Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Value Model”

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 109 records · Page 6
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

REV-INR: Regularized Evidential Implicit Neural Representation for Uncertainty-Aware Volume Visualization

Applications of Implicit Neural Representations (INRs) have emerged as a promising deep learning approach for compactly representing large volumetric datasets. These models can act as surrogates for volume data, enabling efficient storage and on-demand reconstruction via model predictions. However, conventional deterministic INRs only provide value predictions without insights into the model’s prediction uncertainty or the impact of inherent noisiness in the data. This limitation can lead to unreliable data interpretation and visualization due to prediction inaccuracies in the reconstructed volume. Identifying erroneous results extracted from model-predicted data may be infeasible, as raw data may be unavailable due to its large size. To address this challenge, we introduce REV-INR, Regularized Evidential Implicit Neural Representation, which learns to predict data values accurately along with the associated coordinate-level data uncertainty and model uncertainty using only a single forward pass of the trained REV-INR during inference. By comprehensively comparing and contrasting REV-INR with existing well-established deep uncertainty estimation methods, we show that REV-INR achieves the best volume reconstruction quality with robust data (aleatoric) and model (epistemic) uncertainty estimates using the fastest inference time. Consequently, we demonstrate that REV-INR facilitates assessment of the reliability and trustworthiness of the extracted isosurfaces and volume visualization results, enabling analyses to be solely driven by model-predicted data.

Saklani, Shanu [Indian Institute of Technology, Ka↗
DOE OSTI2026

Cathodic Protection Modeling for Hanford Underground Double-Shell Tank Farms

Hanford stores millions of gallons of radioactive and chemically hazardous waste from the production of weapon materials in tank farms consisting of underground carbon-steel storage tanks surrounded by reinforced concrete. Six of these Hanford tank farms use double-shell storage tanks (DSTs). The DST farms were constructed from 1968 to 1986 with a planned 40–50 year design life, so some are already operating beyond their initial life expectancy. Ultrasonic testing (UT) has indicated significant thinning on the bottom of the secondary (outer) liner of these tanks, believed to arise from groundwater intrusion driving concrete side corrosion. There is no direct access to the steel/concrete interface between the tank and the concrete pad, making it difficult to apply a chemical-based mitigation strategy or to conduct repairs, but cathodic protection (CP) is a possible method to inhibit further concrete-side corrosion. Hanford already uses CP to protect below grade steel piping within the tank farms and connected to the tanks, but this system was not designed to protect the tank bottoms. CP design must account for the structures surrounding the DSTs, including the steel reinforcing bars (rebar) within the concrete pad and vault, various process lines, and the existing CP system. In this study, finite element analysis (FEA) modeling was carried out to simulate CP protection of 1) a single tank and CP anode to develop options for modeling the rebar and to compare to a simpler circuit model and 2) the entire Hanford AN tank farm as a representative example consisting of seven tanks, associated piping, and both existing and new CP anodes. Both circuit and FEA models predict that significant protective current could be delivered to the bottoms of the tanks with the addition of tank-protection anodes below the depth of the tanks. Simulations with only the existing pipe-protection anodes active confirmed that only a very small current to the tank bottoms is predicted under present conditions. Multiple simplified representations of the dome and wall rebar were tested to reduce the computational complexity of the tank-farm simulations, resulting in modeling the rebar as edge elements with a prescribed effective circumference that matches the real rebar surface area. The geometry of the rebar is also simplified into horizontal hoops around the tank walls and radial rebar over the dome with increased effective circumference to retain the target surface area. This simplification was found to greatly reduce the complexity and solution time of the models without large changes in current distributions, especially to the tank bottom. A range of values were tested for model parameters such as soil and concrete resistivities and polarization resistance to investigate their impact on the current and electric potential distributions. Depending on the parameters used, FEA simulations predict some risk of overprotection, particularly on the piping system; since overprotection can also lead to surface damage associated with hydrogen gas generation at the interface (e.g. hydrogen embrittlement or damage to coatings), this needs to be considered when refining the design of the new CP system. Comparison between the FEA models and the circuit model representation demonstrated that the circuit model could not match the predicted FEA current distribution, even when using the exact same surface areas. This discrepancy appeared to be at least partly attributable to the impact of the relative positions of the tank components and anodes to each other and to the ground surface. The FEA model accounts for the relative positions since it solves the governing equations in three dimensions, but the circuit model cannot account for the positioning. In particular, the circuit model underpredicts the current to the tank bottom and overpredicts the current to the dome compared to FEA for the baseline geometry. The FEA models omitted the electrically isolated rebar in the bottom concrete slab. However, a circuit based stray current model estimated that only 2.1% of the total current through the slab would stray into the rebar, corresponding to ~0.21 A for a target current density of 2 mA/ft2 to the tank bottom. The estimated corrosion driven by this amount of stray current is predicted to yield a lifetime of >400 years for the minimum rebar diameter, assuming an acceptable cross-section area loss of 10%.

d'Entremont, Anna [Savannah River National Laborat↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soil biogeochemical properties and metrics of tree-mycorrhizal dominance for a 25-Ha forest in South Central Indiana, USA.

This data package contains a dataset used in the papers “Seeing the forest for all the trees: Mycorrhizal-associated nutrient economies are modulated by stem density and the synchrony between overstory and understory communities” and “Mycorrhizal associations of tree species influence soil nitrogen dynamics via effects on soil acid–base chemistry”. Four csv files are included along with a dataset. The dataset features chemical soil properties for a single sampling campaign within the 25 Ha Lilly-Dickey Woods Smithsonian Forest Global Earth Observatory (ForestGEO) plot in South Central Indiana, USA (ldw_dat_raw.csv). Also included are separate files focused on pH (pH_data.csv), carbon and nitrogen (CN_data.csv), and nitrification rates (Nitrification_data.csv). These variables are commonly associated with the tree-mycorrhizal dominance of forest stands. In these data subsets, each soil variable was matched to a 10 meter radius neighborhood wherein metrics of tree-mycorrhizal dominance (basal area, stem count, importance value, etc.) were calculated. Models between these soil variables and dominance metrics were used to investigate how different assessments of mycorrhizal associated nutrient economies (MANE) capture these relationships. This research was performed as a part of the Smithsonian ForestGEO project. This data package can be used to explore spatial variability in soil chemistry within a mature hardwood forest, or it can be combined with the included tree data, other fine-scale spatial information, or other tree inventory data for the site to evaluate how soil chemistry varies with tree community composition or edaphic or topographic properties.

Craig, Matthew [ORNL] (ORCID:0000000288907920)↗
DOE OSTI2025

Machine learning of 27Al NMR electric field gradient tensors for crystalline structures from DFT

NMR crystallography has emerged as a promising technique for the determination and refinement of atomic coordinates in crystal structures. The crystal structure of compounds containing quadrupolar nuclei, such as 27Al, can be improved by directly comparing solid-state NMR measurements to DFT computations of the electric field gradient (EFG) tensor. The non-negligible computational cost of these first-principles calculations limits the applicability of this method to all but the most well-defined structures. We developed a fast, low-cost machine learning model to predict EFG parameters based on local structural motifs and elemental parameters. We computed 8081 EFG tensors from 1681 27Al crystalline solids using DFT and benchmarked them against 105 experimentally measured 27Al sites. Surprisingly, simple local geometric features dominate the predictive performance of the resulting random-forest model, yielding an R2 value of 0.98 and an RMSE of 0.61 MHz for CQ, the quadrupolar coupling constant. This model accuracy should enable pre-refining future structural assignments before finally validating with first-principles calculations. Such a catalogue of 27Al NMR tensors can serve as a tool for researchers assigning complex NMR spectra influenced by the nuclear electric quadrupole interaction.

Sun, He↗
DOE OSTI2026

Sparse non-Markovian Noise Modeling of Transmon-Based Multi-Qubit Operations

The influence of noise on quantum dynamics is one of the main factors preventing current quantum processors from performing accurate quantum computations. Sufficient noise characterization and modeling can provide key insights into the effect of noise on quantum algorithms and inform the design of targeted error protection protocols. However, constructing effective noise models that are sparse in model parameters, yet predictive can be challenging. In this work, we present an approach for effective noise modeling of multi-qubit operations on transmon-based devices. Through a comprehensive characterization of seven devices offered by the IBM Quantum Platform, we show that the model can capture and predict a wide range of single- and two-qubit behaviors, including non-Markovian effects resulting from spatiotemporally correlated noise sources. The model’s predictive power is further highlighted through multi-qubit dynamical decoupling demonstrations and an implementation of the variational quantum eigensolver. As a training proxy for the hardware, we show that the model can predict expectation values within a relative error of 0.5%; this is a sevenfold improvement over default hardware noise models. Through these demonstrations, we highlight key error sources in superconducting qubits and illustrate the utility of reduced noise models for predicting hardware dynamics.

open quantum systems & decoherence↗
DOE OSTI2024

Power System Frequency Dynamics Modeling, State Estimation, and Control using Neural Ordinary Differential Equations (NODEs) and Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) Machine Learning Approaches

With the global energy transition of the electric power system, grid control, supervision, and protection is becoming more challenging. With the increasing integration of renewable energy sources (RES), the system dynamics are changing, causing traditional power system dynamic modeling with swing equation-based modeling approaches to fail. Additionally, the converter-dominated power grid is decreasing the system inertia, making the power system more fragile to the frequency swings. This paper first investigates and compares the application of a model-based Kalman filter state estimation approach with (i) a model-free machine learning approach --- neural ordinary differential equations (NODEs) --- and (ii) a data-driven system identification (SysId) approach to model and infer critical state values of the power system frequency dynamics. Then a model predictive control (MPC) framework is compared to a model-free Soft Actor-Critic (SAC) reinforcement learning (RL) control algorithm in providing efficient fast frequency response (FFR) to the power system frequency dynamics. The approaches are compared in terms of their performance goals as well as their per-timestep computational efficiency. Furthermore, the comparative study for state estimation shows that for the model-free requirement, both NODEs and SysId can provide accurate state estimates; however, with increasing model complexity, NODEs can be a better choice for model identification. Similarly, the results from the FFR comparative study show that the SAC RL-based FFR, once trained, outperforms MPC with better control signals and faster computation time, making the SAC RL-based FFR better option for providing FFR to the power system.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

DECOVALEX-2023: Task C Final Report

The Full-scale Emplacement (FE) heater experiment at the Mont Terri Underground Rock Laboratory (URL) was designed and conducted by Nagra to replicate an emplacement tunnel of Nagra’s reference repository design at 1:1 scale. Alongside testing the technical feasibility of constructing disposal tunnels, emplacing waste containers in the tunnels and then backfilling them, the main goals of the FE experiment are (1) to obtain a better understanding of the coupled effects of induced thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) processes that may occur and (2) to validate existing coupled THM models (Müller et al., 2017). A key aspect of ensuring safety for repositories located in low-permeability rock involves minimizing any damage to the rock itself, thereby preserving its integrity and promoting a stable environment Amongst a number of processes that could damage the rock is the increase in pore pressure due to thermal loading caused by heat emitted from the waste. To reduce the potential damage of the rock, it is important to analyse the evolution of heat over time due to the heat load of the containers and assess possible consequences by coupled THM models. The aim of Task C of DECOVALEX-2023 was to build 3D numerical models of the FE experiment, focussing in particular on the heating induced pore pressure change in the Opalinus Clay. Data from a large number of sensors were available from the FE experiment for model comparison. These sensors measured temperature and relative humidity in the bentonite around the heaters, and temperature, pressure and displacement/strain in the surrounding Opalinus clay. Data were available from the start of excavation (April 2012) up to August 2020 for most sensors (more than 5 years from the start of heating in December 2014). To fulfil the overall aim of the task, the work was broken down into a number of steps, starting with simpler models to build confidence in each team’s approach and then moving to more complex models that better represent the FE experiment. Step 0 consisted of 2D benchmark models, gradually increasing the number of processes that are represented from thermal (T) only models in Step 0a, to coupled thermal hydraulic (TH) models in Step 0b with a representation of changing porosity, to coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical (THM) models in Step 0c, where porosity changes are calculated by the mechanical model. A detailed specification of processes, parameters, initial and boundary conditions was provided for this step, with the ambition that all teams would work towards close agreement in their model results, thus building confidence in the model implementations. vi It was not straightforward to achieve agreement between the teams, so additional steps (Step 0b2, 0b3, 0c2, 0c3) were added along with derivation of some analytical solutions against which the models could be compared. The reasons for the differences between teams were investigated and found to be caused primarily by different conceptual model assumptions (including temperature dependence of the thermal expansion of water), different model formulations (including porosity evolution) and differences in modelled domain sizes, boundary conditions and grid discretisation. This demonstrates that comparisons between multiple modelling teams and/or comparison with analytical results and experimental data are highly beneficial in providing an indication of uncertainty in model predictions. At the conclusion of Step 0, almost all teams had achieved a close agreement in model results and those that had not achieved an agreement knew the reason for this. Step 1 moved from 2D models to 3D models of the FE experiment without adding technical features like shotcrete or EDZ, and only considering the heating phase. Initially the 3D model was tightly specified to continue to build confidence in the model implementations (Step 1a). The results of Step 1a were compared to the data from the FE-experiment without the teams seeing the data. The teams were then provided with a sub-set of the data from the FE-experiment and invited to consider how best to use the large dataset for model comparison (Step 1b). Teams were then asked to use the data provided to calibrate their models, only changing material property values rather than adding features or processes to their models (Step 1c). In Step 1, teams were asked to only model the heating phase of the experiment, so pressure in the Opalinus Clay was reported as change in pressure since the initial conditions were specified rather than modelled. The change from 2D to 3D models was accompanied by an increase in the dispersion of results between the teams. Some of this was resolved during the task, but some remained and is potentially due to model discretisation. Calibration of parameters was useful in improving the fit of the models to the data but the remaining differences indicated that the models were missing features or processes. In Step 2, the teams were asked to update their models with additional features and processes as well as calibrating parameters to try and improve the fit of the models to the data. Teams were encouraged to represent ventilation of the open FE tunnel prior to backfilling with heaters and bentonite and in Step 2, the absolute pressure in the Opalinus Clay was compared between the teams. Teams took different approaches, but there was consideration of adding shotcrete and an EDZ into the model, representing stress change during excavation and different approaches to modelling ventilation of the FE tunnel. Overall, the documented results showed a very good agreement for temperature. The results for porewater pressure evolution showed a significant improvement for most teams compared to Step 1c with a good agreement to the measurements for several teams whereas some teams overpredicted the pressure increase and others overpredicted the drainage effect especially for the sensors close to the heater. Step 3 was an opportunity for teams to use the models developed in Step 1 and Step 2 to make predictions about the temperature and pressure changes that will be expected at the FE experiment over the next few years in light of the planned changes in thermal output of the heaters.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Artificial intelligence-based predictive modeling for imaging neutral particle analyzers on the DIII-D tokamak

The Imaging Neutral Particle Analyzer (INPA) at DIII-D is a diagnostic system used to accurately resolve the energy and spatial distributions of fast ions in fusion plasmas. A novel artificial intelligence (AI) technique named INPA-net is based on Reservoir Computing Networks and developed here to predict active and passive signals produced by charge-exchange reactions from injected and edge-cold neutrals, respectively, in magnetically confined fusion plasmas. This model is trained using a set of 21 time domain signals between 0 s to 3.35 s that includes injected beam and thermal plasma information, and 6444 real 2D experimental images of the INPA in 12 plasma discharges at DIII-D. The trained neural network is able to forecast experimental images in real-time. The model achieves an R-squared value of 0.91, which is higher than the 0.83 value achieved by a simple linear regression model. This improvement highlights the model's enhanced predictive accuracy for measured images from the validation set. This AI approach is valuable due to its rapid response times and potential for integration into real-time plasma control systems. A version of this model capable of generating syntehic images would be useful for the real-time monitoring of fast-ion transport. A comprehensive sensitivity study reveals that INPA-net maintains high performance even with variations in the input parameters, indicating the model's robustness and reliability. While developed for the INPA, the underlying architecture is adaptable and may be applied to various 2D imaging diagnostics in fusion research.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Fission Product Quantification and Burnup Analysis via Gamma Spectrometry of the AGR-5/6/7 TRISO Fuel Experiment

Five capsules containing varying configurations of TRISO fuel compacts were irradiated in the most recent Advanced Gas Reactor (AGR) TRISO test campaign, AGR-5/6/7. As part of the post-irradiation examination (PIE) of this work all the fuel compacts and capsule graphite holders were measured with the Precision Gamma Scanner (PGS) to determine isotopic activities and locations using gamma spectrometry. Measuring the compacts allowed for the comparison of physics model depletion calculations with the measured compact activity to validate models. These measurements also are used to find compacts of interest with low fission product retention that may be tested in subsequent PIE. Measurements of the holders can confirm fission product distribution and migration. Of the isotopes measured, Cs-137 and Cs-134 were used to estimate location of failed particles as well as determine a measured burnup estimation. Results from Capsule 1 compacts and the holder indicate many fuel particle failures occurred. There are high amounts of cesium in the holder near Stack 9 of Capsule 1 that corresponds to low fractions?measured-to-calculated (M/C) ratio?of cesium remaining in those compacts. All other capsules had cesium retention ratios near 1. The isotope 110mAg had less consistent results. Capsule 2 compacts exhibited a M/C of 0.20, much lower than anticipated for the temperatures these compacts underwent. Capsule 3 experienced much higher temperatures, >1300C and had an average M/C of 0.75. These are the opposite results than what was predicted by past AGR experiments for the relationship between temperature and isotope retention. Capsule 4 and 5 showed good fission product retention and agreement with the physics model predictions. The burnup results from the PGS measurements showed strong agreement between the physics models and the measured values. Using a ratio of Cs-134/Cs-137 to calculate the burnup match closely with the physics models. Additionally, the Cs-137 burnup results were less accurate but extremely close to the model results.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Improved pressure-gradient sensor for the prediction of separation onset in RANS models

Here, we improve upon two key aspects of the Menter shear stress transport (SST) turbulence model: (1) We propose a more robust adverse pressure gradient sensor based on the strength of the pressure gradient in the direction of the local mean flow; (2) We propose two alternative eddy viscosity models to be used in the adverse pressure gradient regions identified by our sensor. Direct numerical simulations of the Boeing Gaussian bump are used to identify the terms in the baseline SST model that need correction, and a posteriori Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes calculations are used to calibrate coefficient values, leading to a model that is both physics driven and data informed. The two sensor-equipped models are applied to two thick airfoils representative of modern wind turbine applications, the FFA-W3-301 and the DU00-W-212. The proposed models improve the prediction of stall (onset of separation) with respect to the prediction of the baseline SST model.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data from: 'Abiotic influences on continuous conifer forest structure across a subalpine watershed'

This package archives the core data used for analysis and inference in 'Abiotic influences on continuous conifer forest structure across a subalpine watershed' (Worsham et al., 2025). All data were collected in the East River, Washington Gulch, Slate River, and Coal Creek watersheds of Colorado. In the paper, we quantified the relative influence of climate, topographic, edaphic, and geologic factors on conifer stand structure and composition, and their functional relationships, at the watershed scale. We used waveform LiDAR data to derive spatially continuous stand structure metrics. We fused these with a species-level classification map to estimate tree species abundance. We applied generalized additive and generalized boosted models to evaluate the covariability of structural and compositional metrics with abiotic variables. The package contains the essential products required for reproducing our analysis and the tables and figures reported in the publication. The products comprise four classes: (1) geospatial data, (2) tabular data used for inferential analysis, (3) tabular data describing analytical results and performance statistics, and (4) a data user guide. (1) includes discretized waveform LiDAR data, locations and attributes of individual tree crowns, sampling locations and domain boundaries, a canopy height model, and raster files of estimated forest structural and compositional metrics at 100 m grid scale. (2) includes all response and explanatory variable values applied in inferential models. Response variables include conifer forest stand density, basal area, 95th percentile height, quadratic mean diameter, and others. Explanatory variables include climatic water deficit, actual evapotranspiration, elevation, heat load, soil available water content, and others. (3) includes results of training and testing several individual tree detection (ITD) algorithms, as well as inferential modeling results. (4) is a PDF user guide for this data package, including detailed descriptions and data dictionaries for all files. The data package root contains 17 assets: 8 compressed tape archive (.tar.gz) files, 5 comma-separated values (.csv) files, 3 Geographic Tagged Image File Format (GeoTIFF) (.tif) files, and 1 Portable Document Format (.pdf) file. The compressed .tar.gz archives contain ESRI shapefiles (.shp) .tif, compressed LASer (.laz), and .csv files. The archives must first be decompressed using the widely distributed command-line software utility TAR. All other files, including constituent files within the .tar.gz archives, can be opened in the open-source R statistical computing environment. Alternatively, .csv files may also be read in any simple text editor software or Microsoft Excel. Geospatial files including .shp and .tif files can also be opened in GIS software, such as QGIS (open-source) or ESRI ArcGIS (proprietary). The .pdf Data User Guide can be read with Adobe Acrobat Reader or other compatible readers.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
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 Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Computational alchemy clarifies origins of alloy strengthening

Solid solution strengthening (SSS) is widely used to enhance mechanical properties of metals. Originally developed for dilute alloys, classical SSS theories are presently challenged by the rise of complex concentrated alloys (CCA) with nearly equiatomic compositions. Here, we propose and develop a method of “computational alchemy” in which interatomic interactions are modified to systematically vary two key physical parameters defining SSS - atomic size misfit and elastic stiffness misfit - over a maximally wide range of two misfits. The resulting alchemical alloys are subjected to massive (~10 8 atoms) molecular dynamics (MD) simulations reproducing full complexity of plastic strength response. At variance with prevailing views, stiffness misfit is observed to contribute to SSS on par if not more than size misfit. Furthermore, depending on exactly how two misfits are combined, they result in synergistic (amplification) or antagonistic (compensation) effect on alloy strengthening. Unlike real CCAs in which each component element comes with its own specific size and stiffness, our alchemical model alloys span the space of two misfits continuously revealing trends in alloy strengthening unrecognized so far. Our study demonstrates unique value of intentionally unrealistic models for gaining deep physical insights into material behaviors that are difficult to reveal otherwise.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Aerosol hygroscopicity over the southeast Atlantic Ocean during the biomass burning season – Part 1: From the perspective of scattering enhancement​​​​​​​

Aerosol hygroscopicity plays a vital role in aerosol radiative forcing. One key parameter describing hygroscopicity is the scattering enhancement factor, f(RH), defined as the ratio of the scattering coefficient at humidified relative humidity (RH) to its dry value. Here, we utilize the f(80 %) from ORACLES (ObseRvations of Aerosols above CLouds and their intEractionS) 2016 and 2018 airborne measurements to investigate the hygroscopicity of aerosols, its vertical distribution, its relationship with chemical composition, and its sensitivity to organic aerosol (OA) hygroscopicity over the southeast Atlantic (SEA) Ocean during the biomass burning (BB) season. We found that aerosol hygroscopicity remains steady above 2 km, with a mean f(80 %) of 1.40 ± 0.17. Below 2 km, aerosol hygroscopicity increases with decreasing altitude, with a mean f(80 %) of 1.51 ± 0.22, consistent with higher values of BB aerosol hygroscopicity found in the literature. The hygroscopicity parameter of OA (κ OA ) is retrieved from the Mie model with a mean value of 0.11 ± 0.08, which is in the middle to upper range compared to the literature. Higher OA hygroscopicity is related to aerosols that are more aged, oxidized, and present at lower altitudes. The enhanced biomass burning aerosol (BBA) hygroscopicity at lower altitudes is mainly due to a lower OA fraction, increased sulfate fraction, and greater κ OA at lower altitudes. We propose a parameterization that quantifies f(RH) with chemical composition and κOA based on Mie simulation of internally mixed OA–(NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 –BC mixtures. The good agreement between the predictions and the ORACLES measurements implies that the aerosols in the SEA during the BB season can be largely represented by the OA–(NH 4 ) 2 SO 4 –BC internal mixture with respect to the f(RH) prediction. The sensitivity of f(RH) to κ OA indicates that applying a constant κ OA is only suitable when the OA fraction is low and κ OA shows limited variation. However, in situations deviating these two criteria, κ OA can notably impact scattering coefficients and aerosol radiative effect; therefore, accounting for κ OA variability is recommended.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Machine learning framework for predicting uranium enrichments from M400 CZT gamma spectra

A machine learning framework was developed for predicting uranium enrichments from M400 CZT gamma spectra. This framework leverages the availability of a large amount of measured M400 gamma spectra and uses a recently updated version of Gamma Detector Response and Analysis Software (GADRAS) for gamma spectrum analysis and generation. It also leverages the existing machine learning modules in Python for gamma spectrum data processing, curation, model training, benchmarking, and optimization of the deep machine learning models. The framework is used to develop a deep learning model to analyze gamma spectra from a set of U 3 O 8 samples with enrichments ranging from 0.31 to 93.17% and UF 6 cylinders with enrichments ranging from 0.2 to 4.95%, and the model performance is tested using a set of measured spectra and the respective declared enrichment values. Results show that the model can correctly classify 99.35% of the U 3 O 8 sample enrichments, and can predict the samples’ enrichments within an average absolute error of 0.099% (in percentage points of enrichment). For the UF 6 cylinders, the average absolute error was approximately 0.03%, with an accuracy of 98% in classifying discrete enrichment values of UF 6 samples. Finally, the results also show that the model has performed significantly better in terms of predicting enrichments in UF 6 cylinders based on measured gamma spectra than the GEM code, with a standard deviation (of the relative errors) of 2.23% (compared with the 11.51% value for the GEM code) based on results from a set of test data.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2024

Quantifying Investment Risk: Analysis of the Purchase Decision of a Nuclear Power Plant

Cost overruns are an ill-fated part of the deployment history of nuclear power plants (NPPs) in the United States, and yet studies increasingly show the important role nuclear technologies must play in decarbonizing the U.S. economy. Paradoxically, then, a key piece of a coherent decarbonization strategy depends on attracting investor action to a purchase where historical cost overruns have been sizeable. To address this challenge, this study aims to develop a financial model that quantifies risk of cost overruns in the decision-making process for purchasing advanced reactor concepts. Using the concept of Value at Risk (VaR), the model is built to evaluate financial risk nuclear construction with the aim to identify risk mitigation strategies. The objective is to identify strategies to mitigate cost-risk challenges and to assess the potential reduction in investor risk exposure. The paper presents the initial development and preliminary verification of the financial risk analysis model. The development of this model involved a comprehensive approach to estimating financial risk over the operating life of NPP that stems from construction uncertainties. By utilizing net present value (NPV) with discounted cash flows, the model captures the complex interconnections of project costs, construction timelines, revenue, and uncertainties. Verification of the model involved testing historical data from previous reactor construction projects against the construction project of Vogtle 3 and 4. The results of this paper present the comparison of the preconstruction cost overrun prediction with the current cost estimates from a nearly complete Vogtle 3 and 4.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗