Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “task”

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 OSTI2026

Automated tape-target centering based on template matching for construction measurement tasks using robotic total station

Robotic total stations have transformed surveying and construction mapping through precise, efficient, and automated measurements. These instruments integrate a theodolite, which measures horizontal and vertical angles, with an electronic distance measurement (EDM) unit to determine distances, allowing accurate 3D measurement of observable points. Traditionally, users manually aimed the total station at a target. Recent advancements in robotic motor control and integration of cameras now enable automatic rotation and aiming, typically requiring only a single operator to position the target. Automated aiming is commonly performed using retroreflector prisms, which reflect light back to the source with minimal scattering, enabling high-precision measurements over long distances. However, retroreflectors, especially those designed for 360 degree, can be expensive and impractical for certain applications. This paper presents an algorithm for automating the center detection of low-cost disposable tape targets using the total station's onboard camera and a template matching algorithm. The algorithm identifies the target's center pixel in the image, and the instrument is commanded to aim at that location. We evaluated the performance of this template-matching-based centering method under various distances, angles, lighting conditions, and field environments, comparing its results to both manual aiming and conventional automated aiming of tape targets. Manual aiming was used as the baseline operational reference in the absence of an independent ground-truth measurement. The proposed approach achieves target centering results comparable to the manual baseline. This method provides a cost-effective alternative for high-precision applications where retroreflector targets are constrained by budget or logistics.

Harrington, Joshua [ORNL]↗
DOE OSTI2025

AI foundation models for experimental fusion tasks

Artificial Intelligence (AI) foundation models, while successful in various domains of language, speech, and vision, have not been adopted in production for fusion energy experiments. This brief paper presents how AI foundation models can be used for fusion energy diagnostics, enabling, for example, visual automated logbooks to provide greater insights into chains of plasma events in a discharge, in time for between-shot analysis.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Lahaina Energy Partnership Community Workshop: Technical Assistance Task Updates and Discussion [Slides]

The Lahaina Energy Partnership (LEP) is an initiative funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to support energy planning and rebuilding efforts in Hawaii's historic town of Lahaina on Maui as the community recovers from a devastating fire on August 8, 2023, with technical assistance provided by NLR. This presentation provides an update on NLR's technical assistance efforts for May 2026.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

In-Line Optical Transmission Imaging of Decals for Quality Control - Task 3

Quality monitoring is a critical aspect for manufacturing systems. Ideally the monitoring would be done in-line, be non-contact, non-destructive, and fast. This would enable reduced scrap and higher throughput. This poster presents an optical transmission method for evaluating and mapping coatings. With the method shown in the poster we can visualize optical variations on the macro and micro scales. This allows us to see the overall trend in loading in both the cross web and down web directions. Furthermore, we can visualize defects such dewetting spots, streaks, clumps, and pinholes where there is a lack of coating. The optical transmission signal has been found to be proportional to the IrOx loading signal using XRF measurements. Therefore, an optical transmission setup can be installed in-line and allow for a fast, non-contact method for mapping loading variations and defects.

coating uniformity↗
DOE OSTI2025

Fair Concurrent Training of Multiple Models in Federated Learning

Federated learning (FL) enables collaborative learning across multiple clients. In most FL work, all clients train a single learning task. However, the recent proliferation of FL applications may increasingly require multiple FL tasks to be trained simultaneously, sharing clients’ computing resources, which we call Multiple-Model Federated Learning (MMFL). Current MMFL algorithms use naïve average-based client-task allocation schemes that often lead to unfair performance when FL tasks have heterogeneous difficulty levels, as the more difficult tasks may need more client participation to train effectively. Furthermore, in the MMFL setting, we face a further challenge that some clients may prefer training specific tasks to others, and may not even be willing to train other tasks, e.g., due to high computational costs, which may exacerbate unfairness in training outcomes across tasks. We address both challenges by firstly designing FedFairMMFL, a difficulty-aware algorithm that dynamically allocates clients to tasks in each training round, based on the tasks’ current performance levels. We provide guarantees on the resulting task fairness and FedFairMMFL’s convergence rate. We then propose novel auction designs that incentivizes clients to train multiple tasks, so as to fairly distribute clients’ training efforts across the tasks, and extend our convergence guarantees to this setting. Here, we finally evaluate our algorithm with multiple sets of learning tasks on real world datasets, showing that our algorithm improves fairness by improving the final model accuracy and convergence speed of the worst performing tasks, while maintaining the average accuracy across tasks.

Federated learning↗
DOE OSTI2026

Same Data, Different Audiences: Using Personas to Scope a Supercomputing Job Queue Visualization

Domain-specific visualizations sometimes focus on narrow, albeit important, tasks for one group of users. This focus limits the utility of a visualization to other groups working with the same data. While tasks elicited from other groups can present a design pitfall if not disambiguated, they also present a design opportunity—namely, the development of visualizations that support multiple groups. This development choice presents a trade-off of broadening the scope but limiting support for the more narrow tasks of any one group, which in some cases can enhance the overall utility of the visualization. We investigate this scenario through a design study where we develop Guidepost, a notebook-embedded visualization of data that helps scientists assess compute wait times, machine learning researchers understand prediction accuracy, and system maintainers analyze usage trends. We adapt the use of personas for visualization design from existing literature in the HCI and design domains, applying them to categorize tasks based on their uniqueness across stakeholder personas. Under this model, tasks shared between all groups should be supported by interactive visualizations and tasks unique to each group can be deferred to scripting with notebook-embedded visualization design. We evaluate our visualization through real-world case studies and a task-focused evaluation with nine participants. We observe that together, Guidepost's visual encodings, interactions, and export capabilities support the tasks of our differing personas.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Advanced Laboratory and Field Arrays (ALFA)/Lab Collaboration Project (LCP) for Marine Energy (Final Scientific/Technical Report)

The objective of the Advanced Laboratory and Field Arrays (ALFA) project was to reduce the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) of Marine and Hydrokinetic (MHK) energy by leveraging research, development, and testing capabilities at Oregon State University, University of Washington, and the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. ALFA is a project within the Pacific Marine Energy Center (PMEC; formerly NNMREC), a multi-institution entity with a diverse funding base that focuses on research and development for marine renewables. The ALFA project aimed to accelerate the development of next-generation arrays of wave energy conversion (WEC) and tidal energy conversion (TEC) devices through a suite of field-focused R&D activities spanning a broad range of strategic opportunity areas identified in the Funding Opportunity Announcement: • Device and/or array operation and maintenance (O&M) logistics development; • High-fidelity resource characterization and/or modeling technique development and validation; • Array-specific component technology development (e.g. moorings and foundations, transmission, and other offshore grid components); • Array performance testing and evaluation; and • Novel cost-effective environmental monitoring techniques and instrumentation testing and evaluation. The objective of the Lab Collaboration Project (LCP) was to accelerate the development of next-generation marine energy conversion systems. The LCP aimed to achieve these project objectives in collaboration with the national laboratories by: • Developing concept generation and assessment tools; • Improving access to existing testing resources; • Validating collision risk models between fish and turbines; and • Advancing analysis and simulation capabilities for wave-WEC interactions and PTO analysis in nonlinear ocean waves. The ALFA portion of the project was comprised of six overarching technical tasks: • Task 1: Debris Modeling, Detection and Mitigation; • Task 2: Autonomous Monitoring & Intervention; • Task 3: Resource Characterization for Extreme Conditions; • Task 4: Robust Models for Design of Offshore Anchoring and Mooring Systems; • Task 5: Performance Enhancement for Marine Energy Converter (MEC) Arrays; and • Task 6: Evaluating Sampling Techniques for MHK Biological Monitoring. The LCP was divided into four overarching technical tasks: • Task 7: Project Management and Reporting • Task 8: Novel Design and Assessment Methodologies for Wave Energy Converter Design (Wave- SPARC) • Task 9: Testing Access for Commercial Marine Renewable Energy Technology Developers • Task 10: Quantifying Collision Risk for Fish and Turbines • Task 11: Nonlinear Ocean Waves and PTO Control Strategy Each ALFA/LCP task listed above functioned as a separate and discreet project. A final Technical Report was written for each individual task and these reports were uploaded to OSTI, after receiving DOE approval. The following document is a compilation of each of these final, approved reports arranged as individual chapters.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

Advanced Perovskite Solar Cells and Modules

The “Advanced perovskite Cells and Modules” research project was the final agreement focused on enhancing perovskite solar cell (PSC) technologies funded by the US Department of Energy's Solar Energy Technologies Office. The project was designed to address three crucial areas in PSC development: stability, manufacturability, and efficiency. The project was then structured around three main tasks, each targeting one of these strategic goals. The team of experienced researchers in these materials worked collaboratively to address the targets outlined in the technical work plan. building on existing PSC research while also exploring promising new concepts arising in the field. An overview of each primary task is summarized below: Task 1 Stability: This first task, aims to identify material characteristics and metrics that can help predict the primary degradation mechanisms impacting PSC stability. This involved developing specific device tests based on hypotheses regarding mechanisms impacting stability, including fast failure procedures to speed up PSC development and improvement. Various strategies to enhance stability, like incorporating additives, post-treatments, novel contact materials etc. were developed using this fast feedback approach. The relationships between indoor and outdoor stresses were also validated. Task 2 Manufacturability: This second task, focused on creating a scalable production process for PSCs. Initially the objective is to establish a best-known method for a 182 cm2 minimodule. However, given resource limitations, these metrics were modified to focus on the other goal of outlined in the TWP. Specifically, this task worked to demonstrate the transferability of this best-known method to another research institution. Work scope in this area was expanded to material purity and understanding of reagent/process relationships. Examination of other difficulties in PSC production and potential solutions for large-scale production were also evaluated. Given challenges observed in process transfer, work to develop data infrastructure and recording tools for processing of material and devices was then also prioritized in this task. Task 3 Efficiency: This task was focused on improvements to PCE, while still considering Task 1 and Task 2 goal. The efforts targeted a PCE greater than 22% with a T95 exceeding 1000 hours at 25°C in a nitrogen environment for lab-scale devices (approximately 0.1 cm2 devices) across a range of solar-relevant perovskite compositions, including wide-gap (around 1.7 eV) and low-gap (around 1.3 eV) materials, using standard metal contacts. This work then provides a foundation for MHP-based tandem efforts undertaken in other projects and the All-MHP tandem efforts outlined in this projects TWP. Work in this project emphasized disseminating its findings through peer-reviewed publications (PRP), conference presentations, and industrial collaborations. Significant products were produced in all these areas, over 53 peer reviewed publications, 32 conference presentations and industrial investment based on NLR assistance on precompetitive challenges. The team also developed significant intellectual property and awards for their technical excellence, innovations and leadership. The team also leveraged traditional and social media platforms to engage with stakeholders and the public.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
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↗