Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “data sharing”

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 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Standardized Protocol for Real-Time APIs as Required by Title 23 CFR 680.116(c)

Improving the ability of drivers to easily locate working and available chargers is key to improving the public charging experience. Electric vehicle charging providers who are recipients of federal funds through the National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program, Charging and Fueling Infrastructure (CFI) Discretionary Grant Program, and other funding programs as identified under Title 23 of the U.S. Code must deploy and maintain an application programming interface (API) to access information about charging stations they operate.1 This includes information about individual charging ports, pricing, and availability in accordance with the Federal Highway Administration’s National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Standards and Requirements, 23 CFR 680.116(c), herein referred to as the minimum standards (Federal Highway Administration 2023). Specifically outlined in the minimum standards, states and other designated recipients are required to ensure that charging station information including location, connector type, power level, real-time status, and real-time price to charge are available free of charge to third-party software developers through an API. These requirements are intended to enable effective communication with consumers about available charging stations and help consumers make informed decisions about trip planning, including when and where to charge. This document provides a standardized protocol for how to structure data, data update frequency, and practices for making the data required to be shared via API usable for improving public transparency and the customer experience. These are recommendations only and do not modify the Federal Highway Administration’s minimum standards in any way.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2025

FY 2025 Multidimensional Data Correlation Platform: Unified Software Architecture for Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies Data Management and Processing

The Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies (AMMT) program continues to advance a data-driven approach to demonstrate the utility of additive manufacturing for fabricating components for nuclear applications. A key scientific goal is to leverage data to better understand manufacturing outcomes and thereby improve the performance, reliability, and lifespan of nuclear components. Ultimately, this effort supports the development of standards for certification and qualification of additively manufactured components, enabling broader industry adoption. In support of this objective, the AMMT program is building and deploying a data management platform to record, index, analyze, and make available the manufacturing data generated across the AMMT program. In FY 2023, the team conceptualized the architecture of the platform and, in FY 2024, deployed the first functional version at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Manufacturing Demonstration Facility (MDF). In FY 2025, the platform was officially opened to all AMMT members. To enable this expansion, core modifications and enhancements were developed, including improvements to the user interface and workflows for data entry and retrieval. Most notably, robust security and access control mechanisms were implemented to protect data and manage information sharing. This effort featured a logging system, protected views, and controlled access mechanisms. This report documents these enhancements and the transition of the platform into program-wide use.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Sharing is Caring: A Practical Guide to FAIR(ER) Open Data Release

This is a two hour version of the FAIR(ER) tutorial we released at Barcelona 9/24. SAND2024-12152C. The only modifications were largely deletions, which don't require additional review. The one key difference that actually has changed material is in the Language section for Equitable Accessibility, which is almost word for word the same as previously approved SAND2025-04087W which is the website version of the presentation.

Henriksen, Amelia [Sandia National Laboratories (S↗
DOE OSTI2026

HPC ODA Commons [SWR-26-003]

HPC ODA Commons is a community-driven platform for standardizing HPC operational data analytics. HPC sites generate enormous volumes of operational data - scheduler logs, accounting records, monitoring streams - but turning that data into actionable insight is needlessly hard. Each site builds bespoke parsers, schemas, and evaluation pipelines. Results can't be compared across institutions. Promising analytics ideas stay siloed because there's no shared language for describing the data, the experiments, or the outcomes. HPC ODA Commons fixes this by establishing community-governed contracts - versioned schemas, canonical artifacts, and benchmark recipes - that make ODA workflows discoverable, reproducible, and comparable. It pairs these standards with a practical, CLI-first toolkit that lets operators and researchers go from raw logs to standardized results without sending data off-cluster.

Menear, Kevin [National Laboratory of the Rockies ↗
DOE OSTI2025

NGEE Arctic Phase 4 Plant Functional Type Framework for Pan-Arctic Vegetation

The NGEE-Arctic research team identified a common set of hierarchical plant functional types (PFTs) for pan-arctic vegetation that we will use across our research activities. Interdisciplinary work within a large team requires agreement regarding levels of functional organization so that knowledge, data, and technologies can be shared and combined effectively. The team has identified plant functional types as a crucial area where such interoperability is needed. PFTs are used to represent plant pools and fluxes within models, summarize observational data, and map vegetation across the landscape. Within each of these applications, varying levels of PFT specificity are needed according to the specific scientific research goal, computational limitations, and data availability. By agreeing on a specific hierarchical framework for grouping variables in our vegetation data, we ensure the resulting research products will be robust, flexible, and scalable. In this document, we lay out the agreed upon PFT framework with definitions and references to existing literature. Table 1 included in the "NGA700_Phase4PFTFramework_about*" file outlines the relationship between NGEE-Arctic Phase 4, Tier 1 PFTs and the PFTs used within prominent arctic literature as well as publications by the NGEE-Arctic team during phases 1-3.This dataset consists of a table detailing a hierarchical PFT framework that spans 4 tiers with the most granular PFTs listed in tier 1 and the most general PFTs in tier 4. The PFTs within each tier has a single column in the dataset where the PFTs are named and a separate column where the characteristics used to define that PFT are listed. Grey fill of the cells is used to indicate where a given PFT starts to “lose” tier 1 details as you look from left to right. Note the excel file has merged cells to indicate grouping of PFTs across the Tiers- it will not translate into a delimited filetype (.csv, .txt, etc) without modification thus the hierarchical PFT framework table is available in three different file formats: 1) NGA700_Phase4PTS.xlsx – maintains the merged cells and grey fill; 2) NGA700_Phase4PTS.csv – merged cells are split, and grey fill is removed; 3) NGA700_Phase4PTS.pdf – image of the table with merged cells and grey fill. Metadata document included as a *.pdf and file-level metadata and data dictionary as *.csv files.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

House Advantage or House of Cards? Stacking the Deck for Data Videos Leads to Null Results: Preprint

Videos are becoming a ubiquitous means of sharing information on social media platforms. In response, data videos - short clips combining visualization with dynamic storytelling, audio descriptions, and spatial referencing - have gained popularity for communicating data. These affordances suggest that data videos might communicate data patterns, trends, and concepts more effectively than static visualizations, enhancing comprehension. However, existing research has not systematically tested this claim. To address this gap, we conducted three controlled studies to measure comprehension differences between data videos and static visualizations. Despite leveraging visual cues and audio explanations, no data video led to significantly better comprehension than an analogous static visualization. Our results suggest data videos are not categorically better and that future research should examine the tradeoffs between their engagement benefits and costs.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Computing Sparse Tensor Decompositions via Chapel and C++/MPI Interoperability without Intermediate I/O

We extend an existing approach for efficient use of shared mapped memory across Chapel and C++ for graph data stored as 1-D arrays to sparse tensor data stored using a combination of 2-D and 1-D arrays. We describe the specific extensions that provide use of shared mapped memory tensor data for a particular C++ tensor decomposition tool called GentenMPI. We then demonstrate our approach on several real-world datasets, providing timing results that illustrate minimal overhead incurred using this approach. Finally, we extend our work to improve memory usage and provide convenient random access to sparse shared mapped memory tensor elements in Chapel, while still being capable of leveraging high performance implementations of tensor algorithms in C++.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Fiber Optic Cumulative Strain Change and Strain Change Rate Data From Well 16A Stimulation at Well 16B

This dataset includes Rayleigh Frequency Shift (RFS) Distributed Strain Sensing (DSS) cumulative strain change and change rate data. The data was acquired during the stimulation of Utah FORGE Well 16A(78)-32 in April 2024 via fiber installed in Well 16B(78)-32. The fiber optic data was acquired using Neubrex SR7000 RFS DSS Distributed Strain sensing instruments and is saved here in the format of HDF5 files (.h5 extension). The spatial sampling on the full wellbore profiles is 0.20 centimeters. The data is the far field strain change response from a baseline profile made down the 16B well on April 3, 2024, so each strain value represents the strain change or strain change rate at each depth relative to the baseline reference profile. The data arrays for each type share the same dimensions (number of channels and time stamps).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Route Energy Prediction (RouteE) Powertrain Validation Report

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's flagship package in the RouteE suite, RouteE-Powertrain, is a mesoscopic energy model that predicts vehicle energy consumption given discrete attributes that describe each segment or link in a vehicle's path on a road network. High-frequency, physics-based, powertrain simulators, such as NREL's FASTSim, are well-suited to model vehicle energy consumption when real driving data and a detailed understanding of the vehicle powertrain specifications are available. However, there are a variety of situations in the past, present (real-time), and future where high-frequency driving data and/or vehicle information may not be available, but reliable energy consumption is still desired, such as energy-aware vehicle routing. These are the ideal applications for RouteE-Powertrain. The suite of RouteE tools also includes RouteE-Compass, which is an eco-routing software that incorporates energy consumption into network routing algorithms, and RouteE-Mobile, which is a prototype smartphone navigation app to demonstrate the integrated capabilities of the RouteE suite for real-world eco-routing. The focus of this validation report is to share key metrics about the data sets and models behind RouteE-Powertrain. The set of RouteE-Powertrain models discussed in this report are made available through the RouteE web API through the NREL Developer Network.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2025

ASCR Workshop Position Paper: Challenges and Opportunities in High Energy Physics

High energy particle physics and cosmology concern themselves with estimating fundamental parameters of nature, such as the masses and interactions of fundamental particles like the Higgs boson and the rate of expansion of the universe. In doing so, they analyze exabyte-scale datasets, some of the largest in all of science, and face many challenges in subsequent data analysis. These challenges are shared between the two disciplines, but we focus on particle physics to highlight one specific domain. In particle physics, the standard method for estimating parameters involves performing Monte Carlo (MC) integration as a function of both parameters of interest and nuisance parameters using an expensive simulator, counting the number of observed collision events (i.i.d. samples) from an experiment in the corresponding integration domains, and forming a Poisson likelihood function. This likelihood function is then used in a Frequentist manner to construct a maximum likelihood point estimate (MLE) and confidence set for the parameters. To sufficiently populate the high-dimensional integration domains, simulators consume billions of CPU-hours annually and produce hundreds of petabytes of intermediate output data. Several techniques have been developed to: optimize definitions of the integration domains so as to be maximally sensitive to a particular subset of parameters, efficiently estimate the integrals, and build robust surrogate models by interpolating between integral evaluations at different parameter points. One can view this whole endeavor as classical Simulation-Based Inference (SBI).

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Results of an interlaboratory study on the working curve in vat photopolymerization II: Towards a standardized method

The working curve measurement in photopolymer additive manufacturing is a ubiquitous measure of the cure depth of a printing resin as a function of radiant exposure of light. The fit parameters from this measurement (the depth of light penetration D p and the critical exposure E c ) are used to evaluate and report a resin’s printability, optimize processing parameters, and inform print and resin quality control. Despite its widespread use, the working curve lacks a standard measurement method. Here, following up on our paper “Results of an Interlaboratory Study on the Working Curve in Vat Photopolymerization” from last year, an interlaboratory study on the working curve was performed using calibrated, reproducible, bandpass filtered light sources. With these light sources, the variability between labs in measured working curves was dramatically reduced from the initial interlaboratory study. Aggregate data from this experiment produced reliable D p and E c measurements at 385 nm of 39.2 ± 3.7 µm and 12.3 ± 3.0 mJ cm −2 , respectively. At 405 nm the values of D p and E c are 69.3 ± 3.8 µm and 17.9 ± 2.3 mJ cm −2 , respectively. The results are agnostic to the thickness measurement tool utilized by participants, ensuring broad applicability across laboratories. We also tested the generalizability of the proposed method of using a filtered light source by filtering a commercial 405 nm light source and obtaining a working curve in agreement with the aggregate data from the interlaboratory study. This interlaboratory study provides a basis for a documentary standard for the working curve, so that the entire photopolymer additive manufacturing industry can share reproducible and interoperable working curve data.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

High-Mileage Courier Fleet Vehicle On-Road Logger Data

This dataset describes the performance and fuel efficiency of AVTA test vehicles operating in commercial courier fleets the Phoenix, AZ metro area between 2010 and 2016. Aftermarket data loggers were installed in two to four vehicles of each of 30+ distinct year/make/models (see reference ["INL Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity: On-road Logger and Laboratory Battery Pack Testing Vehicle List"](https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/reports/DatasetVehicleList.pdf) for full list of vehicles). Loggers recorded vehicle operation as they were driven up to 160,000 miles in up to three years of fleet testing. Parameters were logged at 1-second intervals, including - vehicle speed, - engine and/or electric motor speed, - fuel and/or electricity consumption, and - ambient temperature. This dataset includes both raw second-by-second data and trip-level metrics. This dataset is shared by API; a small sample of the vehicle and logger data has been extracted and is also available for download.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

High-Throughput Microstructural Characterization and Process Correlation Using Automated Electron Backscatter Diffraction

The need to optimize the processing conditions of additively manufactured (AM) metals and alloys has driven advances in throughput capabilities for material property measurements such as tensile strength or hardness. High-throughput (HT) characterization of AM metal microstructure has fallen significantly behind the pace of property measurements due to intrinsic bottlenecks associated with the artisan and labor-intensive preparation methods required to produce highly polished surfaces. This inequality in data throughput has led to a reliance on heuristics to connect process to structure or structure to properties for AM structural materials. In this study, we show a transformative approach to achieve laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) printing, HT preparation using dry electropolishing and HT electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD). This approach was used to construct a library of > 600 experimental EBSD sample sets spanning a diverse range of LPBF process conditions for AM Kovar. This vast library is far more expansive in parameter space than most state-of-the-art studies, yet it required only approximately 10 labor hours to acquire. Build geometries, surface preparation methods, and microscopy details, as well as the entire library of >600 EBSD data sets over the two sample design versions, have been shared with intent for the materials community to leverage the data and further advance the approach. Using this library, we investigated process–structure relationships and uncovered an unexpected, strong dependence of microstructure on location within the build, when varied, using otherwise identical laser parameters.

Characterization and Analytical Technique↗
DOE OSTI2024

Modelling and analysis of nuclear reactor system coupled with a liquid metal battery

Traditionally, nuclear power plants in the U.S. provide baseload power to the power grid because they have less flexibility for ramping their output power than natural gas peaking plants. However, achieving climate goals to reduce the consumption of fossil‐based natural gas places pressure on nuclear power plants and other power generators to ramp up their power output to balance grid generation with demand. This paper presents the modelling and performance analysis of a nuclear reactor system (NRS) coupled to a liquid‐metal battery (LMB) to improve its dynamic response and enable its black start capability. The NRS and LMB thermal behaviour are modelled in Dymola, while the electrical dynamics of the LMB and power grid are modelled in RTDS‐RSCAD. Both simulation platforms are coupled and share their thermal and electrical data using a Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) communication protocol. The dynamic performance of the NRS‐LMB integration is tested on the IEEE 9 bus, which demonstrates its ability to respond and provide frequency and voltage regulation. The black start capability of the NRS‐LMB is also evaluated by simulating a grid outage and using the LMB to supply the auxiliary loads required to bring the NRS back online as soon as possible. The results show that coupling an NRS to an LMB improves the system dynamic performance and enables it to black start after being disconnected from the grid for several days.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2024

IRIS: A Performance-Portable Framework for Cross-Platform Heterogeneous Computing

From edge to exascale, computer architectures are becoming more heterogeneous and complex. The systems typically have fat nodes, with multicore CPUs and multiple hardware accelerators such as GPUs, FPGAs, and DSPs. This complexity is causing a crisis in programming systems and performance portability. Several programming systems are working to address these challenges, but the increasing architectural diversity is forcing software stacks and applications to be specialized for each architecture. As we show, all of these approaches critically depend on their software framework for discovery, execution, scheduling, and data orchestration. To address this challenge, we believe that a more agile and proactive software framework is essential to increase performance portability and improve user productivity. To this end, we have designed and implemented IRIS: a performance-portable framework for cross-platform heterogeneous computing. IRIS can discover available resources, manage multiple diverse programming platforms (e.g., CUDA, Hexagon, HIP, Level Zero, OpenCL, OpenMP) simultaneously in the same execution, respect data dependencies, orchestrate data movement proactively, and provide for user-configurable scheduling. To simplify data movement, IRIS introduces a shared virtual device memory with relaxed consistency among different heterogeneous devices. IRIS also adds an automatic kernel workload partitioning technique using the polyhedral model so that it can resize kernels for a wide range of devices. Our evaluation on three architectures, ranging from Qualcomm Snapdragon to a Summit supercomputer node, shows that IRIS improves portability across a wide range of diverse heterogeneous architectures with negligible overhead.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗