Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “data models”

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 OSTI2026

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

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

Advanced Terrestrial Simulator↗
DOE OSTI2025

Second-generation downscaled earth system model data using generative machine learning

The second-generation Sup3rCC dataset provides high-resolution meteorological data generated through the downscaling of multiple earth system models (ESMs) from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6). This downscaling is performed through application of a generative machine learning approach called Super-Resolution for Renewable Resource Data (sup3r). This dataset builds on the first-generation Sup3rCC data by applying improved bias correction methods and adding downscaled precipitation to the output variables. As with the first Sup3rCC version, the data still include temperature, wind speed and direction at multiple heights, pressure, three components of downwelling solar radiation, and relative humidity—all at 4-kilometer (km) hourly resolution over the contiguous United States. This is a 25x spatial enhancement and 24x temporal enhancement of the source 100-km daily-average ESM data. This extension of the Sup3rCC dataset includes data from six ESMs from two shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) totaling 400 years of data with multiple future projections of changing meteorological conditions. The scenario selection was based on a structured evaluation of historical ESM skill and comprehensive representation of possible trajectories of future climate change in temperature, humidity, precipitation, solar irradiance, and near-surface wind speeds. The inclusion of multiple future projections is intended to enable users to assess key drivers of un 36 certainty and variability. All data are double-bias corrected, resulting in a product that can be used out-of-the-box for energy system analysis with minimal historical bias. The potential applications of Sup3rCC data extend to various topics in renewable energy resource assessment, energy systems modeling, and grid resilience studies. High-resolution future meteorological projections are critical for evaluating the effects of changing meteorological conditions on renewable energy generation, energy demand, and for optimizing energy storage and grid infrastructure. The 4-km hourly resolution of the downscaled data enables understanding of spatial and temporal variability at the scales necessary for energy system operational planning. In addition, the dataset can support risk assessments by providing detailed information on possible future extreme weather events and long-term meteorological variability at scales relevant to energy infrastructure. By offering an enhanced representation of possible future meteorological conditions, the second-generation Sup3rCC dataset enables more precise modeling of energy resilience and adaptation strategies in response to changing meteorological conditions.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data for Impact of Vertical and Seasonal Variation in Leaf Traits on Simulating Soybean Canopy Photosynthesis via 1D and 3D Modeling

Accurate modeling of photosynthesis is crucial for predicting crop productivity and quantifying the carbon cycle in agroecosystems. Leaf traits are essential inputs for modeling canopy photosynthesis. Yet, many existing models still use fixed plant functional type (PTF)-based values to parameterize leaf traits under a big-leaf or two-big-leaf assumption, neglecting their vertical profiles and seasonal changes. This simplification may introduce significant uncertainties in estimating gross primary productivity (GPP). In this study, we simulated soybean GPP and tested the effects of vertical and seasonal variation in three key leaf photosynthetic traits: the maximum carboxylation rate at 25 °C (Vcmax25), leaf chlorophyll content (LCC), and leaf mass per area (LMA) in the 1D-SCOPE and 3D-Helios models. Weekly field measurements were conducted during the growing season of 2024 to support the simulation. We designed ten leaf trait parameterization schemes by incorporating different combinations of vertical profiles and seasonal changes, while assuming homogeneous canopy architecture in both models. Our results revealed that Vcmax25 vertical and seasonal variation had the strongest influence on simulated GPP in both 1D and 3D models, while LCC and LMA effects were minimal. Particularly, the scheme with an empirically parameterized Vcmax25 profile achieved comparable performance to the scheme with the measured Vcmax25 profile. Both 1D-SCOPE and 3D-Helios accurately modeled GPP (SCOPE: R2 = 0.87, Bias = 0.55 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹; Helios: R2 = 0.9, Bias = 0.22 µmol m⁻² s⁻¹) under the most complex scheme, and their responses to vertical and seasonal variation in leaf traits were consistent, demonstrating the robustness of our findings. Based on our findings, we propose a scalable framework for parameterizing leaf traits to improve GPP simulations. This study contributes to improving the representation of leaf trait dynamics in canopy-level photosynthesis models, potentially enhancing our ability to predict crop productivity and understand agroecosystem carbon dynamics.

Photosynthesis↗
DOE OSTI2025

Block Island Noise Modeling Data

Noise propagation near Block Island was simulated to assess environmental impacts of impact pile driving during wind turbine construction. Computational models complement field-recorded acoustic data, providing insights into sound attenuation, spectral variability, and propagation dynamics. The dataset includes: 1. Propagation Models: Simulated underwater sound fields documenting sound pressure and directional variability across frequency bands and distances. 2. Spectral Analysis (LTSA): Long-term averages and processed outputs calculating acoustic intensity over time. 3. Visualization Files: Graphs, 2D/3D simulation results, and reference calculations used in sound modeling.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Selection of Global Climate Model Data for Downscaling With Generative Machine Learning and Use in the Power Planning for Alignment of Climate and Energy Systems Project

The range of results from climate models and scenarios is important to the understanding of uncertainty in power planning analysis. A U.S. Department of Energy-funded analytic project called Power Planning for Alignment of Climate and Energy Systems is developing data and analytic methods to reflect the effects of climate change on key variables for power system planning, as part of the Grid Modernization Lab Consortium. This project will select and prepare global climate model results for use in power system planning models. A related report (Evaluation of Global Climate Models for Use in Energy Analysis) assesses the performance of various global climate models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 data archive for their historical skill with respect to energy system performance and for their future projections under multiple climate change scenarios. Building from that report, we describe the selection of a climate scenario (Shared Socioeconomic Pathway [SSP] 2-4.5) and five climate models: TaiESM1, EC-Earth3-CC, GFDL-CM4, EC-Earth3-Veg, and MPI-ESM1-2-HR. We describe the model selection criteria, which were based on the quality of the match between model results under historical conditions and on the representation of the range of future values for several variables. These results will be downscaled via an open-source generative machine learning method called Super-Resolution for Renewable Energy Resource Data with Climate Change Impacts.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Report on the Integration of Experimental and Modeling Data for Initial Equivalence Study of Mechanical Performance in Irradiated LPBF 316 Stainless Steel

To ensure the rapid development, deployment, and use of advanced nuclear technologies, faster qualification approaches are needed. Typically, the primary pathway uses traditional data packages consistent with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, which does not consider the environmental effects the material will experience such as corrosion and radiation damage. Examining radiation effects requires a significant amount of space in US facilities at the Advanced Test Reactor and the High Flux Isotope Reactor (HFIR) and suffers from natural gradients in temperature and neutron flux profiles. Ion irradiation may enable rapid assessment of radiation-induced damage to a material and is proposed as part of an accelerated materials qualification framework through the Advanced Materials and Manufacturing Technologies program. To enhance the utility of ion irradiation as an examination tool, this report provides the initial assessment of engineering-relevant properties of microstructures produced from ion irradiation in the near-surface volume. Nanoindentation, Vickers hardness, and known tensile properties were brought together with simple mathematical models and experimental data for an initial equivalence study of the mechanical performance of irradiated laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) 316 stainless steels across length scales. Direct observation of the calculated ion irradiation yield stress and measured neutron irradiation yield stress at 2 dpa showed that both datasets exhibit the same trend with irradiation temperature and overlap within an acceptable band of stress values. Ion irradiations at 10 dpa serve as a prediction of properties to compare to postirradiation examination of HFIR-irradiated LPBF 316H further in the program. This work is a significant demonstration of the Licensing Approach with Ions and Neutrons, which uses ion irradiations to generate mechanical property information more rapidly than through neutron irradiations.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Model data for infrastructure-aware simulation of compound flooding at Alligator Bayou Watershed, southeast Texas

This dataset supports infrastructure-aware hydrologic modeling and flood scenario analysis for the Alligator Bayou Watershed, a highly managed urban watershed in Southeast Texas. It includes Jupyter notebooks for figure reproduction, model configuration files, simulation outputs, and derived products used to quantify the influence of engineered stormwater infrastructure on flood behavior across multiple spatial scales. The dataset was generated using the Watershed Workflow Python package and the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), enabling integrated surface–subsurface hydrologic simulations on a channel-aligned mesh with explicit representations of pump stations, gate structures, detention basins, and impervious surfaces. Outputs include time series of gate and pump flows, stage observations, and water balance components, as well as spatially explicit fields of peak ponded depth and flood duration across multiple infrastructure scenarios spanning a single-location detention basin expansion, distributed drainage limitations, and compound coastal flooding. These data facilitate full reproducibility of the manuscript figures and support further research on urban flood dynamics and the role of stormwater infrastructure in shaping watershed-scale flood response.

EARTH SCIENCE > OCEANS > COASTAL PROCESSES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Dynamical Downscaling of Earth System Model Data for Energy System Analysis

Assessing energy resources (e.g., solar, wind, and hydro) under future scenarios requires datasets with sufficient spatial and temporal detail to capture variability and extreme events. While global-scale Earth System Model (ESM) projections are widely used, their coarse resolution limits direct application to regional energy system analyses. Dynamical downscaling offers a robust approach to generate physically consistent, fine-scale datasets that better represent local atmospheric processes impacting energy resources. In this work, we present a two-stage approach for producing high-resolution historical and future projections over the contiguous United States (CONUS). First, we optimize the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model configuration for energy-relevant variables - solar irradiance, wind speed, and precipitation - by conducting ERA5-driven simulations at 8-km and 28-km resolution. Multiple physics schemes and model configurations within the WRF are evaluated against observational datasets including the National Solar Radiation Database (NSRDB), the Parameter-elevation Regressions on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM), and the Stage IV multi-radar/multi-sensor precipitation product for the CONUS domain. Using the best-performing configuration, we dynamically downscale MPI-ESM1-2-HR simulations for 2000-2060 under SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5 scenarios at 4-km spatial and hourly temporal resolution. This presentation will provide a comprehensive analysis of the results from multiple numerical experiments and high-resolution ESM projections. In addition, we will discuss potential applications of our high-resolution datasets within the energy sector and outline future research avenues dedicated to evaluating how extreme weather events influence system performance and resilience.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Use of Satellite, Surface Observations and Numerical Weather Prediction Model Data to Improve Cloud Base Height and Cloud Base Vertical Velocity Estimation

Cloud base height (CBH) and cloud base vertical velocity (CBVV) are important variables that impact the overall climate in a region as they influence the formulation, longevity, and evolution of clouds. Retrieval of both parameters have long used ground instrumentation (e.g., Doppler lidar (DL), ground base radar); however, retrieving CBH from satellites is particularly challenging given that space-based instruments only observe cloud tops. In this manuscript, CBH is retrieved using a multi-linear regression equation, while CBVV used a random forests model. Both retrievals combine satellite and numerical weather prediction data. The satellite data used are the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite imagery, while measurements of CBH and CBVV include DL and radiosonde data at the Southern Great Plains (SGP) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement observatory. Data from 83 summer days (May-August) in 2018–2021 featuring cumulus clouds forced by solar heating were examined and used to train the models, with years 2022–2023 used for validation. Various spatial domains were defined with one large (2.4° longitude by 2.0° latitude) SGP domain being split into smaller sections (smallest being 0.99° and 0.61° longitude and latitude respectably). CBH and CBVV values obtained from the DL as compared to the models show root mean square errors between 150 and 200 m, with CBVV values between 0.45 and 1 ms -1 . Finally, it was found that the CBH formulation performs well over all domains, while the CBVV retrievals become less accurate due to more turbulence being introduced into the observations as the number of DL stations decreases in the smaller domains.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

GMS COI Data Model

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Hamlet, Benjamin R. [Sandia National Laboratories ↗
DOE OSTI2025

Mechanical separations of corn stover anatomical fractions in an integrated feedstock preprocessing system: An experimental and data-driven modeling study

High variabilities of material attributes in lignocellulosic biomass present risks for biofuel and biochemical productions and must be mitigated via preprocessing. Since almost no mechanical device is originally designed for processing biomass, how to operate existing apparatuses with efficient performance has not been investigated extensively. This work presents a study on an integrated screening and air classification to separate cobs and stalks from husks and leaves in corn stover. Prototype machine learning models were developed to assess the feasibility of predicting the process outcome based on the measurable parameters. The models trained upon limited experimental data rendered decent predictive accuracy of yield and purity. The experimental data and modeling results collectively suggest decreasing throughput leads to a higher purity. To the contrary, if throughput increases, a lower purity is likely. A possible trade-off between yield and purity of the separated streams indicates the need for optimal combinations of feedstock size, moisture, and throughput to achieve optimized separations. The results of this study also suggest the need to further improve model predictability by developing more accurate formulations for physics governing the integrated unit operations. To accomplish this, additional experimental data needs to be generated for model training.

09 - BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
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↗