Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DIRECTORIES”

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 307 records · Page 17

Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs: FY1 Final Report

The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Active Management of Integrated Geothermal-CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations

Active Management of Integrated Geothermal–CO2 Storage Reservoirs in Sedimentary Formations: An Approach to Improve Energy Recovery and Mitigate Risk : FY1 Final Report The purpose of phase 1 is to determine the feasibility of integrating geologic CO2 storage (GCS) with geothermal energy production. Phase 1 includes reservoir analyses to determine injector/producer well schemes that balance the generation of economically useful flow rates at the producers with the need to manage reservoir overpressure to reduce the risks associated with overpressure, such as induced seismicity and CO2 leakage to overlying aquifers. This submittal contains input and output files of the reservoir model analyses. A reservoir-model "index-html" file was sent in a previous submittal to organize the reservoir-model input and output files according to sections of the FY1 Final Report to which they pertain. The recipient should save the file: Reservoir-models-inputs-outputs-index.html in the same directory that the files: Section2.1.*.tar.gz files are saved in.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

PoroTomo: BRAD and BRDY GPS Station RINEX Files - December 20, 2014

This dataset provides links to daily RINEX files for two GPS stations at Brady's Hot Springs as of December 20, 2014. The data is formatted as compressed GNSS RINEX observation files and is accessible through CSV files containing metadata such as file size, data type, and publication dates. The dataset includes FTP links for downloading the individual RINEX files and covers data collected through 2012. The CSV files serve as a directory for navigating to the correct FTP locations to access the desired data. Users are advised to cross-reference the filenames and station identifiers (BRAD or BRDY) when downloading files. The files were generated by the UNAVCO GSAC Repository, and all data-related timestamps and units are specified within the CSV structure. Links to additional resources, including the original database for direct downloads and a more recent dataset with data as of March 26, 2015, are also provided.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

PoroTomo: BRAD and BRDY GPS Station RINEX Files - March 26, 2015

This dataset provides links to daily RINEX files for two GPS stations at Brady's Hot Springs as of March 26, 2014. The data is formatted as compressed GNSS RINEX observation files, accessible through formatted CSV files, as well as in links to the complete daily time series data. The CSV files serve as a directory for navigating to the correct FTP locations to access the desired data. Users are advised to cross-reference the filenames and station identifiers (BRAD or BRDY) when downloading files. The files were generated by the UNAVCO GSAC Repository, and all data-related timestamps and units are specified within the CSV structure. Additional Resources, including the original database for direct downloads and links to the previous and following set of RINEX data (as of 12-2-14 and 9-17-2015, respectively), are also provided.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

PoroTomo Natural Laboratory Horizontal and Vertical Distributed Acoustic Sensing Data

This dataset includes links to the PoroTomo DAS data in both SEG-Y and hdf5 (via h5py and HSDS with h5pyd) formats with tutorial notebooks for use. Data are hosted on Amazon Web Services (AWS) Simple Storage Service (S3) through the Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI). Also included are links to the documentation for the dataset, Jupyter Notebook tutorials for working with the data as it is stored in AWS S3, and links to data viewers in OEDI for the horizontal (DASH) and vertical (DASV) DAS datasets. Horizontal DAS (DASH) data collection began 3/8/16, paused, and then started again on 3/11/2016 and ended 3/26/2016 using zigzag trenched fiber optic cabels. Vertical DAS (DASV) data collection began 3/17/2016 and ended 3/28/16 using a fiber optic cable through the first 363 m of a vertical well. These are raw data files from the DAS deployment at (DASH) and below (DASV) the surface during testing at the PoroTomo Natural Laboratory at Brady Hot Spring in Nevada. SEG-Y and hdf5 files are stored in 30 second files organized into directories by day. The hdf5 files available via HSDS are stored in daily files. Metadata includes information on the timing of recording gaps and a file count is included that lists the number of files from each day of recording. These data are available for download without login credentials through the free and publicly accessible Open Energy Data Initiative (OEDI) data viewer which allows users to browse and download individual or groups of files.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Brady's Geothermal Field DASH Resampled in Time

This submission includes a link to the DASH (Horizontal distributed acoustic sensing) data files that were resampled in time to 100 samples per second from the original 1000 samples per second files. Data is in 30 second Matlab files organized into directories by day. The README_DASH.pdf file includes details on the contents of the Matlab files. Metadata is the same as the original data files and can be found in GDR submission 980 (see "Original Data Files" link).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

EGS Collab Experiment 2: Hydraulic Pressure Test Results

The EGS Collab experiment 2 was focused on testing shear stimulation techniques. Shear stimulation, in this case, means using hydraulic pressure to cause shear slip on preexisting fracture or fault planes such that the hydraulic conductivity of the fracture or fault increases. The concept is to create a percolating network of permeable fractures by enhancing the permeability of a primarily preexisting network of fractures. To test this concept the hydraulic pressures for experiment 2 were kept below the the estimated magnitude of the least compressive principal stress based on a set of stress measurements in nearby well TV4100. All tests for experiment 2 were performed by applying hydraulic pressure to well E2-TC. Subsequent stimulations in both E2-TC and E2-TU where the injection pressure was increased above the least compressive principal stress are considered part of experiment 3, which is documented separately. The data are organized in directories labeled by the depth range isolated between packers.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗

Additional Degree of Freedom for WEC Model

'Additional Degree of Freedom for WEC' - WEC-Sim numerical model from RFTS 1 TEAMER project. An increase in wave energy converter (WEC) efficiency requires not only consideration of the nonlinear effects in the WEC dynamics and the power take-off (PTO) mechanisms, but also more integrated treatment of the whole system, i.e., the buoy dynamics, the PTO system, and the control strategy. It results in an optimization formulation that has a nonquadratic and nonstandard cost functional. This model presents the application of real-time nonlinear model predictive controller (NMPC) to two degrees of freedom point absorber type WEC with highly nonlinear PTO characteristics. The nonlinear effects, such as the fluid viscous drag, are also included in the plant dynamics. The controller may be implemented on a real-time target machine, and the WEC device is emulated in real-time using the WECSIM toolbox. Please see the ‘ReadMe’ within the root directory for an explanation of how to set-up and run the model. An article covering the development of this model is attached as "Real-Time Nonlinear Model Predictive Controller for Multiple Degrees of Freedom Wave Energy Converters with Non-Ideal Power Take-Off"

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

CODAS Data from Oliktok Point, Beaufort Sea, Alaska

Cryosphere/Ocean Distributed Acoustic Sensing (CODAS) data collected from the Beaufort Sea, Alaska, using ~37.4 km of dark telecommunications fiber located at Oliktok Point, Alaska. Data were collected with a Silixa iDAS, using 10 m gauge length, 2 m spatial resolution, and 1000 Hz sample rate. Provided here are the DAS-recorded time series for the rapid refreeze event described in Baker & Abbott (2022) (see link below). This covers a date range of 2021-11-10 15:00 UTC to 2021-11-11 17:00 UTC. Data have been decimated to 100 Hz and 20 m (i.e., every 10th channel for 1831 channels, total), as used in Baker & Abbott (2022). Data have been extracted from raw format into 1-hour long .sac* files and organized into directories by channel number, spanning channels 100 to 18400. Time series units are nano-strainrate (nm/m/s). For distribution, data have been compressed into .zip files containing all time series files for 100 channels. *For information on the Seismic Analysis Code (SAC) file format: https://seiscode.iris.washington.edu/projects/sac

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS) evaluation dataset at 7 catchments across the continental United States

This dataset comprises of the input files and other files required for Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS) simulations at 7 catchments across the continental United States. ATS is an integrated surface-subsurface hydrology model. We include Jupyter notebooks (within scripts folder) for individual catchments showing information (including data sources, river network, soil, geology, landuse types etc.) on preparing the machine readable input files. ATS observation output files are provided in the output folder. Figures and analyses (.xlsx sheets) are also provided. The catchments include, Taylor River Upstream (Colorado); (b) Cossatot River (Arkansas); (c) Panther Creek (Alabama); (d) Little Tennessee River (North Carolina and Georgia); (e) Mayo River (Virginia); (f) Flat Brook (New Jersey); (g) Neversink River headwaters (New York). Readme files are provided inside the directories providing more details. Files types include: .xml, .h5, .xlsx, .png, .ipynb, .py, .nc, .txt. All of the files types can be accessed by open source software, details on software requirements are following: .xml (any text editors including notepad and textedit), .h5 (in python using hdf libraries), .xlsx (WPS Office Spreadsheets, OpenOffice Calc, LibreOffice Calc, Microsoft Office etc.), .png (any image viewer), .ipynb (Jupyter notebook), .py (any text editors including notepad and textedit), .nc (using python or other open source software).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Urban Parameters Maricopa County 100m Grid Spacing

132 urban parameters for Maricopa County are provided in WRF-readable binary form at 100m grid spacing with index. These parameters allow regional weather modelers to account for the contribution of built structures in modeling the urban heat island. This data is also provided in CSV format. Data are generated using 2023 Model America Version 1 data (https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1774134) and will be used to represent the urban morphology in Maricopa County to the WRF model for experiments conducted for the Southwest Urban Corridor Integrated Field Laboratory (SW-IFL). Three files associated with these parameters are included in this repository: index, binary file 00001-01549.00001-01796, Maricopa_Parameters_03072024.csv . To use the binary file with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, the binary file and the index file must be placed in their own directory in WRF_GEOG and accessed in the same way the National Urban Database and Access Portal Tool data (NUDAPT44) would be accessed. The name of the binary file must be in the format: 00001-02715.00001-01803. If, upon download, the binary filename has additional or different characters, please change them to match this format.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NEON AOP Survey of Upper East River CO Watersheds: Waveform LiDAR Binary Data

The waveform Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data in this package were generated through a National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP) acquisition over watersheds of interest surrounding Crested Butte, Colorado. The remote sensing imagery acquired by the NEON AOP supports an interdisciplinary project on hydrology, biogeochemistry, and ecosystem functioning in a snow-dominated headwater environment. These waveform LiDAR data enable spatially continuous estimation of vegetation structure parameters to facilitate analyses of the major environmental drivers of structural and compositional variability. The package contains 97 compressed file archives in 7-zip (.7z) format, each corresponding to one acquisition flightpath. Within each .7z archive is a set of constituent files describing properties of the LiDAR waveforms, such as return intensity, geolocation, outgoing pulse and other behavior of the sensor and signals. Once downloaded, the files must first be unzipped using the widely distributed command-line software utility 7z, using the command '7z x \[filename\].7z \[target_directory\]'. All files within the .7z archives can be opened in IDL, MatLab, or the open-source R statistical computing environment. Further details about the data package are in the attached user guide (neon_aop_crbu_waveformlidar_userguide.pdf). 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.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗

Data and scripts associated with “Riverine dissolved organic matter transformations increase with watershed area, water residence time, and Damköhler numbers in nested watersheds” (v2)

This data package is associated with the publication “Riverine dissolved organic matter transformations increase with watershed area, water residence time, and Damköhler numbers in nested watersheds” submitted to Biogeochemistry by Ryan et al., 2024 (DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10533-024-01169-5). This study aims to investigate fundamental and transferable drivers of dissolved organic matter (DOM) diversity across five nested watersheds within the contiguous United States. DOM diversity was explored using ultrahigh-resolution Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS). The samples and the unprocessed FTICR-MS data used in this study are publicly available on the Environmental System Science Data Infrastructure for a Virtual Ecosystem (ESS-DIVE) data repository (see DOIs below). The data for the Willamette, Gunnison, Connecticut, and Deschutes basins were collected as part of a collaboration between the Watershed Rules of Life (WROL) project and Worldwide Hydrobiogeochemistry Observation Network for Dynamic River Systems (WHONDRS). The data for the Yakima River basin (YRB) was collected by the PNNL River Corridor SFA. The raw, unprocessed FTICR-MS data with additional (meta)data can be found at doi:10.15485/1895159 for WROL samples and doi:10.15485/1898912 for YRB samples. This data package contains the processed data used in the associated manuscript. This package also contains ancillary geospatial, hydrological, and geochemical information that supports the interpretation of the FTICR-MS data within Ryan et al., 2024. This data package is associated with the GitHub repository found at https://github.com/WHONDRS-Hub/rcsfa-RC4-WROL-YRB_DOM_Diversity. This data package was originally published August 2024. It was updated January 2025 (modified files). See the change history in the readme more details. At the directory level, the data package is comprised of three folders: (1) data, (2) output, and (3) src; and five additional files including the data dictionary (file ending in "_dd.csv”) and file-level metadata (file ending in “_flmd.csv”). The “src” folder contains the scripts used to process the FTICR data, conduct the analyses, and produce the manuscript figures. The inputs for these scripts are in the “data” folder and the returned outputs in the “output” folder. Inputs include temporal and spatial metadata associated with the sampling efforts, processed FTICR data, and total and normalized putative biochemical transformations per sample. Outputs include cleaned and combined data presented as tables, descriptive statistics, and plots. The file-level metadata file lists all files contained in this data package and descriptions for each. The data dictionary describes the units and definitions for each tabular data column or row header.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Hydrologic Model Data for the East Fork Poplar Creek Watershed Simulated with the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS): Streamflow and Network Expansion–Contraction Dynamics

This dataset supports hydrologic modeling and stream network expansion–contraction analysis for the East Fork Poplar Creek (EFPC) Watershed in Tennessee. It includes a Jupyter notebook for model setup, model configuration files, simulation outputs, and derived products used to evaluate model performance and investigate stream dynamics under varying hydrologic conditions. The dataset was generated using the Watershed Workflow Python package and the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), enabling integrated surface–subsurface hydrologic simulations using a stream-aligned mesh. Outputs include high-resolution time series of streamflow, active network length, water table depth, and related hydrologic variables. Also included are spatially explicit stream persistency indices and classifications of reaches as perennial or non-perennial. These data facilitate reproducibility and support further research on stream intermittency and variability in network extent.The model data archive is organized in following directories:1) model_setup_inputsContains the Watershed Workflow Jupyter notebooks (accessed through any open source code editor), selected input datasets, and resulting ATS input files, including XML files (access through any open source code editor), computational mesh (.exo files can be viewed using Paraview), and meteorological forcing files (.h5 files can be accessed through h5py python package and HDFView open source software). 2) model_outputsIncludes ATS simulation outputs relevant to this study. Time series of spatially integrated or averaged variables (e.g., streamflow, water table depth) are provided as CSV files. Select spatial fields (e.g., ponded depth and water table depth) are saved as pickled Python objects to reduce file size, and can be accessed through pickle package in Python. Key geometry objects from Watershed Workflow—such as the surface mesh and river tree—are also included to support analysis of streamflow persistency and expansion–contraction dynamics. These files can also be accessed through Watershed Workflow Python package.3) model_evaluationProvides observed streamflow time series and field survey-based flow regime classifications used to evaluate model performance. Jupyter notebooks for processing ATS outputs and comparing model predictions with observations to build confidence in the model prior to scientific analysis are also included.4) Q_L_relationshipsContains workflows for generating time series of discharge, active network length, and related hydrologic variables used in the stream network expansion–contraction analysis. Includes routines for delineating baseflow-dominated periods. For each catchment, notebooks and processed data (as pickled DataFrames accessed through Pandas Python package) are provided. 5) figure_scriptsProvides the Jupyter notebooks used to generate the figures presented in the paper.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

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↗

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↗

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↗

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↗