Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Records”

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 OSTI2024

Distributed Order Recording Techniques for Efficient Record-and-Replay of Multi-threaded Programs

After all these years and all these other shared memory programming frameworks, OpenMP is still the most popular one. However, its greater levels of non-deterministic execution makes debugging and testing more challenging. The ability to record and deterministically replay the program execution is key to address this challenge. However, scalably replaying OpenMP programs is still an unresolved problem. In this paper, we propose two novel techniques that use Distributed Clock (DC) and Distributed Epoch (DE) recording schemes to eliminate excessive thread synchronization for OpenMP record and replay. Our evaluation on representative HPC applications with ReOMP, which we used to realize DC and DE recording, shows that our approach is 2-5x more efficient than traditional approaches that synchronize on every shared-memory access. Furthermore, we demonstrate that our approach can be easily combined with MPI-level replay tools to replay non-trivial MPI+OpenMP applications. We achieve this by integrating ReOMP into ReMPI, an existing scalable MPI record-and-replay tool, with only a small MPI-scale-independent runtime overhead.

Fu, Xiang↗
DOE OSTI2024

Three phase spectral interferometry for recording high dynamic range optical waveforms with <1 ps resolution over >2 ns records applied to closed-loop pulse shaping

Herein we demonstrate, to our knowledge, a novel spectral interferometry technique that simultaneously captures three spectral interferograms of a signal waveform with a reference pulse. The measured performance is robust to nonidealities and ambient drifts by implementing a precisely calibrated 3 × 3 polarization maintaining (PM) splitter that provides three phase shift differences nominally spaced 120° apart. The system can achieve long record length by implementing three, high resolution, virtually imaged phase array (VIPA) spectrometers. Here, we experimentally implement this technique and demonstrate the measurement of waveforms with >2ns of record while maintaining <1ps resolution.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2021

Black Carbon Deposited in Hariqin Glacier of the Central Tibetan Plateau Record Changes in the Emission from Eurasia

Black carbon (BC), by the combustion of fossil fuels and biomass, has profound effects on climate change and glacier retreat in industrial eras. In the present study, we report refractory BC (rBC) in an ice core spanning 1850–2014, retrieved from the Hariqin Glacier of the Tanggula Mountains in the central Tibetan Plateau, measured using a single particle soot photometer (SP2). The rBC concentration shows a three-fold increase since the 1950s. The mean rBC concentration was 0.71±0.52 ng mL-1 during 1850s–1940s and 2.11±1.60 ng mL-1 during 1950s–2010s. The substantial increase in rBC since the 1950s is consistent with rBC ice core records from the Tibetan Plateau and Eastern Europe. According to the predominant atmospheric circulation patterns over the glacier and timing of changes in regional emissions, the post-1950 amplification of rBC concentration in the central Tibetan Plateau most likely reflects increases in emissions in Eastern Europe, former USSR, the Middle East, and South Asia. Despite the low-level background rBC concentrations in the ice cores from the Tibetan Plateau, the present study highlights a remarkable increase in anthropogenic BC emissions in recent decades and the consequent influence on glaciers in the Tibetan Plateau.

Black carbon, Ice core, Tibetan Plateau, Industria↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Closed Bay-Breeze Circulation and Its Lifecycle From TRACER With a New Orienteering Tape Recorder Diagram

A closed bay-breeze circulation (BBC) followed by a gulf-breeze front (GBF) was observed on 10 September 2022 during the Department of Energy's (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) TRACER campaign. Using high-resolution X-band Scanning Cloud Radar (XSACR) and a newly developed orienteering tape recorder diagram, the study analyzed radar reflectivity and Doppler velocity to identify anomalies and track the evolution of these circulations. The BBC, a mesoscale system approximately 30-km long, 30-km wide, and 2-km deep, formed from enhanced horizontal convective rolls along the Galveston Bay coast, progressing northwestward under a 6 m s−1 onshore flow anomaly and reaching 1.5 km depth with return flow aloft. The inland penetration speed was 2 m s−1, driven by an observed 6-9 K land-water temperature contrast. The GBF, coupled to the BBC, intensified with additional southerly flow, penetrating further inland after the BBC collapsed. Passing over the TRACER field site, both fronts significantly impacted boundary layer thermodynamics, dynamics, and aerosol concentration. The BBC event exhibited four lifecycle stages-formation, development, maturation, and dissipation-driven by solar heating, wind field rotation, and interactions with convective eddies and the GBF. This study provides insights into the inland evolution of coastal breeze circulations and their interactions with environmental processes.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2023

Reassessing long-standing meteorological records: an example using the national hottest day in Ireland

This analysis highlights the potential value in reanalysing early national meteorological records from around the world. These were oftentimes measured via techniques that preceded standardisation of instrumentation and methods of observation and thus could be subject to considerable biases and uncertainties. This analysis uses the techniques pioneered by WMO record assessment teams. The highest currently recognised air temperature (33.3 °C) ever recorded in the Republic of Ireland was logged at Kilkenny Castle in 1887. The original observational record however no longer exists. Given that Ireland is now the only country in Europe to have a national heat record that was set in the 19th century, a reassessment of the verity of this record is both timely and valuable. The present analysis undertakes a fundamental reassessment of the plausibility of the 1887 temperature record using methods similar to those used to assess various weather extremes under WMO auspices over recent years. Specifically, we undertake an inter-station reassessment using sparse available records and make recourse to the new and improved 20CRv3 sparse-input reanalysis product. Neither surrounding available stations nor the reanalysis offer substantive support for the Kilkenny record of 33.3 °C being correct. Moreover, recent data rescue efforts have uncovered several earlier extreme values, one of which exceeds the Kilkenny value (33.5 °C on 16 July 1876 recorded at the Phoenix Park). However, the sparsity of early observational networks, a distinct lack of synoptic support from 20CRv3 for many of the extreme heat values, and the fact that these measurements were obtained using non-standard exposures lead us to conclude that there is grossly insufficient evidence to support any of these 19th century extremes as robust national heat record candidates. Data from the early 20th century onwards benefit from a denser network of stations undertaking measurements in a more standardised manner, many under the direct auspices of Met Éireann and its predecessors, adhering to WMO guidance and protocols. This enables more robust cross-checking of records. We argue that the Met Éireann-recognised 20th century heat record from Boora in 1976 is verified as the most plausible robust national temperature record based upon the synoptic situation and comparisons with nearby neighbouring stations. This measurement of 32.5°C thus likely constitutes the highest reliably recorded temperature measurement in the Republic of Ireland. Ultimately, the formal decision on any reassessment and reassignment of the national record rests with the national meteorological service, Met Éireann.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2023

DATASET RELEASE AND QUALITY CONTROL REVIEW OF LIVERMORE NEVADA NETWORK (LNN) RECORDINGS OF A SUBSET OF NEVADA NUCLEAR SECURITY SITE NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS FROM 1979 TO 1992.

Geophysical research on historical nuclear tests is an important aspect of future monitoring capabilities in seismic research. This research is challenging due to the limited number of digital seismic recordings during the peak of nuclear testing (1945-1992). These limited records are unique and non-reproducible data with potential high research impact. Releasing available nuclear explosion seismic records to the explosion monitoring community is thus of high value and is the motivation for this dataset release. The target of this effort was on compilation and quality control of regional seismic records of nuclear explosions recorded on Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory stations ELK, KNB, LAC, and MNV, known collectively as the Livermore National Network (LNN) (Figure 1). LNN was established in the early 1960s for the primary purpose of monitoring underground nuclear testing at the former Nevada Test Site (NTS), now known as the Nevada Nuclear Security Site (NNSS) following the signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT). LNN consisted initially of short-period vertical component Benioff’s recorded on film located at Mina, NV (MNV) and Kanab, Utah (KNB). LNN added two additional stations at Landers, CA (LAC) and Elko, NV (ELK) in 1967 and upgraded equipment to broadband seismometers recorded on frequency modulation (FM) tapes from 1967-1979, followed by digital recordings after 1979 (Jarpe, 1989). The digital recordings were on a variety of now obsolete media, including 9-track, Exabyte, and DAT tapes. Jarpe (1989) describes the seismic station instrumentation details over the period of deployment. LNN recorded valuable non-repeatable unique data of several hundreds of nuclear explosions at NNSS, as well as earthquakes and chemical and mining explosions (Walter, 2020). The details of these nuclear tests are provided in the Department of Energy Report NV-209 Rev 16 (DOE, 2015).

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to included within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2020

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Switched source data from collecting records from each state independently to using the WestDAAT dataset v1.0 - Initial public release Description In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, as well as geospatial data defining the areas in which water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. In addition, while all states make their water rights publicly available, each provides their records in unique formats, meaning that file types, field availability, and terms vary from state to state. This leads to additional challenges to managing resources which cross state lines, or conducting consistent multi-state water analyses. For the first version of HarDWR, we collected the water rights databases from 11 Western States of the United States. In order to preform regional analyses with the collected data, the raw records had to be harmonized into one single format. The Water Data Exchange (WaDE) is a program dedicated to the sharing of water-related data for the Western U.S. in a singular consistent format. Created by the Western States Water Council (WSWC) to facilitate the collection and dissemination of water data among WSWC's member states and the public, WaDE provides an important service for those interested in water resource planning and management in their focus region. Of the services which WaDE provides, the one of the most interesting is the WestDAAT dataset, which is a collection of water rights data provided by the 18 WSWC member states that have been standardized into a single format, much like we had done on a more limited scale with HarDWR v1. For this version of HarDWR we decided to use WestDAAT, specifically a snapshot created in Feburary 2024, as our water rights source data. A full explanation of the benefits gained from this switch can be found in the description of the updated Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0, but in short it has allowed us to focus more of our efforts on answering research questions and gaining a more realistic understanding of how water rights are allocated. For more information on how the data for WestDAAT was collected, please see the WaDE data summary. Terms of Use While WaDE works directly with the state agencies to collect and standardize the water rights records, the ultimate authority for the water rights data remains the individual states. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. As several of the states update their water rights databases daily, the information provided here is not the latest possible, and should not be used for legal purposes. WestDAAT itself has irregular updates. Additional questions about the data the source states provided should be directed to the respective state agencies (see methods.csv and organization.csv files described below). In addition, although data was presented here was not collected directly from the states, several states requested specifically worked disclaimers when sharing their data. These disclaimers are included here as an acknowledgement from where the water rights data is primarily sourced. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." File Descriptions The unmodified February, 2024 WestDAAT snapshot is composed of nine files. Below is a brief description of each file, as well as how they were utilized for HarDWR. WaDEDataDictionaryTerms.xlsx: As the file's name implies, this is a data dictionary for all of the below named files. This file describes the column names for each of the following files, with the exception of citation.txt which does not have any columns. The descriptions for each file are divided by tab,with the same name as their associated file, within this document. allocationamount.csv: The "main" file of the group, it contains the water right records for each state. Of particular note, each water right is broken down into one or more water allocations. Allocations may be withdrawn from one or more locations, or even multiple allocations associated with a particular location. This is a more subtle and realistic representation of how water is used than what was available in the first version of HarDWR. For the records from some states, this can mean that multiple allocations listed under a single right will appear as rows within this file. citation.txt: A combination of contact information for WaDE personnel, disclaimer about how the data should be used, and guidelines for citing WestDAAT. methods.csv: A file describing the source and method by which WaDE collected water rights data from each state. organization.csv: A file listing the water rights authoritative agencies for each state. sites.csv: This file provides the geographic, and other descriptors, of the physical location of allocations, called 'sites'. To reiterate, it is possible for one allocation to be associated with multiple sites, as well as one site to be associated with multiple allocations. The two descriptors which we were most interested in where the site's coordinates, as well as whether the site was classified as a Point of Diversion (POD) or a Place of Use (POU). As a general rule, PODs are geographic points, while POUs are areas typically represented as property boundaries or irregularly shaped polygons. sites_pouGeometry.csv: For those allocations with a POU site, this file contains the defining points for the associated polygons. variables.csv: A file describing the units in which an allocation's water amount is reported within WestDAAT. This information is essentially a repeat of the 'AllocationFlow_CFS' and 'AllocationVolume_AF' columns within allocationamount.csv, at least for our purposes. watersources: This file describes the source of water from which each site extracts from. For our purposes, this table was used to determine whether the water came from Surface Water, Groundwater, or Unspecified Water.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2020

Comparison of heart rate obtained from shorter duration Holter recordings to 24-hour mean heart rate in dogs with atrial fibrillation

The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of short duration electrocardiographic (ECG) recordings extracted from ambulatory continuous ECG (Holter) to assess 24-hour mean heart rate in dogs with atrial fibrillation. In this retrospective study, Holter recordings obtained from 20 dogs with atrial fibrillation were selected for analysis. Ten out of 20 dogs were receiving drugs to control heart rate at the time of Holter evaluation. From the Holter recordings, heart rate averages were calculated for various sample durations (fiveminutes, 30 minutes, one-hour, two-hours, and three-hours) for each dog. Percentage of these shorter duration ECG obtained HR averages that fell within ±10%, ±15% and ± 20% of 24-hour mean heart rate was determined for each sample duration and for each dog. Seventy five percent of heart rate averages obtained from three-hour ECG recordings fell within ±10% of 24-hour mean HR. All the heart rate averages obtained from two-hour ECG recordings fell within ±20% of 24-hour mean heart rate. Based on the results of this study it can be concluded that the duration of the ECG recording affects the prediction accuracy for 24-hour Holter mean HR. Only two and three hours of Holter recordings provided all heart rate averages within ±20% of 24-hour mean heart rate. No significant differences were noted in the prediction accuracy of shorter duration ECG recordings based on rate control therapy status. Further prospective studies are needed to assess the accuracy of HR obtained at home using various ECG recording devices to predict 24-hour mean heart rate in dogs with atrial fibrillation.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.

Economics↗
DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Raw Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. In order to hold a water right in the western United States, an entity, (e.g., an individual, corporation, municipality, sovereign government, or non-profit) must register a physical document with the state's water regulatory agency. State water agencies each maintain their own database containing all registered water right documents within the state, along with relevant metadata such as the point of diversion and place of use of the water. All western U.S. states have digitized their individual water rights databases, along with the geospatial data describing the spatial units where water rights are managed. Each state maintains and provides their own water rights data in accordance with individual state regulations and standards. We collected water rights databases from 11 western United States states either by downloading them from publicly accessible web portals, or by contacting state water management representatives; detailed descriptions of where and when the data was collected is provided in the README.txt, as well as Lisk et al.(in review). This collection of data are those raw water rights. Each state formats their data differently, meaning that file types, field availability, and names vary from state to state. Note, the data provided here reflects the state of the water rights databases at the time we collected the data; updates have likely occurred in many states. Some pieces of information are common among all states. These are: priority date, volume or flow of water allowed by the right, stated water use of the right, and some means of identifying the geography and source of the water pertaining to the right - typically the coordinates of the Point of Diversion (PoD) of a waterbody or well. Arizona regulates water in a different way than the other 10 states. Outside of some relatively small critical agricultural areas called Active Management Areas (AMAs), Arizona does not maintain any water rights. However, the state does require registration of surface and groundwater pumping devices, which includes disclosing the mechanical specifics of the devices. We used these records as a proxy for water rights. Each state, and their respective water right authorities, have made their water right records available for non-commercial reference uses. In addition, the states make no guarantees as to the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of their respective databases, let alone the modifications which we, the authors of this paper, have made to the collected records. None of the states should be held liable for using this data outside of its intended use. In addition, the following states have requested specifically worded disclaimers to be included with their data. Colorado: "The data made available here has been modified for use from its original source, which is the State of Colorado. THE STATE OF COLORADO MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTY AS TO THE COMPLETENESS, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, OR CONTENT OF ANY DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THIS SITE. THE STATE OF COLORADO EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. The data is subject to change as modifications and updates are complete. It is understood that the information contained in the Web feed is being used at one's own risk." Montana: "The Montana State Library provides this product/service for informational purposes only. The Library did not produce it for, nor is it suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Consumers of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the viability of the information for their purposes. The Library provides these data in good faith but does not represent or warrant its accuracy, adequacy, or completeness. In no event shall the Library be liable for any incorrect results or analysis; any direct, indirect, special, or consequential damages to any party; or any lost profits arising out of or in connection with the use or the inability to use the data or the services provided. The Library makes these data and services available as a convenience to the public, and for no other purpose. The Library reserves the right to change or revise published data and/or services at any time." Oregon: "This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or be suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes. Users of this information should review or consult the primary data and information sources to ascertain the usability of the information." The available data is provided as a series of compressed files, which each containing the full data collected from each state. Some of the files have been renamed, to more easily know which state the data belongs to. The file renaming was also required as some files from different states had the same name. In other cases, the data for a state has been placed in a folder indicating which state it belongs to - as the state organized its data by selected subregions. Below is a brief description of the format of the collected data from each state. ArizonaRights_StatementOfClaimants: A folder containing a database of interconnected CSV files. The soc_erd.pdf file contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with SOC_MAIN.csv in the center of the page. ArizonaRights_SurfaceWaterRightsData: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 10 associated CSVs. SurfaceWater.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with ADWR_SW_APPL_REGRY.csv. ArizonaRights_Well55Registry: A folder containing a database of a single Shapefile and 59 associated CSVs. Wells55.pdf contains a visual flowchart of how the various files are connected, beginning with WellRegistry.shp. CaliforniaRights_eWRIMS_directDatabase: A folder containing a collection of four "series" Microsoft Excel files, as either XLS or XLSX. The four "series": byCounty, byEntity (what type of legal entity holds the right), byUse (stated water use), and byWatershed, are various methods by which the California water rights are organized within the state's database. However, it was observed that by only collecting a single series, not all water rights were being provided. So, essentially, the majority of records within each "series" are copies of each other, with each "series" containing some unique records. ColoradoRights_NetAmounts: A folder containing 78 CSV files, with one file per Colorado Water District. IdahoRights_PointOfDiversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Idaho. IdahoRights_PlaceOfUse: A Shapefile containing the Place of Use polygons for the entire state of Idaho. MontanaRights_WaterRights: A Geodatabase file containing the Points of Diversion and Places of Use for the entire state of Montana. The name of the Points of Diversion Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WRDIV", and the name of the Places of Use Feature Layer is "WRPOU". NevadaRights_POD_Sites: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Nevada. NewMexicoRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of New Mexico. OregonRights_state_shp: A folder containing 36 Shapefiles and are split between "pod" (Point of Diversion) and "pou" (Place of Use) for each water management basin within Oregon. In other words, each basin has one "pod" file and one "pou" file. The "pod" files are point shapes, and the "pou" files are polygons. UtahRights_Points_of_Diversion: A Shapefile containing the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Utah. WashingtonRights_WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD: A Geodatabase file containing both the Points of Diversion for the entire state of Washington. The name of the Feature Layer within the Geodatabase is "WaterDiversions_ECY_NHD". WyomingRights: A folder containing four subdirectories, one for each Wyoming Water Division. Each Division directory includes a varying number of subdirectories for each Wyoming Water District. Each District folder contains two copies of the Point of Diversion records for that area, with one copying being in CSV and one copy in Microsoft Excel XLS format.

Lisk, Matthew↗
DOE OSTI2021

Ultra-Sharp Nanowire Arrays Natively Permeate, Record, and Stimulate Intracellular Activity in Neuronal and Cardiac Networks

Intracellular access with high spatiotemporal resolution can enhance the understanding of how neurons or cardiomyocytes regulate and orchestrate network activity and how this activity can be affected with pharmacology or other interventional modalities. Nanoscale devices often employ electroporation to transiently permeate the cell membrane and record intracellular potentials, which tend to decrease rapidly with time. Here, one reports innovative scalable, vertical, ultrasharp nanowire arrays that are individually addressable to enable long-term, native recordings of intracellular potentials. One reports electrophysiological recordings that are indicative of intracellular access from 3D tissue-like networks of neurons and cardiomyocytes across recording days and that do not decrease to extracellular amplitudes for the duration of the recording of several minutes. The findings are validated with cross-sectional microscopy, pharmacology, and electrical interventions. The experiments and simulations demonstrate that the individual electrical addressability of nanowires is necessary for high-fidelity intracellular electrophysiological recordings. This work advances the understanding of and control over high-quality multichannel intracellular recordings and paves the way toward predictive, high-throughput, and low-cost electrophysiological drug screening platforms.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2022

Ocean circulation and climate variability in the northern South China Sea during the Greek Minimum derived from coral Δ 14 C and Sr/Ca records

Ocean circulation transports heat, salt and nutrients, and has profound impacts on the marine environment and climate change. However, the seasonal to centennial variations of the paleocirculation of the South China Sea (SCS) and their driving forces are still unclear due to limited records. Here we reconstructed a high-resolution Δ 14 C record of a coral from Sanya to investigate the seasonal variations of the SCS ocean circulation around 2300 cal yr BP during a grand solar minimum (GSM) period. The seasonal Δ 14 C variability shows the influence of coastal upwelling caused by the East Asian Summer Monsoon (EASM) in summer and the effect of water intrusion from the western Pacific Ocean driven by the Kuroshio Intrusion (KI) in winter. Here we compiled the marine radiocarbon reservoir correction (ΔR) records since 2500 cal yr BP, which indicate a gradual decrease of upwelling significantly correlated with the EASM. Comparisons with other climate records suggest that both the EASM and KI may regulate the ocean circulation variability on centennial time scales. As a good index of the sea surface temperature (SST), our Sr/Ca record and spectral analysis results show a low temperature and a low frequency of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events around 2300 cal yr BP. Moreover, the composite coral Sr/Ca-SST and ENSO index records since 2500 cal yr BP show relatively low SST and weak ENSO during GSMs, supporting the modulation of tropical SST and ENSO by solar activity. Our study has provided high-resolution proxy data and revealed the driving forces of ocean circulation and climate change in the SCS at multiple time scales, which should be considered in further modeling work.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Dual-Color Optical Recording of Bioelectric Potentials by Polymer Electrochromism

Optical recording based on voltage-sensitive fluorescent reporters allows for spatial flexibility of measuring from desired cells, but photobleaching and phototoxicity of the fluorescent labels often limit their sensitivity and recording duration. Voltage-dependent optical absorption, rather than fluorescence, of electrochromic materials, would overcome these limitations to achieve long-term optical recording of bioelectrical signals. Electrochromic materials such as PEDOT:PSS possess the property that an applied voltage can either increase or decrease the light absorption depending on the wavelength. In this work, we harness this anticorrelated light absorption at two different wavelengths to significantly improve the signal detection. With dual-color detection, electrical activity from cells produces signals of opposite polarity, while artifacts, mechanical motions, and technical noises are uncorrelated or positively correlated. Using this technique, we are able to optically record cardiac action potentials with a high signal-to-noise ratio, 10 kHz sampling rate, >15 min recording duration, and no time-dependent degradation of the signal. Furthermore, we can reliably perform multiple recording sessions from the same culture for over 25 days.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2025

A high-resolution record of Late Holocene drought in the eastern Sierra Nevada (California, USA) from June Lake carbonate geochemistry

As historic drought conditions become more common in western North America, Late Quaternary hydroclimate records become vital for putting present anthropogenic conditions into a longer-term context. Here, we establish a high-resolution record of drought for the eastern Sierra Nevada (California) using lacustrine carbonates from well-dated sediment cores. We used oxygen and carbon stable-isotope ratios, combined with high-resolution scanning X-ray fluorescence counts of calcium (Ca) and titanium (Ti), to reconstruct the drought record over the last 4600 years in June Lake. We found elevated δ 18 O and δ 13 C carbonate isotope values coinciding with peaks in both total inorganic carbon and Ca/Ti, suggesting enhanced carbonate precipitation in response to evaporative concentration of lake water. At least six intervals of prolonged (centennial-scale) carbonate deposition were identified, including three pulses during the Late Holocene Dry Period (LHDP; ~3500–2000 cal yr BP), the Medieval Climate Anomaly (~1200–800 cal yr BP), and the Current Warm Period, which began around 100 cal yr BP. This record highlights the complexities of the LHDP, an interval that was more variable at June Lake than has been previously described in regional records.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Modeling Subsurface Explosions Recorded on a Distributed Fiber Optic Sensor

Fiber optic distributed acoustic sensors (DAS) are becoming a widely used tool for seismic sensing. Here we examine recordings of two subsurface chemical explosions, DAG-1 and DAG-3, each of which was about one metric ton (TNT equivalent), that were recorded from a helical fiber installed in two boreholes 80 m away from the source location. Several clear phases including the initial P wave, a weak S wave, and a surface reflected P wave are observed on the helical DAS data. We estimate a velocity model using arrival times measured from the fiber. The DAS waveform data were compared with colocated accelerometers at specific depths in both frequency and time domains. Furthermore, the spectra of the DAS data matched spectra estimated from the accelerometer records. Comparisons of observed waveform shape between the accelerometer records and the fiber measurements (strain-rate) show reasonable agreement except for the data near the event depth. The DAS data and the accelerometer agreed in relative amplitudes but we had difficulties in matching absolute amplitudes, possibly due to errors in metadata. Synthetic strain-rate waveforms were calculated using a 2D wavenumber algorithm and matched the waveform shape and relative amplitudes. In general, DAS is effective at recording strong ground motions at high spatial density. Comparison of the synthetic seismograms with observed data indicate that the waveforms are not consistent with a pure isotropic explosion source and that the observed S waves originate from very near the source region.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗