Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Hydraulic Conductivity”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 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↗
NASA NTRS1996

Osteoblast hydraulic conductivity is regulated by calcitonin and parathyroid hormone

It is our hypothesis that osteoblasts play a major role in regulating bone (re)modeling by regulating interstitial fluid (ISF) flow through individual bone compartments. We hypothesize that osteoblasts of the blood-bone membrane lining the bone surfaces are capable of regulating transosseous fluid flow. This regulatory function of the osteoblasts was tested in vitro by culturing a layer of rat calvarial osteoblasts on porous membranes. Such a layer of osteoblasts subjected to 7.3 mm Hg of hydrostatic pressure posed a significant resistance to fluid flow across the cell layer similar in magnitude to the resistance posed by endothelial monolayers in vitro. The hydraulic conductivity, the volumetric fluid flux per unit pressure drop, of the osteoblast layer was altered in response to certain hormones. Hydraulic conductivity decreased approximately 40% in response to 33 nM parathyroid hormone, while it exhibited biphasic behavior in response to calcitonin: increased 40% in response to 100 nM calcitonin and decreased 40% in response to 1000 nM calcitonin. Further, activation of adenylate cyclase by forskolin dramatically increased the hydraulic conductivity, while elevation of intracellular calcium, [Ca2+]i, by the calcium ionophore A23187 initially decreased the hydraulic conductivity at 5 minutes before increasing conductivity by 30 minutes. These results suggest that cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) and [Ca2+]i may mediate changes in the osteoblast hydraulic conductivity. The increase in hydraulic conductivity in response to 100 nM calcitonin and the decrease in response to PTH suggest that the stimulatory and inhibitory effects on bone formation of calcitonin and parathyroid hormone, respectively, may be due in part to alterations in bone fluid flow.

Non-NASA Center↗
DOE OSTI2025

Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements, Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska, 2014

Six individual ice cores were collected from the Barrow Environmental Observatory in Barrow, Alaska, in May of 2013 as part of the Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment (NGEE). Each core was drilled at a different location to varying depths. After drilling, the cores were stored in coolers packed with dry ice and flown to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in Berkeley, CA. 3-dimensional images of the cores were constructed using medical X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanner at 120kV. Hydraulic conductivity samples were extracted from these cores at LBNL Richmond Field Station in Richmond, CA, in February 2014 by cutting 5 to 8 inch segments using a chop saw. Samples were packed individually and stored at -20C freezing temperatures to minimize any changes in structure or loss of ice content prior to analysis. Hydraulic conductivity was determined through falling head tests using a permeameter [ELE International, Model #: K-770B] (Appendix A). Samples were placed in a latex membrane via a membrane stretcher while frozen. Use of a membrane stretcher made the membranes easier to secure and minimized contact with the sample. A clear polycarbonate sleeve, fabricated with a stainless steel ring at the bottom to keep the sleeve from floating, was placed around the sample inside the permeameter to minimize deformation during analysis. The permeameter was filled with water and 1.0 PSI of air was applied for confining pressure during sample defrost. Outflow valves were left open to allow for incremental thawing and samples were left to thaw for approximately 12 hours. After approximately 12 hours of thaw, initial falling head tests were performed. When the flow was significantly too fast or too slow, the analysis was stopped and the burette size was adjusted accordingly (i.e. a larger diameter burette was used for flows that were faster than desired or a smaller diameter burette was used for flows that were slower than desired). Two to four measurements were collected on each sample and collection stopped when the applied head load exceeded 25% change from the original load. Analyses were performed between 2 to 3 times for each sample. The final hydraulic conductivity calculations were computed using methodology of Das et al., 1985.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a 15-year research effort (2012-2027) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1993

Water uptake by growing cells: an assessment of the controlling roles of wall relaxation, solute uptake, and hydraulic conductance

Growing plant cells increase in volume principally by water uptake into the vacuole. There are only three general mechanisms by which a cell can modulate the process of water uptake: (a) by relaxing wall stress to reduce cell turgor pressure (thereby reducing cell water potential), (b) by modifying the solute content of the cell or its surroundings (likewise affecting water potential), and (c) by changing the hydraulic conductance of the water uptake pathway (this works only for cells remote from water potential equilibrium). Recent studies supporting each of these potential mechanisms are reviewed and critically assessed. The importance of solute uptake and hydraulic conductance is advocated by some recent studies, but the evidence is indirect and conclusions remain controversial. For most growing plant cells with substantial turgor pressure, it appears that reduction in cell turgor pressure, as a consequence of wall relaxation, serves as the major initiator and control point for plant cell enlargement. Two views of wall relaxation as a viscoelastic or a chemorheological process are compared and distinguished.

Non-NASA Center↗
NASA NTRS1985

Measuring Soil Hydraulic Conductivity With Microwaves

Soil mapping for large or small areas done rapidly. Technique requires simple radiometric measurements of L-band (15 to 30 cm) and thermal infrared emissions from ground within 2 days after saturation of surface. Technique based on observation that correlation exists between L-band emissivity and hydraulic conductivity of soil.

Blanchard, B. J.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Response of the water status of soybean to changes in soil water potentials controlled by the water pressure in microporous tubes

Water transport through a microporous tube-soil-plant system was investigated by measuring the response of soil and plant water status to step change reductions in the water pressure within the tubes. Soybeans were germinated and grown in a porous ceramic 'soil' at a porous tube water pressure of -0.5 kpa for 28 d. During this time, the soil matric potential was nearly in equilibrium with tube water pressure. Water pressure in the porous tubes was then reduced to either -1.0, -1.5 or -2.0 kPa. Sap flow rates, leaf conductance and soil, root and leaf water potentials were measured before and after this change. A reduction in porous tube water pressure from -0.5 to -1.0 or -1.5 kPa did not result in any significant change in soil or plant water status. A reduction in porous tube water pressure to -2.0 kPa resulted in significant reductions in sap flow, leaf conductance, and soil, root and leaf water potentials. Hydraulic conductance, calculated as the transpiration rate/delta psi between two points in the water transport pathway, was used to analyse water transport through the tube-soil-plant continuum. At porous tube water pressures of -0.5 to-1.5 kPa soil moisture was readily available and hydraulic conductance of the plant limited water transport. At -2.0 kPa, hydraulic conductance of the bulk soil was the dominant factor in water movement.

NASA Center JSC↗
DOE OSTI2025

CMP Pits and D-Area Watershed Infiltrometer Testing

Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) conducted saturated hydraulic conductivity field testing at the Chemical, Metals, and Pesticide Pits (CMP Pits) and the D-Area watershed to develop infiltration rates for use in future updates to the CMP Pits groundwater flow model. Approximately 18 testing locations were selected at each site based on the soil series that were identified in the Soil Survey of Savannah River Plant Area, Parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties, South Carolina.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

CMP Pits and D-Area Watershed Infiltrometer Testing

Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) conducted saturated hydraulic conductivity field testing at the Chemical, Metals, and Pesticide Pits (CMP Pits) and the D-Area watershed to develop infiltration rates for use in future updates to the CMP Pits groundwater flow model. Approximately 18 testing locations were selected at each site based on the soil series that were identified in the Soil Survey of Savannah River Plant Area, Parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties, South Carolina.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Physical and Hydraulic Properties of RCRA Borehole Samples from the Hanford Site : Final Report, Fiscal Years 2023-2024

Sediment from 44 core samples collected from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) boreholes drilled in the 200 East and 200 West areas of the Hanford Site were characterized for physical and hydraulic properties (Table S.1). Characterization data included gravimetric water contents and matric potentials, grain-size distributions, saturated hydraulic conductivity, water retention characteristics, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. These properties provide site-specific data and parameters that can be used in subsurface flow and contaminant transport models to assess the transport and fate of contaminants in the vadose zone and underlying aquifer systems. The analyzed core samples come from specific areas and depth intervals at the Hanford Site that were targeted for sampling to address data gaps identified by site contractors (Khaleel 2020). X-ray computed tomography (XCT) was used to evaluate the general textural characteristics of the samples and to determine which samples to use for further physical and hydraulic property characterization. Subsequent sample selection was determined by consensus after review of the XCT images by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Central Plateau Cleanup Company, and INTERA staff.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Initial Uncertainty Analysis of Carbon Tetrachloride Contamination and Remediation in the Ringold A and Lower Mud Units at the Central Plateau

The long-term effectiveness of groundwater cleanup at the Hanford Site Central Plateau depends on predictive models that can capture key uncertainties in contaminant fate and transport. Carbon tetrachloride (CCl 4 ), a persistent and toxic compound, presents particular challenges due to variability in degradation rates, uncertainty in initial plume distribution, and subsurface heterogeneity. These uncertainties directly influence plume persistence, migration pathways, and remedy performance, and thus must be systematically evaluated to support long-term remediation planning. To address these gaps, a large-scale Monte Carlo analysis was conducted using the Plateau to River (P2R) model framework. The modeling approach parameterized three primary uncertainty factors: (1) degradation rate, (2) initial plume distribution, and (3) hydraulic conductivity. Degradation was represented as a first-order process, with half-lives ranging from 70 to 700 years. Initial plume distributions were created using a geostatistical simulation method (sgsim), which generates many equally plausible versions of how contaminants might be distributed underground. From this, 100 different scenarios were mapped onto the P2R grid. Variability in hydraulic conductivity was represented in a similar way, with 100 scenarios each for the Ringold Lower Mud and Ringold A units (layers 6 and 7), based on fitted exponential variograms and conditioned to well data. In total, more than 1000 realizations were simulated to assess plume behavior under uncertainty. Results demonstrate that degradation kinetics exert the strongest control over plume persistence: Shorter half-lives produced rapid mass reduction, while longer half-lives yielded persistent plumes with limited attenuation. A nonlinear response was observed, with steep mass reductions at half-lives greater than 200 years and near-linear declines beyond this threshold, reflecting interactions between degradation and pumping. The initial plume distribution strongly influenced early transport patterns, with broader sources generating larger plume footprints, although pump-and-treat operations constrained plume migration to managed areas. By comparison, hydraulic conductivity variability in the Ringold units had only a secondary influence, modifying spreading behavior without altering the dominant migration pathways governed by source configuration and hydraulic controls. Overall, the analysis highlights that uncertainty in degradation rate and initial plume configuration are the primary drivers of variability in plume predictions, while conductivity heterogeneity plays a limited role. These findings underscore the need for improved site-specific data on degradation processes and source characterization to enhance the reliability of long-term performance assessments and to better inform remedial decision-making at the Central Plateau.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS2000

BOREAS HYD-1 Soil Hydraulic Properties

The Boreal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study (BOREAS) Hydrology (HYD)-1 team coordinated a program of data collection to measure and monitor soil properties in collaboration with other science team measurement needs. This data set contains soil hydraulic properties determined at the Northern Study Area (NSA) and Southern Study Area (SSA) flux tower sites based on analysis of in situ tension infiltrometer tests and laboratory-determined water retention from soil cores collected during the 1994-95 field campaigns. Results from this analysis are saturated hydraulic conductivity, and fitting parameters for the van Genuchten-Mualem soil hydraulic conductivity and water retention function at flux tower sites. The data are contained in tabular ASCII files. The HYD-01 soil hydraulic properties data are available from the Earth Observing System Data and Information System (EOSDIS) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC). The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884).

Hall, Forrest G.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Water reactive polyurethane grouting for deep vadose zone contaminant immobilization

Contaminants in the deep vadose zone (DVZ) pose a long-term threat to groundwater, human health, and the environment. Polyurethane grouting is a type of chemical grouting that is potentially advantageous in immobilizing contaminants in DVZs. Polyurethane resin has low viscosity that makes it feasible to penetrate and fill the pore space between fine particles. Here, in this study a series of laboratory pressure grouting and leaching tests were conducted to simulate and assess the effectiveness of polyurethane grouting for immobilizing contaminants in DVZs. Soil with fine particles was prepared with 127 I (as iodide) that served as a non-radioactive surrogate for radioactive 129 I. After grouting and curing, leaching tests were used to measure and compare contaminant diffusivity and leachability index values. Additionally, changes in porosity and saturated hydraulic conductivity of grouted soil were measured. X-Ray Computer Tomography (XCT) results showed that the cured polyurethane was distributed nearly homogeneously and approximately half of the voids were filled with cured polyurethane. Grouting reduced the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil by 37 %. The effective diffusivity decreased by more than 80 % as compared with the ungrouted soil. The leachability index of the grouted soil was 6.5; meeting the criteria established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) standard. The results obtained in this study provide a valuable assessment of polyurethane grouting for iodide immobilization in the DVZ and indicate this approach may be a viable method for contaminant remediation in DVZ soils.

Contaminant Diffusion↗
NASA NTRS1998

Effect of Fresh Poultry Litter and Compost on Soil Physical and Chemical Properties

Application of poultry litter and compost as a substitute for fertilizer not only uses unwanted waste and decreases expenditures for commercial fertilizer, it adds nutrients to soil for plant uptake. The properties of soil affected by poultry litter were analyzed to determine the positive and negative aspects of using this substitute fertilizer. This study focused on changes associated with saturated hydraulic conductivity, bulk density, nitrate concentrations, and pH after application of varying concentrations of poultry litter and compost. Soil samples from Tennessee Valley Substation in Alabama were analyzed in a laboratory at Alabama A&M University. As a result of the application of fresh poultry litter and compost, we found that the saturated hydraulic conductivity increased and the bulk density decreased, while the pH was generally not affected. Using poultry litter and compost as an alternative commercial fertilizers could be adapted by the farming community to protect the sustainability of our environment. Unwanted waste is used productively and soil is enriched for farming.

Carr, Stacy↗
DOE OSTI2025

Quantifying Groundwater Response and Uncertainty in Beaver‐Influenced Mountainous Floodplains Using Machine Learning‐Based Model Calibration

Abstract Beavers ( Castor canadensis ) alter river corridor hydrology by creating ponds and inundating floodplains, and thereby improving surface water storage. However, the impact of inundation on groundwater, particularly in mountainous alluvial floodplains with permeable gravel/cobble layers overlain by a soil layer, remains uncertain. Numerical modeling across various floodplain structures considers topographic and sediment complexity and multidirectional flow, linking inundation to groundwater response. This study develops a model‐data integration workflow to address uncertainty in groundwater response to beaver‐induced inundations in a mountainous alluvial floodplain in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Uncertain factors include seasonal hydrologic dynamics, hydraulic conductivities, floodplain structures, and meteorological forcings. We employed an ensemble of groundwater models, based on geophysical and hydrologic data, with machine learning‐based calibration using a neural density estimator. This allowed us to quantify the vertical flux from the soil layer to the permeable gravel bed, the down‐valley underflow within the gravel bed, and their ratios. Results show a significant increase in the vertical flux relative to down‐valley underflow, from 2 during dry pond periods to 20 during wet periods, serving as an analogy for conditions without and with beaver ponds. The study highlights the influence of floodplain structure on groundwater storage, water balance, and water quality impacted by beaver ponds. A thick gravel bed layer, with a large down‐valley underflow, minimizes the effect of beaver‐induced inundation on water quality. We emphasize the need for field‐scale measurements of floodplain structure and improved characterization of evapotranspiration changes to reduce uncertainty in groundwater response. Plain Language Summary Beavers change the flow of water in river corridors by creating ponds, expanding wetlands, and flooding floodplains. This increases surface water area, promotes plant growth, and enhances biodiversity. However, the impact of this flooding on groundwater flow is not well understood, especially in mountainous areas with gravel layers where water moves easily beneath soil. In this study, we used numerical modeling to investigate how beaver ponds influence groundwater in a mountainous floodplain of the Upper Colorado River Basin. We adapted a machine learning method to validate our numerical models using multiple field data sets. Our findings show that beaver ponds significantly increase vertical water flow from the soil to the gravel during wet periods, compared to when the ponds are fully drained. The study also highlights the importance of floodplain structure in controlling both water flow in gravel layers along the river direction and vertical flow from the soil to the gravel with the presence of beavers. To reduce uncertainty in groundwater response, we emphasize the need for more field‐scale measurements of floodplain structure, hydraulic properties, and evapotranspiration changes. Key Points Floodplain structures and hydraulic conductivities are important for groundwater response with beaver ponds in mountainous floodplains Large down‐valley underflow in permeability‐stratified floodplains reduces beaver‐induced impacts on groundwater storage and water quality Machine learning‐based model calibration methods are effective for estimating posterior distributions of groundwater model parameters

Wang, Lijing↗
NASA NTRS1980

Agricultural soil moisture experiment, Colby, Kansas 1978: Measured and predicted hydrological properties of the soil

Predictive procedures for developing soil hydrologic properties (i.e., relationships of soil water pressure and hydraulic conductivity to soil water content) are presented. Three models of the soil water pressure-water content relationship and one model of the hydraulic conductivity-water content relationship are discussed. Input requirements for the models are indicated, and computational procedures are outlined. Computed hydrologic properties for Keith silt loam, a soil typer near Colby, Kansas, on which the 1978 Agricultural Soil Moisture Experiment was conducted, are presented. A comparison of computed results with experimental data in the dry range shows that analytical models utilizing a few basic hydrophysical parameters can produce satisfactory data for large-scale applications.

Arya, L. M.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Temporal persistence of postfire flood hazards under present and future climate conditions in southern Arizona, USA

Changes to soil hydraulic properties that reduce infiltration capacity following fire can increase flash flood risks. These risks are exacerbated by rainfall intensification associated with a warming climate. However, the potential effects of climate-change-driven rainfall intensification on postfire floods remain largely unexplored. Using rainfall and runoff observations from a 49.4 km 2 watershed in southern Arizona, USA, and a hydrologic model (KINEROS2), we examined the temporal evolution following a historic fire of three crucial hydrologic parameters: soil saturated hydraulic conductivity (K sp ), net capillary drive (G p ), and hydraulic roughness (n c ). We explored how the effect of fire on these parameters may influence peak flow under future climate scenarios derived from CMIP6, specifically the medium emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5) and high emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5). Results demonstrate an increase in K sp from 11 mm h −1 in the first postfire year to 60 mm h −1 in postfire year 3. G p similarly increased from 19 mm in the first postfire year to 30 mm in the third, while nc was relatively constant. The highest simulated Q p occurred in the first postfire year. Under the SSP2-4.5 scenario, the likelihood of a 100-year flood is projected to be twice as large by the middle of the century relative to its historical magnitude. Simulations further indicate that the maximum expected discharge associated with a postfire flood, as derived from historical data, could be triggered by a 10-year rainstorm under the SSP5-8.5 scenario by the late century. Simulations also demonstrate that rainfall intensification will lead to greater persistence of elevated flood hazards following fire by the late century under both the SSP2-4.5 and the SSP5-8.5 scenarios.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗