Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Quick Reference”

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 NTRS1983

Development of the JSC Thematic Mapper quick-look preprocessing capability

The development of a preprocessing unit for Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) data for the Earth Observations Data Laboratory at Johnson Space Center is reported. The background of the project is sketched, including the greatly increased data-handling requirements compared to MSS, the influence of the JPL VICAR system on the system design, and the completeness of the GSFC SCROUNGE (LASLIB) TM data tapes. The design approach and realization are discussed, and the performance and transportability of the preprocessor programs (totaling about 2000 lines of source code in FORTRAN and IBM Assembly languages) are indicated. The system is able to read the TM image tapes, extract areas of interest to particular studies, and register the extracted imagery to suitable references. Ancillary programs include image enhancement, rotation, filtering and pixel-size modification.

Gilbert, J. R.↗
DOE OSTI2016

Laser Incident Lessons Learned and Action List

On Thursday November 19, 2015, LANL postdoc received an eye injury from a reflected, nonvisible laser beam (Class 4, pulsed, wavelength 800 nanometer). The setup is configured to split the laser output into two work areas in which qualified operators conduct research experiments. During this incident, the laser output beam was being projected to both experimental work areas, although only one experimental area was actively being used. The second laser beam directed to the second work area was blocked by an inappropriate device (Plexiglas, reflective, non-normal incidence) that reflected substantial portion of the beam toward the first setup. In preparation for the measurements, worker stepped on the stepstool and decided to remove the laser goggles to better see the micrometer readings which were difficult to see due to insufficient lighting. Immediately, he noticed a flash of light in his eye. The operator quickly replaced the laser eye-wear and then, using an infrared viewer, located a stray laser beam being reflected from the plexiglas beam block. The operator did not think he had sustained any injury and continued working. Later that day, however, he noticed a blurry spot in the vision of his left eye. He notified his supervisor on Friday morning, November 20, 2015, and was taken by CINT management to Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) medical facility for evaluation. SNL Medical did not find any abnormalities, but referred the operator to a local ophthalmologist for further evaluation. Further evaluations by the ophthalmologist on November 21 and November 23 identified a small spot of inflammation near the fovea on the retina in his left eye. The ophthalmologist stated that this spot would most likely heal on its own and that the blurry spot on the operator's vision would go away. A follow-up visit was scheduled. The employee was released back to work without restrictions.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2014

On the reliability of nanoindentation hardness of Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} films grown on Si-wafer by atomic layer deposition

The interest in applying thin films on Si-wafer substrate for microelectromechanical systems devices by using atomic layer deposition (ALD) has raised the demand on reliable mechanical property data of the films. This study aims to find a quick method for obtaining nanoindentation hardness of thin films on silicon with improved reliability. This is achieved by ensuring that the film hardness is determined under the condition that no plastic deformation occurs in the substrate. In the study, ALD Al{sub 2}O{sub 3} films having thickness varying from 10 to 600 nm were deposited on a single-side polished silicon wafer at 300 °C. A sharp cube-corner indenter was used for the nanoindentation measurements. A thorough study on the Si-wafer reference revealed that at a specific contact depth of about 8 nm the wafer deformation in loading transferred from elastic to elastic–plastic state. Furthermore, the occurrence of this transition was associated with a sharp increase of the power-law exponent, m, when the unloading data were fitted to a power-law relation. Since m is only slightly material dependent and should fall between 1.2 and 1.6 for different indenter geometry having elastic contact to common materials, it is proposed that the high m values are the results from the inelastic events during unloading. This inelasticity is linked to phase transformations during pressure releasing, a unique phenomenon widely observed in single crystal silicon. Therefore, it is concluded that m could be used to monitor the mechanical state of the Si substrate when the whole coating system is loaded. A suggested indentation depth range can then be assigned to each film thickness to provide guidelines for obtaining reliable property data. The results show good consistence for films thicker than 20 nm and the nanoindentation hardness is about 11 GPa independent of film thickness.

75 CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND↗
NASA NTRS1972

Investigation of the tone-burst tube for duct lining attenuation measurement

The tone burst technique makes practical the laboratory evaluation of potential inlet and discharge duct treatments. Tone burst apparatus requires only simple machined parts and standard components. Small, simply made, lining samples are quickly and easily installed in the system. Two small electromagnetric loudspeaker drivers produce peak sound pressure level of over 166 db in the 3-square-inch sample duct. Air pump available in most laboratories can produce air flows of over plus and minus Mach 0.3 in the sample duct. The technique uses short shaped pulses of sound propagated down a progressive wave tube containing the sample duct. The peak pressure level output of the treated duct is compared with the peak pressure level output of a substituted reference duct. The difference between the levels is the attenuation or insertion loss of the treated duct. Evaluations of resonant absorber linings by the tone burst technique check attenuation values predicted by empirical formulas based on full scale ducts.

Soffel, A. R.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Earth Filter Mathematica Toolbox V4 User’s Guide: Simplifying, Visualizing and Quick Modeling of All Fission Products from 60 Nuclear Sources

The Earth Filter Mathematica toolbox is a set of user-friendly routines that accurately calculate the ingrowth and decay of any of the 908 fission products for an infinite combination of sources over a large dynamic range and large time scales. This toolbox was developed by Dr. W. P. Brug at Los Alamos National Laboratory and eliminates the need for the user to define and solve differential equations by automatically scanning the ENDF-349 dataset and creating a complete set of differential equations (including delayed neutron branches to both the ground and metastable states) for every fission product. Additionally, this code allows the user to choose the data source for half-lives from several key references (i.e., TORI, IAEA, ENDF or NUDAT.) The complete set of ENDF-349 independent and cumulative fission yields for all 60 isotopic targets and 4 different neutron spectrums are included. This allows nearly any nuclear fission source to be accurately modeled as a linear combination of endpoint sources. The Earth Filter Toolbox has no limit as to the length of split list, and split lists of 5 or more endpoint sources can be quite common.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2023

The Feasibility of Incorporating a 3D Velocity Model Into Earthquake Location Around Salt Lake City, UT Using a Physics Informed Neural Network

Earthquake location algorithms typically require travel time calculation. Doing this calculation in 3D, despite advances in algorithm efficiency and computational power, can still be prohibitively expensive in terms of resources and storage. Implementation of high-resolution 3D models in routine earthquake location would be a significant step forward in most of the world. Machine learning algorithms have potential to act as substitutes for travel time calculation algorithms or stored travel time tables. We investigate EikoNet - a physics informed neural network machine learning model that estimates travel times very quickly and comes with negligible memory-overhead. Specifically, we apply EikoNet to the Wasatch Fault Community Velocity Model (WFCVM), a highly detailed and complex 3D velocity model of the Salt Lake City, UT region. While routine locations in the area and studies of the 2020 Magna, UT earthquake sequence used a 1D velocity model, a 3D model may help better our understanding the structure of the major fault in the region. Our primary goal was to test the speed, memory requirements, and accuracy of EikoNet compared to a reference eikonal solver. We find that while the EikoNet is exceedingly fast and requires little memory overhead, achieving acceptable accuracy in estimated travel times is difficult and requires extensive computational resources.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Post-composing ontology terms for efficient phenotyping in plant breeding

Abstract Ontologies are widely used in databases to standardize data, improving data quality, integration, and ease of comparison. Within ontologies tailored to diverse use cases, post-composing user-defined terms reconciles the demands for standardization on the one hand and flexibility on the other. In many instances of Breedbase, a digital ecosystem for plant breeding designed for genomic selection, the goal is to capture phenotypic data using highly curated and rigorous crop ontologies, while adapting to the specific requirements of plant breeders to record data quickly and efficiently. For example, post-composing enables users to tailor ontology terms to suit specific and granular use cases such as repeated measurements on different plant parts and special sample preparation techniques. To achieve this, we have implemented a post-composing tool based on orthogonal ontologies providing users with the ability to introduce additional levels of phenotyping granularity tailored to unique experimental designs. Post-composed terms are designed to be reused by all breeding programs within a Breedbase instance but are not exported to the crop reference ontologies. Breedbase users can post-compose terms across various categories, such as plant anatomy, treatments, temporal events, and breeding cycles, and, as a result, generate highly specific terms for more accurate phenotyping.

Mathematical & Computational Biology↗
DOE OSTI2023

diffReplication - An Energy-Aware Fault Tolerance Model for Silent Error Detection and Mitigation in Heterogeneous Extreme-scale Computing Environment

At extreme scale, the frequency of silent errors – a class of errors that remain undetected by low-level error detection mechanisms – increases significantly with the computational complexity of the application and the scale of the computing infrastructure. As hardware and software advances are made to usher in the next scientific era of computing, developing new approaches to mitigate the impact of silent errors remains a challenging problem. In this work, we propose an energy-aware fault-tolerance model, referred to diffReplication to overcome silent errors. In the proposed model, the main process is associated with one replica that executes at the same rate as the main process, and one diffReplica that is executed at a fraction of the main process' execution rate. If the main and its replica reach consensus at the end of a computation phase, the state of the diffReplica is updated and computation is resumed. If the synchronization attempt results in a disagreement, however, the diffReplica increases its execution speed to complete the computation and quickly reach the synchronization barrier. Assuming a single error over any given synchronization interval, a majority voting is used to reach consensus and tolerate silent errors. To further enhance its performance, diffReplication is augmented with speculative execution, whereby the main or its fast replica is selected to continue execution without waiting for the diffReplica. The selection process is based on the previous behaviour of the main and its replica. A performance analysis study is carried out to assess the performance of diffReplication, in terms of the energy saving and time-to-completion reduction achieved by the diffReplication scheme. The experiment shows that speculative execution reduces the time to completion with additional energy, and dynamic decision-making balances the energy consumption and time to completion.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

ISS EVA80 EMU Water in the Helmet Failure and Associated Analytical Response

On March 23rd, 2022, during Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) 80 aboard the International Space Station (ISS) crew identified an 8-10-inch diameter thin film of water in the pressure bubble of the suit during repress. This launched an investigation to determine the cause of the water in the helmet as well as short- and long-term mitigation efforts to enable return to EVA as quickly as possible. The investigation analysis efforts in combination with hardware inspection and testing determined the most likely cause of the water in the helmet to be sublimator carryover as a result of high latent loading put on the system. In parallel with this investigation, efforts were being made to mitigate any future water in the helmet events. The short-term mitigation strategy developed is to install absorbent material in the pressure bubble to capture water as it enters the helmet before it can impact the astronauts. This hardware is referred to as the Helmet Absorption Band (HAB) and Helmet Absorption Pad – Extender (HAP-E). Longer-term mitigation strategies include a device to capture small water events before entering the helmet by installing a water capture system in the vent loop of the Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU). This effort is coined the T2 Water Capture System. Additionally, developing an on-orbit sublimator challenge test which will be able to verify sublimator performance before and after EVAs. The sublimator is the hardware which condenses water vapor and removes it from the vent loop, and this hardware is referred to as the EMU Moisture Injection Test System (EMITS). Based on the investigation and short-term water capture solutions the ISS Program decided to return to nominal EVAs on October 7, 2022. With the addition of the long-term mitigation strategies, the team hopes to be able to prevent any future water in the helmet events.

Veronica Lee Pizor↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
NASA NTRS2007

Nonlinear Structural Analysis Methodology and Dynamics Scaling of Inflatable Parabolic Reflector Antenna Concepts

Ultra-light weight and ultra-thin membrane inflatable antenna concepts are fast evolving to become the state-of-the-art antenna concepts for deep-space applications. NASA Langley Research Center has been involved in the structural dynamics research on antenna structures. One of the goals of the research is to develop structural analysis methodology for prediction of the static and dynamic response characteristics of the inflatable antenna concepts. This research is focused on the computational studies to use nonlinear large deformation finite element analysis to characterize the ultra-thin membrane responses of the antennas. Recently, structural analyses have been performed on a few parabolic reflector antennas of varying size and shape, which are referred in the paper as 0.3 meters subscale, 2 meters half-scale, and 4 meters full-scale antenna. The various aspects studied included nonlinear analysis methodology and solution techniques, ways to speed convergence in iterative methods, the sensitivities of responses with respect to structural loads, such as inflation pressure, gravity, and pretension loads in the ground and in-space conditions, and the ultra-thin membrane wrinkling characteristics. Several such intrinsic aspects studied have provided valuable insight into evaluation of structural characteristics of such antennas. While analyzing these structural characteristics, a quick study was also made to assess the applicability of dynamics scaling of the half-scale antenna. This paper presents the details of the nonlinear structural analysis results, and discusses the insight gained from the studies on the various intrinsic aspects of the analysis methodology. The predicted reflector surface characteristics of the three inflatable ultra-thin membrane parabolic reflector antenna concepts are presented as easily observable displacement fringe patterns with associated maximum values, and normal mode shapes and associated frequencies. Wrinkling patterns are presented to show how surface wrinkle progress with increasing tension loads. Antenna reflector surface accuracies were found to be very much dependent on the type and size of the antenna, the reflector surface curvature, reflector membrane supports in terms of spacing of catenaries, as well as the amount of applied load.

Sreekantamurthy, Tham↗
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 NTRS1998

Summary of Proton Test on the Quick Logic QL3025 at Indiana University

This issue of the Programmable Logic Application Notes is a compilation of topics: (1) Proton irradiation tests were performed on the Quick Logic QL3025 at the Indian University Cyclotron facility. The devices, tests, and results are discussed; (2) The functional failure of EEPROM's in heavy ion environment is presented; (3) the Act 1 architecture is summarized; (4) Antifuse hardness and hardness testing is updated; the single even upset (SEU) response of hardwired flip-flops is also presented; (4) Total dose results of the ACT 2 and ACT 3 circuits is presented in a chart; (5) Recent sub-micron devices testing of total dose is presented in a chart along with brief discussion; and (6) a reference to the WWW site for more articles of interest.

Katz, Richard↗
DOE OSTI2015

Energy Surety Design Methodology

The Energy Surety Design Methodology (ESDM) provides a systematic approach for engineers and researchers to create a preliminary electric grid design, thus establishing a means to preserve and quickly restore customer-specified critical loads. Over a decade ago, Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia) defined Energy Surety for applications with energy systems to include elements of reliability, security, safety, cost, and environmental impact. Since then, Sandia has employed design concepts of energy surety for over 20 military installations and their interaction with utility systems, including the Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security (SPIDERS) Joint Capability Technology Demonstration (JCTD) project. In recent years, resilience has also been added as a key element of energy surety. This methodology document includes both process recommendations and technical guidance, with references to useful tools and analytic approaches at each step of the process.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS2000

EOS Data Products Handbook

The EOS Data Products Handbook provides brief descriptions of the data products that will be produced from a range of missions of the Earth Observing System (EOS) and associated projects. Volume 1, originally published in 1997, covers the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM), the Terra mission (formerly named EOS AM-1), and the Data Assimilation System, while this volume, Volume 2, covers the Active Cavity Radiometer Irradiance Monitor Satellite (ACRIMSAT), Aqua, Jason-1, Landsat 7, Meteor 3M/Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment III (SAGE III). the Quick Scatterometer (QuikScat), the Quick Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (Quik-TOMS), and the Vegetation Canopy Lidar (VCL) missions. Volume 2 follows closely the format of Volume 1, providing a list of products and an introduction and overview descriptions of the instruments and data processing, all introductory to the core of the book, which presents the individual data product descriptions, organized into 11 topical chapters. The product descriptions are followed by five appendices, which provide contact information for the EOS data centers that will be archiving and distributing the data sets, contact information for the science points of contact for the data products, references, acronyms and abbreviations, and a data products index.

Parkinson, Claire L.↗
DOE OSTI2023

Insights into factors that affect non-Arrhenius migration of a simulated incoherent Σ3 grain boundary

Non-Arrhenius grain boundary migration, sometimes referred to as antithermal migration where temperature and GB velocity values are inversely related to each other, is examined in an incoherent twin Σ3 [111] 60° (11 8 5) nickel grain boundary. Molecular dynamics is used to simulate migration and examine the effect of various factors on the migration, including interatomic potential, system size, driving force, and variation of atomic grain boundary structure. A classical model for grain boundary migration, in its unsimplified form, is used to analyze the results. The grain boundaries exhibit migration mechanisms with very low apparent barrier heights to migration. As a result, the boundaries migrate quickly but exhibit a velocity saturation similar to that of dislocations. Furthermore, the various interatomic potentials exhibit different migration velocities, but their similarities suggest they all predict similar overall behaviors of migration. The variation of atomic structure in the same incoherent twin grain boundary leads to diverse behaviors with barrier heights that vary from non-Arrhenius to Arrhenius migration. Facet nucleation is confirmed not to be a requirement for this boundary based on an examination of simulation cell size; however, the presence and/or interaction between numerous facets does suggest a slowing and increased barrier height to migration for larger boundaries.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2017

Launching a Research Archive for FUSRAP Site Records - 17057

The US Department of Energy Office of Legacy Management (LM) maintains a broad set of Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) document collections. The LM FUSRAP technical staff regularly needs access to documents contained in these record collections. The majority of the FUSRAP records are maintained in a large paper-based collection in the LM records storage facility. These records cover the period prior to 1997 in which DOE was responsible for the remediation efforts of FUSRAP sites. Other FUSRAP records are maintained as PDF files in LM's record keeping system. LM also maintains FUSRAP information in reference repositories in SharePoint directories and on network drives. The reference collection allows LM to keep abreast of active site remediation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) since 1997. Searching these FUSRAP collections in its current arrangement can be time-consuming and can result in incomplete searches. In response, LM proactively developed the FUSRAP Document Information System (FDIS) to provide a rapid, single-point search and retrieval system to provide real-time access to reference copies of FUSRAP documents. Each entry in FDIS includes metadata listing the FUSRAP site, document title, date, source collection, and pertinent keywords. More significant entries (e.g., certification documents, site characterization reports, waste manifests) include a PDF scan of the entire document. Each PDF file is processed using an advanced optical character recognition (OCR) tool. The first significant content added to FDIS is 45,000 entries documenting remediation work performed primarily in the early 1990's by Bechtel National, Inc. With the entries in FDIS, technical staff will be able to search the collection by site, category and keyword to quickly locate precise required content. LM records staff are also adding records that document remediation and monitoring work at FUSRAP sites where cleanup activities are considered complete. Documents for completed FUSRAP sites will be processed before documents for sites currently being remediated. In the future, FDIS will be populated with information about FUSRAP sites with ongoing remediation work as they are released to LM stewardship. (authors)

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗