Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “fixed point method”

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.

179 records · Page 10
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Projective Integral Updates for High-Dimensional Variational Inference

Variational inference is an approximation framework for Bayesian inference that seeks to improve quantified uncertainty in predictions by optimizing a simplified distribution over parameters to stand in for the full posterior. Capturing model variations that remain consistent with training data enables more robust predictions by reducing parameter sensitivity. This work introduces a fixed-point optimization for variational inference that is applicable when every feasible log density can be expressed as a linear combination of functions from a given basis. In such cases, the optimizer becomes a fixed-point of projective integral updates. When the basis spans univariate quadratics in each parameter, the feasible distributions are Gaussian mean-fields and the projective integral updates yield quasi-Newton variational Bayes (QNVB). Other bases and updates are also possible. Since these updates require high-dimensional integration, this work begins by proposing an efficient quasirandom sequence of quadratures for mean-field distributions. Each iterate of the sequence contains two evaluation points that combine to correctly integrate all univariate quadratic functions and, if the mean-field factors are symmetric, all univariate cubics. More importantly, averaging results over short subsequences achieves periodic exactness on a much larger space of multivariate polynomials of quadratic total degree. The corresponding variational updates require four loss evaluations with standard (not second-order) backpropagation to eliminate error terms from over half of all multivariate quadratic basis functions. Furthermore, this integration technique is motivated by first proposing stochastic blocked mean-field quadratures, which may be useful in other contexts. A PyTorch implementation of QNVB allows for better control over model uncertainty during training than competing methods. Experiments demonstrate superior generalizability for multiple learning problems and architectures.

Gaussian mean-field↗
DOE OSTI2022

Fast response High Altitude Laser Optical Sensor (HALOS) for atmospheric water and temperature measurements

Advanced instrumentation and sensing methods are the key factor in the determination of many climate science research problems. In this Phase I STTR a laser-based diagnostic system for atmospheric temperature and water concentrations measurements was developed, this system, HALOS – High Altitude Laser Optical Sensor, employs a mid-infrared (MIR) quantum cascade laser (QCL) of the distributed feedback variety (DFB) powered by a 100 kHz rep rate ramp modulated current profile which enables spectral profiling. Measurements made during Phase I showed that HALOS can surpass the available hygrometers refresh rates while offering superior accuracy (<4%) from the low Frost Point (Tfrost) of -110°C to dew points (Tdew) at 35°C while being able to encompass sub ppm concentration at altitude and supersaturated conditions at ground level. Readings from HALOS include temperature sensitivity on the order of 0.2°C and absolute humidity sensitivity (AH) on the order of 0.010 μmol/m 3 (0.18 mg/m 3 ) at a data output rate exceeding 1 kHz. HALOS can be easily integrable in existing Department of Energy (DOE) or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conventional or remote operated aircraft having either a fixed or rotary wing.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Griffin Software Development Plan

Griffin is a MOOSE-based reactor physics application for advanced reactor multiphysics modeling and simulation. The application is developed in a consistent multiphysics environment with strong software quality assurance. Griffin inherited most of the capabilities of MAMMOTH/Rattlesnake and is adopting the capabilities from PROTEUS that are needed in the code. The toolset includes a variety of deterministic radiation transport solvers for fixed source, k-eigenvalue, ad-joint, and subcritical multiplication, as well as transient solvers for point-kinetics, improved quasi-static, and spatial dynamics. The code contains the cross-section preparation capabilities applicable to fast and thermal reactors, including TRISO-fueled reactors. Core management capabilities include core performance, fuel depletion and shuffling, equilibrium core calculation, pebble-bed reactor run-in and equilibrium core, molten-salt reactor delayed neutron precursor drift, and control rod and drum movement with cusping correction. This software development plan presents the current and future capabilities and features in Griffin for the design and analysis of non-light-water reactor systems in steady-state and transient conditions.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2023

QMMM 2023: A program for combined quantum mechanical and molecular mechanical modeling and simulations

Combined quantum mechanical and molecular mechanical (QM/MM) methods play an important role in multiscale modeling and simulations. QMMM 2023 is a general-purpose program for single-point calculations, geometry optimizations, transition-state optimizations, and molecular dynamics (MD) at the QM/MM level. It calls a QM package and an MM package to perform the required single-level calculations and combines them into a QM/MM energy by a variety of schemes. QMMM 2023 supports GAMESS-US, Gaussian, and ORCA as QM packages and Tinker as the MM package. Four types of treatments are available for embedding the QM subsystem in the MM environment: mechanical embedding with gas-phase calculations of the QM region, electronic embedding that allows polarization of the QM region by the MM environment, polarizable embedding for mutual polarization of the QM and MM regions, and flexible embedding for both mutual polarization and partial charge transfer between the QM and MM regions. Boundaries between QM and MM regions that pass through covalent bonds can be treated by several methods, including the redistributed charge (RC) scheme, redistributed charge and dipole (RCD) scheme, balanced-RC scheme, balanced-RCD scheme, screened charge scheme that takes account of charge penetration effects, and smeared charge scheme that delocalizes the MM charges near the QM–MM boundary. Geometry optimization can be done using the optimizer implemented in QMMM 2023 or the Berny optimizer in Gaussian through external calls to Gaussian. Molecular dynamics simulations can be performed at the pure-MM level, pure-QM level, fixed-partitioning QM/MM level, and adaptive-partitioning QM/MM level. As a result, the adaptive-partitioning treatments permit on-the-fly relocation of the QM–MM boundary by dynamically reclassifying atoms or groups into the QM or MM subsystems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
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 OSTI2021

Multiscale design of nonlinear materials using a Eulerian shape optimization scheme

Motivated by recent advances in manufacturing, the design of materials is the focal point of interest in the material research community. One of the critical challenges in this field is finding optimal material microstructure for a desired macroscopic response. This work presents a computational method for the mesoscale-level design of particulate composites for an optimal macroscale-level response. The method relies on a custom shape optimization scheme to find the extrema of a nonlinear cost function subject to a set of constraints. Three key “modules” constitute the method: multiscale modeling, sensitivity analysis, and optimization. Multiscale modeling relies on a classical homogenization method and a nonlinear NURBS-based generalized finite element scheme to efficiently and accurately compute the structural response of particulate composites using a nonconformal discretization. A three-parameter isotropic damage law is used to model microstructure-level failure. An analytical sensitivity method is developed to compute the derivatives of the cost/constraint functions with respect to the design variables that control the microstructure's geometry. The derivation uncovers subtle but essential new terms contributing to the sensitivity of finite element shape functions and their spatial derivatives. Several structural problems are solved to demonstrate the applicability, performance, and accuracy of the method for the design of particulate composites with a desired macroscopic nonlinear stress-strain response.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2022

Detection of spatial clustering in the 1000 richest SDSS DR8 redMaPPer clusters with nearest neighbor distributions

ABSTRACT Distances to the k-nearest-neighbor (kNN) data points from volume-filling query points are a sensitive probe of spatial clustering. Here, we present the first application of kNN summary statistics to observational clustering measurement, using the 1000 richest redMaPPer clusters (0.1 ≤ z ≤ 0.3) from the SDSS DR8 catalog. A clustering signal is defined as a difference in the cumulative distribution functions (CDFs) of kNN distances from fixed query points to the observed clusters versus a set of unclustered random points. We find that the k = 1, 2-NN CDFs of redMaPPer deviate significantly from the randoms’ across scales of 35 to 155 Mpc, which is a robust signature of clustering. In addition to kNN, we also measure the two-point correlation function for the same set of redMaPPer clusters versus random points, which shows a noisier and less significant clustering signal within the same radial scales. Quantitatively, the χ2 distribution for both the kNN-CDFs and the two-point correlation function measured on the randoms peak at χ2 ∼ 50 (null hypothesis), whereas the kNN-CDFs (χ2 ∼ 300, p = 1.54 × 10−36) pick up a much more significant clustering signal than the two-point function (χ2 ∼ 100, p = 1.16 × 10−6) when measured on redMaPPer. Finally, the measured 3NN and 4NN CDFs deviate from the predicted k = 3, 4-NN CDFs assuming an ideal Gaussian field, indicating a non-Gaussian clustering signal for redMaPPer clusters, although its origin might not be cosmological due to observational systematics. Therefore, kNN serves as a more sensitive probe of clustering complementary to the two point correlation function, providing a novel approach for constraining cosmology and galaxy–halo connection.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Stringent σ8 constraints from small-scale galaxy clustering using a hybrid MCMC + emulator framework

ABSTRACT We present a novel simulation-based hybrid emulator approach that maximally derives cosmological and Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD) information from non-linear galaxy clustering, with sufficient precision for DESI Year 1 (Y1) analysis. Our hybrid approach first samples the HOD space on a fixed cosmological simulation grid to constrain the high-likelihood region of cosmology + HOD parameter space, and then constructs the emulator within this constrained region. This approach significantly reduces the parameter volume emulated over, thus achieving much smaller emulator errors with fixed number of training points. We demonstrate that this combined with state-of-the-art simulations result in tight emulator errors comparable to expected DESI Y1 LRG sample variance. We leverage the new abacussummit simulations and apply our hybrid approach to CMASS non-linear galaxy clustering data. We infer constraints on σ8 = 0.762 ± 0.024 and fσ8(zeff = 0.52) = 0.444 ± 0.016, the tightest among contemporary galaxy clustering studies. We also demonstrate that our fσ8 constraint is robust against secondary biases and other HOD model choices, a critical first step towards showcasing the robust cosmology information accessible in non-linear scales. We speculate that the additional statistical power of DESI Y1 should tighten the growth rate constraints by at least another 50–60 ${{\ \rm per\ cent}}$, significantly elucidating any potential tension with Planck. We also address the ‘lensing is low’ tension, which we find to be in the same direction as a potential tension in fσ8. We show that the combined effect of a lower fσ8 and environment-based bias accounts for approximately $50{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ of the discrepancy.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Total Dissolved Nitrogen and Ammonia Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2015-2025)

This data package contains mean values for total dissolved nitrogen (TDN) and ammonia concentrations for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. TDN was analyzed using a Shimadzu Total Nitrogen Module (TNM-1) combined with the TOC-VCSH analyzer (Shimadzu Corporation, Japan). TNM-1 is a non-specific measurement of total nitrogen (TN). All nitrogen species in samples are combusted to nitrogen monoxide and nitrogen dioxide, then reacted with ozone to form an excited state of nitrogen dioxide. Upon returning to ground state, light energy is emitted. Then, TDN is measured using a chemiluminescence detector. Ammonia was determined using a Lachat's QuikChem 8500 Series 2 Flow Injection Analysis System (LACHAT Instruments, QuckChem 8500 series 2, Automated Ion Analyzer, Loveland, Colorado). When ammonia in water samples is heated (60 degrees C) with salicylate and hypochlorite in an alkaline phosphate buffer, an emerald green color is produced which is proportional to the ammonia concentration. The color is intensified by the addition of nitroprusside. Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is added to the buffer to prevent the interference of metal ions (Ca, Mg, and Fe etc.). Ammonia-N is then determined by LACHAT flow injection and a colorimetric assay at an absorbance wavelength 660 nm. (Reference: LACHAT Instruments: QuickChem Method 90-107-06-3-A, Determination of Ammonia by Flow Injection Analysis (High Throughput, Salicylate Method/DCIC) (Multi Matrix method). Written by Lynn Egan (Application group), February 08, 2011.) All files are labeled by location and variable, and data reported are the mean values upon replicate measurements. All samples were analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process as detailed in the methods. This data package contains (1) a zip file (tdn_ammonia_data_2015-2025.zip) containing a total of 299 files: 298 data files of ammonia and TDN data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v7_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v7_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; (4) PDF and docx files for the determination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for TDN data, which has been updated in 2026-08; and (5) PDF and docx files for the detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for Ammonia and the Interferences by LACHAT Flow Injection Analysis. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 105 locations containing TDN and Ammonia-N data. Update 2020-10-07: Updated the data files to remove times from the timestamps, so that only dates remain. The data values have not changed. Update 2021-04-11: Added Determination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for DIC, NPOC and TDN Analyses and Determination of Method Detection Limit for Ammonia and the Interferences by LACHAT Flow Injection Analysis documents, which can be accessed as PDFs or with Microsoft Word.Update on 6/10/2022: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated total dissolved nitrogen and ammonia data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) restructure of units to comply with CSV reporting format requirements, (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2022-12-20: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. Units were listed incorrectly, but have been fixed to reflect correct units (ug/L). File level metadata (flmd) and data dictionary (dd) files were updated to reflect the updated versions of these files. Available data was added up until 2022-06-01. Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-10-27. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Revised versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for TDN were added to replace previous versions. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available TDN and Ammonia-N data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available TDN and Ammonia-N data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-10, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for TDN data were added to this dataset.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Nonequilibrium universality of the nonreciprocally coupled 𝑂⁡(𝑛 1 ) × 𝑂⁡(𝑛 2 ) model

Nonequilibrium dynamics play an important role in all contexts of physics, both classical and quantum as well as living and nonliving, so it is crucial to develop a foundational understanding of nonequilibrium phase transitions. In this work we investigate an important class of nonequilibrium dynamics in the form of nonreciprocal interactions. In particular we study how nonreciprocal coupling between two 𝑂⁡(𝑛𝑖) order parameters (with 𝑖 = 1,2) affects the universality at a multicritical point, extending the analysis of J. T. Young et al. [Phys. Rev. X 10, 011039 (2020)], which considered the case 𝑛 1 = 𝑛 2 = 1, i.e., a ℤ 2 × ℤ 2 model. We show that nonequilibrium fixed points (NEFPs) emerge for a broad range of 𝑛 1 ,𝑛 2 and exhibit intrinsically nonequilibrium critical phenomena, namely a violation of fluctuation-dissipation relations at all scales and underdamped oscillations near criticality in contrast to the overdamped relaxational dynamics of the corresponding equilibrium models. Furthermore, the NEFPs exhibit an emergent discrete scale invariance in certain physically relevant regimes of 𝑛 1 ,𝑛 2 , but not others, depending on whether the critical exponent 𝜈 is real or complex. The boundary between these two regions is described by an exceptional point in the renormalization group (RG) flow, leading to distinctive features in correlation functions and the phase diagram. Another contrast with the previous work is the number and stability of the NEFPs as well as the underlying topology of the RG flow. Lastly, we investigate an extreme form of nonreciprocity where one order parameter is independent of the other order parameter but not vice versa. Unlike the ℤ 2 × ℤ 2 model, which becomes nonperturbative in this case, we identify a distinct nonequilibrium universality class whose dependent field similarly violates fluctuation-dissipation relations but does not exhibit discrete scale invariance or underdamped oscillations near criticality.

Critical phenomena↗
DOE OSTI2025

Baltimore Social-Environmental Collaborative (BSEC) Doppler Lidar & Derived Products

This repository contains all processed Doppler‐lidar outputs from the PSU lidar deployed for the Baltimore Social‐Environmental Collaborative (BSEC) project. Vertical Stare Scans (fixed‐beam, vertical profiling): 1 Hz backscatter intensity (m⁻¹ sr⁻¹), signal‐to‐noise ratio (unitless), and Doppler vertical‐velocity (m s⁻¹) on ~30 m range gates, stored as CF-compliant NetCDF. Wind Profiles (horizontal‐wind retrieval): daily NetCDF outputs of retrieved horizontal wind speed (m s⁻¹) and direction (degrees), computed from the angled‐scan returns. Profile Statistics (summary statistics on the vertical velocity): 15 min windows (default) of mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis, high-frequency variance, etc., as a function of height; saved as CF-compliant NetCDF files. Boundary Layer Height (BLH) (fuzzy-logic output): 15 min BLH estimates (m), with lower/upper fuzzy bounds (m) and a quality flag (0–4) indicating data status (e.g., no data, good, below range, ran out of signal, cloud-topped). Cloud Base Height (Haar-gradient detection): 15 min estimates of cloud-base height (m) with a cloud-detection quality flag (0–3: none, low, moderate, high). All five product streams are organized by year and date under their own top-level folders (01_Vertical_Stare_Scans/ through 05_Cloud_Height/). Each folder contains a data_ /YYYY/ subdirectory with daily CF-compliant NetCDF outputs (96 windows per day at 15 min intervals). Global attributes in each file include creation history, version (2.0.0), institution, and source. Instrument & MeasurementsThe PSU Doppler Lidar samples aerosol backscatter (m⁻¹ sr⁻¹), signal-to-noise ratio, and radial velocity at ~1 Hz. Vertical stare scans point the beam straight up; after collecting angled scans through multiple elevation angles, the "Wind Profiles" product contains the fully retrieved horizontal wind speed and direction. Data were collected continuously at ~30 m range resolution, with a typical height ceiling of ~12 km. How to Use Open any NetCDF with Python's xarray, MATLAB, or similar CF-compliant tools. Stare scans and angled-scan retrievals (Wind Profiles) are CF-compliant daily NetCDF files. Profile-Statistics, BLH, and Cloud Height files are daily 15 min summaries (96 time steps per file). Inspect the included variables (e.g., vertical_velocity_variance, wind_speed, BLH, cloud_base_height) for your analyses. Use the quality flags (BLH_flag, cloud_flag) to filter out poor-quality retrievals. For more information or questions about processing methods, please contact:Nicholas E. Prince ⟨nec5299@psu.edu⟩Penn State Department of Meteorology & Atmospheric Science

Air Quality↗
DOE OSTI2026

Baltimore Social-Environmental Collaborative (BSEC) Doppler Lidar & Derived Products

This repository contains all processed Doppler‐lidar outputs from the PSU lidar deployed for the Baltimore Social‐Environmental Collaborative (BSEC) project. Vertical Stare Scans (fixed‐beam, vertical profiling): 1 Hz backscatter intensity (m⁻¹ sr⁻¹), signal‐to‐noise ratio (unitless), and Doppler vertical‐velocity (m s⁻¹) on 30 m range gates (and 3 m range gates), stored as CF-compliant NetCDF. Wind Profiles (horizontal‐wind retrieval): daily NetCDF outputs of retrieved horizontal wind speed (m s⁻¹) and direction (degrees), computed from the angled‐scan returns. Profile Statistics (summary statistics on the vertical velocity): 15 min windows (default) of mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis, high-frequency variance, etc., as a function of height; saved as CF-compliant NetCDF files. Boundary Layer Height (BLH) (fuzzy-logic output): 15 min BLH estimates (m), with lower/upper fuzzy bounds (m) and a quality flag (0–4) indicating data status (e.g., no data, good, ran out of signal, below range, cloud-topped). Cloud Base Height (Haar-gradient detection): 10 min estimates of cloud-base height (m). All five product streams are organized by year and date under their own top-level folders (01_Vertical_Stare_Scans/ through 05_Cloud_Height/). Each folder contains a data_ /YYYY/ subdirectory with daily CF-compliant NetCDF outputs (96 windows per day at 15 min intervals). Global attributes in each file include creation history, version (3.0.0), institution, and source. Instrument & MeasurementsThe PSU Doppler Lidar samples aerosol backscatter (m⁻¹ sr⁻¹), signal-to-noise ratio, and radial velocity at ~1 Hz. Vertical stare scans point the beam straight up; after collecting angled scans through multiple elevation angles, the "Wind Profiles" product contains the fully retrieved horizontal wind speed and direction. Data were collected continuously at ~30 m range resolution (and 3 m for the year of 2025), with a typical height ceiling of ~12 km. How to Use Open any NetCDF with Python's xarray, MATLAB, or similar CF-compliant tools. Stare scans and angled-scan retrievals (Wind Profiles) are CF-compliant daily NetCDF files. Profile-Statistics, BLH, and Cloud Height files are daily 15 min (10 min for Cloud Heights) summaries (96 time steps per file). Inspect the included variables (e.g., vertical_velocity_variance, wind_speed, BLH, cloud_base_height) for your analyses. Use the quality flags (BLH_flag, cloud_flag) to filter out poor-quality retrievals. For more information or questions about processing methods, please contact:Nicholas E. Prince ⟨nec5299@psu.edu⟩Penn State Department of Meteorology & Atmospheric Science

Air Quality↗
DOE OSTI2026

Baltimore Social-Environmental Collaborative (BSEC) Doppler Lidar & Derived Products

This repository contains all processed Doppler‐lidar outputs from the PSU lidar deployed for the Baltimore Social‐Environmental Collaborative (BSEC) project. Vertical Stare Scans (fixed‐beam, vertical profiling): 1 Hz backscatter intensity (m⁻¹ sr⁻¹), signal‐to‐noise ratio (unitless), and Doppler vertical‐velocity (m s⁻¹) on 30 m range gates (and 3 m range gates), stored as CF-compliant NetCDF. Wind Profiles (horizontal‐wind retrieval): daily NetCDF outputs of retrieved horizontal wind speed (m s⁻¹) and direction (degrees), computed from the angled‐scan returns. Profile Statistics (summary statistics on the vertical velocity): 15 min windows (default) of mean, variance, skewness, kurtosis, high-frequency variance, etc., as a function of height; saved as CF-compliant NetCDF files. Boundary Layer Height (BLH) (fuzzy-logic output): 15 min BLH estimates (m), with lower/upper fuzzy bounds (m) and a quality flag (0–4) indicating data status (e.g., no data, good, ran out of signal, below range, cloud-topped). Cloud Base Height (Haar-gradient detection): 10 min estimates of cloud-base height (m). All five product streams are organized by year and date under their own top-level folders (01_Vertical_Stare_Scans/ through 05_Cloud_Height/). Each folder contains a data_ /YYYY/ subdirectory with daily CF-compliant NetCDF outputs (96 windows per day at 15 min intervals). Global attributes in each file include creation history, version (3.0.1), institution, and source. Instrument & MeasurementsThe PSU Doppler Lidar samples aerosol backscatter (m⁻¹ sr⁻¹), signal-to-noise ratio, and radial velocity at ~1 Hz. Vertical stare scans point the beam straight up; after collecting angled scans through multiple elevation angles, the "Wind Profiles" product contains the fully retrieved horizontal wind speed and direction. Data were collected continuously at ~30 m range resolution (and 3 m for the year of 2025), with a typical height ceiling of ~12 km. How to Use Open any NetCDF with Python's xarray, MATLAB, or similar CF-compliant tools. Stare scans and angled-scan retrievals (Wind Profiles) are CF-compliant daily NetCDF files. Profile-Statistics, BLH, and Cloud Height files are daily 15 min (10 min for Cloud Heights) summaries (96 time steps per file). Inspect the included variables (e.g., vertical_velocity_variance, wind_speed, BLH, cloud_base_height) for your analyses. Use the quality flags (BLH_flag, cloud_flag) to filter out poor-quality retrievals. For more information or questions about processing methods, please contact:Nicholas E. Prince ⟨nec5299@psu.edu⟩Penn State Department of Meteorology & Atmospheric Science

Air Quality↗
DOE OSTI2026

Subsurface mechanical damage of fused silica glass during grinding by various sub-aperture tools with and without ultrasonics

The subsurface mechanical damage (SSD) depth after grinding fused silica glass with a comprehensive set of sub-aperture fixed abrasive grinding tools [cup, wheel, belt, pad, and rotary face mill (with and without ultrasonics)] and process parameters has been statistically measured using the taper wedge technique and evaluated. Consistent with a previously reported grinding model [J. Non-Cryst. Solids 352, 5601–5617 (2006) Crossref , Materials Science and Technology of Optical Fabrication (Wiley & Sons, 2018)], based on the sliding indentation fracture by sliding particles or asperities where the normal load per particle determines the depth of the fracture (and ultimately the overall SSD depth), the dominant factor controlling SSD depth was found to be the abrasive size regardless of the tool type and process conditions. Compared to full aperture grinding methods, the overall SSD depth was higher using the sub-aperture tools, likely due to the higher effective pressure and higher load per particle distribution. Here, in addition to abrasive size, a significant reduction in SSD depth was achieved by: (1) reducing the load distribution on the abrasive particles via increase in contact area and/or decrease in mechanical loading; (2) using a more compliant host tool medium; and (3) in what we believe is a more novel way, using ultrasonics. Combining low abrasive size, larger contact area, and a compliant host, the 6 µm diamond in a resin matrix (Trizact) on a foam pad led to very low SSD depth (~ 4.6 µm), relatively fast grinding rate (186 mm 3 /h), and little or no figure degradation. This grinding tool/process is an attractive choice for final grind, resulting in significantly reduced polish out (i.e., “grey out”) times. With the rotary face mill tool, the use of ultrasonics consistently led to a SSD depth reduction (ranging from 17%–34%). A new fracture mechanics-based model, to the best of our knowledge, where the relevant normal load is parallel to the feed direction, has been developed to explain how ultrasonics leads to lower SSD depth. The key factors, supported by finite element stress analysis and load measurements, are (1) the initiation of fractures at higher z heights during the tool’s ultrasonic vertical oscillations, thus propagating less deep into workpiece; (2) reduction in load (and therefore reduction in fracture propagation distance) due to smaller tool-workpiece feed direction contact area (again caused by higher heights relative to depth of cut); (3) upward movement of the tool during oscillation leads to fracturing toward the surface instead into the depth; and finally (4) at tool’s lowest point of oscillation cycle, there may not be enough time for the fracture to propagate to its full length.

Optics and optical instruments↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Innovating the next generation of commercial smart building software

Nearly 30% of commercial building energy use is wasted due to equipment faults and HVAC controls problems. The result is increased emissions, compromised comfort and productivity, and less reliable coordination of building power needs with a clean grid. The energy impact alone represents $17 billion in potential savings. Today’s smart building software provides a robust solution to address these operational deficiencies. Energy management and information systems (EMIS) are saving up to 9% on average, with two-year paybacks. They are being incorporated into energy management processes, commissioning services, and utility programs. As effective as they are, two barriers prevent even deeper benefits; limited personnel to fix problems once they are identified, and the expense and time to manually implement changes in control systems. In partnership with the research community, the EMIS industry is developing new capabilities to overcome these barriers. Moving beyond siloed products for either fault detection and diagnostics, or optimal control, these new capabilities empower users to not only automatically identify faults, but also to push corrective action, and control improvements to their buildings. In this paper, several areas for enhancements are documented: ‘one-time’ correction of faults such as setpoints, schedules, and economizer lockouts; short-term active testing for automated proportional integral derivative (PID) loop tuning and functional testing; and continuous supervisory control for demand flexibility and year-round efficiency. Results are presented from a pair of partner implementations out of a dozen providers integrating these enhancements into their products, including field tests from across the country, and insights into operator acceptance and integration into operations and maintenance practices.

Casillas, Armando↗