Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “common community physics package”

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.

13 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Demonstrating Hierarchical System Development With the Common Community Physics Package Single‐Column Model: A Case Study Over the Southern Great Plains

This study demonstrates a specific application of the hierarchical system development (HSD) approach to investigate, analyze, and attribute model issues within the Unified Forecast System (UFS), with a focus on process isolation. By evaluating a non‐precipitating, shallow cumulus case at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Southern Great Plains site in the UFS global forecast against the observation, the investigation identifies a warmer and deeper daytime convective planetary boundary layer (PBL) and misrepresented nocturnal PBL transition. Hypothesis testing, which employs the Common Community Physics Package (CCPP) single‐column model (SCM) and uses the same physics as the UFS global model, confirms that these issues are attributed to the model physics and initialization. Specifically, misrepresented PBL processes are linked to problematic surface condition and a lack of cloud formation, which may stem from deficiencies in PBL and cloud microphysics parameterizations and their interactions. The UFS initial condition contributes to an earlier, excessively collapsed daytime convective boundary layer and a lack of decoupling between the stable boundary layer and residual layer late in the afternoon. This work introduces an avenue for the community to engage with the application of HSD, along with the CCPP and CCPP SCM, to understand the interplay of model physics, disentangle the roles of model components, as well as facilitate model and forecast improvement.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

A Case Study Investigating the Low Summertime CAPE Behavior in the Global Forecast System

Convective available potential energy (CAPE) is an important index for storm forecasting. Recent versions (v15.2 and v16) of the Global Forecast System (GFS) predict lower values of CAPE during summertime in the continental United States than analysis and observation. We conducted an evaluation of the GFS in simulating summertime CAPE using an example from the Unified Forecast System Case Study collection to investigate the factors that lead to the low CAPE bias in GFS. Specifically, we investigated the surface energy budget, soil properties, and near-surface and upper-level meteorological fields. Results show that the GFS simulates smaller surface latent heat flux and larger surface sensible heat flux than the observations. This can be attributed to the slightly drier-than-observed soil moisture in the GFS that comes from an offline global land data assimilation system. The lower simulated CAPE in GFS v16 is related to the early drop of surface net radiation with excessive boundary layer cloud after midday when compared with GFS v15.2. A moisture-budget analysis indicates that errors in the large-scale advection of water vapor does not contribute to the dry bias in the GFS at low levels. Common Community Physics Package single-column model (SCM) experiments suggest that with realistic initial vertical profiles, SCM simulations generate a larger CAPE than runs with GFS IC. SCM runs with an active LSM tend to produce smaller CAPE than that with prescribed surface fluxes. Note that the findings are only applicable to this case study. Including more warm-season cases would enhance the generalizability of our findings.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2023

The SunPy Project: An Interoperable Ecosystem for Solar Data Analysis

The SunPy Project is a community of scientists and software developers creating an ecosystem of Python packages for solar physics. The project includes the sunpy core package as well as a set of affiliated packages. The sunpy core package provides general purpose tools to access data from different providers, read image and time series data, and transform between commonly used coordinate systems. Affiliated packages perform more specialized tasks that do not fall within the more general scope of the sunpy core package. In this article, we give a high-level overview of the SunPy Project, how it is broader than the sunpy core package, and how the project curates and fosters the affiliated package system. We demonstrate how components of the SunPy ecosystem, including sunpy and several affiliated packages, work together to enable multi-instrument data analysis workflows. We also describe members of the SunPy Project and how the project interacts with the wider solar physics and scientific Python communities. Finally, we discuss the future direction and priorities of the SunPy Project.

Solar physics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Scalar bounded-from-below conditions from Bayesian active learning

We present a procedure leveraging Bayesian deep active learning to rapidly produce highly accurate approximate bounded-from-below conditions for arbitrary renormalizable scalar potentials, in the form of a neural network which may be saved and exported for use in arbitrary parameter space scans. We explore the performance of our procedure on three different scalar potentials with either highly nontrivial or unknown symbolic bounded-from-below conditions (the most general two-Higgs doublet model, the three-Higgs doublet model, and a version of the Georgi-Machacek model without custodial symmetry). We find that we can produce fast and highly accurate binary classifiers for all three potentials. Furthermore, for the potentials for which no known symbolic necessary and sufficient conditions on boundedness-from-below exist, our classifiers substantially outperform some common approximate analytical methods, such as producing tractable sufficient but not necessary conditions or evaluating boundedness-from-below conditions for scenarios in which only a subset of the theory’s fields achieve vacuum expectation values. Our methodology can be readily adapted to any renormalizable scalar field theory. For the community’s use, we have developed a package, BFBrain, which allows for the rapid implementation of our analysis procedure on user-specified scalar potentials with a high degree of customizability. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

Astronomy & Astrophysics↗
NASA NTRS1993

Recommendations resulting from the SPDS Community-Wide Workshop

The Data Systems Panel identified three critical functionalities of a Space Physics Data System (SPDS): the delivery of self-documenting data, the existence of a matrix of translators between various standard formats (IDFS, CDF, netCDF, HDF, TENNIS, UCLA flat file, and FITS), and a network-based capability for browsing and examining inventory records for the system's data holdings. The recommendations resulting from the workshop include the philosophy, funding, and objectives of a SPDS. Access to quality data is seen as the most important objective by the Policy Panel, with curation and information about the data being integral parts of any accessible data set. The Data Issues Panel concluded that the SPDS can supply encouragement, guidelines, and ultimately provide a mechanism for financial support for data archiving, restoration, and curation. The Software Panel of the SPDS focused on defining the requirements and priorities for SPDS to support common data analysis and data visualization tools and packages.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2020

Sensitivity of Multispectral Imager Liquid Water Cloud Microphysical Retrievals to the Index of Refraction

A cloud property retrieved from multispectral imagers having spectral channels in the shortwave infrared (SWIR) and/or midwave infrared (MWIR) is the effective particle radius (CER), a radiatively relevant weighting of the cloud particle size distribution. The physical basis of the CER retrieval is the dependence of SWIR/MWIR cloud reflectance on the cloud particle single scattering absorption, which in turn depends on the complex index of refraction of bulk liquid water (or ice) in addition to the cloud particle size. There is a general consistency in the choice of the liquid water index of refraction by the cloud remote sensing community, largely due to the few available independent datasets and compilations. Here we examine the sensitivity of CER retrievals to the available laboratory index of refraction datasets in the SWIR and MWIR using the retrieval software package that produces NASA’s standard MODIS/VIIRS continuity cloud products. The sensitivity study incorporates two laboratory index of refraction datasets that include measurements at supercooled water temperatures, one in the SWIR [Kou et al., 1993] and one in the MWIR [Wagner et al., 2005]. Neither has been broadly utilized in the cloud remote sensing community. It is shown that these two new datasets can significantly change CER retrievals (e.g., 1-2 μm) relative to common datasets used by the community. Further, index of refraction data for a 265 K water temperature results in more consistent retrievals between the two spectrally distinct 2.2 μm atmospheric window channels on MODIS and VIIRS. As a result, the 265 K values from the SWIR and MWIR index of refraction datasets were adopted for use in the production version of the continuity cloud product. The results indicate the need to better understand temperature-dependent bulk water absorption and uncertainties in these spectral regions.

MODIS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Quantum Chemistry Common Driver and Databases (QCDB) and Quantum Chemistry Engine (QCEngine): Automation and interoperability among computational chemistry programs

We report that community efforts in the computational molecular sciences (CMS) are evolving toward modular, open, and interoperable interfaces that work with existing community codes to provide more functionality and composability than could be achieved with a single program. The Quantum Chemistry Common Driver and Databases (QCDB) project provides such capability through an application programming interface (API) that facilitates interoperability across multiple quantum chemistry software packages. In tandem with the Molecular Sciences Software Institute and their Quantum Chemistry Archive ecosystem, the unique functionalities of several CMS programs are integrated, including CFOUR, GAMESS, NWChem, OpenMM, Psi4, Qcore, TeraChem, and Turbomole, to provide common computational functions, i.e., energy, gradient, and Hessian computations as well as molecular properties such as atomic charges and vibrational frequency analysis. Both standard users and power users benefit from adopting these APIs as they lower the language barrier of input styles and enable a standard layout of variables and data. These designs allow end-to-end interoperable programming of complex computations and provide best practices options by default.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
NASA NTRS2009

The Transition of High-Resolution NASA MODIS Sea Surface Temperatures into the WRF Environmental Modeling System

The NASA Short-term Prediction Research and Transition (SPoRT) Center has developed a Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sea surface temperature (SST) composite at 2-km resolution that has been implemented in version 3 of the National Weather Service (NWS) Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Environmental Modeling System (EMS). The WRF EMS is a complete, full physics numerical weather prediction package that incorporates dynamical cores from both the Advanced Research WRF (ARW) and the Non-hydrostatic Mesoscale Model (NMM). The installation, configuration, and execution of either the ARW or NMM models is greatly simplified by the WRF EMS to encourage its use by NWS Weather Forecast Offices (WFOs) and the university community. The WRF EMS is easy to run on most Linux workstations and clusters without the need for compilers. Version 3 of the WRF EMS contains the most recent public release of the WRF-NMM and ARW modeling system (version 3 of the ARW is described in Skamarock et al. 2008), the WRF Pre-processing System (WPS) utilities, and the WRF Post-Processing program. The system is developed and maintained by the NWS National Science Operations Officer Science and Training Resource Coordinator. To initialize the WRF EMS with high-resolution MODIS SSTs, SPoRT developed the composite product consisting of MODIS SSTs over oceans and large lakes with the NCEP Real-Time Global (RTG) filling data over land points. Filling the land points is required due to minor inconsistencies between the WRF land-sea mask and that used to generate the MODIS SST composites. This methodology ensures a continuous field that adequately initializes all appropriate arrays in WRF. MODIS composites covering the Gulf of Mexico, western Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean are generated daily at 0400, 0700, 1600, and 1900 UTC corresponding to overpass times of the NASA Aqua and Terra polar orbiting satellites. The MODIS SST product is output in gridded binary-1 (GRIB-1) data format for a seamless incorporation into WRF via the WPS utilities. The full-resolution, 1-km MODIS product is sub-sampled to 2-km grid spacing due to limitations in handling very large dimensions in the GRIB-1 data format. The GRIB-1 files are posted online at ftp://ftp.nsstc.org/sstcomp/WRF/, which is directly accessed by the WRF EMS scripts. The MODIS SST composites are also downloaded to the EMS data server, which is accessible by the WRF EMS users and NWS WFOs. The SPoRT MODIS SST composite provides the model with superior detail of the ocean gradients around Florida and surrounding waters, whereas the operational RTG SST typically depicts a relatively smooth field and is not able to capture sharp horizontal gradients in SST. Differences of 2-3 C are common over small horizontal distances, leading to enhanced SST gradients on either side of the Gulf Stream and along the edges of the cooler shelf waters. These sharper gradients can in turn produce atmospheric responses in simulated temperature and wind fields as depicted in LaCasse et al. Differences in atmospheric verification statistics over a several month study were generally small in the vicinity of south Florida; however, the validation of SSTs at specific buoy locations revealed important improvements in the biases and RMS errors, especially in the vicinity of the cooler shelf waters off the east-central Florida coast. A current weakness in the MODIS SST product is the occurrence of occasional discontinuities caused by high latency in SST coverage due to persistent cloud cover. An enhanced method developed by Jedlovec et al. (2009, GHRSST User Symposium) reduces the occurrence of these problems by adding Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer -- EOS (AMSR-E) SST data to the compositing process. Enhanced SST composites are produced over the ocean regions surrounding the Continental U.S. at four times each day corresponding to Terra and Aqua equator crossing times. For a given day and overpass time, both MODInd AMSR-E data from the previous seven days form a collection used in the compositing. At each MODIS pixel, cloud-free SST values from the collection are used to form a weighted average based on their latency (number of days from the current day). In this way, recent SST data are given more weight than older data. One of the primary issues involved in incorporating the AMSR-E microwave data in the composites is the tradeoff between the decreased spatial resolution of the AMSR-E data (25 km) and the increased coverage due to its near all-weather capability. Currently, the AMSR-E is given a weight of 20% compared to MODIS data, thereby preserving the spatial structure observed in the MODIS data. Day-time (night-time) AMSR-E SST data from Aqua are used with both Terra and Aqua MODIS day-time (night-time) SST data sets.

Case, Jonathan L.↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗