Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Reference Values”

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 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Equilibrium Core Model for Micro Pebble Bed Reactors Using OpenMC

Estimating the equilibrium state for pebble bed reactors (PBRs) presents complex challenges as it requires simultaneous consideration of changes in the pebbles’ movement as well as their fuel compositions. Whereas traditional approaches use multigroup diffusion codes for neutronics calculations of PBRs’ equilibrium state, the double-heterogeneity of PBRs complicates neutron cross-section generation. Continuous-energy Monte Carlo (MC) methods are better suited for detailed PBR analysis because of their natural handling of double-heterogeneity, but they demand substantially more computational resources. Here, this study introduces a novel method for efficiently estimating the equilibrium state in small and micro PBRs with reduced computational cost. The method is anticipated to accelerate the processes of core design and performing parametric studies for utilizing advanced fuel and structural materials. The HTR-10 reactor design was used for validating the method’s predictions and evaluating its computational efficiency. When compared to reference calculation values from the literature, criticality (k-effective) was predicted to be approximately within the margin of error of the MC transport calculation, average core power density (in megawatts per cubic meter) was predicted within 2.5% relative error, and maximum thermal flux (10 13 n/cm 2 .s −1 ) was predicted within 1.8% relative error. The calculated inventory of fission products and fuel composition in the equilibrium core were within 15% and 16.6%, respectively, when compared to reported values from the literature. The difference is attributed to variance in the considered values of the core temperature, which was found to significantly affect the depletion analyses.

Equilibrium core↗
DOE OSTI2026

Medium- and Heavy-Duty Truck Duty Cycles

This dataset provides second-by-second duty cycle data for Class 6 and Class 8 diesel trucks in Texas, including key vehicle metrics, engine-related data, and GPS data (excluding GPS latitude and longitude to ensure confidentiality). The data were collected via tablets installed on the trucks and organized into daily datasets, each associated with a unique vehicle ID and date. There are 12 daily datasets for Class 6 diesel trucks (three unique vehicle IDs) and 43 daily datasets for Class 8 diesel trucks (six unique vehicle IDs). The units associated with each column are included in the name. The engine performance data include columns such as engine speed, engine percent torque, and engine fuel rate. Road grade (%/100) was estimated using the GPS altitude and wheel-based vehicle speed, which is used as an input for FASTSim. Cumulative distance was also calculated using the wheel-based vehicle speed. Additional columns include: - Engine Speed (RPM): Removed inaccurate readings and used to calculate angular velocity (radians/second). - Torque (N·m): Calculated using engine percent torque, nominal friction percent torque, and engine reference torque values (those columns were removed from dataset), then normalized to express as torque (%). - Flywheel Power (%): Calculated using the angular velocity and torque (in kW), then normalized as a percentage of the maximum value. - Engine Fuel Rate (%) and Torque (%): Both metrics were normalized by dividing by their respective maximum values within each dataset to express them as percentages. The datasets were analyzed to assess the energy impact of various driving behaviors, simulate energy efficiency, and recommend optimal routes for diesel trucks using NLR’s tool called RouteE. For driver coaching, factors like speed and acceleration limits were considered, and idle periods were reduced (assuming the engine was off during idling) to adjust each drive cycle. These adjusted drive cycles were then simulated in FASTSim to evaluate their effect on fleet energy consumption and estimate potential energy savings. The original cycles are available for download on this page ![image](CoVaR_Image_for_Data_Page_Kenworth_Truck.jpg)

1Hz↗
DOE OSTI2025

Lightweight Metal Stamping Optimization Enabled by Artificial Intelligence

Successfully manufacturing an automotive body structure made via the sheet metal stamping process depends upon simultaneous consideration of component design, tooling design, stamping process control, and material properties. In many cases, introducing lightweight sheet materials (e.g., aluminum alloys, magnesium alloys, advanced high strength steels) holds the potential to significantly reduce vehicle weight, but challenges the stamping process by introducing materials with inherently less ductility. Successful and repeatable applications require co-developing the stamping process controls with the varying material properties, including formability. During the stamping process, as soon as the forming limit of the sheet is exceeded, the material shows localized necking which quickly leads to splits. Controlling process variability to avoid these material splits will enable deployment of less formable, lighter, and stronger materials for stamped automotive components. A typical optimization procedure for manufacturing requires an iterative process involving parameter setting, execution of computational simulations, and modifying the parameters. The entire process demands substantial computational time, making it impractical for real-time feedback towards rapid corrective actions required for in-line control for running production processes. To overcome this challenge, artificial intelligence (AI) can be leveraged to determine optimal manufacturing parameters within a single manufacturing cycle time. This research proposes an in-line optimization framework incorporating a trained AI model to predict kidney-shaped die forming. Preliminary results indicate that the AI framework can accurately predict draw-in values based on a given parameter set, a process referred to as forward prediction. Furthermore, the AI framework can also predict the optimal parameter set that leads to the desired draw-in values, referred to as inverse optimization (or backward prediction). This research has been performed in collaborations with USCAR (US Council for Automotive Research) and AutoForm. The members of USCAR are Ford, GM, and Stellantis.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Ceramic Composite Inert Matrix Fuel Forms in High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Microreactors

Here, this work optimizes micro-prismatic high-temperature gas reactor (HTGR) designs to reduce the energy-normalized mass of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high-level waste (HLW) produced. The optimization was performed for the current graphite moderator and an inert matrix fuel (IMF) concept employing different composite moderators in a prismatic design architecture. The fuel matrix is magnesium oxide (MgO) with entrained tristructural-isotropic (TRISO) fuel. The moderator materials, including beryllium oxide (MgO-BeO) and beryllium (MgO-Be) at 40 vol % loading and yttrium hydride (MgO-YH x=1.9 ) and zirconium hydride (MgO-ZrH x=1.9 ) at 15 vol % loading, were entrained within the MgO host matrix. A generic graphite micro-prismatic HTGR is used as the baseline point design where the external dimensions are held constant. The composite moderator designs use 19.9% enriched uranium nitride TRISO fuel and hexagonal assemblies. For each IMF concept, an optimization study was performed to maximize the discharge burnup of the fuel by varying the TRISO packing fraction and the lattice pitch of the assemblies. The mass of SNF and HLW, other waste metrics, fuel cost, environmental impact metrics, and the activity of the SNF and HLW at 100 years and 100 000 years were calculated for the optimized IMF and graphite reference designs. The IMF results were subsequently compared to those of the graphite reference and the values for a light water reactor (LWR) and a small modular LWR. For the SNF and HLW, all the IMF concepts and the graphite reference produced less waste compared to the traditional LWR designs. However, the IMF concepts outperformed the graphite reference regarding the mass of SNF and HLW. For the other waste metrics, the IMF concepts showed reductions in fuel cost with improved environmental metrics relative to the graphite reference. Overall, the IMF concepts significantly reduced the SNF and HLW produced per unit of energy generated compared to traditional LWR designs.

TRISO↗
DOE OSTI2025

Model ages of three uranium metal CRMs and implications for radiochronometry data interpretation

In this study, we report 230 Th/ 234 U and 231 Pa/ 235 U model ages in three uranium metal certified reference materials with distinct production histories and isotopic compositions ranging from depleted to highly enriched (CRMs 112-A, 115, and 116-A). Here, our results provide the first model age values for these materials using multiple radiochronometers, which can be used as reference values for quality control of radiochronometry measurements performed during nuclear forensic investigations. Furthermore, we evaluate the model ages in the context of available production records for the materials, which provides insight into the processes that may impact radiochronometry systems during uranium metal production.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
DOE OSTI2025

The approximate second order coupled-cluster method based on a size-consistent Brillouin–Wigner partitioning

We present a variant of the approximate second order coupled-cluster method (CC2) with a two-parameter size-consistent Brillouin–Wigner (BW-s) partitioning instead of a Møller–Plesset (MP) partitioning for the unperturbed Hamiltonian, which we refer to as BWs-CC2. The computational complexity of this model scales identically to CC2 with molecular size. Conventional CC2 and its regularized BWs-CC2 variants, as well as conventional MP2 and two of its regularized BW-s2 variants, were assessed on a 535 element database spanning thermochemistry, non-covalent interactions, barrier heights, and isomerization energies. To ensure a well-defined model chemistry, the assessment was performed using internally stable spin-polarized Hartree–Fock (HF) orbitals in the finite aug-cc-pVQZ basis without counterpoise corrections. As a result of using stable orbitals, contrary to conventional wisdom, we find that CC2 substantially outperforms MP2 on molecules with significantly spin contaminated reference orbitals without a significant increase in error on systems with a spin-pure reference, showing the value of its single substitutions. While no single choice of regularization parameters can be optimal for all datasets, we find that BWs-CC2 generally outperforms both CC2 and BW-s2 with a single judicious parameter choice. Additional tests on dipole moments and bond lengths of diatomics provide further support for the utility of this choice. Furthermore, the main outliers and poorest performing cases are associated with large amounts of spin-contamination in the HF reference, which is indicative of systems with either strong correlation or extensive artificial symmetry breaking. Overall, these findings argue that the perception of the quality of the CC2 ground state should be reevaluated and that it can be further improved upon by the soundly based BWs-CC2 variant with the recommended parameter choice.

Correlation energy↗
DOE OSTI2025

Direct measurement of reduced exchange stiffness and its impact on magnetic vortex behavior in PyGd alloys

Thin films composed of sputtered transition metal/rare earth (TM/RE) ferrimagnets have emerged as promising building blocks for future spintronic devices, offering tunable magnetic properties critical for data storage, memory, and logic applications. However, understanding how the combination of TM and RE elements influences effective magnetic properties, such as exchange stiffness (Aex), remains challenging. Magnetic vortices provide a versatile tool for probing these properties in thin film systems. By combining magnetic imaging via soft x-ray microscopy and micromagnetic modeling, we quantify the effective exchange stiffness in PyGd ferrimagnetic disks with varying Gd concentrations. Our results indicate a reduction in Aex to below 3 pJ/m for a 20% Gd concentration when compared to reference Py, and values below 2 pJ/m for 30% Gd, reflecting weak Ni–Gd exchange coupling. These findings highlight the critical role of rare earth content in tuning the exchange stiffness. The reduced exchange stiffness facilitates a linear field response of the magnetization up to the edge of the disk, as well as significant deformations in the vortex core itself when compared to films with larger Aex. Our results are in line with, albeit lower than, recent measurements of the exchange stiffness in intermixed PyGd. This reduced exchange stiffness has implications for the development of spintronic devices based on ferrimagnetic skyrmions.

Jacob, Liyan↗
DOE OSTI2025

Projected Urban Morphology of the Los Angeles Area by the Year 2100

This dataset provides projections of urban building morphologies for the Los Angeles urban area at 30-meter spatial resolution. It contains 192 raster files that detail two primary building attributes: building footprint fractions (ranging from 0 to 1) and average building heights (ranging from 0 to 75 meters). The projections account for a wide range of future pathways, covering two Shared Socioeconomic Pathway (SSP) scenarios (SSP3 and SSP5), two population scenarios, two developed land intensification scenarios, and four distinct levels of intensification. The dataset was created using dual Generative Adversarial Networks (GANs) trained on 2015 land cover and building properties from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and Model America datasets. Supporting information on the dataset has been described in the LAUrbanAreaMorphologyProjections2100_README.txt file.

Pandey, Bhartendu↗
DOE OSTI2026

The 2025 Evaluation of Experimental Thermonuclear Reaction Rates (ETR25)

This work describes the formalism for estimating thermonuclear reaction rates for astrophysical applications, emphasizing modern statistical approaches such as Monte Carlo sampling and Bayesian models. We discuss related topics including the calculation of resonance energies from nuclear Q values, indirect estimates of particle partial widths, and matching of reaction rates at elevated temperatures to statistical model results. We have evaluated available experimental data on cross sections, resonance energies and strengths, partial widths, lifetimes, spin-parities, and spectroscopic factors. Based on these results, we have estimated numerical values of 78 experimental charged-particle thermonuclear reaction rates for target nuclei in the A = 2–40 mass region, for temperatures ranging from 1 MK to 10 GK. For each reaction, three rate values are provided: low, median, and high, corresponding to the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles, respectively, of the cumulative reaction rate probability density distribution. Additionally, we present the factor uncertainty of each rate at each temperature grid point. These results enable users to sample the reaction rate probability density in nucleosynthesis calculations, facilitating uncertainty estimates of nuclidic abundances. The rates presented here refer to their laboratory values. For use in stellar model simulations, these values need to be corrected for the effects of thermal excitations of the interacting nuclei. For each reaction, we include graphs that illustrate the fractional contributions to the overall reaction rate along with the associated uncertainty. These visuals are designed to assist both stellar modelers and nuclear experimentalists by identifying the primary sources of rate uncertain=^texttx);ty at specific stellar temperatures. A graphical comparison with earlier Monte Carlo rates is also provided.

Nuclear astrophysics↗
DOE OSTI2026

Value of Geothermal Energy Storage for Supply-Side and Demand-Side Applications

This report presents the results of a study examining the value potential for geothermal energy storage (GES), a long-duration energy storage resource that stores thermal and/or geomechanical energy in the subsurface. GES could benefit the overall U.S. power system by temporally shifting electricity generation (supply-side) or meeting building heating and cooling load (demand-side). This report analyzes supply-side and demand-side opportunities independently because of differences in applications and models. Currently there is significant uncertainty about the development costs for GES, with only a limited number of demonstration plants for electric energy storage and building heating and cooling storage developments. In this report, we estimate the value of supply-side and demand-side GES to the bulk power system in the contiguous United States. Because of the significant uncertainty about GES development costs, this analysis does not consider GES deployment costs but instead focuses on the value of GES to the U.S. electricity system. The estimated values of GES provide reference points for economically competitive commercial cost targets. Supply-side GES is modeled as part of an enhanced geothermal system (EGS) generation plant in NREL's Regional Energy Deployment System (ReEDS) capacity expansion model (Ho et al. 2021). In contrast to conventional geothermal plants, which generate constant power, EGS plants have unique features that may allow for in-reservoir energy storage for flexible generation. Demand-side GES for heating and cooling, including seasonal hot and cold storage and short-duration heat pump storage, is incorporated into a price-taker model using Cambium electricity marginal cost projections. To establish an upper bound for the value of GES, analysis focused on favorable scenarios for storage with high generation from zero marginal cost, variable renewable energy resources. High penetrations of variable renewable energy generation can increase hourly electricity price variability, which increases the value of temporal energy arbitrage for storage technologies like GES.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
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 Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE 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 OSTI2024

Toxicity Values for Chemicals

The toxicity values for chemicals contained in this dataset comprise acute, subchronic, and chronic exposure durations. Cancer slope factors, inhalation unit risk, reference dose, and reference concentrations are available. These values should be used in cancer risk and noncancer hazard assessments for the calculation of preliminary remediation goals (PRGs) and hazard characterization. Users can select toxicity values from 10 combinations of exposure durations and cancer/noncancer toxicity values and select up to 1000 chemicals per query. The dataset supports environmental risk assessments, regulatory decision-making, and environmental planning with tools for benchmarking against risk-based standards. This structured approach ensures a robust evaluation of environmental risks tailored to regulatory needs.

Stewart, Debra [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Renormalization of asymmetric staple-shaped Wilson-line operators in lattice and continuum perturbation theory

In this work, we study the renormalization of nonlocal quark bilinear operators containing an asymmetric staple-shaped Wilson line at the one-loop level in both lattice and continuum perturbation theory. These operators enter the first-principle calculation of transverse momentum-dependent parton distribution functions (TMDPDFs) in lattice QCD using the formulation of large momentum effective theory. We provide appropriate RI ′ -type conditions that address the power and logarithmic divergences, as well as the mixing among staple operators of different Dirac structures, using a number of different possible projectors. A variant of RI ′ , including calculations of rectangular Wilson loops, which cancel the pinch-pole singularities of the staple operators at infinite length and reduce residual power divergences, is also employed. We calculate at one-loop order the conversion matrix, which relates the quasi-TMDPDFs in the RI ′ -type schemes to the reference scheme MS ¯ for arbitrary values of the renormalization momentum scale and of the dimensions of the staple. Published by the American Physical Society 2024

Astronomy & Astrophysics↗
DOE OSTI2024

Predicting September Arctic Sea Ice: A Multimodel Seasonal Skill Comparison

This study quantifies the state of the art in the rapidly growing field of seasonal Arctic sea ice prediction. A novel multimodel dataset of retrospective seasonal predictions of September Arctic sea ice is created and analyzed, consisting of community contributions from 17 statistical models and 17 dynamical models. Prediction skill is compared over the period 2001–20 for predictions of pan-Arctic sea ice extent (SIE), regional SIE, and local sea ice concentration (SIC) initialized on 1 June, 1 July, 1 August, and 1 September. This diverse set of statistical and dynamical models can individually predict linearly detrended pan-Arctic SIE anomalies with skill, and a multimodel median prediction has correlation coefficients of 0.79, 0.86, 0.92, and 0.99 at these respective initialization times. Regional SIE predictions have similar skill to pan-Arctic predictions in the Alaskan and Siberian regions, whereas regional skill is lower in the Canadian, Atlantic, and central Arctic sectors. The skill of dynamical and statistical models is generally comparable for pan-Arctic SIE, whereas dynamical models outperform their statistical counterparts for regional and local predictions. The prediction systems are found to provide the most value added relative to basic reference forecasts in the extreme SIE years of 1996, 2007, and 2012. SIE prediction errors do not show clear trends over time, suggesting that there has been minimal change in inherent sea ice predictability over the satellite era. Overall, this study demonstrates that there are bright prospects for skillful operational predictions of September sea ice at least 3 months in advance.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Gap-filled methane and carbon dioxide fluxes across two ecosystem states at the US-OWC AmeriFlux site (2015−2016, 2020−2022)

This dataset contains gap-filled measurements of methane flux (FCH4), net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) partitioned into gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (RE), as well as latent heat flux (LE) from a Great Lakes coastal freshwater wetland at the US-OWC AmeriFlux site. The dataset covers the peak growing seasons (June−September) of 2015−2016, dominated by Typha spp., and 2020−2022, characterized by floating-leaved species (lotus and water lily). These data were generated to investigate how rising water levels and vegetation shifts influence CH4 and CO2 fluxes across two distinct ecosystem states in this wetland. The dataset, provided in CSV format, includes half-hourly gap-filled flux data from June to September for 2015, 2016, 2020, 2021, and 2022. The gap-filled data refers to measurements where missing values due to instrument issues or quality control were filled using artificial neural networks (ANNs).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Evaluation of a Reference-Free Collision Cross Section Calibration Strategy for Proteomics Using SLIM-Based High-Resolution Ion Mobility Spectrometry–Mass Spectrometry

Ion mobility spectrometry (IMS) is a gas-phase analytical technique that separates ions with different sizes and shapes and is compatible with mass spectrometry (MS) to provide an additional separation dimension. The rapid nature of the IMS separation combined with the high sensitivity of MS-based detection and the ability to derive structural information on analytes in the form of the property collision cross section (CCS) makes IMS particularly well-suited for characterizing complex samples in -omics applications. In such applications, the quality of CCS from IMS measurements is critical to confident annotation of the detected components in the complex -omics samples. However, most IMS instrumentation in mainstream use requires calibration to calculate CCS from measured arrival times, with the most notable exception being drift tube IMS measurements using multifield methods. The strategy for calibrating CCS values, particularly selection of appropriate calibrants, has important implications for CCS accuracy, reproducibility, and transferability between laboratories. The conventional approach to CCS calibration involves explicitly defining calibrants ahead of data acquisition and crucially relies upon availability of reference CCS values. In this work, we present a novel reference-free approach to CCS calibration which leverages trends among putatively identified features and computational CCS prediction to conduct calibrations post-data acquisition and without relying on explicitly defined calibrants. We demonstrated the utility of this reference-free CCS calibration strategy for proteomics application using high-resolution structures for lossless ion manipulations (SLIM)-based IMS-MS. In conclusion, we first validated the accuracy of CCS values using a set of synthetic peptides and then demonstrated using a complex peptide sample from cell lysate.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗