Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “parameter identification”

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 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Highly accelerated life testing (HALT): A review from a statistical perspective

Despite its use in one form or another for at least four decades, HALT and related techniques [e.g., highly accelerated-stress screening (HASS) and stress audits (HASA)] are not well understood within the statistical community and remain controversial. This largely reflects a conflict in motivation between engineers, testing under harsh conditions to discover and eliminate failure modes, and statisticians, taking a more cautious approach to develop quantitative estimates of parameters such as mean time between failures (MTBF). Here, this review article will clarify HALT concepts and methods and explain where it fits within the universe of methods that involve the application of accelerating factors to compress the time required to evaluate or enhance product reliability. A major distinction is between methods such as HALT, a high-stress test-analyze-fix-test iterative process directed at improving reliability by discovering and fixing weak points in a design, and quantitative accelerated life testing (QALT), whose goal is the estimation of product life for a fixed design. We discuss methods such as physics of failure that offer some hope of bridging the gap between the qualitative nature of HALT, and purely quantitative statistical methods. We present a variety of engineering applications of HALT including metal fatigue, piping and pressure vessels, structural damage, radiation damage, and rotating machinery. We also discuss potential synergies between HALT and QALT, such as rapid identification, through HALT, of failure modes requiring quantitative analysis. For further study, extensive references to the applicable literature are provided as well as an appendix that describes related methods.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Using Data-Science Approaches to Unravel Insights for Enhanced Transport of Lithium Ions in Single-Ion Conducting Polymer Electrolytes

Solid polymer electrolytes have yet to achieve the desired ionic conductivity (>1 mS/cm) near room temperature required for many applications. This target implies the need to reduce the effective energy barriers for ion transport in polymer electrolytes to around 20 kJ/mol. In this work, we combine information extracted from existing experimental results with theoretical calculations to provide insights into ion transport in single-ion conductors (SICs) with a focus on lithium ion SICs. Through the analysis of temperature-dependent ionic conductivity data obtained from the literature, we evaluate different methods of extracting energy barriers for lithium transport. The traditional Arrhenius fit to the temperature-dependent ionic conductivity data indicates that the Meyer–Neldel rule holds for SICs. However, the values of the fitting parameters remain unphysical. Our modified approach based on recent work (Macromolecules 2023, 56, 15, 6051), which incorporates a fixed pre-exponential factor, reveals that the energy barriers exhibit temperature dependence over a wide range of temperatures. Using this approach, we identify anions leading to the energy barriers <30 kJ/mol, which include trifluoromethane sulfonimide (TFSI), fluoromethane sulfonimide (FSI), and boron-based organic anions. In our efforts to design the next generation of anions, which can exhibit the energy barriers <20 kJ/mol, we have performed density functional theory (DFT) based calculations to connect the chemical structures of boron-based anions via the binding energy of cation (lithium)-anion pairs with the experimentally derived effective energy barriers for ion hopping. Not only have we identified a correlation between the binding energy and the energy barriers, but we also propose a strategy to design new boron-based anions by using the correlation. This combined approach involving experiments and theoretical calculations is capable of facilitating the identification of promising new anions, which can exhibit ionic conductivity >1 mS/cm near room temperature, thereby expediting the development of novel superionic single-ion conducting polymer electrolytes.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

Using data-science approaches to unravel insights for enhanced transport of lithium ions in single-ion conducting polymer electrolyte

Solid polymer electrolytes have yet to achieve the an ionic conductivity > 1 mS/cm at room temperature for realistic applications. This target implies the need to reduce the effective energy barriers of ion transport in polymer electrolytes to around 20 kJ/mol. In this work, we combine information extracted from existing experimental results with theoretical calculations to provide insights into ion transport in single-ion conductors (SICs) with a focus on lithium ion SICs. Through the analysis of temperature-dependent ionic conductivity data obtained from the literature, we evaluate different methods of extracting energy barriers for lithium transport. The traditional Arrhenius fit to the temperature-dependent ionic conductivity data indicates that the Meyer-Neldel rule holds for SICs. However, the values of the fitting parameters remain unphysical. Our modified approach based on recent work (Macromolecules, 56, 15, 6051(2023)), which incorporates a fixed pre-exponential factor, reveals that the energy barriers exhibit temperature dependence over a wide range of temperatures. Using this approach, we identify a series of anions leading to the energy barriers less than 30 kJ/mol, which include trifluoromethane sulfonimide (TFSI), fluoromethane sulfonimide (FSI), and boron-based organic anions. In our efforts to design the next generation of anions, which can exhibit the energy barriers less than 20 kJ/mol, we focused on boron-containing SICs, and performed density functional theory (DFT) based calculations to connect the chemical structures via the binding energy of cation (lithium)-anion pairs with the experimentally derived effective energy barriers for ion transport. Not only have we identified a correlation between the binding energy and the energy barriers, but we also propose a strategy to design new boron-based anions by using the correlation. This combined approach involving experiments and theoretical calculations is capable of facilitating the identification of promising new anions, which can exhibit ionic conductivity $> 1$ mS/cm near room temperature, thereby expediting the development of novel superionic single-ion conducting polymer electrolytes. The published datasets include all the temperature-dependent ionic conductivity collected from the literature with literature DOIs, DFT calculated binding energies, and python scripts to analyze data, construct statistical models, and generate plots.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Studying MeV Scale Neutron Interactions in DUNE ND-LAr 2x2 Demonstrator

The Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) is a long-baseline neutrino oscillation experiment designed to make high-precision measurements of neutrino oscillation parameters and probe for new physics using a neutrino beam produced at Fermilab and measured at a near detector complex and a far detector located 1,300 km away at the Sanford Underground Research Facility. Precise neutrino energy reconstruction is essential for these measurements, with neutron production in neutrino–argon interactions representing a significant source of systematic uncertainty, as neutrons can carry away significant energy, making their detection and characterization crucial. DUNE’s near detector complex includes ND-LAr, a Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber (LArTPC) detector designed to mirror the far detector technology and constrain neutrino–argon interaction systematics. The DUNE 2x2 Demonstrator, a pixelated LArTPC based on the ArgonCube design, serves as a prototype for ND-LAr. During 2x2 operations from October to November 2026, an Americium–Beryllium (AmBe) neutron source was deployed near the detector cryostat to obtain a high-statistics sample of neutron interactions. This poster presents progress in studying MeV-scale neutron interactions in this dataset by identifying de-excitation gammas from neutron capture on argon, providing a method for neutron identification and charge readout system calibration in future DUNE detectors.

Mao, Edgar [Syracuse U.] (ORCID:0009000600893306)↗
DOE OSTI2026

Coupling of high-resolution mass spectrometer and photosynthesis system for comprehensive leaf volatile metabolite profiling

Background Leaf-level biogenic volatile organic compounds (BVOCs) emissions represent a major source of organic gases in the atmosphere, influencing both climate and air quality. These emissions are strongly driven by environmental perturbations, which affect individual plant- to ecosystem-level processes. Uncovering all the BVOCs and understanding how their emissions respond to altered environmental conditions provide critical insights into vegetation-driven changes in atmospheric chemistry. We developed a tandem instrumentation setup that integrates a proton transfer reaction time-of-flight mass spectrometer (PTR-ToF-MS) with parts-per-trillion detection limits and a photosynthetic infrared gas exchange system for the untargeted survey of all the BVOCs. This novel system enables simultaneous, real-time monitoring of BVOC emissions and photosynthetic parameters at the leaf level, offering new opportunities to disentangle the physiological and environmental drivers of VOC release. Furthermore, we established the VOC Analysis and Processing Optimization Resource (VAPOR), an open-access software tool designed for rapid data post-processing and the analysis of the variability of hundreds of BVOCs. We assessed the performance of the tandem system under varying background conditions, using standard gas mixtures and a range of environmental factors. Results Blank emissions were substantially lower for major BVOCs (e.g., isoprene) compared to those observed in plant emissions. Despite this, the observation of background-level VOCs highlights the importance of routinely acquiring and accounting for blank measurements in analyses using the coupled instrumentation. Introduction of known VOC concentrations to the system demonstrated a linear response across different compounds with varying molecular compositions, indicating minimal gas loss regardless of chemical moieties within the coupled instrumentation. We applied the optimized system to investigate the physiological mechanisms driving BVOC emissions across different genotypes of poplar and pennycress. The high mass resolution capabilities of the PTR-ToF-MS, coupled with comprehensive VAPOR-driven data analysis, enabled the identification of several important BVOCs, including methanol and methanethiol; these BVOCs displayed substantial variation across pennycress genotypes and showed concentrations ~ 100–350% higher than the blank. Moreover, isoprene emissions varied significantly among poplar genotypes grown in different potting media. Conclusions Tandem instrumentation offers a powerful tool for profiling volatile molecular markers and elucidating their genetic and environmental underpinnings. This approach enhances our ability to predict BVOC emissions in response to genotype by environmental interactions and contributes to a deeper understanding of vegetation responses to environmental changes.

Biogenic volatile organic compounds↗
DOE OSTI2025

An approach for spent nuclear fuel containment integrity verification using gas tagging

Verification of containment integrity is required for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) managed by the commercial nuclear industry and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), especially after extended storage. Certain SNF storage systems, such as the DOE road-ready dry storage system, hold several packaged containments within a welded over-canister. These packaged containments are called Department of Energy Standard Canisters (DOESCs). DOESC leakage identification is challenging because their containment boundary cannot be accessed for testing and their contents (i.e., SNF and fill gas) are often similar. There are concerns that this could result in costly characterization and repackaging operations of DOE road-ready dry storage systems if compromised DOESCs are suspected. Here, to address these concerns, this paper presents an approach for applying a gas tagging process using xenon to uniquely identify compromised inaccessible containments following extended storage. The containments considered for this application are seven DOESCs, each packaged within a single over-canister. Two different SNF loading configurations from the Advanced Test Reactor and Fort Saint Vrain nuclear power plant are considered. These configurations are used to represent research reactor aluminum-clad spent nuclear fuel (ASNF) and TRi-structural ISOtropic (TRISO) SNF types. Results for this application show that for ASNF and TRISO type fuels for which the selected fuels are representative, the volume of taggant required at loading is determined primarily by the lower detection limit and leak rate of taggant from a compromised DOESC, rather than the amount of fission-generated xenon in the loaded fuel. While the application presented is suited for larger leaks, smaller leaks could be detected by modifying certain design parameters. This gas tagging approach can also be applied to other DOE containments and advanced reactor SNF storage systems.

07 - ISOTOPES AND RADIATION SOURCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Cloud Fusion of Big Data and Multi-Physics Models using Machine Learning for Discovery, Exploration, and Development of Hidden Geothermal Resources

The primary goals of this project are identifying hidden geothermal resources in the USA and designing profitable enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Many non-obvious processes and parameters could characterize geothermal resources and could control the ultimate energy potential of geothermal fields. Diverse datasets (e.g., geology, geochemistry, geophysics, satellite, airborne geophysics) are available to help characterize geothermal resources, but this data is sparse and multi-scale. This has hindered attempts to leverage the datasets for geothermal exploration and profitable EGS design. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) give promise to overcome these issues. Modern ML methods and tools can (1) analyze large datasets, (2) assimilate model ensembles that include a multitude of inputs and outputs, (3) process sparse datasets, (4) perform transfer learning between sites with different data quality, (5) extract hidden geothermal signatures from field and simulation data, (6) label geothermal resources and processes, (7) identify high-value data acquisition targets, and (8) guide geothermal exploration and production by selecting optimal exploration, production, and drilling strategies. In this work, we implement ML-based geothermal exploration and an enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) design tool to achieve the above goals. Our exploration tool is GeoThermalCloud (GTC) EGS design tool is GeoDT-ML. GTC (github.com/SmartTensors/GeoThermalCloud.jl) utilizes a LANL unsupervised ML platform called SmartTensors (https://tensors.lanl.gov/) to automate data analyses and interpretations by extracting hidden signatures to identify geothermal prospects. It enables the identification of critical measurements needed to identify geothermal resource signatures. GeoDT-ML (github.com/SmartTensors/GeoThermalCloud.jl/tree/master/) adds coupling to GeoDT (https://github.com/GeoDesignTool/GeoDT.git) for stochastic EGS design optimization and performance prediction. GeoDT-ML leverages recent advances in deep learning and high-performance computing. Contributors to this effort include LANL, PNNL, Google, Stanford, and Julia Computing.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

GeoThermalCloud: Cloud Fusion of Big Data and Multi-Physics Models using Machine Learning for Discovery, Exploration, and Development of Hidden Geothermal Resources

The primary goals of this project are exploring hidden geothermal resources in the U.S.A. and designing profitable enhanced geothermal systems (EGS). Many processes and parameters control geothermal exploration and energy production from geothermal fields. Diverse datasets (e.g., geology, geochemistry, geophysics, satellite, airborne geophysics) are available to help characterize subsurface geothermal conditions. Sparse and multi-scale characteristics of these datasets prohibit properly leveraging these datasets for geothermal exploration and profitable EGS design. Recent advancements in machine learning (ML) promise to resolve these issues. The tremendous challenges and risks of geothermal exploration and production bring the demand for novel ML methods and tools that can (1) analyze large field datasets, (2) assimilate model simulations (large inputs and outputs), (3) process sparse datasets, (4) perform transfer learning (between sites with different exploratory levels), (5) extract hidden geothermal signatures in the field and simulation data, (6) label geothermal resources and processes, (7) identify high-value data acquisition targets, and (8) guide geothermal exploration and production by selecting optimal exploration, production, and drilling strategies. To address these necessities, ML-based geothermal resources exploration and enhanced geothermal systems (EGS) design tools have been developed. The exploration tool is called GeoThermalCloud and EGS design tool is called GeoDT-ML. GeoThermalCloud (https://github.com/SmartTensors/GeoThermalCloud.jl) utilizes a LANL unsupervised ML platform called SmartTensors (https://tensors.lanl.gov/) to automate data analyses and interpretations by extracting hidden signatures to identify geothermal prospects. Also, it enables the identification of critical measurements needed to identify geothermal resource signatures. Alternatively, GeoDT-ML (https://github.com/SmartTensors/GeoThermalCloud.jl/tree/master/EGS) is an ML-based alternative to GeoDT (https://github.com/GeoDesignTool/GeoDT.git), a fast, simplified multi-physics solver to evaluate EGS project designs in uncertain geologic systems. GeoDT-ML leverages recent advances in deep learning and high-performance computing. It is a faster and simpler version of GeoDT. To make this project a success, we used capabilities of LANL, PNNL, Google, Stanford, and Julia Computing. We analyzed eight datasets of the U.S.A. using GeothermalCloud and demonstrated potential highly prospective geothermal resources and identified key factors defining highly prospective sites. The first data set includes 44 locations in southwest New Mexico and 18 geological, hydrogeological, geophysical, geothermal, geochemical attributes. We defined low- and medium-temperature hydrothermal systems and discovered a new highly prospective site. The second data set analyzed 18 shallow water chemistry attributes at 14,342 locations in the Great Basin. It demarcated modestly, moderately, and highly prospective sites including key attributes for each type of prospectivity. The third data set analyzed Utah FORGE data including satellite (InSAR), geophysical (gravity, seismic), geochemical, and geothermal attributes. Here, we performed prospectivity analysis to identify future drilling locations using geological, geochemical, and geophysical attributes. Maps of temperature at depth and heat flow are constructed based on the available data. Prospectivity maps were generated, and drilling locations were proposed for future geothermal field exploration. The fourth data set analyzed 21 attributes at 120 locations in Tularosa Basin, New Mexico; data comes from past play fairway analyses in this region. ML analyses identified geothermal signatures associated with modestly, moderately, and highly hydrothermal systems. We also defined dominant attributes and spatial distribution of the geothermal signatures. The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth datasets include Tohatchi Springs, New Mexico, Hawaii, Brady site, Nevada, and EGS Collab, respectively. Moreover, we coupled GeothermalCloud and magnetotellurics data to pinpoint drilling locations for developing geothermal projects in the Tularosa Basin, New Mexico. GeothermalCloud found potential prospective locations for geothermal resources near White Sands Missile Range and McGregor Range at Fort Bliss. Magnetotellurics data determined the potential depth (~1800m) of geothermal prospects at McGregor Range based on apparent resistivity structures/layers in the subsurface. The McGregor Range consists of three resistivity layers and two resistivity structures. Magnetotellurics data also helps identify that the western portion of the McGregor Range has thick and low-resistivity earth materials. The low resistivity to the west is most likely for a fault system. Assuming temperature is consistent with a geothermal reservoir, the west-central part of the McGregor Range has the highest geothermal potential because of the increase in porosity and associated permeability attributed to the interpreted fault system. Also, we devised a coupling strategy between a process model and GeothermalCloud to characterize hydrogeological conditions and geothermal conditions, respectively. The process model characterizes hydrogeological and geothermal conditions on highly prospective geothermal sites provided by GeothermalCloud. We developed a physics-informed neural network (PINN) version of the Burns equation that can be easily coupled with GeothermalCloud. Furthermore, we performed an optimal design decision maximizing the economic value of an EGS power plant. This study optimized the range of well spacing between injection and production wells maximizing net present value in dollars (NPV). For this task, we used the GeoDT to simulate the Utah FORGE EGS development cycle from the initial well design to the end of production. Next, we accomplished another crucial task, which is predicting permeability of geothermal reservoirs. Predicting permeability of geothermal reservoirs is a non-trivial task because of huge computational runtime of simulation and lack of measurements. To avoid these limitations, we used easy-to-measure chemical concentrations in the subsurface as measurement data and convolutional neural network based ML model of a high-fidelity model. Next, we predicted permeability using Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation. We found that Markov chain Monte Carlo simulation predicts permeability with a high certainty if the prediction zone in the simulation area has chemical concentration data. Finally, we analyzed the DOE funded INGENIOUS and GeoDAWN projects data. For discovering hidden geothermal systems in the Great Basin, the INGENIOUS project accumulated old data, collected new data, and released them in 2022. The dataset includes a total of 24 geological, geophysical, and geochemical attributes. Data resolution and scale significantly vary prohibiting an appropriate usage. To avoid such limitations, we brought all data in the same resolution and scale by applying the inverse distance weighting interpolation technique for predicting data in unsampled locations. Subsequently, we analyzed LiDAR data of the GeoDAWN project. We received data in tiles format. The DOE’s overarching goal is to use ML on LiDAR data for finding favorable geological structures (e.g., step up faults in Brady, Nevada). To serve the purpose, we need to label favorable geologic structures that correspond to LiDAR data. We wrote an algorithm to label the LiDAR data with the favorable geologic structures.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

AutoSourceID-Classifier: Star-galaxy classification using a convolutional neural network with spatial information

Aims.Traditional star-galaxy classification techniques often rely on feature estimation from catalogs, a process susceptible to introducing inaccuracies, thereby potentially jeopardizing the classification’s reliability. Certain galaxies, especially those not manifesting as extended sources, can be misclassified when their shape parameters and flux solely drive the inference. We aim to create a robust and accurate classification network for identifying stars and galaxies directly from astronomical images. Methods.The AutoSourceID-Classifier (ASID-C) algorithm developed for this work uses 32x32 pixel single filter band source cutouts generated by the previously developed AutoSourceID-Light (ASID-L) code. By leveraging convolutional neural networks (CNN) and additional information about the source position within the full-field image, ASID-C aims to accurately classify all stars and galaxies within a survey. Subsequently, we employed a modified Platt scaling calibration for the output of the CNN, ensuring that the derived probabilities were effectively calibrated, delivering precise and reliable results. Results.We show that ASID-C, trained on MeerLICHT telescope images and using the Dark Energy Camera Legacy Survey (DECaLS) morphological classification, is a robust classifier and outperforms similar codes such as SourceExtractor. To facilitate a rigorous comparison, we also trained an eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model on tabular features extracted by SourceExtractor. While this XGBoost model approaches ASID-C in performance metrics, it does not offer the computational efficiency and reduced error propagation inherent in ASID-C’s direct image-based classification approach. ASID-C excels in low signal-to-noise ratio and crowded scenarios, potentially aiding in transient host identification and advancing deep-sky astronomy.

Astronomy & Astrophysics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Cosmic Background Rejection of the ICARUS experiment at Fermilab

The Short Baseline Neutrino program at Fermilab aims to explore significant regions of parameter space, applicable to sterile neutrinos at the eV mass scale, as suggested by existing experimental anomalies. To this purpose it exploits Liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber detectors located along the Booster Neutrino Beamline to measure both νe appearance and νµ disappearance: the Short Baseline Neutrino Detector and the ICARUS-T600 detector at 110 and 600 m from the neutrino source, respectively. The ICARUS T-600 Far Detector, located at shallow depth, is surrounded by a Cosmic Ray Tagger system to mitigate the cosmic ray background. On average ~ 11 muon tracks are expected to cross the detector during the ~ 1 ms drift time. The cosmic ray tagger is composed of plastic scintillator bars, ensuring near 4π coverage of the detector aiming at tagging cosmic muons and thus reject 𝛾s produced by muon interactions in the surrounding materials that can generate an electromagnetic showers mimicking a νe signal. The system allows one to disentangle cosmic rays from particles originated in a neutrino interaction inside the detector by measuring their position and crossing time. A synchronization of the cosmic ray tagger with the ICARUS photon detection system with a nanosecond accuracy allows one to reject cosmic particles recorded during the beam spill and thus select an enriched sample of neutrino triggered events ahead of the event reconstruction. An overview of the cosmic ray tagger system as well as its role in the neutrino events identification and cosmic background rejection will be presented.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Heat load measurements for the PIP-II pHB650 cryomodule

This study presents a brief overview of the 1st and 2nd phases and an in-depth analysis of the 3rd phase heat load testing performed on the pHB650 (prototype High Beta 650 MHz) cryomodule at PIP2IT (PIP-II Injector Test Facility), with a focus on both the results and the methodological advancements that have improved testing efficiency and accuracy. A key challenge identified in the testing campaign is the higher-than-expected heat loads observed in the first PIP-II (Proton Improvement Plan II) prototype cryomodules (pSSR1 and pHB650) tested at PIP2IT. Elevated heat loads are concerning given the fixed capacity of the PIP-II cryoplant that is currently being installed at Fermilab. However, understanding the sources of these elevated heat loads offers a critical opportunity to implement effective heat load mitigations on upcoming PIP-II cryomodules to stay within the available capacity of the PIP-II cryoplant. The study includes a summary of test results, descriptions of measurement procedures, and key observations on parameters directly and indirectly related to heat load measurements. Direct observations include measured heat loads and the effectiveness of JT heat exchanger under varying conditions, while indirect observation analyze factors such as the temperature distribution on the two-phase pipe and relief piping under varying conditions. Thermal acoustic oscillations (TAO) were identified during testing, which was mitigated by replacing the original G10 stem with a stainless steel stem equipped with wipers for the cryomodule cooldown valve. A major innovation during pHB650 Phase 3 testing was the development of an automated Python script to streamline data acquisition, analysis, and reporting of heat load results. This script automatically retrieved data from ACNET (Accelerator Control Network), performed heat load calculations, and generated detailed reports featuring plots and tables. This advancement significantly reduced manual labor and enhanced the thoroughness of data analysis compared to earlier campaigns. The heat load test reports were promptly uploaded to the electronic logbook shortly after each test, enabling rapid feedback and collaboration between the SRF and cryogenic teams. The heat load measurements included various components: HTTS (high-temperature thermal shield), LTTS (low-temperature thermal shield), 2K isothermal and non-isothermal heat loads. Results were recorded both within the cryomodule and between the bayonet can supply and return. Measurements were conducted under different operating conditions such as "standard", "linac", and "simulated dynamic". Additionally, HTTS and LTTS heat loads were calculated in real time, allowing for the tracking of thermal stability and identification of changes during testing, both in steady-state and transient conditions. The results of this testing campaign not only provide valuable insights into the performance of the pHB650 cryomodule but also highlight best practices and lessons learned that will inform future cryomodule testing at PIP2IT. These include adopting automated tools for data analysis, refining real-time measurement capabilities, and emphasizing detailed pre-test planning. The framework established in this campaign aims to set an improved standard for cryomodule testing and heat load reporting in future cryomodule test campaigns.

Porwisiak, D. [Fermilab; Wroclaw Tech. U.]↗
DOE OSTI2024

Infrared Fingerprint and Unimolecular Decay Dynamics of the Hydroperoxyalkyl Intermediate (•QOOH) in Cyclopentane Oxidation

A transient carbon-centered hydroperoxyalkyl intermediate (•QOOH) in the oxidation of cyclopentane is identified by IR action spectroscopy with time-resolved unimolecular decay to hydroxyl (OH) radical products that are detected by UV laser-induced fluorescence. Two nearly degenerate •QOOH isomers, β- and γ-QOOH, are generated by H atom abstraction of the cyclopentyl hydroperoxide precursor. Fundamental and first overtone OH stretch transitions and combination bands of •QOOH are observed and compared with anharmonic frequencies computed by second-order vibrational perturbation theory. An OH stretch transition is also observed for a conformer arising from torsion about a low-energy CCOO barrier. Definitive identification of the β-QOOH isomer relies on its significantly lower transition state (TS) barrier to OH products, which results in rapid unimolecular decay and near unity branching to OH products. A benchmarking approach is utilized to compute high-accuracy stationary point energies, most importantly TS barriers, for cyclopentane oxidation (C 5 H 9 O 2 ), building on higher level reference calculations for ethane oxidation (C 2 H 5 O 2 ). The experimental OH product appearance rates are compared with computed statistical microcanonical rates using RRKM theory, including heavy-atom tunneling, thereby validating the computed TS barrier. The results are extended to thermal unimolecular decay rate constants at temperatures and pressures relevant to cyclopentane combustion via master-equation modeling. Furthermore, the various torsional and ring puckering states of the wells and transition states are explicitly considered in these calculations.

Chemical calculations↗
DOE OSTI2025

Harnessing on-machine metrology data for prints with a surrogate model for laser powder directed energy deposition

In this study, we leverage the massive amount of multi-modal on-machine metrology data generated from Laser Powder Directed Energy Deposition (LP-DED) to construct a comprehensive surrogate model of the 3D printing process. By employing Dynamic Mode Decomposition with Control (DMDc), a data-driven technique, we capture the complex physics inherent in this extensive dataset. This physics-based surrogate model emphasizes thermodynamically significant quantities, enabling us to accurately predict key process outcomes. The model ingests 21 process parameters, including laser power, scan rate, and position, while providing outputs such as melt pool temperature, melt pool size, and other essential observables. Furthermore, it incorporates uncertainty quantification to provide bounds on these predictions, enhancing reliability and confidence in the results. We then deploy the surrogate model on a new, unseen part and monitor the printing process as validation of the method. Our experimental results demonstrate that the predictions align with actual measurements with high accuracy, confirming the effectiveness of our approach. Furthermore, this methodology not only facilitates real-time predictions but also operates at process-relevant speeds, establishing a basis for implementing feedback control in LP-DED.

Digital twins↗
DOE OSTI2024

Identification of Climatological Representative Days in the Mid-Atlantic for High-Fidelity Offshore Wind Energy Modeling

The goal of reaching 30 GW of offshore wind energy by 2030 becomes more realistic with the continued approval of offshore wind energy areas by the Biden Administration. In the Mid-Atlantic, where wind energy projects are in the most advanced stages of development, there is increased research focus on the eventual interaction of these wind farms. These interactions, in the form of wakes and cluster wakes, or wakes from multiple wind farms, could have detrimental effects on power production and forecastability for downwind wind farms (Pryor et al. 2022, Golbazi et al. 2022, Rosencrans et al. 2023). To help alleviate these issues, numerical simulations in the form of numerical weather prediction (NWP) and large eddy simulations (LES) can provide insight into when cluster wake situations may occur, but running such simulations can be expensive and difficult to run for multiple years. In this study, we leverage and build upon existing techniques in the literature (Fischereit et al. 2022) to identify climatologically representative days for wind energy areas in the Mid-Atlantic where conditions would promote cluster wake situations. We select meteorological variables (wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric stability, boundary-layer height, TKE) critical to understanding wind energy production and wake propagation. We then consider two different NWP datasets of varying spatial and temporal resolution: ERA5 provides data at hourly intervals from 1940 to present at 0.25 deg (31 km) spatial resolution (Hersbach et al. 2020), and the NOW-23 dataset provides data at 5-minute resolution for 21 years at 2-km spatial resolution (Bodini et al. 2020). Our first step is to compare these two datasets for an overlapping 21-year time period. Initial results show that the required number of days to represent the long-term climate increases with each additional variable considered. In their study of the German Bight, Fischereit et al. (2022) found that they could represent the long-term wind and wave climate in a "near-perfect" way with -180 days, by reaching a Perkins Skill Score (PSS) of 0.9; our investigation of the mid-Atlantic wind resource region with ERA5 and NOW-23 data suggests that we will need -100 days to reach a PSS of 0.9. As we expand our parameter space to include multiple variables, the number of required days will likely grow. These results will ultimately be used to select case studies to best represent cluster wake conditions that apply to this region for the lifetime of likely wind farms in this mid-Atlantic region.

clusterwakes↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2021

AI-Batt (Autonomous Identification of Battery Life Models) [SWR 21-36]

Autonomous Identification of Battery Life Models (AI-Batt) AI-Batt is a MATLAB code base for developing lifetime models for batteries from accelerated aging data. The code base provides many functions for processing, visualizing, and modeling battery aging data, making the data processing, exploration, and modeling workflow substantially faster. These tools are tailored for working with battery aging data sets, which usually consist of many separate time-series for each cell, with many test conditions and possible replicates at each condition, which makes it difficult to simply process or visualize the data set. Complex modeling tasks, such as cross-validation, sensitivity analysis, and uncertainty quantification have been implemented to enable thorough statistical investigation of model predictions. Additionally, several machine-learning algorithms are implemented to autonomously identify suitable models via symbolic regression. Data processing functions automatically cast data from the struct data type, which is commonly used to store experimental data, but is not an acceptable input for most algorithms, to the table data type, which can be easily used as input to any optimization algorithm. Also, the data can be separated into time-invariant and time-variant data tables, which is helpful for exploring the data set as well as developing separate models for time-variant and time-invariant aging mechanisms. For example, in aging tests with constant temperature, temperature is a time-invariant experimental condition. Visualization tools enable plotting of data, model fits, and model simulations possible with single-line function calls, empowering data exploration of complex data sets with both time-varying and time-invariant trends. Plots can be automatically generated for the whole data set, or separated by data group (groups of test replicates) or individual data series. Data points or data series can be automatically colored by the value of a variable with a variety of color maps, and model predictions can also be colored by the value of a fit statistic. Comparisons between data sets and the predictions/simulations of different models on the same data set can be easily plotted as well. Distributions of parameter values from bootstrap resampling can be plotted to visualize the reliability of parameter estimation, or determine any correlations between parameters. Modeling tools handle the complex task of creating and parsing symbolic equations for modeling battery lifetime. Equations are parsed to grab relevant data variables, parameter values, or specified sub-models for input into optimization, evaluation, or simulation functions. Models can be optimized locally (one set of parameters for each data series), bi-level (some parameters shared across the data set), or globally (single set of parameters for all data). Functions implementing symbolic regression algorithms help users to discover effective model equations, even in poorly sampled, high-dimensional data.

Smith, Kandler [National Renewable Energy Lab. (NR↗
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↗