Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “downstream modeling”

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

Uncertainty-informed selection of CMIP6 Earth System Model subsets for use in multisectoral and impact models

Earth system models (ESMs) and general circulation models (GCMs) are heavily used to provide inputs to sectoral impact and multisector dynamic models, which include representations of energy, water, land, economics, and their interactions. Therefore, representing the full range of model uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, and interannual variability that ensembles of these models capture is critical to the exploration of the future co-evolution of the integrated human–Earth system. The pre-eminent source of these ensembles has been the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). With more modeling centers participating in each new CMIP phase, the size of the model archive is rapidly increasing, which can be intractable for impact modelers to effectively utilize due to computational constraints and the challenges of analyzing large datasets. In this work, we present a method to select a subset of the latest phase, CMIP6, featuring models for use as inputs to a sectoral impact or multisector dynamics models, while prioritizing preservation of the range of model uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, and interannual variability in the full CMIP6 ensemble results. This method is intended to help impact modelers select climate information from the CMIP archive efficiently for use in downstream models that require global coverage of climate information. This is particularly critical for large-ensemble experiments of multisector dynamic models that may be varying additional features beyond climate inputs in a factorial design, thus putting constraints on the number of climate simulations that can be used. We focus on temperature and precipitation outputs of CMIP6 models, as these are two of the most used variables among impact models, and many other key input variables for impacts are at least correlated with one or both of temperature and precipitation (e.g., relative humidity). Besides preserving the multi-model ensemble variance characteristics, we prioritize selecting CMIP6 models in the subset that preserve the very likely distribution of equilibrium climate sensitivity values as assessed by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. This approach could be applied to other output variables of climate models and, possibly when combined with emulators, offers a flexible framework for designing more efficient experiments on human-relevant climate impacts. It can also provide greater insight into the properties of existing CMIP6 models.

Snyder, Abigail C.↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Hiding-in-Plain-Sight (HiPS) Attack on CLIP for Targetted Object Removal from Images

Machine learning models are known to be vulnerable to adversarial attacks, but prior works have mostly focused on single-modalities. With the rise of large multi-modal models (LMMs) like CLIP, which combine vision and language capabilities, new vulnerabilities have emerged. However, these multimodal targeted attacks aim to completely change the model's output to what the adversary wants. In many realistic scenarios, an adversary might seek to make only subtle modifications to the output, so that the changes go unnoticed by downstream models or even by humans. We introduce Hiding-in-Plain-Sight (HiPS) attacks, a novel class of adversarial attacks that subtly modifies model predictions by selectively concealing target object(s), as if the target object was absent from the scene. We propose two HiPS attack variants, HiPS-cls and HiPS-cap, and demonstrate their effectiveness in transferring to downstream image captioning models, such as CLIP-Cap, for targeted object removal from image captions.

Daw, Arka [ORNL] (ORCID:0009000633191271)↗
DOE OSTI2022

High-Resolution Wind Resource Data Set of the Greater Puerto Rico Region

In February 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy and six national laboratories launched the Puerto Rico Grid Resilience and Transitions to 100% Renewable Energy Study (PR100). PR100 aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of possible pathways for Puerto Rico's energy future, with a goal of 100% renewable energy by 2050. As a part of the renewable energy potential assessment in this project, we developed 20 years (2001-2020) of data using a numerical weather prediction (NWP) model for onshore and offshore wind resource assessment for the Puerto Rico. The research steps in developing the long-term wind resource data sets based on the NWP model were: 1. Model wind resource based on the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. 2. Develop WRF model configurations for Puerto Rico. 3. Test WRF with 11 different physics parameterizations for planetary boundary layer (PBL). 4. Assess WRF output from the different PBL schemes against observations. 5. Select a final model configuration which can produce the modeled wind speed with sufficient accuracy. 6. Produce 20 years wind resource data sets for Puerto Rico region. In the first stage of our framework for developing wind resource data, we developed a WRF model configuration using two nested domains (9 km and 3 km) to cover Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands and downscale the ERA5 reanalysis data (0.25 degrees x 0.25 degrees; hourly interval) to a 3-km domain. For the second stage, we implemented one-year simulations focused on using 11 different PBL physics parameterizations to find a combination of WRF physics parameterizations that could provide accurately modeled wind speed for Puerto Rico. We also analyzed the sensitivity of the modeled wind speed to PBL schemes for onshore and offshore locations. The WRF output resulting from the 11 WRF experiments using different PBL parameterizations were evaluated against observations obtained from the National Data Buoy Center (NDBC) as well as at hub height for a location for which measurements were available. A final model setup selected through the validation with observational data was used to produce 20 years of data with 3-km spatial and 5-minute temporal resolution. The WRF model output was post-processed to include wind profiles and basic atmospheric variables in a format that can be easily used for downstream modeling. The 20 years of wind resource data will be made available through NREL and support the estimation of wind energy development costs for the PR100 study.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

RANS simulations of neutral atmospheric boundary layer flow over complex terrain with comparisons to field measurements

Micro-scale Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations of the neutral atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) over complex terrain and a comparison of the results with conditionally averaged met-tower data are presented. A robust conditional sampling procedure for the meteorological tower (met-tower) data to identify near-neutral conditions based on a criterion for the turbulence intensity is developed. The conditionally averaged wind data on 14 met-towers are used for the model validation. The ABL flow simulations are conducted over complex terrain which includes a prominent hill using the OpenFOAM-based simulator for on/offshore wind farm applications (SOWFA) with the k-ϵ and the SST k-ω turbulence models. The discretization of the production term in the transport equation for the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) is modified to greatly reduce the commonly observed nonphysical near surface TKE peak. The driving inflow is generated through an iterative approach using a precursor method to reproduce the measured wind statistics at the reference tower. Both of the RANS models are able to capture the flow behavior windward of the hill. The SST k-ω model predicts more intense flow separation than the k-ϵ model downstream of the steepest sections of the hill. The wind statistics predicted at the location of the met-towers by both of the RANS models are fairly consistent. Overall, the comparisons of the direction, mean, and standard deviation of the wind between the simulations and the tower data show reasonable agreement except for the differences of the mean wind speeds at four met-towers located closer to the main ridge of the hill in a region of strong terrain variations.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Solar Resource Calibration, Measurement, and Dissemination: Final Report FY 2016-FY 2018

The Solar Resource Calibration, Measurement, and Dissemination project supports the U.S. Department of Energy's Solar Energy Technologies Office (SETO) initiative to make solar energy cost-competitive with other forms of electricity by improving the tools and methods to measure and model solar radiation and therefore reduce uncertainty in predicting solar output and improve the bankability of solar projects. This project has three tasks that conduct research on advancing solar resource measurements and modeling: Task 1: Applied solar Radiation Measurements. Task 2: National Solar Radiation Data Base (NSRDB). Task 3: Knowledge Sharing. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's (NREL's) Solar Radiation Research Laboratory (SRRL) activities ensure traceable solar measurements throughout the United States that are essential for project feasibility, due diligence, financing, and plant operations. The SRRL houses NREL's Baseline Measurement System (BMS), which provides a platform for improving the accuracy of solar measurements through research to improve the calibration and characterization of instruments and enable the development of new measurement technology and standards. The platform contains a variety of instruments measuring solar radiation and other meteorological parameters. Following best practices, BMS instruments are calibrated to ensure traceability to the World Radiometric Reference in compliance with ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation requirements. The BMS data sets are quality-controlled and made publicly available through the Measurement and Instrumentation Data Center website. The NSRDB is the most accessed public database of solar irradiance and associated weather parameters for use in energy modeling. It supports SETO's goals of reducing barriers to high penetrations of solar technologies by providing easy access to high-quality, foundational data essential for innovative product development and downstream modeling through the NSRDB website. Data are currently available for the contiguous United States and beyond for 20 years covering 1998-2017. The Physical Solar Model (PSM) that underpins the current NSRDB data sets is a unique physics-based model that has been developed at NREL and has opened the door to the use of next-generation satellite data sets for solar resource assessment and forecasting. Through the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) International and other international standards organizations, NREL continues to provide leadership in the development of standards that are relevant to the measurement and modeling of solar radiation for solar energy applications. Standards developed cover the calibration method of pyrheliometers (direct normal irradiance measurements), pyranometers (global horizontal irradiance measurements), spectroradiometers, ultraviolet radiometers, correct field deployment of these instruments, spectral distribution reference tables for photovoltaic modeling, and transfer of indoor calibrations. Further, NREL leads the International Energy Agency (IEA) Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme Task 16: Subtask 1, which focuses on the evaluation of current and emerging resource assessment methodologies. NREL and the IEA updated the Best Practices Handbook for the Collection and Use of Solar Resource Data for Solar Energy Applications, which is widely used by the solar industry.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hierarchical Conceptual Model Event and Activity Domains for Forecasting State-Sponsored Civil Nuclear Power Activities

In FY20, the Savannah River National Laboratory and the Sanghani Center for Artificial Intelligence and Data Analytics (Virginia Tech) entered a collaboration funded by the Department of Energy’s Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation Research and Development to develop a machine learning based modeling pipeline to extract proliferation events of interest from open data sources. The prototype modeling pipeline that was developed relies on the use of time dependent word embedding models to identify contextual shifts in key words and phrases that act as indicators of events of interest. The FY20- 21 efforts were focused on a narrow topical domain of forecasting “fissile core fabrication” at the Savannah River Site prior to its official announcement in 2018. In FY22, the research team was funded to continue development of the modeling pipeline by applying it to the problem of forecasting new, and/or significant changes to existing, civil nuclear power reactors around the world. In this effort, the development will focus on proving applicability to a broader topical domain and in data environments that may contain more sparse information, relative to the United States. In this report, the worldwide landscape of civil nuclear reactors is outlined, the timeline of interest is defined, and a hierarchical conceptual model is established to identify the activity domains of interest and the event domains of interest. This preliminary effort will guide the curation of a glossary of key terms for data acquisition, as well as the downstream modeling efforts.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Synthetic data-driven deep learning for label-free autonomous atomic force microscopy

Atomic force microscopy (AFM) is a widely used tool for nanoscale characterization across materials science, energy research, and biology. However, its adoption in high-throughput materials discovery and statistically driven studies remains limited by a strong dependence on expert operator input and by the scarcity of annotated experimental AFM datasets needed to enable data-driven automation. Here, we introduce SimuScan, a synthetic-data–driven framework that enables reliable AFM feature identification, segmentation, and targeted imaging without requiring large manually labeled experimental datasets. SimuScan generates tunable, high-fidelity synthetic AFM images of defined morphologies while incorporating realistic experimental artifacts, including tip–sample convolution, noise, flattening distortions, and surface debris. These datasets are shown to support scalable, label-free training of modern deep learning models for AFM analysis. When integrated into data-driven AFM workflows, SimuScan-trained models can locate and analyze nanoscale structures across large datasets and guide targeted follow-up imaging. We validate this approach on nanostructured surfaces, DNA assemblies, and bacterial cells, demonstrating robust generalization across diverse sample types with minimal operator intervention. More broadly, this work establishes a general strategy for generating explicitly conditioned, task-relevant synthetic data to improve the reliability of downstream models in autonomous microscopy.

Millan-Solsona, Ruben [Oak Ridge National Laborato↗
DOE OSTI2024

Solar Photovoltaics and Land-Based Wind Technical Potential and Supply Curves for the Contiguous United States (2023 Edition)

Estimates of the potential of renewable energy are essential for understanding how we can decarbonize our electric grid and economy. They provide key data for policymakers, land managers, and energy modelers by defining the quantity, quality, and cost of renewable resources. However, estimating renewable energy potential is challenging and requires frequent updates because of rapid advances in technology, cost reductions, and uncertainty about developable land that are due to social, regulatory, and environmental factors. Additionally, the complex processes involved in renewable energy development require regular reviews of methods and assumptions, which can also impact our understanding of renewable potential. In this, the 2023 edition of this annual report, we present new estimates of the technical potential for land-based wind and solar photovoltaics (PV) for the contiguous United States (CONUS). We also provide cost estimates for the available resources, presenting representative supply curves that can be used in downstream modeling and analysis. Additionally, we introduce the new methodologies used to estimate wind capacity, wind energy losses, transmission cost and representation, updated technology cost and design, and scenarios of siting constraints designed to help bound the uncertainty of renewable potential.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

A Tutorial on Bayesian analysis of linear shock compression data

Gas gun and other shock compression experiments often produce shock wave velocity measurements that are linearly associated with particle velocity. Traditionally, this empirical relationship is quantified with a single Hugoniot curve that is estimated using least squares regression. However, for downstream modeling and simulation tasks, it is often more useful to have multiple Hugoniot curves in the pressure–volume plane that are consistent with the data. We employ Bayesian uncertainty quantification methods as a framework for propagating measurement uncertainty through to model parameters and predictions. Specifically, this Tutorial shows how to sample multiple Hugoniot curves in the pressure–volume plane that are consistent with the shock wave-particle velocity measurements in a two-step Bayesian approach. First, we obtain an analytical expression for the posterior distribution of the linear model parameters using Bayesian linear regression. Second, we propagate samples from the posterior distribution through the Rankine–Hugoniot equations to yield Hugoniot curves in the pressure–volume plane. The procedure is demonstrated with publicly available data on argon, copper, and nickel, and compared against bootstrapping and linear regression. The Bayesian procedure is shown to be interpretable, computationally inexpensive, and less sensitive than an alternative bootstrapping approach to the removal of the point in the copper dataset that has the largest particle velocity. As a Tutorial on Bayesian methodology for the shock compression community, we provide several derivations and explanations that make this paper self-contained, and make all code and data available at github.com/llnl/BALSCD.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2020

pnnl/pyraabe

Automated Raabe table generationPyRaabe is a Python package to automate Raabe table -- a graph representation of airway geometry -- generation from a triangulated surface of an airway geometry. With a single command, it extracts a centerline from an input 3D surface mesh and subsequently computes the relevant attributes for the Raabe table, including length, diameter, bifurcation angle, and gravity angle. These can be used to inform downstream models, such as the Multiple-Path Particle Dosimetry (MPPD) model.

Colby, Sean M.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Output Data: gcam_usa_v5p3_im3

Output databases and tables supporting the publication: Khan, Z., Zhao, M., Ahsan, H., Wolfram, P., Vernon, C., Rice, J., Iyer, G., Binsted, M., Snyder, A., Graham, N., Kyle, P., 2023. Coevolution of future water, energy and land systems across the United States in response to national and global socioeconomic, climate, and energy policy drivers. (In progress) Earths Future, DOI: XXX with further details available at the meta-repository: https://immm-sfa.github.io/khan-etal_2023_im3gcamusa Folder: gcam_usa_im3_outputs (GCAM USA v 5.3 used for IM3 experiment Output Databases): database_rcp45cooler_ssp3.tar.gz database_rcp45cooler_ssp5.tar.gz database_rcp45hotter_ssp5.tar.gz database_rcp45hotter_ssp5.tar.gz database_rcp85cooler_ssp3.tar.gz database_rcp85cooler_ssp5.tar.gz database_rcp85hotter_ssp5.tar.gz database_rcp85hotter_ssp5.tar.gz Folder: gcam_usa_im3_gcamextractor_outputs (gcamextractor post-processing of the GCAM databases for specific downstream models ): dataGCAM_cerf.tar.gz (For CERF Model) dataGCAM_demeter.tar.gz (For Demeter model) dataGCAM_go.tar.gz (For GO model) gcamDataTable.tar.gz (All IM3 scenarios)

Climate Change↗
DOE OSTI2022

Hybrid large-eddy simulation with adaptive downstream anisotropic eddy viscosity model

Turbulence pervades most flows of engineering interest, and its prediction remains a challenge on both accuracy and cost. One promising predictive approach that reduces cost combines large-eddy simulation (LES) with simulation based on Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes equations (RANS). This study presents a method to overcome stability and accuracy issues associated with these hybrid LES-RANS methods. The method developed involves extracting the Reynolds stresses from the upstream LES solution and then using that information to convert the downstream RANS model from a scalar eddy-viscosity model to an anisotropic nonlinear eddy-viscosity model. The method developed differs from the downstream tensorial eddy-viscosity model by being independent of the coordinate system. The method developed was evaluated by computing film cooling of a flat plate with the coolant injected through one row of circular holes. Results obtained show instabilities at the LES-to-RANS interface to be eliminated. Also, the method developed yielded solutions that compare reasonably well with those from LES, even though a significant portion of the flow is computed by the adapted anisotropic RANS model instead of LES, which significantly reduced the number of grid points and computational time needed. Since modification of the downstream RANS model is based on information extracted from the upstream LES solution, the method developed is adaptive to the problem being studied.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Using Data-Driven Prediction of Downstream 1D River Flow to Overcome the Challenges of Hydrologic River Modeling

Methods for downstream river flow prediction can be categorized into physics-based and empirical approaches. Although based on well-studied physical relationships, physics-based models rely on numerous hydrologic variables characteristic of the specific river system that can be costly to acquire. Moreover, simulation is often computationally intensive. Conversely, empirical models require less information about the system being modeled and can capture a system’s interactions based on a smaller set of observed data. This article introduces two empirical methods to predict downstream hydraulic variables based on observed stream data: a linear programming (LP) model, and a convolutional neural network (CNN). We apply both empirical models within the Colorado River system to a site located on the Green River, downstream of the Yampa River confluence and Flaming Gorge Dam, and compare it to the physics-based model Streamflow Synthesis and Reservoir Regulation (SSARR) currently used by federal agencies. Results show that both proposed models significantly outperform the SSARR model. Moreover, the CNN model outperforms the LP model for hourly predictions whereas both perform similarly for daily predictions. Although less accurate than the CNN model at finer temporal resolution, the LP model is ideal for linear water scheduling tools.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗