Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Directory”

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 199 records · Page 11
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Data From: "Warming and snow loss increase reliance on old groundwater in a Colorado River headwater"

This repository contains the data and code associated with the paper titled "Warming and snow loss increase reliance on old groundwater in a Colorado River headwater," published in Nature Geoscience, 2026. This study seeks to answer how various ages of groundwater interact with mountainous streamflow in mountainous headwaters such as the East River. It includes various model-data processing scripts, primarily for ParFlow-CLM analysis of simulated water years 2015-2021, and two numerical warming experiments (+2.5 and +4.0 degrees C), including run scripts, forcing scripts, and post-processing, as well as comparison to observation datasets, detailed below. This data requires the use of R (.r, .rmd), Python (.py), Jupyter Notebook or Jupyter Lab (.ipynb), ParFLOW-CLM, EcoSLIM. Further information on the use of all file formats mentioned below (e.g. .tff. .nc) are provided within the associated scripts and directory where the files are located. Contents & Usage ASO/: ​​Contains the bash and python scripts used to convert airborne snow observatory (ASO) data (ASO, 2023) in various data formats (georeferenced tiff file, NetCDF, UTM, and to latitude/longitude) then regrided to the ParFlow equivalent grid. Output data are in regrid_regll_data.zip and subsequently visualized and analyzed in plot_and_compare.py for Supplementary Figures A14 and A15. The wksht_ASO_comparison.xlsx spreadsheet is used to calculate the data for Supplementary Figure A16. EcoSLIM/: Contains the scripts and input files to run the EcoSLIM particle tracking simulations (/run_scripts) and the post-processing python script (/plot_scripts/eco_agedist_plots.ipynb). Jasechko et al./: Contains the jupyter notebook (Extract_Elevation.ipynb) to determine the outlet elevations of the 260 watersheds used in Jasechko et al. (2016), and the corresponding table, Table_S1_Watersheds_alt.csv. Used to create Supplementary Information Figure A2. PLM_Wells/: Contains the QA/QC-ed groundwater level time series of the PLM-1 and PLM-6 Monitoring Wells from Faybishenko et al. (2023), reformatted to water years used for Supplementary Figures A19 and and A20. ParFlow/: Contains the input files and run scripts to run ParFlow-CLM (/run_scripts), the python and tool command language (Tcl) scripts to create and distribute the ParFlow forcing simulation files (/forcing), and various scripts and intermediary files to analyze the model outputs (/post_process). SQUIRE/: Contains the processing scripts and intermediary files for the Surface QUantitatIve pRecipitation Estimation (SQUIRE) data (Grover, 2023) used to generate Supplementary Figure A18. USGS_Streamflow/: Contains the raw and gap-filled United States Geological Survey streamflow data (U.S. Geological Survey, 2026) used at the Almont station (site number 09112500). Gap-filling is performed in the R script with data from the Taylor station (site number 09110000). (/USGS_09112500_EAST_RIVER_AT_ALMONT_GAP_FILLED/code_almont_streamflow_gap_fill.Rmd). discharge/: Contains the gap-filled discharge data at the Watershed Function SFA East River pumphouse site (Newcomer et al., 2022) used to generate Supplementary Figure A13 and to compute hourly Nash-Sutcliffe model efficiency coefficients (NSE) in Table A4. snotel_and_flux_tower/: Contains the snow telemetry data (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2024) from the Butte (site ID 380) and Schofield (site ID 737) stations, reformatted by water year, accessed with the snotelr R package. Used to create Supplementary Figure A17. Also contains the flux tower observational data (FluxTower_Pumphouse_ESS-DIVE.ET_only.h.txt) from Ryken et al. (2022) and sap flux transpiration data (MaxB_Transpiration_5Sites.daily_sums.h.txt) from Ryken (2021), used to create Supplementary Figures A22 and A23, respectively. Raw EcoSLIM model outputs are in excess of 24TB, and are stored on National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) and publicly available via the external link provided in the paper.

atmospheric warming↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data, model inputs, and analysis scripts associated with a manuscript on stream intermittency controls across spatial scales in Pacific Northwest watersheds

NOTE: The manuscript associated with this data package is currently in review. The data may be revised based on reviewer feedback. Upon manuscript acceptance, this data package will be updated with the final dataset and additional metadata. This data package is associated with the manuscript "Hydroclimatic Memory and Watershed Template Shape Stream Intermittency: Multi-scale Attribution Using Process-based Simulation and Explainable ML" by Niroula et al. (2026), submitted to Water Resources Research (WRR). The study investigates the dominant controls on stream intermittency across local, reach, and watershed scales using a coupled process-based simulation and explainable machine-learning framework. Long-term daily simulations from the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS) were used to generate wetness states and ponded-depth responses over river-corridor cells. These ATS outputs were then aggregated across scales and used to train XGBoost (eXtreme Gradient Boosting) models. SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations) was applied to quantify the relative importance of hydroclimatic forcings, watershed template attributes, and antecedent-memory effects in shaping intermittency behavior. The analysis is carried out for three contrasting Pacific Northwest watersheds: Oak Creek (OCW), American River Watershed (ARW), and H.J. Andrews (HJA). Across these testbeds, the package contains ATS-ready watershed inputs, ATS run configuration and selected output files, model-evaluation data products, intermittency-analysis datasets, machine-learning target-feature tables, SHAP outputs, and notebooks used to organize, analyze, and visualize results. At a high level, the package documents a workflow in which ATS provides the physically based simulation backbone and explainable machine learning is used as a post-processing attribution tool. The contents are intended to support interpretation of the manuscript figures and results, provide context for how intermittency metrics were generated at multiple scales, and preserve the key artifacts needed to understand and reuse the analysis workflow. The package contains a high-level directory summary file (`summary.txt`) and four main content folders (1) `evaluation_plots` contains evaluation figures and supporting evaluation datasets; (2) `intermittency_plots` contains intermittency-focused analysis notebook and prepared datasets; (3) `ml-training-and-shap_values_plots` contains ML training inputs, SHAP outputs, and figure-generation notebooks; and (4) `watershed_mesh_and_ats_input` contains ATS model setup materials, forcing inputs, geometry, and selected run files. More specifically, the `evaluation_plots` folder contains the notebook used for ATS evaluation plotting and site-specific evaluation datasets. These include evapotranspiration and water-balance products for three watersheds, as well as an Oak Creek field-measurement discharge file. The `intermittency_plots` folder contains the notebook used for intermittency analysis and the prepared datasets used to analyze intermittent and non-intermittent wetness behavior across the study watersheds. The `ml-training-and-shap_values_plots` folder contains notebooks and outputs for the machine-learning and explainability workflow. This includes the main XGBoost and SHAP notebook(s), a beeswarm plotting notebook, target-feature tables for machine-learning training, SHAP summary tables, and per-sample SHAP value archives. The `watershed_mesh_and_ats_input` folder contains ATS-related watershed inputs and supporting materials. This includes mesh and shape products, ATS-readable LAI and meteorological forcing inputs, selected ATS spinup and transient-run files, and a watershed workflow example notebook. Subdirectories are organized by watershed where applicable.All files are .cpg (codepage files), .csv (comma-separated values), .dbf (database files), .exo (Exodus mesh format), .h5 (HDF5 format), .ipynb (Jupyter notebooks), .pkl (Python pickle), .prj (projection files), .sh (shell scripts), .shp (shapefile geometry), .shx (shapefile index), .txt (text files), or .xml (markup data).

Advanced Terrestrial Simulator↗
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

Data for Zheng et al. (2025), "AquaMEND: Reconciling multiple impacts of salinization on soil carbon biogeochemistry"

Soil salinization, exacerbated by climate change, poses a global threat to coastal ecosystems and soil function. Salinity affects soil carbon cycling by directly impacting microbial activity and indirectly altering soil physicochemical properties, but current models inadequately represent these complexities. This dataset contains the observational and modeling data from Zheng et al. (2025), which described a process-based modeling framework that couples soil solution chemistry with microbial carbon cycling reactions to study the impacts of soil salinization. This conceptual model is implemented numerically into the open-source geochemical program PHREEQC 3.0 (Parkhurst and Appelo, 2013). This dataset consists of: - Figure2_AquaMEND_salinity_buffer: Contains model simulation outputs to assess the impact of three different cation exchange and surface complexation processes on salinity buffering (Fig. 2 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure3_Salinity_function: Contains salinity function fitting for literature data (Fig. 3 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure4_AquaMEND_microbial_mechanisms: Contains model simulation outputs for testing various microbial process-based hypotheses related to soil salinization, including microbial mortality, carbon use efficiency (CUE), extracellular enzyme activity, and other microbial mechanisms (Fig. 4 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure5_AquaMEND_Redox: Contains on model simulation outputs to evaluate shifts among key redox processes, such as aerobic respiration, sulfate reduction, and methanogenesis (Fig.5 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure6_AquaMEND_sorption: Contains on model simulation outputs for investigating the effects of salinity on dissolved organic matter (DOM) sorption and desorption processes (Fig. 6 from Zheng et al. 2025). - Figure7_AquaMEND_process_couple: Contains on model simulation outputs for exploring coupled biotic-abiotic processes and their interactions (Fig. 7 from Zheng et al. 2025). - data: Includes datasets used to develop salinity response functions and evaluate salinity buffering capacity. Datasets for MEND model calibration. - database: Contains the `.dat` file required by PHREEQC for model execution. - README.md: A Markdown plain text file describing the computational tools and directories. Files are a mixture of plain text CSV (comma-separated value) and plain text *.dat files written by the model; no special software is required to read them.

EARTH SCIENCE > AGRICULTURE > SOILS > SOIL SALINIT↗
DOE OSTI2026

Field and Model Data Associated with the Manuscript “Drivers of Streamflow Intermittency in Humid Regions: 2. Evaluating Controls on Flow Persistence in an Urbanized Catchment”

This package contains field data, modeling files, and scripts supporting the investigation of the drivers of streamflow intermittency in an urbanized catchment. It includes the field data collected from electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) surveys, distributed temperature sensing (DTS), continuous self-potential (SP) monitoring, groundwater and stilling well. In addition, it contains the data and results of the coupled water- and electrical-flow model developed using the COMSOL Multiphysics and Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), as well as software files and Jupyter notebooks used to process the data and generate figures in the manuscript submitted for peer review. The data archive is organized in the following directories: 1) Climate Includes hourly precipitation and daily evapotranspiration time series (2024 – 2025) provided as CSV files, alongside a text file detailing dataset units. 2) Coupled_model Field_Application subfolder contains the ATS XML input scripts, data files, output data for the SP site. It also contains the Jupyter notebook (Plot_final_calib.ipynb) to visualize the results of the modeled SP, stream-groundwater exchange and moisture content. The flow model simulation is executed using the ATS XML scripts and the included Python script (generate_data_set.py) to convert ATS output to COMSOL-ready input. COMSOL Multiphysics template (.m can only be used with COMSOL with MATLAB) is executed using the ATS output data to simulate the potential field. 3) Discharge Includes the electrical conductivity (EC) time series (provided as CSV files) from salt slug injections. It also includes the Jupyter notebook (Discharge_process.ipynyb) used to estimate discharge. All discharge measurements collated into rating_curve_processed.csv 4) DTS Contains collated DTS data including raw Stokes and anti-Stokes measurement (provided as .h5 file). It also includes DTS processing.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook for calibrating the DTS data using dts_calibration Python package. cooler_calibration.csv is the DTS calibration CSV used in the calibration sequence. 5) ERT Contains raw resistivity data (provided as CSV files), spatial location of each of the electrodes (provided as CSV files), and files used for the resistivity inversion. 6) Slug_test Includes the slug test data at all the groundwater wells provided as CSV files, as well as the Jupyter notebook (Slug_test.ipynb) for calculating hydraulic conductivity. 7) SP Contains the SP data collected in field at the SP sites (provided as CSV files). 8) Well_data Contains two subfolders: 1) Raw, which provides unprocessed pressure, electrical conductivity and temperature timeseries downloaded from the loggers in all the groundwater and stilling wells, and 2) Processed, which contains sorted, QA/QC timeseries data for each well. The data archive also contains data_process.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook used for field data analysis and generating figures (plotting well, SP, climate, and discharge data, as well as calculating head gradient at sites with nested groundwater wells). Note: Code files (.ipynb, .py, .xml) can be opened in any standard code editor, .exo file can be viewed using Paraview, .h5 files can be opened using HDFView software and h5py Python package, and .resipy file can be opened with the open-source ResIPy software.

ATS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Field and Model Data Associated with the Manuscript “Drivers of Streamflow Intermittency in Humid Regions: 1. Evaluating Above- and Below-ground Controls of Flow Persistence in a Forested Catchment”

This package contains field data, modeling files, and scripts supporting the investigation of the drivers of streamflow intermittency in a forested catchment. It includes the field data collected from electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) surveys, ground penetrating radar (GPR), continuous self-potential (SP) monitoring, electromagnetic (EM) imaging, groundwater and stilling well. In addition, it contains the data and results of the coupled water- and electrical-flow model developed using the COMSOL Multiphysics and Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), as well as software files and Jupyter notebooks used to process the data and generate figures in the manuscript submitted for peer review. The data archive is organized in the following directories: 1) Climate Includes hourly precipitation and daily evapotranspiration time series (2024 – 2025) provided as CSV files, alongside a text file detailing dataset units. 2) Coupled_model Contains two subfolders: Synthetic and Field_Application subfolder. Synthetic subfolder contains the ATS XML input script (can be opened using any code editor) for the four synthetic hydrological cases tested (Connected and gaining, Connected and losing, Disconnected and losing, and dry stream). It also includes other experimental cases to test the influence of precipitation and concentration gradient. For each synthetic case, the flow model simulation is executed using the ATS XML scripts and the included Python script (generate_data_set.py) to convert ATS output to COMSOL-ready input. COMSOL Multiphysics template (.mph can be opened with the commercial software COMSOL and requires a license) is executed using the ATS output data to simulate the potential field. It also includes the Synthetic_model_plot.ipynb (can be opened using any code editor) to visualize the SP result and generate manuscript figures. The data subfolder contains mesh files to run both the ATS (.exo and .stl files can be viewed using Paraview; .h5 files can be opened using HDFView software and h5py Python package) and COMSOL models. Field_Application subfolder contains two subfolders: ES_MDA_inversion and Final_Model. ES_MDA_inversion contains the Python script (.py can be opened using any code editor) and SP observation data used to run the Ensemble Smoother with Multiple Data Assimilation (ES-MDA) inversion sequence to get the optimal model parameters. The Final_model subfolder contains the ATS XML input scripts, data files, output data for the two SP sites. The same workflow steps outlined for the Synthetic subfolder apply here. It also contains the Jupyter notebook (Plot_final_calib.ipynb) to visualize the results of the modeled SP, stream-groundwater exchange and moisture content. 3) Discharge Includes the electrical conductivity (EC) time series (provided as CSV files) from salt slug injections. It also includes the Jupyter notebook (Discharge_process.ipynyb) used to estimate discharge. All discharge measurements collated into rating_curve_processed.csv 4) EM Contains the CSV file of the EM data from the DUALEM-42, including spatial coordinates (x, y, z), apparent conductivity, and in-phase measurements at 2 m coil separations for horizontal coplanar (HCP) and perpendicular (PRP) geometries. 5) ERT Contains raw resistivity data (provided as CSV files), spatial location of each of the electrodes (provided as CSV files), and files used for the resistivity inversion (.resipy can be opened with the open-source ResIPy software). 6) GPR Includes GPR field datasets collected at 100 MHz and 250 MHz antenna frequencies, along with the processing/interpretation project file (GPR_process.gpz can be viewed using EKKO_Project 6, a commercial software by Sensors & Software that requires a license). 7) Slug_test Includes the slug test data at all the groundwater wells provided as CSV files, as well as the Jupyter notebook (Slug_test.ipynb) for calculating hydraulic conductivity. 8) SP Contains the SP data collected in field at the two SP sites (one in the perennial reach and the other in the intermittent reach), provided as DAT files. 9) Well_data Contains two subfolders: 1) Raw, which provides unprocessed pressure, electrical conductivity and temperature timeseries downloaded from the loggers in all the groundwater and stilling wells, and 2) Processed, which contains sorted, QA/QC timeseries data for each well. The data archive also contains data_process.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook used for field data analysis and generating figures (plotting well, SP, climate, and discharge data, as well as calculating head gradient at sites with nested groundwater wells). It also includes DTW.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook containing the code for the dynamic time warping (DTW) with sliding window to evaluate SP signal synchronicity.

ATS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Comprehensive, Multi-Source Cyber-Security Events Data Set

This data set represents 58 consecutive days of de-identified event data collected from five sources within Los Alamos National Laboratory’s corporate, internal computer network. The data sources include Windows-based authentication events from both individual computers and centralized Active Directory domain controller servers; process start and stop events from individual Windows computers; Domain Name Service (DNS) lookups as collected on internal DNS servers; network flow data as collected on at several key router locations; and a set of well-defined red teaming events that present bad behavior within the 58 days. In total, the data set is approximately 12 gigabytes compressed across the five data elements and presents 1,648,275,307 events in total for 12,425 users, 17,684 computers, and 62,974 processes. Specific users that are well known system related (SYSTEM, Local Service) were not de-identified though any well-known administrators account were still de-identified. In the network flow data, well-known ports (e.g. 80, 443, etc) were not de-identified. All other users, computers, process, ports, times, and other details were de-identified as a unified set across all the data elements (e.g. U1 is the same U1 in all of the data). The specific timeframe used is not disclosed for security purposes. In addition, no data that allows association outside of LANL’s network is included. All data starts with a time epoch of 1 using a time resolution of 1 second. In the authentication data, failed authentication events are only included for users that had a successful authentication event somewhere within the data set.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2019

Frio 2 : Raw CASSM Datasets

This submission contains the raw SEG-2 seismic datasets acquired in the CASSM experiment, part of the Frio-2 GCS pilot. The directory also includes the log files generated by the Geode seismograph (geometrics) used during acquisition. All SEG-2 files have a ".dat" suffix and log files have a ".log" suffix. Various supplementary files are also included (see below) including a set of flow and seismic models used in interpretation. The earlyGathers.tar.gz resource includes raw data acquired during system testing and pre-injection periods. All files correspond to the single source continuous active source seismic monitoring (CASSM) dataset described in the following papers. Daley, T.M., Solbau, R.D., Ajo-Franklin, J.B., and Benson, S.M. 2007, “Continuous Active-Source Seismic Monitoring of CO2 Injection in a Brine Aquifer”, Geophysics, Vol. 72, No. 5, p. A57-A61 Daley, T., Ajo-Franklin, J.B., and C. Doughty, 2011, “Constraining the reservoir model of an injected CO2 plume with crosswell CASSM at the Frio-II Brine Pilot”, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control (IJGGC), Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 1022-1030. Zhu, T., Ajo-Franklin, J., and T. Daley, 2017, “Spatio-temporal changes in seismic attenuation caused by injected CO2 at the Frio-II pilot site, Dayton TX, USA”, Journal of Geophysical Research – Solid Earth, Vol. 122, No. 9, pp. 7156-7171. cassmDataRaw.tar : The main tar file containing all of the SEG-2 field records and the Geode log files. Stacking, time sampling (dt), and date information should be in the .log file. Each file corresponds to a single stacked gather for the single source deployed. Data was recorded on a 24 channel downhole hydrophone array. fieldNotes.tar : contains some of the scanned observer logs from the experiments as well as some planning images fieldPhotos.tar : contains a small set of photographs taken during the experiment frio_flow_seismic_models.mat : a matlab structure containing a set of flow and seismic models used in interpreting the CASSM data (see IJGGC paper).

GCS↗
DOE OSTI2020

Ground-based_transient_electromagnetic_data_and_resistivity_models_for_SubTER_BelleCreek_2017-2018

Ground-based transient electromagnetic (TEM) data were acquired in selected locations around Belle Creek, Montana to define the resistivity structure of the near surface. Data were acquired using the ABEM WalkTEM system (Guideline Geo Ab, Sundbyberg, Sweden). TEM data were processed and numerically inverted to derive one-dimensional resistivity structure using SPIA (Aarhus Geosoftware, Aarhus, Denmark). This release includes raw and processed TEM data and resistivity models for each data location using the following structure: Ground-based_transient_electromagnetic_data_and_resistivity_models_for_SubTER_BelleCreek_2017-2018.xml SBC_TEM_2019_SoundingLocationsModels.gdb.zip - file geodatabase with all models and plots attached. This is a mirror of the contents of the model directory. Ground-based_transient_electromagnetic_data_and_resistivity_models_for_SubTER_BelleCreek_2017-2018.zip Data SBC_USF - raw data USF_format_description.pdf - manual describing the USF file format SBC_SoundingID-USF_lookup.csv - table describing the USF file naming convention and channel mapping *.usf files - raw, unprocessed data files SBC_TEM - processed data AarhusInv_manual.pdf - manual describing the TEM file format *.tem files - processed data files Models SBC_Model_Plots - plots of the data and the models for each sounding location TEM_model_data_dictionary.csv - data dictionary describing tabulated models SBC_TEM_models.csv - tabulated models

geophysical surveying↗
DOE OSTI2020

Converting from NIS to Redhat Identity Management

The Jefferson Lab (Jlab) accelerator controls network has transitioned to a new authentication and network service interface. The new system uses the Redhat Identity Manager (IdM) as a single integrating front end to the Lightweight Directory Access Protocol (LDAP) and a replacement for NIS and the Kerberos authentication service. This system allows for integration of access and authentication across Unix and Windows environments and across different Jlab computing environments, including across firewalls. The decision making process, conversion steps, issues and solutions will be discussed.

McGuckin, T. S.↗
DOE OSTI2013

A Systematic Evaluation of Traditional and Non-Traditional Data Streams for Integrated Global Biosurveillance (Final Report)

Living in a closely connected and highly mobile world presents many new mechanisms for rapid disease spread and in recent years, global disease surveillance has become a high priority. In addition, much like the contribution of non-traditional medicine to curing diseases, non-traditional data streams are being considered of value in disease surveillance. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) was tasked by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)-Joint Science and Technology Office (JSTO) to determine the relevance of data streams for an integrated global biosurveillance system through the use of defined metrics and methodologies. The long-term, broad objective of this project was to provide information and analysis that can be leveraged from existing and developing national and international disease surveillance systems and methodologies, to create a global disease monitoring system, ultimately providing decision makers with timely information to prepare for and mitigate the spread of disease. Specifically, this project evaluated data streams that are currently being used in surveillance systems and data streams that had the potential for being used in surveillance to enable early disease detection. LANL’s focus was on infectious disease surveillance and the term “biosurveillance” will be used to refer to this scope hereafter. Data stream evaluation was conducted using two different methods: Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) using a tool called Logical Decisions ® that assigns utility scores to data streams based on weighted metrics and assigned values specific to data stream categories; and a Surveillance Window concept developed at LANL that assigns a window or windows of time specific to a disease within which information coming from various data streams can be determined to have utility. A cross method analysis was performed between the surveillance window based evaluation and the MCDA-based evaluation to identify data stream categories that showed high utility for both methods. In addition, algorithms that can integrate useful data streams to facilitate early disease detection were also examined. This project provided an understanding of data streams relevant to early warning, early detection and monitoring of disease outbreaks. The report describes the results of LANL’s evaluation of 16 data stream categories using the two methods, and recommendations for next steps. The project evolved significantly over its course, and significant improvements in our approaches were made compared to the initial proposed processes. A key outcome of this effort was that LANL was able to bring together several diverse entities involved in disease surveillance and lay the foundation for new collaborations that straddled military and civilian health surveillance. The robust evaluation framework developed by LANL has generated significant interest and there is interest in adopting this framework for various applications both within disease surveillance as well as other public health initiatives. Finally, LANL developed the Biosurveillance Resource Directory (BRD), a relational database that underwent pilot testing by members of the human, plant and animal disease surveillance community. The BRD is intended to be a global resource to facilitate rapid information access.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2013

Validation and Verification of MCNP6 Against High-Energy Experimental Data and Calculations by Other Codes. III. The MPI Testing Primer

This primer presents a set of Validation and Verification (V&V) MCNP6 results calculated in parallel, with MPI, obtained mostly using its event generators at intermediate and high-energies, but also several examples of results using data libraries at energies below 150 MeV, against various recent experimental data. It is the third part of a set of MCNP6 Testing Primers, after its first, LA-UR-11-05129, and second, LA-UR-11-05627, publications. The MCNP6 test-problems discussed here are presented in the /VALIDATION CEM/, /VALIDATION LAQGSM/, and /DELAYED PARTICLES/ subdirectories in the MCNP6 /Testing/ directory. README files that contain short descriptions of every input file, the experiment, the quantity of interest that the experiment measures and its description in the MCNP6 output files, and the publication reference of that experiment are presented for every test-problem. Templates for plotting the corresponding results with xmgrace as well as pdf files with figures representing the final results of our V&V efforts are presented. Several technical “bugs” in MCNP6 while running it in parallel with MPI using its event generators were discovered during our current V&V of MCNP6 and were fixed mostly by Dr. Jeffrey S. Bull. Our results show that MCNP6 using its CEM03.03, LAQGSM03.03, Bertini, INCL+ABLA, and ISABEL event generators describes, as a rule, reasonably well different intermediate- and high-energy measured data and agrees very well with calculations by other codes. Just as expected, the MCNP6 results obtained with MPI are practically the same as the ones calculated with MCNP6 in a sequential mode. This primer isn’t meant to be read from cover to cover. Readers may skip some sections and go directly to a test-problem they are interested in.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2013

JSATS Decoder Software Manual

The Juvenile Salmon Acoustic Telemetry System (JSATS) Decoder is a software application that converts a digitized acoustic signal (a waveform stored in the .bwm file format) into a list of potential JSATS Acoustic MicroTransmitter (AMT) tagcodes along with other data about the signal including time of arrival and signal to noise ratios (SNR). This software is capable of decoding single files, directories, and viewing raw acoustic waveforms. When coupled with the JSATS Detector, the Decoder is capable of decoding in ‘real-time’ and can also provide statistical information about acoustic beacons placed within receive range of hydrophones within a JSATS array. This document details the features and functionality of the software. The document begins with software installation instructions (section 2), followed in order by instructions for decoder setup (section 3), decoding process initiation (section 4), then monitoring of beacons (section 5) using real-time decoding features. The last section in the manual describes the beacon, beacon statistics, and the results file formats. This document does not consider the raw binary waveform file format.

Flory, Adam E.↗
DOE OSTI2013

RELAP5-3D Restart and Backup Verification Testing

Existing testing methodology for RELAP5-3D employs a set of test cases collected over two decades to test a variety of code features and run on a Linux or Windows platform. However, this set has numerous deficiencies in terms of code coverage, detail of comparison, running time, and testing fidelity of RELAP5-3D restart and backup capabilities. The test suite covers less than three quarters of the lines of code in the relap directory and just over half those in the environmental library. Even in terms of code features, many are not covered. Moreover, the test set runs many problems long past the point necessary to test the relevant features. It requires standard problems to run to completion. This is unnecessary for features can be tested in a short-running problem. For example, many trips and controls can be tested in the first few time steps, as can a number of fluid flow options. The testing system is also inaccurate. For the past decade, the diffem script has been the primary tool for checking that printouts from two different RELAP5-3D executables agree. This tool compares two output files to verify that all characters are the same except for those relating to date, time and a few other excluded items. The variable values printed on the output file are accurate to no more than eight decimal places. Therefore, calculations with errors in decimal places beyond those printed remain undetected. Finally, fidelity of restart is not tested except in the PVM sub-suite and backup is not specifically tested at all. When a restart is made from any midway point of the base-case transient, the restart must produce the same values. When a backup condition occurs, the code repeats advancements with the same time step. A perfect backup can be tested by forcing RELAP5 to perform a backup by falsely setting a backup condition flag at a user-specified-time. Comparison of the calculations of that run and those produced by the same input w/o the spurious condition should be identical. Backup testing is more difficult the other kinds of testing described above because it requires additional coding to implement. The testing system constructed and described in this document resolves all of these issues. A matrix of test features and short-running cases that exercise them is presented. A small information file that contains sufficient data to verify calculations to the last decimal place and bit is produced. This testing system is used to test base cases (called null testing) as well as restart and backup cases. The programming that implements these new capabilities is presented.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2015

Dynamic Non-Hierarchical File Systems for Exascale Storage

This constitutes the final report for “Dynamic Non-Hierarchical File Systems for Exascale Storage”. The ultimate goal of this project was to improve data management in scientific computing and high-end computing (HEC) applications, and to achieve this goal we proposed: to develop the first, HEC-targeted, file system featuring rich metadata and provenance collection, extreme scalability, and future storage hardware integration as core design goals, and to evaluate and develop a flexible non-hierarchical file system interface suitable for providing more powerful and intuitive data management interfaces to HEC and scientific computing users. Data management is swiftly becoming a serious problem in the scientific community – while copious amounts of data are good for obtaining results, finding the right data is often daunting and sometimes impossible. Scientists participating in a Department of Energy workshop noted that most of their time was spent “...finding, processing, organizing, and moving data and it’s going to get much worse”. Scientists should not be forced to become data mining experts in order to retrieve the data they want, nor should they be expected to remember the naming convention they used several years ago for a set of experiments they now wish to revisit. Ideally, locating the data you need would be as easy as browsing the web. Unfortunately, existing data management approaches are usually based on hierarchical naming, a 40 year-old technology designed to manage thousands of files, not exabytes of data. Today’s systems do not take advantage of the rich array of metadata that current high-end computing (HEC) file systems can gather, including content-based metadata and provenance1 information. As a result, current metadata search approaches are typically ad hoc and often work by providing a parallel management system to the “main” file system, as is done in Linux (the locate utility), personal computers, and enterprise search appliances. These search applications are often optimized for a single file system, making it difficult to move files and their metadata between file systems. Users have tried to solve this problem in several ways, including the use of separate databases to index file properties, the encoding of file properties into file names, and separately gathering and managing provenance data, but none of these approaches has worked well, either due to limited usefulness or scalability, or both. Our research addressed several key issues: High-performance, real-time metadata harvesting: extracting important attributes from files dynamically and immediately updating indexes used to improve search; Transparent, automatic, and secure provenance capture: recording the data inputs and processing steps used in the production of each file in the system; Scalable indexing: indexes that are optimized for integration with the file system; Dynamic file system structure: our approach provides dynamic directories similar to those in semantic file systems, but these are the native organization rather than a feature grafted onto a conventional system. In addition to these goals, our research effort will include evaluating the impact of new storage technologies on the file system design and performance. In particular, the indexing and metadata harvesting functions can potentially benefit from the performance improvements promised by new storage class memories.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2015

An Analysis of Representative Heating Load Lines for Residential HSPF Ratings

This report describes an analysis to investigate representative heating loads for single-family detached homes using current EnergyPlus simulations (DOE 2014a). Hourly delivered load results are used to determine binned load lines using US Department of Energy (DOE) residential prototype building models (DOE 2014b) developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL). The selected residential single-family prototype buildings are based on the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC 2006) in the DOE climate regions. The resulting load lines are compared with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 210/240 (AHRI 2008) minimum and maximum design heating requirement (DHR) load lines of the heating seasonal performance factor (HSPF) ratings procedure for each region. The results indicate that a heating load line closer to the maximum DHR load line, and with a lower zero load ambient temperature, is more representative of heating loads predicted for EnergyPlus prototype residential buildings than the minimum DHR load line presently used to determine HSPF ratings. An alternative heating load line equation was developed and compared to binned load lines obtained from the EnergyPlus simulation results. The effect on HSPF of the alternative heating load line was evaluated for single-speed and two-capacity heat pumps, and an average HSPF reduction of 16% was found. The alternative heating load line relationship is tied to the rated cooling capacity of the heat pump based on EnergyPlus autosizing, which is more representative of the house load characteristics than the rated heating capacity. The alternative heating load line equation was found to be independent of climate for the six DOE climate regions investigated, provided an adjustable zero load ambient temperature is used. For Region IV, the default DOE climate region used for HSPF ratings, the higher load line results in an ~28% increase in delivered heating load and an ~52% increase in the estimated heating operating cost over that given in the AHRI directory (AHRI 2014).

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2016

Contents of GPS Data Files

There are no very detailed descriptions of most of these instruments in the literature – we will attempt to fix that problem in the future. The BDD instruments are described in [1]. One of the dosimeter instruments on CXD boxes is described in [2]. These documents (or web links to them) and a few others are in this directory tree. The cross calibration of the CXD electron data with RBSP is described in [3]. Each row in the data file contains the data from one time bin from a CXD or BDD instrument along with a variety of parameters derived from the data. Time steps are commandable but 4 minutes is a typical setting. These instruments are on many (but not all) GPS satellites which are currently in operation. The data come from either BDD instruments on GPS Block IIR satellites (SVN41 and 48), or else CXD-IIR instruments on GPS Block IIR and IIR-M satellites (SVN53-61) or CXD-IIF instruments on GPS block IIF satellites (SVN62-73). The CXD-IIR instruments on block IIR and IIR(M) satellites use the same design.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗