Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Missing data”

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 343 records · Page 19
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2000

Free-Flying Magnetometer Data System

The Free-Flying Magnetometer (FFM) is an autonomous "sensorcraft" developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) for the Enstrophy sounding rocket mission. This mission was a collaborative project between the University of New Hampshire, Cornell University and JPL. The science goal of the mission was the study of current filamentation phenomena in the northern auroral region through multipoint measurements of magnetic field. The technical objective of the mission was the proof of concept of the JPL FFM design and the demonstration of an in-situ multipoint measurement technique employing many free-flying spacecraft. Four FFMs were successfully deployed from a sounding rocket launched from Poker Flats, Alaska on February 11, 1999. These hockey-puck-sized (80 mm diameter, 38 mm. height, 250 gram mass) free flyers each carry a miniature 3-axis flux-gate magnetometer that output +/- 2 V signals corresponding to a +/- 60,000 nT measurement range for each axis. The FFM uses a synchronized four-channel Sigma(Delta) Analog-to-Digital Converter (ADC) having a dynamic range of +/- 2.5V and converting at a rate of 279 samples/second/channel. Three channels are used to digitize the magnetometer signals to 17-bit (1.144 nT/bit) resolution. The fourth ADC channel is multiplexed for system monitoring of four temperature sensors and two battery voltages. The FFM also contains two sun sensors, a laser diode which emits a fan-shaped beam, a miniature S-band transmitter for direct communication to the ground station antennas, an ultra-stable Temperature Compensated Crystal Oscillator (TCXO) clock, an integrated data subsystem implemented in a Field-Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), a 4 Mbit Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) for data storage and Lithium Thionyl Chloride batteries for power. Communicating commands to the FFM prior to deployment is achieved with an infrared (IR) link. The FFM IR receiver responds to 9-bit pulse coded signals that are generated by an IR Light Emitting Diode (LED) in the payload for turning FFM power on or off and placing the FFM in a test mode or flight mode. The IR links are also used to synchronize (zero) the clocks onboard all the FFMs through a reset pulse originating from the payload GPS receiver that is issued when the FFMs are in flight mode. The FPGA based data subsystem manages continuous data collection from the four ADC channels and sun sensors, formatting and storing the data to SRAM, and controlling downlink transmission. The transmitter is powered only after a 2547 frame SRAM buffer has been filled (approx. 5 minutes of data). The data is Viterbi encoded and sent to the S-band transmitter via a First-In-First-Out (FIFO) buffer who's output is clocked at 100 bits/second. After the 26-second transmission, the transmitter is turned off to reduce noise coupling to the sensitive magnetometer. The data subsystem control consists of a master state machine that performs data flow management and is interfaced through a prioritized interrupt scheme to state machines that service the ADC, sun sensors and transmitter FIFO. Continuous data collection prevents the missing of data during transmission and provides implicit time tagging of the data acquired by the ADC because of synchronization with the TCXO clock.

Blaes, B.↗
NASA NTRS2007

PPC750 Performance Monitor

The PPC750 Performance Monitor (Perfmon) is a computer program that helps the user to assess the performance characteristics of application programs running under the Wind River VxWorks real-time operating system on a PPC750 computer. Perfmon generates a user-friendly interface and collects performance data by use of performance registers provided by the PPC750 architecture. It processes and presents run-time statistics on a per-task basis over a repeating time interval (typically, several seconds or minutes) specified by the user. When the Perfmon software module is loaded with the user s software modules, it is available for use through Perfmon commands, without any modification of the user s code and at negligible performance penalty. Per-task run-time performance data made available by Perfmon include percentage time, number of instructions executed per unit time, dispatch ratio, stack high water mark, and level-1 instruction and data cache miss rates. The performance data are written to a file specified by the user or to the serial port of the computer

Meyer, Donald↗
DOE OSTI2021

GRIP: Constraint-based Explanation of Missing Answers for Graph Queries

Abstract: A useful feature in graph query engines is to clarify “Why certain entities (nodes, attribute values or edges) are missing” in query answers. This task is even more challenging when the relevant data is already missing in the underlying data source. Missing data, on the other hand, can be inferred by enforcing data constraints for graphs. We demonstrate GRIP, a system that exploits data constraints to clarify missing answers for graph queries. (1) Constraint-based ex- planation. Given a desired yet missing entity in the query answer, GRIP ensures to generate finite and minimal sequences of data con- strains (an “explanation”) that should be consecutively enforced to ?? to ensure its occurrence for the same query. (2) Answering “why” and“how” questions. Users can query GRIP with both“Why”(“Why” the element is missing) and “How” questions (“How” to refine the graph to include the missing answer). GRIP engine supports run- time generation of explanations by incrementally maintaining a set of bi-directional search trees. (3) Interactive exploration. GRIP provides a user-friendly GUI to support interactive ad visual exploration of explanations, including both automated generation and step-by-step inspection of graph manipulations.

graphs↗
DOE OSTI2024

Augmenting machine learning of Grad–Shafranov equilibrium reconstruction with Green's functions

This work presents a method for predicting plasma equilibria in tokamak fusion experiments and reactors. The approach involves representing the plasma current as a linear combination of basis functions using principal component analysis of plasma toroidal current densities (J t ) from the EFIT-AI equilibrium database. Then utilizing EFIT's Green's function tables, basis functions are created for the poloidal flux (ψ) and diagnostics generated from the toroidal current (J t ). Similar to the idea of a physics-informed neural network (NN), this physically enforces consistency between ψ, J t , and the synthetic diagnostics. First, the predictive capability of a least squares technique to minimize the error on the synthetic diagnostics is employed. The results show that the method achieves high accuracy in predicting ψ and moderate accuracy in predicting J t with median R 2 = 0.9993 and R 2 = 0.978, respectively. A comprehensive NN using a network architecture search is also employed to predict the coefficients of the basis functions. The NN demonstrates significantly better performance compared to the least squares method with median R 2 = 0.9997 and 0.9916 for J t and ψ, respectively. The robustness of the method is evaluated by handling missing or incorrect data through the least squares filling of missing data, which shows that the NN prediction remains strong even with a reduced number of diagnostics. Additionally, the method is tested on plasmas outside of the training range showing reasonable results.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Effective Missing Value Imputation Methods for Building Monitoring Data

To understand behaviors of natural and man-made events, such as energy consumption of buildings, which accounts for 40% of energy uses in the US, we deploy automated monitoring devices to record periodic observations. However, such experimental and observation data often contains problems and irregularities that have to be cleaned up before analyses. Due to various conditions affecting sensor operations, the communication channels, recording steps, or the recording media, the recorded data might have missing values, errors, or anomalous values. An effective way to clean up these problems is to replace these missing values, errors and anomalous values with expected values, a process generally known as imputation. In this work, we survey commonly used missing value imputation techniques and compare their performance on a set of building monitoring data. To compare the different types of sensor measurements with widely varying characteristics, we use normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE) as the key metric for the effectiveness of the imputation methods. We additionally consider periodicity and run time when considering comparing methods. Through extensive testing, we find that for small gap sizes, up to 8 consecutive missing values, linear interpolation performs the best; for larger gaps stretching up to 48 consecutive missing values, K-nearest neighbors provides the most accurate imputations; for even larger gaps, more computational intensive methods, such as matrix factorization, achieve the smallest NRMSE. Additionally, we observe that these computationally intensive algorithms not only provide accurate imputations for large gaps, but are also more robust across all types of sensors.

Cho, B↗
NASA NTRS2020

Data Accountability and Uncertainty Analysis for the Mars Science Laboratory

This paper presents machine learning-based approaches to automate and optimize the detection of volume loss for the downlink process of telemetry data from the Mars Curiosity Rover. The Curiosity observes volume loss and data corruption, requiring re-transmits from the rover and Ground Data System Analysts (GDSA) to monitor the data flow. To resolve this issue, we created a data pipeline to accumulate data from various data sources in the downlink process and detect where the data is missed. In this paper, we benchmarked different methodologies based on the accuracy and excitability of them to identify whether a downlink data that is received to the ground system is complete or incomplete. Our results show that machine learning methods can improve the performance of the GDSA by 55% while the user can diagnose why data is missed and provide an explanation for the data accountability problem.

Chowdhury, Ameera↗
DOE OSTI2026

Stable Water Isotope Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2014-2025)

The stable water isotope data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, consists of delta2H (hydrogen) and delta18O (oxygen) values from samples collected at multiple, long-term monitoring sites including streams, groundwater wells, springs, and a precipitation collector used to establish a local meteoric water line (LMWL) for the watershed. These locations represent important and/or unique end-member locations for which stable isotope values can be diagnostic of the connection between precipitation inputs as snow and rain and riverine export. Such locations include drainages underline entirely or largely by shale bedrock, land covered dominated by conifers, aspens, or meadows, and drainages impacted by historic mining activity and the presence of naturally mineralized rock. Developing a long-term record of water isotope values from a diversity of environments is a critical component of quantifying the impacts of both climate change and discrete climate perturbations, such as drought, forest mortality, and wildfire, on water export. Such data may be combined with stream gaging stations co-located at each surface water monitoring site to relate seasonal variations in water export to their stable isotopic signature. Data for liquid water delta2H and delta18O values are reported in units of parts per thousand (per-mil; ‰). This data package contains (1) a zip file (isotope_data_2014-2025.zip) containing a total of 95 files: 96 data files of isotope data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and (3) a data dictionary (v6_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 43 locations containing isotope data. Update on 2022-06-10: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated isotope data for all locations up to 2021-12-31 and (2) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-03-13. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2024-02-19. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available isotope data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available isotope data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Energy Dependent Fission Product Yields (2nd year Milestone and Deliverables)

Introduction to the project: One of the Laboratory missions is to provide consistent, high-precision fission product; yield data critical for testing fission models and maintaining the safety and security of the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. However, high-quality, energy-differential fission product yield data is missing for certain actinides and neutron energies important to constrain the new U.S. Nuclear Data Program evaluation effort; It has been shown that the reactor antineutrino anomaly may be at least partially caused by roughly 20 fission products. The fission product yield data is missing or incomplete for many of these isotopes, thus it is necessary to accurately determine these values to better constrain the anomaly; Aitor Bracho is measuring very short-lived (seconds to minutes) fission product yields of 235 U and 239 Pu using monoenergetic neutron beams at E n = 60 and 560 keV; Aitor Bracho is using a direct approach utilizing a state-of-the-art rabbit transfer system, superior HPGe detector, and digital acquisition systems for fission decay measurements. The goals of this project: lop experimental capabilities and data analysis techniques to carry out the gamma-ray spectra analysis necessary for fission product yield calculation; Provide high-precision and energy-dependent fission product data supporting fission theory, neutrino physics, and applied physics.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS2003

CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP): Why it's Useful and How it Works

Reliable delivery of data products is often required across space links. For example, a NASA mission will require reliable delivery of images produced by an on-board detector. Many missions have their own (unique) way of accomplishing this, requiring custom software. Many missions also require manual operations (e.g. the telemetry receiver software keeps track of what data is missing, and a person manually inputs the appropriate commands to request retransmissions). The Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) developed the CCSDS File Delivery Protocol (CFDP) specifically for this situation. CFDP is an international standard communication protocol that provides reliable delivery of data products. It is designed for use across space links. It will work well if run over the widely used CCSDS Telemetry and Telecommand protocols. However, it can be run over any protocol, and will work well as long as the underlying protocol delivers a reasonable portion of the data. The CFDP receiver will autonomously determine what data is missing, and request retransmissions as needed. The CFDP sender will autonomously perform the requested transmissions. When the entire data product is delivered, the CFDP receiver will let the CFDP sender know that the transaction has completed successfully. The result is that custom software becomes standard, and manual operations become autonomous. This paper will consider various ways of achieving reliable file delivery, explain why CFDP is the optimal choice for use over space links, explain how the core protocol works, and give some guidance on how to best utilize CFDP within various mission scenarios. It will also touch on additional features of CFDP, as well as other uses for CFDP (e.g. the loading of on-board memory and tables).

Ray, Tim↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-27237-DND

Objective - It is observed that 5.6% of all CERES Terra/Aqua data contains missing cloud cover information or insufficient imager data for a reliable scene identification (some times it can reach up to 50% of data for a specific scene type) - The unavailability of imager data lead to gaps in global radiation budget dataset. - In this study, our objective is to develop a Machine learning methodology for the improved determination of CERES scene type and subsequent clear-sky TOA flux estimation using standalone CERES TOA radiance measurements (without any MODIS/Imager data).

CERES↗
NASA NTRS2013

Analysis of International Space Station Vehicle Materials Exposed on Materials International Space Station Experiment from 2001 to 2011

Since August 2001, the Materials on International Space Station Experiment (MISSE) has provided data on a variety of materials and spacecraft components, including samples chosen to provide sustaining engineering and life extension data for the International Space Station vehicle itself. This Technical Publication is by no means a complete set of MISSE data but does provide changes in solar absorptance, infrared emittance, and visual appearance due to atomic oxygen, ultraviolet radiation, and thermal cycling in vacuum. Conversion coatings, anodizes, thermal control coatings with organic and inorganic binders, multilayer insulation components, optical materials, and part markings are discussed.

Finckenor, M. M.↗
DOE OSTI2015

DShaper: An approach for handling missing low-Q data in pair distribution function analysis of nanostructured systems

In this work we discuss the potential problems and currently available solutions in modeling powder-diffraction based pair-distribution function (PDF) data from systems where morphological feature information content includes distances in the nanometer length scale, such as finite nanoparticles, nanoporous networks, and nanoscale precipitates in bulk materials. The implications of an experimental finite minimum Q-value are addressed by simulation, which also demonstrates the advantages of combining PDF data with small angle scattering data (SAS). In addition, we introduce a simple Fortran90 code, DShaper , which may be incorporated into PDF data fitting routines in order to approximate the so-called shape-function for any atomistic model.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗