future improvement in retrieval algorithms. Without filtering with quality flag, the MODIS Land and Ocean AOD dataset can be degraded by 30-50% in terms of mean bias. Overall, the MODIS Ocean algorithm overestimates the AERONET coastal AOD by 0.021 for AOD less than 0.25 and underestimates it by 0.029 for AOD greater than 0.25. This dichotomy is shown to be related to the ocean surface wind speed and cloud contamination effects on the satellite aerosol retrieval. The Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA) reveals that wind speeds over the global coastal region 25 (with a mean and median value of 2.94 meters per second and 2.66 meters per second, respectively) are often slower than 6 meters per second assumed in the MODIS Ocean algorithm. As a result of high correlation (R(sup 2) greater than 0.98) between the bias in binned MODIS AOD and the corresponding binned wind speed over the coastal sea surface, an empirical scheme for correcting the bias of AOD retrieved from the MODIS Ocean algorithm is formulated and is shown to be effective over the majority of the coastal AERONET stations, and hence can be used in future analysis of AOD trend and MODIS AOD data assimilation.

Anderson, J. C.↗
NASA NTRS1981

Wintertime microwave observations of the North Water polynya

Electronically Scanning Microwave Radiometer data from Nimbus 5 have been used to examine variations in the area of the North Water polynya, i.e., an area of reduced ice concentration in a region of predominantly ice-covered water, during the winter periods 1973-74, 1974-75, and 1975-76. It is found that the North Water polynya opens and closes repeatedly during the winter season, being open roughly 30% of the time between October and May. No strong correlations are found between this opening and limited atmospheric data available from three surrounding stations.

Crawford, J. P.↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Performance analysis of single-phase immersion cooling system of data center using FC-40 dielectric fluid

Immersion cooling technologies have become an emerging cooling method for data center cooling. The studies available in open literature dealt with immersion cooling performance of data servers using mineral oil, EC-100, and Opticool 872552, but the studies focusing on the performance of FC-40 dielectric fluid is not available. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a single-phase liquid immersion cooling system using FC-40 dielectric fluid for a 1U (44.45 mm height) data server. The present study experimentally investigated the influence of different design and operating parameters, including the inlet/outlet port configuration (T and Z configurations), the bypass effect, the flowrate (1–3 LPM), the heating load (200–600 W), the inlet fluid temperature (15–35 °C), the presence of suction fan with various arrangements, and different heat sink bases (solid base, vapor chamber and heat pipe base). The results showed that the T-configuration could provide a 12.6% and 0.5–2.8 °C reduction in thermal resistance and case temperature compared to the Z-configuration, respectively. Additionally, the heat sink with heat pipe and vapor chamber base offered a minimum case temperature of 56.7 °C and 55.2 °C against the 60 °C experienced in the heat sink with flat plate base, respectively.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

Scalable Data Center Capacity for DOE's AI Prototype: A Rapidly Available Gigawatt Data Center for DOE

The multilaboratory Gigawatt Data Center working group was commissioned to identify approaches to rapidly establish federal data centers with scalable capacities up to 1,000 MW. These state-of-the-art facilities will serve as hubs for interdisciplinary collaboration, industry partnerships, and transformative applications of artificial intelligence. The proposed strategic shift includes facilitating multilaboratory collaboration, prioritizing operational efficiency, expanding public–private partnerships, optimizing investments, ensuring long-term contractual flexibility, supporting open science and secure data enclaves, and exploiting high-speed national networks. Owing to their extensive experience and best practices, the US Department of Energy national laboratories are uniquely positioned to lead this initiative. We recommend conducting a feasibility analysis to rapidly identify the optimal sites for this initiative, and the effort will likely involve private industry for design, construction, financing, and operational integration. We also propose establishing multiple geographically diverse sites to ensure energy resilience, high operational reliability, and a diverse user base, thereby effectively addressing the nation’s critical needs.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
DOE OSTI2026

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations

IM3 Projected US Data Center Locations This dataset contains model projections of new data center facilities in the contiguous United States (CONUS) through 2035 using the CERF – Data Centers model. Data center locations are modeled across four data center electricity demand growth scenarios (low, moderate, high, higher) and five market gravity scenarios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Projected locations are intended to be regional representations of feasible siting locations in the future to assess potential grid and water stress impacts. The data center load growth scenarios correspond with the rates outlined in EPRI (2024) and include 3.71%, 5%, 10%, and 15% annual growth of electricity demand for data centers from 2023 values in 37 states across the CONUS. Market gravity scenarios correspond to the relative importance of proximity to data center markets or high population areas compared to locational cost in the siting algorithm. 0% market gravity means that siting decisions were entirely determined by the locational cost in each feasible location. 100% market gravity means that only market proximity was considered when siting. Other scenarios have weight placed on both components where total weight always equals 100%. Locational cost is dependent on facility cooling type and corresponding electricity cost, taxes, and other factors. Facility cooling type is spatially determined where high water stress and/or areas with high summer wet bulb temperatures are assumed to operate with mechanical cooling for a higher fraction of the year rather than evaporative cooling. Feasible data center siting areas are based on geospatial suitability raster data developed with open-source information. The following areas are excluded from siting: Areas within 300 m of a federal airport runway or within an airport area boundary Waterbodies Areas with slope >16% Areas susceptible to sinkholes High coastal or inland flood risk areas Local, state, and federal parks, leisure areas, and cemeteries Areas >2 km away from electric substations Areas >5 km away from a municipal water supplier service area Areas >2 km away from high-speed fiber provider service territory USGS Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) GAP status 1, 2, or 3 areas US National Parks Wetlands USFWS critical habitats BIA land areas Railroads, major roadways, and minor roadways Military areas and training grounds NLCD developed lands Areas >0.8 km (0.5 miles) from NLCD developed lands Because we use open-source information, proprietary information that can influence siting decisions such as individual tax agreements with cities, detailed fiber line connectivity, electric grid power capacity agreements, and others, are not currently accounted for in the modeling process. Using specific building locations and footprints in the dataset for local planning purposes is not advised. Technical Information Geospatial data is provided in geojson format using the Albers Equal Area Conic (ESRI:102003) coordinate reference system. The datasets contain the following parameters: id - unique identification number within given scenario file growth_scenario – data center demand growth scenario market_gravity_weight – market gravity weight scenario (%) region – name of region (i.e., US State) total_cost_million_usd – locational siting cost ($million) campus_size_square_ft – total land acquired for data center facility (square ft) data_center_it_power_mw – IT power of data center facility (MW) mechanical_cooling_frac – fraction of year when data center uses mechanical cooling system water_cooling_frac– fraction of year when data center uses evaporative cooling system cooling_energy_demand_mwh – total annual facility energy demand for cooling (MWh) cooling_water_demand_mgy – total annual facility water demand for cooling (MG) cooling_water_consumption_mgy – total annual facility water consumed (MG) normalized_locational_cost – normalized total locational cost score for location normalized_gravity_score – normalized market gravity score for location weighted_siting_score – total weighted siting score of locational cost and gravity score geometry – polygon geometry of facility Acknowledgment IM3 is a multi-institutional effort led by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and supported by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science as part of research in MultiSector Dynamics, Earth and Environmental Systems Modeling Program. License This data is made available under a CCBY4.0 License Disclaimer This material was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor the United States Department of Energy, nor the Contractor, nor any or their employees, nor any jurisdiction or organization that has cooperated in the development of these materials, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness or any information, apparatus, product, software, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof, or Battelle Memorial Institute. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORYoperated byBATTELLEfor theUNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGYunder Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830

Mongird, Kendall (ORCID:0000000328077088)↗
NASA NTRS2011

RAPID and DDS

This talk gives an overview of the the Robot Applications Programmers Interface Delegate (RAPID) as well as the distributed systems middleware Data Distribution Service (DDS). DDS is an open software standard, RAPID is cleared for open-source release under NOSA. RAPID specifies data-structures and semantics for high-level telemetry published by NASA robotic software. These data-structures are supported by multiple robotic platforms at Johnson Space Center (JSC), Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and Ames Research Center (ARC), providing high-level interoperability between those platforms. DDS is used as the middleware for data transfer. The feature set of the middleware heavily influences the design decision made in the RAPID specification. So it is appropriate to discuss both in this introductory talk.

Utz, Hans Heinrich↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Earth System Digital Twins (ESDT) Technology for NASA Earth Science

For NASA's Advanced Information Systems Technology (AIST) Program, an Earth System Digital Twin (ESDT) is defined as an interactive and integrated multidomain, multiscale, digital replica of the state and temporal evolution of Earth systems. It dynamically integrates: relevant Earth system models and simulations; other relevant models (e.g., related to the world's infrastructure); continuous and timely (including near real time and direct readout) observations (e.g., space, air, ground, over/underwater, Internet of Things (IoT), socioeconomic); long-time records; as well as analytics and artificial intelligence tools. Effective ESDTs enable users to run hypothetical scenarios to improve the understanding, prediction of and mitigation/response to Earth system processes, natural phenomena and human activities as well as their many interactions. An ESDT is a type of integrated information system that, for example, enables continuous assessment of impact from naturally occurring and/or human activities on physical and natural environments. AIST ESDT strategic goals are to: 1. Develop information system frameworks to provide continuous and accurate representations of systems as they change over time; 2. Mirror various Earth Science systems and utilize the combination of Data Analytics, Artificial Intelligence, Digital Thread, and state-of-the-art models to help predict the Earth’s response to various phenomena; 3. Provide the tools to conduct "what if" investigations that can result in actionable predictions. The AIST ESDT thrust is developing capabilities toward the development of future digital twins of the Earth or of subcomponents of the Earth. This will enable the development of an overarching framework that will integrate New Observing Strategies (NOS) to enable new observation measurements, i.e., multi-source, coordinated, dynamic and responsive to needs and requests defined by Analytic Collaborative Frameworks (ACF) that enable agile science investigations fusing and analyzing very large amounts of diverse data. NOS and ACF capabilities along with open access to various science, infrastructure and human data, interconnected modeling, data assimilation, simulations, surrogate modeling, high-performance computing and advanced visualization, will define a powerful framework that could be utilized for local, regional or global and/or thematic digital twins. This presentation will describe a general overview of the AIST ESDT vision including prior work done in the areas of NOS and ACF as well as current and upcoming ESDT projects.

Jacqueline Le Moigne↗
DOE OSTI2023

Open quantum system violates generalized Pauli constraints on quantum device

Abstract The Pauli exclusion principle governs the fundamental structure and function of fermionic systems from molecules to materials. Nonetheless, when such a fermionic system is in a pure state, it is subject to additional restrictions known as the generalized Pauli constraints (GPCs). Here we verify experimentally the violation of the GPCs for an open quantum system using data from a superconducting-qubit quantum computer. We prepare states of systems with three-to-seven qubits directly on the quantum device and measure the one-fermion reduced density matrix (1-RDM) from which we can test the GPCs. We find that the GPCs of the 1-RDM are sufficiently sensitive to detect the openness of the 3-to-7 qubit systems in the presence of a single-qubit environment. Results confirm experimentally that the openness of a many-fermion quantum system can be decoded from only a knowledge of the 1-RDM with potential applications from quantum computing and sensing to noise-assisted energy transfer.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Optimizing a Small RNAseq Analysis Pipeline for NASA GeneLab Using Open-Source Tools and Libraries

Small RNA sequencing (small RNAseq) is a powerful tool for studying the regulation of gene expression in various organisms. Small RNAseq has been leveraged in space biology research to study how expression of small RNAs, e.g. micro RNAs (miRNAs), small interfering RNAs (siRNAs), and piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs), change upon exposure to the space environment. NASA GeneLab currently hosts small RNAseq raw data derived from space-relevant experiments on the Open Science Data Repository (OSDR). To maximize the accessibility of these data to the scientific community, in addition to hosting raw data, which is only interpretable by bioinformaticians, GeneLab plans to process all small RNAseq datasets and make those processed data available to the scientific community via the OSDR. In this study, we present the development of the GeneLab standardized pipeline for processing small RNAseq datasets. Using human, plant, and synthetic small RNAseq datasets, we interrogate various open-source software and publicly available databases to evaluate their accuracy and reproducibility in each step of the pipeline. For quality control and adapter detection and trimming, we evaluated TrimGalore!, FASTX, SeqKit, and DNApi methods to optimize alignment to reference genomes. We compared BWA, Bowtie, and Bowtie2 to determine the optimal alignment tool. For each alignment tool we also assessed various reference databases, including Ensembl reference genomes and different types of small RNA reference databases, including genome, hairpin, and miRNA references from the miRbase and MirGeneDB databases. To quantify the aligned data, we compared SAMtools, HTSeq, and RSEM for counting alignment events from each alignment tool used. Finally, we evaluated various tools, including DESeq2 and EdgeR, for data normalization and subsequent differential expression analysis. We will present the results from our comparative analyses for each pipeline step and propose a consensus pipeline for processing small RNAseq data derived from various organisms exposed to the space environment.

SmallRNAseq, NASA GeneLab, quality control, adapte↗
DOE OSTI2023

KG-Hub—building and exchanging biological knowledge graphs

Knowledge graphs (KGs) are a powerful approach for integrating heterogeneous data and making inferences in biology and many other domains, but a coherent solution for constructing, exchanging, and facilitating the downstream use of KGs is lacking. Here we present KG-Hub, a platform that enables standardized construction, exchange, and reuse of KGs. Features include a simple, modular extract–transform–load pattern for producing graphs compliant with Biolink Model (a high-level data model for standardizing biological data), easy integration of any OBO (Open Biological and Biomedical Ontologies) ontology, cached downloads of upstream data sources, versioned and automatically updated builds with stable URLs, web-browsable storage of KG artifacts on cloud infrastructure, and easy reuse of transformed subgraphs across projects. Current KG-Hub projects span use cases including COVID-19 research, drug repurposing, microbial–environmental interactions, and rare disease research. KG-Hub is equipped with tooling to easily analyze and manipulate KGs. KG-Hub is also tightly integrated with graph machine learning (ML) tools which allow automated graph ML, including node embeddings and training of models for link prediction and node classification.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1992

Computational simulation of coupled material degradation processes for probabilistic lifetime strength of aerospace materials

The research included ongoing development of methodology that provides probabilistic lifetime strength of aerospace materials via computational simulation. A probabilistic material strength degradation model, in the form of a randomized multifactor interaction equation, is postulated for strength degradation of structural components of aerospace propulsion systems subjected to a number of effects or primative variables. These primative variable may include high temperature, fatigue or creep. In most cases, strength is reduced as a result of the action of a variable. This multifactor interaction strength degradation equation has been randomized and is included in the computer program, PROMISS. Also included in the research is the development of methodology to calibrate the above described constitutive equation using actual experimental materials data together with linear regression of that data, thereby predicting values for the empirical material constraints for each effect or primative variable. This regression methodology is included in the computer program, PROMISC. Actual experimental materials data were obtained from the open literature for materials typically of interest to those studying aerospace propulsion system components. Material data for Inconel 718 was analyzed using the developed methodology.

Boyce, Lola↗
NASA NTRS2000

BOREAS TGB-5 Dissolved Organic Carbon Data from NSA Beaver Ponds

The BOReal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study Trace Gas Biogeochemistry (BOREAS TGB-5) team collected several data sets related to carbon and trace gas fluxes and concentrations in the Northern Study Area (NSA). This data set contains concentrations of dissolved organic and inorganic carbon species from water samples collected at various NSA sites. In particular, this set covers the NSA Tower Beaver Pond Site and the NSA Gillam Road Beaver Pond Site, including data from all visits to open water sampling locations during the BOREAS field campaigns from April to September 1994. The data are provided in tabular ASCII files.

Bourbonniere, Rick↗
NASA NTRS2008

Review of End-of-Life Thermal Control Coating Performance

White thermal control coatings capable of long term performance are needed for Fission Surface Power (FSP) where heat from a nuclear reactor placed on the surface of the Moon must be rejected to the environment. The threats to thermal control coating durability on the lunar surface are electrons, protons, and ultraviolet radiation. The anticipated damage to the coating is a gradual darkening over time. The increase in solar absorptance would, in essence, add a cyclic heat load to the radiator. The greater the darkening, the greater the added heat load. The cyclic heat load could ultimately impart a cyclic influence on FSP system performance. No significant change in emittance is anticipated. Optical properties degradation data were found in the open literature for the Z-93 series of thermal control paints. Additional optical properties degradation data were found from the Lunar Orbiter V mission, the Optical Properties Monitor, and the Materials International Space Station Experiment. Anticipated end-of-life thermal control coating performance for a FSP installation is postulated. With the FSP installation located away from landing and launching areas, and out of line-of-sight, lunar dust from human activity may not be a threat. The benefits of investing in next generation thermal control paint chemistry are explored.

Jaworske, Donald A.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Reliability of Ceramic Column Grid Array Interconnect Packages Under Extreme Temperatures

A paper describes advanced ceramic column grid array (CCGA) packaging interconnects technology test objects that were subjected to extreme temperature thermal cycles. CCGA interconnect electronic package printed wiring boards (PWBs) of polyimide were assembled, inspected nondestructively, and, subsequently, subjected to ex - treme-temperature thermal cycling to assess reliability for future deep-space, short- and long-term, extreme-temperature missions. The test hardware consisted of two CCGA717 packages with each package divided into four daisy-chained sections, for a total of eight daisy chains to be monitored. The package is 33 33 mm with a 27 27 array of 80%/20% Pb/Sn columns on a 1.27-mm pitch. The change in resistance of the daisy-chained CCGA interconnects was measured as a function of the increasing number of thermal cycles. Several catastrophic failures were observed after 137 extreme-temperature thermal cycles, as per electrical resistance measurements, and then the tests were continued through 1,058 thermal cycles to corroborate and understand the test results. X-ray and optical inspection have been made after thermal cycling. Optical inspections were also conducted on the CCGA vs. thermal cycles. The optical inspections were conclusive; the x-ray images were not. Process qualification and assembly is required to optimize the CCGA assembly, which is very clear from the x-rays. Six daisy chains were open out of seven daisy chains, as per experimental test data reported. The daisy chains are open during the cold cycle, and then recover during the hot cycle, though some of them also opened during the hot thermal cycle..

Ramesham, Rajeshuni↗