Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “data access”

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 127 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Long-term measurements of ice nucleating particles at Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) sites worldwide

Ice nucleating particles (INPs) play a critical role in cloud microphysics and precipitation formation, yet long-term, spatially extensive observational datasets remain limited. Here, we present one of the most comprehensive publicly available datasets of immersion-mode INP concentrations using a single analytical method, generated through the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility. INP filter samples have been collected across a broad range of environments – including agricultural plains, Arctic coastlines, high-elevation mountain sites, marine regions, and urban areas – via fixed observatories, mobile facility deployments, and vertically-resolved tethered balloon system operations. We describe the standardized processing and quality assurance pipeline, from filter collection and processing using the Ice Nucleation Spectrometer to final data products archived on the ARM Data Discovery portal. The dataset includes both total INP concentrations and selectively treated samples, allowing for classification of biological, organic, and inorganic INP types. It features a continuous 5-year record of INP measurements from a central U.S. site, with data collection still ongoing. Seasonal and site-specific differences in INP concentrations are illustrated through intercomparisons at −10 and −20 °C, revealing distinct regional sources and atmospheric drivers. We also outline mechanisms for researchers to access existing data, request additional sample analyses, and propose future field campaigns involving ARM INP measurements. This dataset supports a wide range of scientific applications, from observational and mechanistic studies to model development, and provides critical constraints on aerosol-cloud interactions across diverse atmospheric regimes (Creamean et al., 2024, 2020b; https://doi.org/10.5439/1770816).

Creamean, Jessie M. [Colorado State Univ., Fort Co↗
DOE OSTI2025

Feasibility of fusion plasma burn control via real-time, sub-divertor neutral gas isotopic and compositional analysis

The ability to provide fusion burn control without requiring physical access through the first wall and fuel breeding blankets, would be vital for any future, magnetically confined fusion power reactor. A multi-sensor, fusion fuel cycle exhaust, neutral gas analysis system on JET, capable of delivering real time data, and accessing only the sub-divertor region, provides an excellent example of such capability. Optimized for and operated during the deuterium–tritium experimental campaigns 2 and 3 (DTE2, DTE3), it is proving valuable for planning to explore fusion reactor burn control in ITER with a comparable diagnostic system called the Diagnostic Residual Gas Analyzer (DRGA). This paper aims to show feasibility of developing model-based controllers for ITER and next generation, reactor-relevant devices, by building both on the empirical experience in JET-DTE2, and on the already emerging experience on developing such models specifically for ITER. The paper begins with a specific use-case from JET-DTE2, pertaining to the observed sensitivity of the fusion neutron yield on the concentration of isotopic helium-3 ( 3 He), with data from one of the high-performance DT shots exhibited with emphasis on the 3 He measurement via the sub-divertor. Then, a first model is developed and then explored with simulations that aim to discover how well the controllers in the model react to either insufficient levels of 3 He or excessive levels of 3 He. The simulations then explore potential impact from a delay in the measurement (or the response) that would be comparable to the ∼1 s, conductance limited response for the ITER DRGA system, currently in its final design. The simulations show that control is feasible, and that its effectiveness is not significantly impacted by such delay.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
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 OSTI2024

Weather radar utility in hazard detection and response

Publicly accessible weather radar data have significant capabilities for meteorological measurements and predictions and, further, have the potential to measure nonmeteorological events that include smoke, ash, and debris plumes as well as explosions. The ability to identify and track nonmeteorological events can be of assistance in emergency response, hazard mitigation, and related activities in locations where radar coverage both exists and is recorded and accessible to the user. Here, in this study, events from multiple locations in the United States that are reported in news outlets are assessed using a manual inspection process of Level 2 weather radar data to identify anthropogenic and nonbiological returns. Explosive events are also identified, and a large high-altitude debris cloud from the intentional destruction of the SpaceX Starship is tracked across a wide area. Finally, future efforts using a machine learning model are discussed as a means of automating the process and potentially enabling near-real-time nonmeteorological event identification in the same areas where the data are accessible. Using weather radar data can be a valuable new tool for Department of Defense systems to aid in military awareness, and for interagency emergency response and forensic mission experts to consider national weather service data in their mission profiles. Radar data can be effective in detecting several common types of emergencies and inform and aid response personnel.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Lowering the barrier to access information-rich transient kinetic data for machine learning methods

Transient kinetic data contain a wealth of information about intrinsic features of a catalyst as well as the reaction mechanism. Currently, high volume transient data is underutilized, and data science methods could both increase the value of information that can be extracted from this data, integrate experimental with theoretical data sources, and accelerate the pace of catalyst technology advancement. Transient kinetic characterizations with simple probe molecules exhibiting reversible adsorption, irreversible adsorption and bulk-surface diffusion are presented as training components for similar experiments with more complex surface reactions. In conclusion, by increasing the availability and accessibility of transient kinetic data through details of its structure and acquisition, we aim to decrease the barrier for data scientists to apply machine learning methods to this valuable data source.

Catalysis↗
DOE OSTI2025

Remote Sensing Improves Multi‐Hazard Flooding and Extreme Heat Detection by Fivefold Over Current Estimates

The co‐occurrence of multiple hazards is of growing concern globally as the frequency and magnitude of extreme climate events increases. Despite studies examining the spatial distribution of such events, there has been little work in examining if all relevant life threatening and damaging hazards are captured in existing hazard databases and by common hazard metrics. For example, local/regional flash flooding events are seldom captured by optical satellite instruments and are subsequently excluded from global hazard databases. Similarly, the heat hazard definitions most frequently used in multi‐hazard studies inherently fail to capture events that are life‐threatening but climatologically within an expected range. Our goal is to determine the potential for increasing multi‐hazard event detection capabilities by inferring additional hazard footprints from widely accessible satellite data. We use daily precipitation and temperature satellite data to develop an open‐source framework that infers additional hazard footprints that are not included in traditional methods. With the state of Texas as our study area, we detected 2.5 times as many flood hazards, equivalent to $320 million in property and crop damages. Furthermore, our expanded heat hazard definition increases the impacted area by 56.6%, equivalent to 91.5 million km 2 over an 18 year period. Increasing hazard detection capabilities and expanding existing definitions of hazards using daily satellite data increases the temporal and spatial resolutions at which multi‐hazard events are detected. Having more complete data sets of all relevant hazard extents improves our ability to track global trends and more accurately determine the magnitude of hazard exposure inequities.

equity↗
DOE OSTI2024

A baseline structure inventory with critical attribution for the US and its territories

Leveraging high performance computing, remote sensing, geographic data science, machine learning, and computer vision, Oak Ridge National Laboratory has partnered with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to build a baseline structure inventory covering the US and its territories to support disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. The dataset contains more than 125 million structures with critical attribution, and is ready to be used by federal agencies, local government and first responders to accelerate on-the-ground response to disasters, further identify vulnerable areas, and develop strategies to enhance the resilience of critical structures and communities. Data can be freely and openly accessed through Figshare data repository, ESRI’s Living Atlas or FEMA’s Geodata platform.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Distributional Equity in the Employment and Wage Impacts of Energy Transitions

We use restricted-access, geocoded data on the near-universe of workers in 23 US states to quantify the impact of wind energy development on local earnings and employment, by race, ethnicity, sex, and educational attainment. We find significant impacts that persist for several years beyond the project construction phase. Our estimates are larger than those from previous studies but still small relative to typical economic multipliers for fiscal spending or investment in other industries. We find the largest percentage increases for black workers and workers who either do not have a high school diploma or who have a college degree. We also find the economic gains for men to be much larger than those for women. Finally, we find estimates from data aggregated to the county level to be significantly lower than our worker-level estimates. We suggest a number of areas for further study building off the justice implications of our findings.

employment↗
DOE OSTI2025

Real Time Phasor Analytics (RTPA) and RTPA-SCR System Strength Online Tool

This presentation showcases the Real-Time Phasor Analytics (RTPA) framework for monitoring inertia and assessing system strength in power grids. RTPA is an open-source tool designed to standardize access to data from Power Management Units (PMUs) and Phasor Data Concentrators (PDCs). It facilitates real-time connectivity to multiple PDCs in accordance with the IEEE C37.118-2 standard and supports asynchronous data stream integration. Additionally, RTPA can simulate a PDC server streaming C37.118-2 data and provides Python bindings for seamless interaction with the framework, eliminating the need for direct Rust programming.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

ComStock Measure Documentation: High-Efficiency Rooftop Unit

Building on the 3-year End-Use Load Profiles project to calibrate and validate the U.S. Department of Energy's ResStock and ComStock models, this work produces national data sets that enable cities, states, utilities, and other stakeholders to answer a broad range of questions regarding their commercial building stock. ComStock is a highly granular, bottom-up model that uses various data sources, statistical sampling methods, and advanced building energy simulations to estimate the annual subhourly energy consumption of the commercial building stock across the United States. The "baseline" model intends to represent the U.S. commercial building stock as it existed in 2018. The methodology of the baseline model is discussed in the ComStock Reference Documentation. The goal of this work is to develop energy efficiency and demand flexibility measures that cover market-ready technologies and study their mass adoption impact on the baseline building stock. "Measures" refers to various "what-if" scenarios that can be applied to buildings. The results for the baseline and measure scenario simulations are published in public data sets that provide insights into building stock characteristics, operational behaviors, utility bill impacts, and annual and sub-hourly energy usage by fuel type and end use. This report describes the modeling methodology for a single ComStock measure scenario - high-efficiency rooftop unit (RTU) - and briefly introduces key results. The full public data set can be accessed on the Comstock data lake or via the Data Viewer at comstock.nlr.gov. The public data set enables users to create custom aggregations of results for their use case (e.g., filter to a specific county or building type).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

ComStock Measure Documentation: Variable-Speed Pumps

Building on the 3-year End-Use Load Profiles project to calibrate and validate the U.S. Department of Energy's ResStock and ComStock models, this work produces national data sets that enable cities, states, utilities, and other stakeholders to answer a broad range of questions regarding their commercial building stock. ComStock is a highly granular, bottom-up model that uses various data sources, statistical sampling methods, and advanced building energy simulations to estimate the annual subhourly energy consumption of the commercial building stock across the United States. The "baseline" model intends to represent the U.S. commercial building stock as it existed in 2018. The methodology of the baseline model is discussed in the ComStock Reference Documentation. The goal of this work is to develop energy efficiency and demand flexibility measures that cover market-ready technologies and study their mass adoption impact on the baseline building stock. "Measures" refers to various "what-if" scenarios that can be applied to buildings. The results for the baseline and measure scenario simulations are published in public data sets that provide insights into building stock characteristics, operational behaviors, utility bill impacts, and annual and sub-hourly energy usage by fuel type and end use. This report describes the modeling methodology for a single ComStock measure scenario - variable speed pumps - and briefly introduces key results. The full public data set can be accessed on the ComStock data lake or via the Data Viewer at comstock.nlr.gov. The public data set enables users to create custom aggregations of results for their use case (e.g., filter to a specific county or building type).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Solar Resource Measurements in Eugene, OR: Cooperative Research and Development Final Report, CRADA Number CRD-07-00252

Site-specific, long-term, continuous, and high-resolution measurements of solar irradiance are important for developing renewable resource data. These data are used for several research and development activities consistent with the NLR mission: establish a national 3-year climatological database of measured solar irradiances; provide high quality ground-truth data for satellite remote sensing validation; support development of radiative transfer models for estimating solar irradiance from available meteorological observations; provide solar resource information needed for technology deployment and operations. Data acquired under this agreement will be available to the public through NLR's Measurement & Instrumentation Data Center – MIDC (http://www.nlr.gov/midc) Or the Renewable Resource Data Center - RReDC (http://rredc.nlr.gov). The MIDC offers a variety of standard data display, access, and analysis tools designed to address the needs of a wide user audience (e.g., industry, academia, and government interests).

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Threat Landscape for BESS and IBR

The cyber risk landscape for BESS and IBR can be broken up by threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences for these systems. This presentation walks through the cyber risk landscape for BESS through the lens of consequence-informed awareness and mitigation for each risk factor. Threats with varying capabilities have been demonstrated in real-world events. Though threat actors can rarely be directly influenced by organizations, exposure of systems to adversaries can be limited (a known issue with IBR systems) to reduce likelihood of adversaries accessing systems with disruptive consequences. Common trends in disclosed IBR vulnerabilities include weak password generation or managements for various devices or services and web portal vulnerabilities that provide unauthorized access to data or capabilities or elevated user privileges. Understanding these common vulnerabilities and considering the consequences if these types of vulnerabilities were to occur can help mitigate risk. Consequences range from loss-of-view events that have no reliability impact to asset damage or grid stability impacts. Five case studies are briefly shared to highlight trends in real-world events affecting IBR.

14 - SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Electric Vehicle Charging Analytics and Reporting Tool (EV-ChART): Data Format and Preparation Guidance (V.5.0)

The Joint Office of Energy and Transportation maintains the Electric Vehicle Charging Analytics and Reporting Tool (EV-ChART), which provides a centralized hub for submitting electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure data directed by the Federal Highway Administration (23 CFR 680.112(a)-(c)). EV-ChART provides a streamlined data submission process and an integrated set of analytic tools, connects to other data sources, and empowers data sharing and access across stakeholders, including the public. Any data shared publicly will be aggregated and anonymized to stay in accordance with 23 CFR 680. This EV-ChART Data Format and Preparation Guidance provides a comprehensive overview of the data reporting requirements as authorized under 23 CFR 680.112(a)-(c)). The guidance is intended to be used alongside the EV-ChART Data Input Template, which defines the tabular data structure that these data submissions must follow. Per 23 CFR 680.112(a)-(c), the annual and quarterly data submissions are required of all National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program projects, as well as projects for the construction of publicly accessible EV chargers that are funded with funds made available under Title 23, United States Code, including any EV charging infrastructure project funded with federal funds that is treated as a project on a federal-aid highway. One-time data submissions are required of both the NEVI Formula Program projects and grants awarded under 23 U.S.C. 151(f) for projects that are for EV charging stations located along and designed to serve the users of designated Alternative Fuel Corridors (AFCs). Other information and data required in 23 CFR 680, such as 23 CFR 680.112(d), 23 CFR 680.116(c), and 23 CFR 680.106(a), are not discussed in this guidance.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2024

UMap: An application-oriented user level memory mapping library

Exploiting the prominent role of complex memories in exascale node architecture, the UMap page fault handler offers new capabilities to access large memory-mapped data sets directly. UMap provides flexible configuration options to customize page handling to each application, including analysis of massive observational and simulation data sets. The high-performance design features I/O decoupling, dynamic load balancing, and application-level controls. Page faults triggered by application threads and processes accessing data mapped to a UMapp’ed region are handled via the Linux userfaultfd protocol, an asynchronous message-oriented kernel-user communication mechanism that avoids the context switch penalty of traditional signal fault handlers. UMap is fully open source. In this paper, we give an overview of the UMap library architecture, its extensible plugin architecture, and the use/performance of UMap in emerging heterogeneous memory hierarchies such as near-node Non-volatile Memory (NVM) and network attached memories. We highlight new capabilities in two pagefault management plugins, the NetworkStore and SparseStore. We demonstrate the integration between UMap and multiple ECP products including Caliper, Metall, ZFP, Mochi, and Ripples.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2025

An infrared, Raman, and X-ray database of battery interphase components

Further improvements to lithium-ion and emerging battery technologies can be enabled by an improved understanding of the chemistry and working mechanisms of interphases that form at electrochemically active battery interfaces. However, it is difficult to collect and interpret spectra of interphases for several reasons, including the presence of a variety of compounds. To address this challenge, we herein present a vibrational spectroscopy and X-ray diffraction data library of ten compounds that have been identified as interphase constituents in lithium-ion or emerging battery chemistries. The data library includes attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy, Raman spectroscopy, and X-ray diffraction data, collected in inert atmospheres provided by custom sample chambers. The data library presented in this work (and online repository) simplifies access to reference data that is otherwise either diffusely spread throughout the literature or non-existent, and provides energy storage researchers streamlined access to vital interphase-relevant data that can accelerate battery research efforts.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗