SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “model choice”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 145 records · Page 8

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Correcting for Selection Biases in the Determination of the Hubble Constant from Time-Delay Cosmography

The time delay between multiple images of strongly lensed quasars has been used to infer the Hubble constant. The primary systematic uncertainty for time-delay cosmography is the mass-sheet transform (MST), which preserves the lensing observables while altering the inferred ⁠H 0 . The TDCOSMO collaboration used velocity dispersion measurements of lensed quasars and lensed galaxies to infer that mass sheets are present, which decrease the inferred H 0 by 8 per cent. Here, we test the assumption that the density profiles of galaxy–galaxy and galaxy–quasar lenses are the same. We use a composite star-plus-dark-matter mass profile for the parent deflector population and model the selection function for galaxy–galaxy and galaxy–quasar lenses. We find that a power-law density profile with an MST is a good approximation to a two-component mass profile around the Einstein radius, but we find that galaxy–galaxy lenses have systematically higher mass-sheet components than galaxy–quasar lenses. For individual systems, λ int correlates with the ratio of the half-light radius and Einstein radius of the lens. By propagating these results through the TDCOSMO hierarchical inference code, we find that H 0 is lowered by a further 3 per cent. Using a more recent measurement of velocity dispersions and our fiducial model for selection biases, we infer H 0 = 66 ± 4 (stat) ± 1 (model sys) ± 2 (measurement sys) km s -1 Mpc -1 for the TDCOSMO plus SLACS data set. The first residual systematic error is due to plausible alternative choices in modelling the selection function, and the second is an estimate of the remaining systematic error in the measurement of velocity dispersions for SLACS lenses. Accurate time-delay cosmography requires precise velocity dispersion measurements and accurate calibration of selection biases.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Understanding changes in cloud simulations from E3SM version 1 to version 2

Abstract. This study documents clouds simulated by the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) version 2 (E3SMv2) and attempts to understand what causes the model behavior change in clouds relative to E3SMv1. This is done by analyzing the last 30-year (1985–2014) data from the 165-year historical simulations using E3SMv1 and v2 and four sensitivity tests to isolate the impact of changes in model parameter choices in its turbulence, shallow convection, and cloud macrophysics parameterization (Cloud Layers Unified By Binormals, CLUBB); microphysical parameterization (MG2); and deep-convection scheme (ZM), as well as model physics changes in convective triggering. It is shown that E3SMv2 significantly improves the simulation of subtropical coastal stratocumulus clouds and clouds with optical depth larger than 3.6 over the stratocumulus-to-cumulus transition regimes, where the shortwave cloud radiative effect (SWCRE) is also improved, and the Southern Ocean (SO) while seeing an overall slight degradation in low clouds over other tropical and subtropical oceans. The better performance in E3SMv1 over those regions is partially due to error compensation between its simulated optically thin and intermediate low clouds for which E3SMv2 actually improves simulation of optically intermediate low clouds. Sensitivity tests indicate that the changes in low clouds are primarily due to the tuning done in CLUBB. The impact of the ZM tuning is mainly on optically intermediate and thick high clouds, contributing to an improved SWCRE and longwave cloud radiative effect (LWCRE). The impact of the MG2 tuning and the new convective trigger is primarily on the high latitudes and the SO. They have a relatively smaller impact on clouds than CLUBB tuning and ZM tuning do. This study offers additional insights into clouds simulated in E3SMv2 by utilizing multiple data sets and the Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project (CFMIP) Observation Simulator Package (COSP) diagnostic tool as well as sensitivity tests. The improved understanding will benefit future E3SM developments.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Modeling the Solvation and Acidity of Carboxylic Acids Using an Ab Initio Deep Neural Network Potential

Formic and acetic acid constitute the simplest of carboxylic acids, yet they exhibit fascinating chemistry in the condensed phase such as proton transfer and dimerization. The go-to method of choice for modeling these rare events have been accurate but expensive ab-initio molecular dynamics simulations. Here, we present a deep neural network potential trained using accurate ab-initio data that can be used in tandem with enhanced-sampling methods to perform an efficient exploration of the free-energy surface of aqueous solutions of weak carboxylic acids. In particular, we show that our model captures proton dissociation and provides a good estimate of the pK a , as well as the dimerization of formic and acetic acid. This provides a suitable starting point for applications in different research areas where computational efficiency coupled with the accuracy of ab-initio methods is required.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

DOE OSTI2022

Field Sensitivity Analysis of Turbulence Model Parameters for Flow Over a Wing

Reynolds-averaged-Navier-Stokes (RANS) turbulence models are a critical tool in computational-fluid-dynamics simulations of aerodynamic systems, but simulation results can be highly sensitive to RANS-model parameter choices. Sensitivity analysis can be used to quantify these impacts, and the objective of this study is to demonstrate field sensitivity analysis with respect to ten parameters in the 2003 Menter shear-stress-transport (SST) turbulence model. Here, the analysis is demonstrated for an application relevant to wind energy, namely, flow over a NACA 0015 wing at 12 degree angle of attack and a Reynolds number of 1.5 x 10 6 . We quantify sensitivity using Sobol indices and the mean-squared gradient, which are estimated using polynomial chaos and active subspace models, respectively. Our results indicate that there are substantial spatial variations in parameter sensitivities, with different sets of most-sensitive parameters near the wing, as well as in the downstream wake, consistent with the physical interpretations of the turbulence model inputs. We show that, for this particular turbulence model and flow, simultaneous dimension reduction is possible across all quantities of interest, enabling efficient exploration of model outcomes. Ultimately, this analysis provides new insights into turbulence model parameter sensitivities in incompressible flows, and also demonstrates the implementation of field sensitivity analysis for applications relevant to aerodynamics simulations.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

A fractional model for anomalous diffusion with increased variability: Analysis, algorithms and applications to interface problems

Fractional equations have become the model of choice in several applications where heterogeneities at the microstructure result in anomalous diffusive behavior at the macroscale. Here, we introduce a new fractional operator characterized by a doubly-variable fractional order and possibly truncated interactions. Under certain conditions on the model parameters and on the regularity of the fractional order we show that the corresponding Poisson problem is well-posed. Additionally, we introduce a finite element discretization and describe an efficient implementation of the finite-element matrix assembly in the case of piecewise constant fractional order. Through several numerical tests, we illustrate the improved descriptive power of this new operator across media interfaces. Furthermore, we present one-dimensional and two-dimensional h-convergence results that show that the variable-order model has the same convergence behavior as the constant-order model.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2020

Application of Numerical Atmospheric Models

In this study, a numerical modeling framework for simulating extreme storm events was established using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. Such a framework is necessary for the derivation of engineering parameters such as probable maximum precipitation that are the cornerstone of large water-management infrastructure design. Here, this framework was built based on a heavy storm that occurred in Nashville, Tennessee (U.S.), in 2010, and verified using two other extreme storms. To achieve the optimal setup, several combinations of model resolutions, initial/boundary conditions (IC/BC), cloud microphysics, and cumulus parameterization schemes were evaluated using multiple metrics of precipitation characteristics. The evaluation suggests that WRF is most sensitive to the IC/BC option. Simulation generally benefits from finer resolutions up to 5 km. At the 15 km level, NCEP2 IC/BC produces better results, whereas NAM IC/BC performs best at the 5 km level. The recommended model configuration from this study is: NAM or NCEP2 IC/BC (depending on data availability), 15 km or 15–5 km nested grids, Morrison microphysics, and Kain-Fritsch cumulus schemes. Validation of the optimal framework suggests that these options are good starting choices for modeling extreme events similar to the test cases. This optimal framework is proposed in response to emerging engineering demands of extreme storm event forecasting and analyses for design, operations, and risk assessment of large water infrastructures.

Chen, Xiaodong↗

DOE OSTI2025

Evaluation of probability density function descriptions for three-component Rayleigh–Taylor mixing

Results from simulations of a three-component Rayleigh–Taylor (RT) mixing problem are presented. These simulations are conducted in heavy–light–heavy and heavy–intermediate–light configurations, and each of these configurations are further considered in high- and low-Reynolds-number regimes. This results in RT-unstable flow with one or both interfaces initially unstable, permitting the influence of problem configuration on the statistical description of three-component RT-driven mixing to be considered. Mass fraction covariances are observed to undergo a sign change through the mixing layer in all four configurations considered. This appears to be unique to the multi-component case and represents another way in which multi-component RT mixing differs from the two-component case. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of joint and marginal probability density function (PDF) descriptions of species concentration are made. Three-, five-, and six-parameter model PDFs are compared against simulation data to assess how accurately they describe the mixing, and it is found that three-component mixing requires at least a five-parameter model PDF to accurately describe the mixing. Notably, the marginal distributions of three-component mixing do not appear to conform to a beta distribution, representing a departure from the classical two-component RT case. In conclusion, statistical neutrality also appears to influence the optimal choice of model PDF, which is found to be a function of problem configuration.

Large-eddy simulation↗

DOE OSTI2025

PowerModel-AI: A First On-the-Fly Machine-Learning Predictor for AC Power Flow Solutions

The real-time creation of machine-learning models via active or on-the-fly learning has attracted considerable interest across various scientific and engineering disciplines. These algorithms enable machines to build models autonomously while remaining operational. Through a series of query strategies, the machine can evaluate whether newly encountered data fall outside the scope of the existing training set. In this study, we introduce PowerModel-AI, an end-to-end machine learning software designed to accurately predict AC power flow solutions. We present detailed justifications for our model design choices and demonstrate that selecting the right input features effectively captures load flow decoupling inherent in power flow equations. Our approach incorporates on-the-fly learning, where power flow calculations are initiated only when the machine detects a need to improve the dataset in regions where the model’s suboptimal performance is based on specific criteria. Otherwise, the existing model is used for power flow predictions. This study includes analyses of five Texas A&M synthetic power grid cases, encompassing the 14-, 30-, 37-, 200-, and 500-bus systems. The training and test datasets were generated using PowerModels.jl, an open-source power flow solver/optimizer developed at Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM, USA.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2024

Impacts of aluminum-cerium alloy deployment on different cerium commodities

An imbalance problem exists in the rare earth element (REE) market with cerium and lanthanum being more abundant and less valuable than REEs used in permanent magnets such as neodymium, praseodymium, and dysprosium. Research has been conducted on new applications for abundant REEs to improve mining economics. However, potential market impacts of these applications on individual REE commodities are unknown. A system dynamics model was built to investigate the impacts of a new aluminum-cerium (Al-Ce) alloy that can theoretically utilize three separate cerium forms: cerium carbonate, cerium oxide, or cerium metal. Cerium carbonate currently possesses the lowest price of the three available forms making it initially the most favorable choice. However, model results showed that cerium oxide could provide the best economics for future Al-Ce alloy deployment because its larger market size buffers major shocks to price.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Interplays In The Rare Earth Element Value Chain

Severson, Michael [Idaho National Laboratory (INL)↗

DOE OSTI2022

Towards a Unified Setup to Simulate Mid‐Latitude and Tropical Mesoscale Convective Systems at Kilometer‐Scales

Abstract Mesoscale convective systems (MCSs) are the main source of precipitation in the tropics and parts of the mid‐latitudes and are responsible for high‐impact weather worldwide. Studies showed that deficiencies in simulating mid‐latitude MCSs in state‐of‐the‐art climate models can be alleviated by kilometer‐scale models. However, whether these models can also improve tropical MCSs and whether we can find model settings that perform well in both regions is understudied. We take advantage of high‐quality MCS observations collected over the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) facilities in the US Southern Great Plains (SGP) and the Amazon basin near Manaus (MAO) to evaluate a perturbed physics ensemble of simulated MCSs with 4 km horizontal grid spacing. A new model evaluation method is developed that enables to distinguish biases stemming from spatiotemporal displacements of MCSs from biases in their reflectivity and cloud shield. Amazon MCSs are similarly well simulated across these evaluation metrics than SGP MCSs despite the challenges anticipated from weaker large‐scale forcing in the tropics. Generally, SGP MCSs are more sensitive to the choice of model microphysics, while Amazon cases are more sensitive to the planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme. Although our tested model physics combinations had strengths and weaknesses, combinations that performed well for SGP simulations result in worse results in the Amazon basin and vice versa. However, we identified model settings that perform well at both locations, which include the Thompson and Morrison microphysics coupled with the Yonsei University (YSU) PBL scheme and the Thompson scheme coupled with the Mellor‐Yamada‐Janjic PBL scheme.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Validation and parameterization of a novel physics-constrained neural dynamics model applied to turbulent fluid flow

We report, in fluid physics, data-driven models to enhance or accelerate time to solution are becoming increasingly popular for many application domains, such as alternatives to turbulence closures, system surrogates, or for new physics discovery. In the context of reduced order models of high-dimensional time-dependent fluid systems, machine learning methods grant the benefit of automated learning from data, but the burden of a model lies on its reduced-order representation of both the fluid state and physical dynamics. In this work, we build a physics-constrained, data-driven reduced order model for Navier–Stokes equations to approximate spatiotemporal fluid dynamics in the canonical case of isotropic turbulence in a triply periodic box. The model design choices mimic numerical and physical constraints by, for example, implicitly enforcing the incompressibility constraint and utilizing continuous neural ordinary differential equations for tracking the evolution of the governing differential equation. We demonstrate this technique on a three-dimensional, moderate Reynolds number turbulent fluid flow. In assessing the statistical quality and characteristics of the machine-learned model through rigorous diagnostic tests, we find that our model is capable of reconstructing the dynamics of the flow over large integral timescales, favoring accuracy at the larger length scales. More significantly, comprehensive diagnostics suggest that physically interpretable model parameters, corresponding to the representations of the fluid state and dynamics, have attributable and quantifiable impact on the quality of the model predictions and computational complexity.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗

DOE OSTI2024

AEPF: Attention-Enabled Point Fusion for 3D Object Detection

Current state-of-the-art (SOTA) LiDAR-only detectors perform well for 3D object detection tasks, but point cloud data are typically sparse and lacks semantic information. Detailed semantic information obtained from camera images can be added with existing LiDAR-based detectors to create a robust 3D detection pipeline. With two different data types, a major challenge in developing multi-modal sensor fusion networks is to achieve effective data fusion while managing computational resources. With separate 2D and 3D feature extraction backbones, feature fusion can become more challenging as these modes generate different gradients, leading to gradient conflicts and suboptimal convergence during network optimization. To this end, we propose a 3D object detection method, Attention-Enabled Point Fusion (AEPF). AEPF uses images and voxelized point cloud data as inputs and estimates the 3D bounding boxes of object locations as outputs. An attention mechanism is introduced to an existing feature fusion strategy to improve 3D detection accuracy and two variants are proposed. These two variants, AEPF-Small and AEPF-Large, address different needs. AEPF-Small, with a lightweight attention module and fewer parameters, offers fast inference. AEPF-Large, with a more complex attention module and increased parameters, provides higher accuracy than baseline models. Experimental results on the KITTI validation set show that AEPF-Small maintains SOTA 3D detection accuracy while inferencing at higher speeds. AEPF-Large achieves mean average precision scores of 91.13, 79.06, and 76.15 for the car class’s easy, medium, and hard targets, respectively, in the KITTI validation set. Results from ablation experiments are also presented to support the choice of model architecture.

Chemistry↗

DOE OSTI2022

Configuration Space Integration for Adsorbate Partition Functions: The Effect of Anharmonicity on the Thermophysical Properties of CO–Pt(111) and CH 3 OH–Cu(111)

A method for computing anharmonic thermophysical properties for adsorbates on metal surfaces has been extended to include libration, or frustrated rotation. Classical phase space integration is used with Monte Carlo sampling of the configuration space to obtain the partition function of CO on Pt(111) and CH 3 OH on Cu(111). A minima-preserving neural network potential energy surrogate is used within the integration routines. Direct state counting using discrete variable representation is used to benchmark the results. We find that the phase space integration approach is in excellent agreement with the direct state counting results. Comparison with standard models such as the harmonic oscillator indicates that anharmonicity contributes significantly to the thermodynamic properties of CH 3 OH on Cu(111). We find that there is also a considerable difference between the harmonic oscillator and phase space integration for CO on Pt(111), although the discrepancy can largely be attributed to the presence of multiple binding sites within the unit cell. We demonstrate that a multisite harmonic oscillator model might be sufficient for CO-Pt(111). A more thorough description of the potential energy surface, which can be achieved with phase space integration, is necessary for weakly bound adsorbates such as CH 3 OH. In conclusion, the thermophysical properties were used to calculate free energies of adsorption on the respective metals, and subsequently the equilibrium constants and Langmuir isotherms in relevant temperature ranges. The results show that the choice of model to obtain partition functions greatly affects the resulting surface coverages in kinetic models.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Comparing Adjoint Waveform Tomography Models of California Using Different Starting Models

Abstract Adjoint waveform tomography (AWT) sits at the cutting edge of seismic tomography on local, regional, and global scales. However, the choice in starting model may have a significant impact on the final inversion results. In this paper, we present 3 AWT models of California that are based on different starting models. We chose three models that were inverted at different scales: SPiRaL, a global travel‐time tomography model (Simmons et al., 2021, 10.1093/gji/ggab277 ), CSEM_NA, a regional adjoint tomography model of North America and the North Atlantic (Krischer et al., 2018, 10.1029/2017JB015289 ), and WUS256, a regional adjoint tomography model of the western US (Rodgers et al., 2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JB024549 ). We then inverted three AWT models using the same source and receiver set. We ran each model over three period bands: 30–100 s, 25–100 s, and 20–80 s. Once the iterations were finalized, we used five methods of testing model similarity in both the model and data space. We conclude that the choice of starting model has a minimal impact on long wavelength models if an appropriate multi‐scale inversion approach is used.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗