Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “hydraulic”

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

The Ecosystem as Super-Organ/ism, Revisited: Scaling Hydraulics to Forests under Climate Change

Synopsis Classic debates in community ecology focused on the complexities of considering an ecosystem as a super-organ or organism. New consideration of such perspectives could clarify mechanisms underlying the dynamics of forest carbon dioxide (CO2) uptake and water vapor loss, important for predicting and managing the future of Earth’s ecosystems and climate system. Here, we provide a rubric for considering ecosystem traits as aggregated, systemic, or emergent, i.e., representing the ecosystem as an aggregate of its individuals or as a metaphorical or literal super-organ or organism. We review recent approaches to scaling-up plant water relations (hydraulics) concepts developed for organs and organisms to enable and interpret measurements at ecosystem-level. We focus on three community-scale versions of water relations traits that have potential to provide mechanistic insight into climate change responses of forest CO2 and H2O gas exchange and productivity: leaf water potential (Ψcanopy), pressure volume curves (eco-PV), and hydraulic conductance (Keco). These analyses can reveal additional ecosystem-scale parameters analogous to those typically quantified for leaves or plants (e.g., wilting point and hydraulic vulnerability) that may act as thresholds in forest responses to drought, including growth cessation, mortality, and flammability. We unite these concepts in a novel framework to predict Ψcanopy and its approaching of critical thresholds during drought, using measurements of Keco and eco-PV curves. We thus delineate how the extension of water relations concepts from organ- and organism-scales can reveal the hydraulic constraints on the interaction of vegetation and climate and provide new mechanistic understanding and prediction of forest water use and productivity.

Zoology↗
DOE OSTI2024

Comparison of Real-Time Pressure Rail Selection Algorithms for the Hybrid Hydraulic Electric Architecture: Case Study on a Track Loader

Abstract The hybrid hydraulic electric architecture (HHEA) seeks to combine the high power/torque/force density of hydraulics with the efficiency of electric machines. A set of common pressure rails is used to provide a majority of the power and this power is modulated by small electric machines to provide precise control for the operator. The HHEA has been studied in previous work using off-line dynamic programming optimization to determine energy efficient pressure rail selections, but this approach requires drive cycle information apriori. A Lagrange multiplier method has also been investigated where a set of gains (Lagrange multipliers) are optimized off-line with the idea the these gains, once determined, could be used for real-time operation. In this work, three new real-time pressure rail selection algorithms that do not require future drive cycle information are investigated; greedy, torque minimizing, and thresholding. The greedy control is found to only use 1% more energy than the globally optimal dynamic programming solution; but a model of energy loss is required.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

MURR LEU structural and thermal hydraulics analyses: Part II – Impacts of irradiation thermo-mechanical behavior on thermal hydraulics safety analyses

A series of structural analyses have been performed to support the conversion of the University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR) from the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU; ≥20 wt% U-235) to low-enriched uranium (LEU; <20 wt% U-235) fuel. The irradiation thermo-mechanical analysis evaluated the effects of fuel swelling, irradiation creep, thermal expansion, as well as thermal resistance from the oxide layer growth for the MURR LEU element in prototypic thermal and irradiation conditions as presented in Part I of this article. Overall, this irradiation thermo-mechanical analysis predicts smaller gap thickness reductions in previously limiting regions, and larger reductions in the middle of the outermost end channels where power density is not typically a maximum. Due to substantial differences between the channel gap reductions assumed for the previous safety analyses and those predicted by the irradiation thermo-mechanical analysis, a need to evaluate their impact on the thermal hydraulics safety analyses arose. This article presents the results from the steady-state safety analysis for normal operation as well as the two most limiting accident scenarios. The calculation models were revised in order to account for the spatial and temporal variation of the channel gap thicknesses. The results show that sufficient safety margins are still maintained for normal operation as well as during the postulated accident transients. This work provides a methodology of incorporating the irradiation thermo-mechanical behavior of plate-type fuel into the thermal hydraulics safety analyses.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Experimental Validation of Thermal Hydraulic Behavior in Sodium Fast Reactors (SFR) with the Thermal Hydraulic Experimental Test Article (THETA)

Thermal stratification and transition to natural circulation pose two of the largest sources of uncertainty in systems-level modeling of liquid metal-cooled fast reactors. As these phenomena typically develop during transient event sequences, licensing-basis events analyzed using systemslevel models may have considerable uncertainties associated with thermal-hydraulic parameters of the system to account for these phenomena. As a result, the validation basis for these phenomena for systems-level codes is insufficient to fully support the wide range of liquid metal fast reactors being developed in the US. Currently, the most viable path for licensing a design is to take significant conservatisms and maintain sufficiently large safety margins to account for this uncertainty.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
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

Design and Performance Evaluation of a Resistive Control Using a Hydraulic PTO System for the TALOS Wave Energy Converter

This study is focused on developing a numerical model to evaluate the performance of a hydraulic PTO system for the TALOS Wave Energy Converter. The WEC device is described and the architecture of the hydraulic PTO system is presented with detail. The WEC is modeled using WEC-Sim, and the PTO is modeled using the Simscape Fluids library from Simulink. The hydraulic PTO is based on a constant pressure configuration that is suitable for WEC passive control. The hydraulic system is composed by a set of rectifying valves and two hydraulic accumulators that reduce the stiffness of the system and also serve as energy storage devices. One of the advantages of this hydraulic PTO architecture is the possibility of controlling the electric generator to operate around the optimal efficiency operating point. The main components of the hydraulic PTO are off-the-shelf devices that are commercially available, which will facility a future deployment of the designed system. The design variables used for this study are the accumulator size, the maximum pressure in the accumulators, the hydraulic motor maximum displacement, and the shaft speed in the electric generator. The performance of the system is evaluated individually, using sinusoidal inputs that replicates regular wave conditions. In addition to this, the numerical model of the PTO is coupled to a WEC-Sim simulation of the TALOS Wave Energy Converter with six PTOs to generate a wave-to-wire model. The main objective of this work is to present a comprehensive design methodology that could serve as a guideline for future research efforts focused on implementing control algorithms on multi degree of freedom WECs.

hydraulic systems↗
DOE OSTI2026

Computational Analysis of Hydraulic Efficiency of Michigan DOT Covers J and K

Drainage structures are used in urban street and highway systems to capture stormwater runoff. These structures typically consist of catch basins fitted with grates, inlets, or combination grate/inlet configurations that collect runoff and convey it through buried drainage systems. They are strategically placed within curb-and-gutter systems to enhance public safety by efficiently removing water from roadways and thereby reducing the risk of hydroplaning. The performance of drainage structures is commonly evaluated in terms of hydraulic efficiency, defined as the percentage of flow captured by the basin relative to the total flow reaching the structure. Understanding the hydraulic performance of these structures allows designers to properly space inlets, resulting in cost-effective designs that also help ensure the safety of the traveling public. MDOT uses a variety of drainage structures for runoff capture, as documented in Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) Drainage Manual. Many of these structures incorporate sinusoidal-type grates that are not addressed in HEC-22. Because physical modeling of these structures has been limited, further analysis is needed to verify their capture efficiency. Under current MDOT practice, the capture efficiency of these grates is estimated by assuming performance similar to that of a comparably sized reticuline grate described in HEC22. The first phase of this effort, titled Computational Analysis of Hydraulic Efficiency of Michigan DOT Cover C, focused on evaluating the hydraulic performance of MDOT’s Cover C grate. Cover C was selected as the initial test candidate because its sinusoidal pattern is representative of other MDOT grates, while it is typically used in high-volume, higher-speed applications. A similar version, Cover CX, is used on interstate highways but does not include transverse bars for bicycle safety. The current second phase of the study expands this work to evaluate MDOT’s Covers J and K. These grates were selected for additional analysis to further assess the hydraulic performance of MDOT drainage structures that are not directly represented by grate configurations in HEC-22. The results of this phase will build on the findings from the Cover C analysis and support improved understanding of the capture efficiency of MDOT’s standard drainage grates. This report is intended to serve as a companion document to the earlier study, Computational Analysis of Hydraulic Efficiency of Michigan DOT Cover C [3]. The present work applies the same overall CFD-based evaluation approach to MDOT Covers J and K and compares the resulting performance trends with those previously identified for Cover C. In particular, both studies assess on-grade interception efficiency, sag-location hydraulic capacity, and the effects of partial obstruction relative to HEC-22-based design estimates.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Refining water and carbon fluxes modeling in terrestrial ecosystems via plant hydraulics integration

Plant hydraulics substantially affects terrestrial water and carbon cycles by modulating water transport and carbon assimilation. Despite improved drought simulations in certain ecosystems through their integration into land surface models (LSMs), the broader application of plant hydraulics in diverse ecosystems and hydroclimates is still underexplored. Here, in this study, we implemented the recently developed Noah-Multiparameterization Land Surface Model (Noah-MP LSM) equipped with a plant hydraulics scheme (Noah-MP-PHS) across 40 FLUXNET sites globally. Employing the Shuffled Complex Evolution-University of Arizona (SCE-UA) auto-calibration algorithm, we optimized key plant hydraulics parameters for these sites spanning eight vegetation types in both arid and humid climates. Noah-MP-PHS significantly improves the simulation of evapotranspiration (ET) and gross primary production (GPP) by better representing atmospheric and soil water stress compared to traditional soil hydraulic schemes (SHSs, such as Noah and CLM). The augmented Noah-MP-PHS models reduce surface flux overestimation and underestimation, exhibiting an average increase of 0.14 and 0.15 in Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE) compared to Noah and CLM, respectively. The explicit consideration of plant capacitance in PHS reveals substantial deep-layer and nocturnal root water uptake especially under dry conditions. We employed eXplainable Machine learning (XML) to quantify the model’s relative sensitivity to newly introduced leaf-, stem and root-related parameters in PHS. The sensitivity analysis reveals a rise in root parameter importance and a decline in leaf and stem parameters as conditions shift from humid to arid. These findings indicate that as aridity states vary, the most influential parameters affecting surface fluxes variation may change in parameter calibration for PHS applications. Our findings underscore the importance of incorporating plant hydraulics into LSMs to enhance simulations of terrestrial water and carbon dynamics. These findings are crucial for understanding ecosystem responses to global climate changes and guide the broader application of PHS at larger scales.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Future climate doubles the risk of hydraulic failure in a wet tropical forest

Summary Future climate presents conflicting implications for forest biomass. We evaluate how plant hydraulic traits, elevated CO 2 levels, warming, and changes in precipitation affect forest primary productivity, evapotranspiration, and the risk of hydraulic failure. We used a dynamic vegetation model with plant hydrodynamics (FATES‐HYDRO) to simulate the stand‐level responses to future climate changes in a wet tropical forest in Barro Colorado Island, Panama. We calibrated the model by selecting plant trait assemblages that performed well against observations. These assemblages were run with temperature and precipitation changes for two greenhouse gas emission scenarios (2086–2100: SSP2‐45, SSP5‐85) and two CO 2 levels (contemporary, anticipated). The risk of hydraulic failure is projected to increase from a contemporary rate of 5.7% to 10.1–11.3% under future climate scenarios, and, crucially, elevated CO 2 provided only slight amelioration. By contrast, elevated CO 2 mitigated GPP reductions. We attribute a greater variation in hydraulic failure risk to trait assemblages than to either CO 2 or climate. Our results project forests with both faster growth (through productivity increases) and higher mortality rates (through increasing rates of hydraulic failure) in the neo‐tropics accompanied by certain trait plant assemblages becoming nonviable.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Geochemical Impact of Acid Spearhead and Slickwater Stimulation on Wolfcamp Shale from the Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site

The Hydraulic Fracturing Test Site 1 (HFTS-1) was a field study performed in the Wolfcamp Formation in the West Texas Permian (Midland) Basin, USA, with a focus on improving the efficiency of hydraulic fracturing. Investigating site-specific rock-fluid geochemical interactions during hydraulic fracturing is an important step to understanding the impact on formation shale porosity, permeability, and long-term shale gas production. During field operations in this region, hydraulic fracturing fluid (HFF) injection usually starts with a concentrated acid spearhead for rapid rock dissolution, followed by the injection of near-neutral pH slickwater containing chemicals and proppants. A multistep sequential injection approach was used to investigate different stages of rock-fluid interactions. The carbonate content in the host rock is important when acid spearhead is considered, as carbonate mineral dissolution is rapid and can result in porosity and permeability changes in the shale matrix. Here, in this study, we designed flow-through experiments using fractured carbonate-rich and clay-rich Wolfcamp shale cores with (1) a short-time acid soaking step and (2) a long-term slickwater flow-through step to simulate the injection method used at HFTS-1. The fluid chemistry was analyzed. A thorough mineralogical progression [e.g., Calcium (Ca) dissolution and iron (Fe) redox progression] in the cores during HFF injection was also characterized and imaged by synchrotron microprobe. Reactive transport modeling was performed based on the experimental setup. The results showed that the acid spearhead is a crucial step in creating a reaction front by mineral dissolution, especially in carbonate-rich shales. A slight layer of ferrihydrite precipitated during the slickwater flow-through period. This study provides insights into potential geochemical impact due to hydraulic fracturing operations in the Permian Basin.

clastic rock↗
DOE OSTI2024

Precise Motion Control of Hybrid Hydraulic Electric Architecture (HHEA)

Off-highway heavy-duty vehicles have been long-standing users of hydraulic systems for power transmission and control. However, traditional hydraulic systems suffer from significant energy losses which lead to increased operating costs and a larger carbon footprint due to higher CO2 emissions. Improving the efficiency of these mobile machines is crucial not only for reducing their environmental impact but also for saving billions of dollars in operating costs. Currently, the state-of-the-art Load Sensing Architecture uses throttling valves for control, which significantly reduces its efficiency and does not recuperate energy from over-running loads. Researchers have developed several architectures such as Common Pressure Rail systems, Displacement Control, STEAM, and Electrohydraulic Architecture to improve the efficiency of off-road mobile machines. However, each of these architectures has its drawbacks. To increase system efficiency and take advantage of electrification benefits, our research group has developed a novel Hybrid Hydraulic-Electric Architecture (HHEA). The HHEA can significantly improve efficiency, decrease the size of electrical components, and maintain control performance. This new architecture has the potential to revolutionize the off-highway mobile machine industry and lead to a more sustainable future. The HHEA uses a set of common pressure rails to provide the majority of power to the actuators via power-dense hydraulics and uses electric motors for precise control and power modulation. In the context of off-road mobile machines, energy savings are undoubtedly important but it is equally important to consider the machines’ ability to perform tasks with precision and accuracy according to given commands. Therefore, precise motion control is of utmost importance to maintain the utility of Hybrid Hydraulic-Electric Architecture (HHEA). The HHEA presents a unique challenge to motion control due to the discrete pressure changes that occur when the system switches between selected pressure rails. These changes are made to minimize system inefficiencies or to keep the system within the torque capability of the electric motor. Hence, it is important to solve the motion control challenges for HHEA. This thesis aims at developing an effective motion control strategy for HHEA. The dissertation presents a two-tiered control strategy for HHEA, comprising a high-level and a low-level controller. The primary responsibility of the high- level controller is to optimize energy efficiency by making informed pressure rail selections. On the other hand, the low-level controller is focused on achieving precise motion control of the HHEA, which is crucial for realizing the desired reference trajectories. To achieve this, the low-level controller utilizes a passivity-based backstepping integral controller as the nominal control, which handles the motion control between two pressure rail switches. Additionally, a separate least norm controller is utilized as a transition controller to manage motion control during pressure rail transitions. The effectiveness of the combined control strategy is demonstrated through experiments conducted on two hardware-in-the-loop testbeds. Furthermore, the HHEA is installed on the boom and stick actuators of a backhoe arm to build a Human-in-the-Loop system that a human operator can control. A real-time rail switching algorithm is developed to determine pressure rail switching based on present duty cycle information from the operator. Modifications have been made to the human-machine interface to achieve more intuitive control. Modifications include performing control in the task-oriented coordinates, incorporating pressure feedback to enhance control with physical interaction, and using velocity field control to simplify multi-degree-of-freedom tasks and to enable novice operators to perform them with reduced risk, improved efficiency, and productivity. The research in this dissertation makes significant contributions to the field of off-road mobile machine control, providing a novel and effective control strategy for the HHEA, and demonstrating the potential for simplified machine operation.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Explicit Consideration of Plant Xylem Hydraulic Transport Improves the Simulation of Crop Response to Atmospheric Dryness in the U.S. Corn Belt

Abstract Atmospheric dryness (i.e., high vapor pressure deficit, VPD), together with soil moisture stress, limits plant photosynthesis and threatens ecosystem functioning. Regions where rainfall and soil moisture are relatively sufficient, such as the rainfed part of the U.S. Corn Belt, are especially prone to high VPD stress. With globally projected rising VPD under climate change, it is crucial to understand, simulate, and manage its negative impacts on agricultural ecosystems. However, most existing models simulating crop response to VPD are highly empirical and insufficient in capturing plant response to high VPD, and improved modeling approaches are urgently required. In this study, by leveraging recent advances in plant hydraulic theory, we demonstrate that the VPD constraints in the widely used coupled photosynthesis‐stomatal conductance models alone are inadequate to fully capture VPD stress effects. Incorporating plant xylem hydraulic transport significantly improves the simulation of transpiration under high VPD, even when soil moisture is sufficient. Our results indicate that the limited water transport capability from the plant root to the leaf stoma could be a major mechanism of plant response to high VPD stress. We then introduce a Demand‐side Hydraulic Limitation Factor (DHLF) that simplifies the xylem and the leaf segments of the plant hydraulic model to only one parameter yet captures the effect of plant hydraulic transport on transpiration response to high VPD with similar accuracy. We expect the improved understanding and modeling of crop response to high VPD to help contribute to better management and adaptation of agricultural systems in a changing climate.

Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗
DOE OSTI2025

Hydraulic constraints to stomatal conductance in flooded trees

Stomatal closure is a pervasive response among trees exposed to flooded soil. We tested whether this response is caused by reduced hydraulic conductance in the soil-to-leaf hydraulic continuum (k total ), and particularly by reduced root hydraulic conductance (k root ), which has been widely hypothesized. We tracked stomatal conductance at the leaf level (g s ) and canopy scale (G s ) along with physiological conditions in two temperate tree species, Magnolia grandiflora and Quercus virginiana, that were subjected to flood and control conditions in a greenhouse experiment. Flooding reduced g s , G s , k root and k total . Path analysis showed strong support for direct effects of k total on g s and for flood duration on k total , but not k root on k total . A process-based model that accounted for the k total reduction predicted the timeseries of G s in flood and control treatment trees reasonably well (predicted versus observed G s R 2 = 0.80 and 0.51 for M. grandiflora and Q. virginiana, respectively). However, accounting only for k root reduction in flooded trees was insufficient for predicting observed G s reduction. Together, these results suggest that hydraulic constraints were not limited to roots and highlight the need to account for flooding effects on k total when projecting forest ecosystem function using process-based models.

Plant stress↗
DOE OSTI2025

Distributed Fiber Optic Sensing for in-well hydraulic fracture monitoring

This study presents the results from in-well hydraulic fracture monitoring within a horizontal well in an unconventional reservoir utilizing Distributed Fiber Optic Sensing (DFOS). An in-house-developed Brillouin-based Distributed Strain Sensing (DSS) interrogator was deployed to obtain strain measurements, complemented by a commercial Raman-based Distributed Temperature Sensing (DTS) interrogator for temperature measurements and a commercial Rayleigh-based Low-Frequency Distributed Acoustic Sensing (LF-DAS) interrogator for strain-rate measurements. Examined over a ten-day period, the spatio-temporal distribution of temperature-compensated strain obtained from DSS and DTS revealed distinct signatures of the multi-stage hydraulic fracturing process. These signatures were analyzed with respect to fracture width growth and closure, residual strain effects, and fracture conductivity near the wellbore. Fracture widths within the fracture zone were estimated for individual stages. The findings were assessed with LF-DAS measurements for further evaluation. This work integrates DFOS-measured strain, temperature, and strain-rate data for monitoring in-well hydraulic fracturing, with the goal of supporting future studies in interpreting DFOS measurements for improved understanding of hydraulic fracturing in unconventional reservoirs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Enhancing SWAT with mechanistic plant hydraulics: development and application in the Hanjiang River Basin

Plant transpiration plays a critical role in global water and energy cycles, requiring better process understanding as climate change intensifies drought stress and alters plant responses. Most hydrological models such as the widely-used SWAT lack representation of plant hydraulics, the mechanistic processes controlling plant water regulation and transpiration. Here, this study developed SWAT-PHS by integrating a plant hydraulics scheme (PHS) into SWAT hydrological model, enabling explicit simulation of root water uptake, sap flow, storage and transpiration at 30-minute timescales for watershed-scale modeling. In the Hanjiang River Basin, SWAT-PHS mitigated overestimation of runoff during the rainy season and underestimation during the dry season, reducing the overall simulation error by 29% across the entire simulation period. The model can simulate reasonable plant water dynamics, including diurnal transpiration patterns and drought responses showing declining transpiration flux, hydraulic buffering through stem water storage, and depth-dependent root water uptake strategies. Sensitivity analysis shows that SWAT-PHS captured mechanistic relationships between plant hydraulic traits and transpiration, with root distribution and stem capacitance positively affecting annual transpiration while vulnerability parameters showed negative effects. This work provides a pathway for improving hydrologic modeling and water resource management by better representing plant water regulation under climate change and expected intensifying water stress conditions.

China↗
DOE OSTI2025

Characterization of Fuel-to-Coolant Heat Transfer During Reactivity-Initiated Accidents Using Tightly Coupled Thermal Hydraulics and Fuel Thermomechanics

The reactivity-initiated accident (RIA) is a complex scenario with several tightly interacting physical phenomena. Accurately predicting fuel behavior during these transients is difficult due to limitations in the modeling of fuel-to-coolant heat transfer. Common approaches to simulate RIAs involve standalone calculations using either a fuel performance code or a thermal-hydraulic code. The complex interdependencies of thermal-hydraulic and fuel mechanical behavior suggest that a tight coupling between these codes may provide more accurate predictions of fuel-to-coolant heat transfer and cladding mechanical response. Here, RELAP5-3D and BISON are coupled in this paper to simulate RIAs, and a sensitivity analysis is performed to rank key thermal properties and two-phase heat transfer parameters relevant for fuel-to-coolant heat transfer and cladding failure mechanisms in UO 2 –Zircaloy-4 systems. Gas gap conductance, film boiling heat transfer uncertainty, pulse width, fuel-specific heat capacity, and cladding-specific heat capacity were identified as important parameters. Variations in figures of merit resulting from changes to pulse width and the material thermal properties indicate that time-dependent heat transfer rates are significant for safety-relevant mechanical parameters due to the time dependence of cladding ductility and pellet-cladding mechanical interaction loading. The results suggest that the thermal-hydraulic factors have a nonnegligible influence on the thermomechanical solution and vice versa. Tight coupling of both sets of physics is recommended to improve prediction of fuel behavior during RIAs. Highlights include the following: 1. The RELAP5-3D thermal-hydraulic code and the BISON fuel performance code are tightly coupled for simulation of RIA transients with energy depositions at the Zircaloy-4 cladding failure threshold. 2. Departure from nucleate boiling occurred for all simulated cases. Due to the ductility of fresh fuel, substantial ballooning occurred in most cases. 3. Gas gap conductance, fuel-specific heat capacity, cladding-specific heat capacity, transient pulse width, and film boiling heat transfer were the dominant thermal factors impacting the safety figures of merit at energy depositions.

Critical Heat Flux (CHF)↗