SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “model fitting”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Constraint-dependent CTOA determination for stable ductile crack growth

The crack tip opening angle (CTOA) has been used as a reliable fracture toughness to characterize stable crack growth for thin-wall structures in low-constraint conditions. Recently, it is found that CTOA can also be utilized as a robust fracture parameter to describe the arrest fracture toughness for gas transmission pipelines in ductile steels. For better understanding the concept of CTOA, this paper presents a brief review on the CTOA definitions and its test methods. And then, four CTOA models are developed for determining the CTOA toughness using conventional single edge notched bend (SENB) specimens, including the load–displacement linear fit model, the logarithmic load–displacement linear fit model, the stable tearing energy model, and the J-differentiation model. Here fracture test data from SENB specimens in A285 carbon steel are employed to evaluate the proposed CTOA models. The results show that these CTOA models can determine either identical or comparable critical CTOA values for stable ductile crack growth using the SENB specimens. A constraint-corrected CTOA resistance curve and a constraint-corrected critical CTOA equation are also obtained for A285 carbon steel.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2023

Glass formulation and composition optimization with property models: A review

Abstract Glass is a versatile material with a remarkable history and many practical applications. It plays a critical role in our everyday lives, the advancement of science, and the development of many technologies. The Edisonian type trial‐and‐error method was commonly used for conventional design of glass compositions, which was time‐consuming and costly. With the urgent need to develop new glass compositions for technology applications rapidly, it has become necessary to develop precise property models with predictive powers using large databases and efficient formulation approaches. This paper reviews the design of glass compositions using these analytical and numerical models of composition–structure–property relations of glasses, some based on large databases and machine learning approaches. Aspects of data collection, model fitting, feature extraction, model evaluation, and uncertainty quantification will be covered. Furthermore, advances in the glass optimization framework and available tools are summarized with examples. The outlook and perspective for further glass property model development and formulation approaches are discussed.

Lu, Xiaonan↗

DOE OSTI2025

The impact of kidney function on Alzheimer’s disease blood biomarkers: implications for predicting amyloid-β positivity

Impaired kidney function has a potential confounding effect on blood biomarker levels, including biomarkers for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Given the imminent use of certain blood biomarkers in the routine diagnostic work-up of patients with suspected AD, knowledge on the potential impact of comorbidities on the utility of blood biomarkers is important. We aimed to evaluate the association between kidney function, assessed through estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) calculated from plasma creatinine and AD blood biomarkers, as well as their influence over predicting Aβ-positivity. We included 242 participants from the Translational Biomarkers in Aging and Dementia (TRIAD) cohort, comprising cognitively unimpaired individuals (CU; n = 124), mild cognitive impairment (MCI; n = 58), AD dementia (n = 34), and non-AD dementia (n = 26) patients all characterized by [ 18 F] AZD-4694. Plasma samples were analyzed for Aβ42, Aβ40, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), neurofilament light chain (NfL), tau phosphorylated at threonine 181 (p-tau181), 217 (p-tau217), 231 (p-tau231) and N-terminal containing tau fragments (NTA-tau) using Simoa technology. Kidney function was assessed by eGFR in mL/min/1.73 m 2 , based on plasma creatinine levels, age, and sex. Participants were also stratified according to their eGFR-indexed stages of chronic kidney disease (CKD). We evaluated the association between eGFR and blood biomarker levels with linear models and assessed whether eGFR provided added predictive value to determine Aβ-positivity with logistic regression models. Biomarker concentrations were highest in individuals with CKD stage 3, followed by stages 2 and 1, but differences were only significant for NfL, Aβ42, and Aβ40 (not Aβ42/Aβ40). All investigated biomarkers showed significant associations with eGFR except plasma NTA-tau, with stronger relationships observed for Aβ40 and NfL. However, after adjusting for either age, sex or Aβ-PET SUVr, the association with eGFR was no longer significant for all biomarkers except Aβ40, Aβ42, NfL, and GFAP. When evaluating whether accounting for kidney function could lead to improved prediction of Aβ-positivity, we observed no improvements in model fit (Akaike Information Criterion, AIC) or in discriminative performance (AUC) by adding eGFR to a base model including each plasma biomarker, age, and sex. While covariates like age and sex improved model fit, eGFR contributed minimally, and there were no significant differences in clinical discrimination based on AUC values. We found that kidney function seems to be associated with AD blood biomarker concentrations. However, these associations did not remain significant after adjusting for age and sex, except for Aβ40, Aβ42, NfL, and GFAP. While covariates such as age and sex improved prediction of Aβ-positivity, including eGFR in the models did not lead to improved prediction for any biomarker. Our findings indicate that renal function, within the normal to mild impairment range, does not seem to have a clinically relevant impact when using highly accurate blood biomarkers, such as p-tau217, in a biomarker-supported diagnosis.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Direct uranium enrichment assay in gaseous uranium hexafluoride with laser induced breakdown spectroscopy

A set of eleven U atomic emission lines, between 421.099 and 421.460 nm, were characterized for direct enrichment assay of gaseous UF 6 samples with laser induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS). Several iterative, multivariate nonlinear spectral-fitting algorithms were evaluated for their efficacies to extract the enrichment information from the measured LIBS spectra. Furthermore, wavelength-dependent weight factors, which take into consideration of the spectral-line position in the fitting model, the determined isotopic ratio, and the isotopic shift of the emission line, are essential for the spectral-fitting model to function adequately. The analytical accuracies and precision were typically within 0.5% in absolute [ 235 U/( 235 U + 238 U)] ratios.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗

DOE OSTI2024

Forward Modeling of 3-D Ion Properties in Jupiter’s Magnetosphere Using Juno/JADE-I Data

The Jovian Auroral Distributions Experiment Ion sensor (JADE-I) on NASA’s Juno mission provides in-situ measurements of ions from 0.1 to 46.2 keV/q inside Jupiter’s magnetosphere. JADE-I is used to study the plasma with two types of datasets from the same measurement: Time-of-flight (TOF) and SPECIES. The TOF dataset provides mass-per-charge measurements with a range of 1–64 amu/q but oversamples particles over 6π steradian viewing per spacecraft spin and has little directional information. On the other hand, the SPECIES dataset can provide a good measurement of the flow direction but does not provide mass-per-charge information due to the telemetry limit. In this study, we developed a 2-step forward modeling method that combines the advantages and avoids the disadvantages of TOF and SPECIES data to derive the 3-D properties of heavy ions. Assuming that the ion velocity distribution can be described with the kappa distribution, we first perform the forward model fit of the TOF data to calculate the relative abundance of heavy ion species. Then we fix the relative abundance and perform the second forward model fit on the SPECIES data. Here, using this method, we obtain the densities of different heavy ions, the shared temperature and kappa value, and the 3-D flow velocity vector. Some data examples of the equatorial plasma disk before Perijove 24 are included to demonstrate the method. Plasma properties can then be mapped to explore spatial and temporal variabilities in Jupiter’s magnetosphere.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Primeval very low-mass stars and brown dwarfs – VIII. The first age benchmark L subdwarf, a wide companion to a halo white dwarf

ABSTRACT We report the discovery of five white dwarf + ultracool dwarf systems identified as common proper motion wide binaries in the Gaia Catalogue of Nearby Stars. The discoveries include a white dwarf + L subdwarf binary, VVV 1256−62AB, a gravitationally bound system located 75.6$^{+1.9}_{-1.8}$ pc away with a projected separation of 1375$^{+35}_{-33}$ au. The primary is a cool DC white dwarf with a hydrogen dominated atmosphere, and has a total age of $10.5^{+3.3}_{-2.1}$ Gyr, based on white dwarf model fitting. The secondary is an L subdwarf with a metallicity of [M/H] = $-0.72^{+0.08}_{-0.10}$ (i.e. [Fe/H] = $-0.81\pm 0.10$) and $T_{\rm eff}$ = 2298$^{+45}_{-43}$ K based on atmospheric model fitting of its optical to near infrared spectrum, and likely has a mass just above the stellar/substellar boundary. The subsolar metallicity of the L subdwarf and the system’s total space velocity of 406 km s−1 indicates membership in the Galactic halo, and it has a flat eccentric Galactic orbit passing within 1 kpc of the centre of the Milky Way every $\sim$0.4 Gyr and extending to 15–31 kpc at apogal. VVV 1256−62B is the first L subdwarf to have a well-constrained age, making it an ideal benchmark of metal-poor ultracool dwarf atmospheres and evolution.

Zhang, Z. H. (ORCID:000000033047607X)↗

DOE OSTI2022

Network Models of Active Degradation Mechanisms and Pathways for Service Life Prediction of Indoor and Outdoor PV Modules

ct: PV service lifetime prediction (SLP) enables accurate calculation of levelized cost of energy (LCOE), which is crucial to rationalizing PV investment and installation. However, SLP is challeging since PV reliability in the field is affected by many combined factors, including various environmental stresses and module quality. In order to map out the active degradation mechanisms and pathways that best resemble real world conditions, we introduce the framework of a study protocol and use network models fitted to data, to enable analysis and SLP of complex PV systems with multiple active degradation mechanisms. The study protocol is the experimental design, including module variants and different exposure conditions, selection of evaluation methods, time-series data acquisition and training of network models to these data. We present SLP of minimodules in the lab and PV systems in the field. For lab SLP, minimodules with 8 variants based on manufacturer, architecture, and encapsulation were prepared and aged in modified damp heat with or without full spectrum light exposure. Stepwise I-V and Suns-Voc data acquisition tracks changes in electrical properties including Rs,IV, Isc,IV, Vmp,PIV providing insights into power loss of minimodules. Network structural equation modeling (netSEM) was utilized to construct degradation pathway models that identify active degradation mechanisms and predict power loss over time. For field SLP, datastreams of Pmp values and I-V curve datastreams of two types of modules installed in three distinctly different Köppen-Geiger climate zones for 9 years were acquired. With power loss modes corresponding to uniform current loss (ΔPIsc), recombination (ΔPVoc), series resistance (ΔPRs), and current mismatch (ΔPImis) determined, the performance loss rates (PLR) were determined using PVplr. We show how to establish a study protocol framework to ensure appropriate parametric variations and valid data collection from the variants of your complex systems. Then the data-driven netSEM model fitting provides a comprehensive mapping of multiple active degradation mechanisms, and accurate service life prediction.

network model, degradation, photovoltaic, solar↗

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↗

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

A Bottom-Up Approach to Rational Design of Crystalline Materials: Investigation of Vibronic Coherences Underlying Exciton Dynamics in Semiconductors

In this project we uncovered structure-function relationships of donor-acceptor co-crystals used to develop next-generation optoelectronic devices. Unraveling the photodynamics of molecular crystalline materials poses many challenges for spectroscopy due to broad, overlapping features representing numerous underlying dynamical processes. This leads researchers to make many assumptions about the dynamics of a system in choosing an appropriate kinetic fitting model. Computationally, electronic structure methods are either prohibitively expensive or underdeveloped for computing the excited state structure of molecular materials, especially states that exhibit charge transfer. Researchers must therefore perform calculations of excited electronic states using truncated models of molecular materials. Here we present a joint experimental-theoretical approach to bridging the gap between the photodynamics of a molecular material and its constituent molecules. We focus our efforts on quantifying the timescales and mechanisms of photoexcitation in donor-acceptor co-crystals and donor-acceptor dimers where the lowest-lying excited state is characterized by charge transfer from the donor to the acceptor. We employ ultrafast UV pump, UV-Vis probe transient absorption spectroscopy to unravel the time-resolved spectroscopic signatures of the photodynamics in both the crystalline material and donor-acceptor dimers in solution. We perform electronic structure and excited state dynamics calculations of the dimers to inform kinetic fitting models and assign the spectral features. The photodynamics of the crystal vs. dimer systems have many similarities, enabling unprecedented insights into the formation and evolution of charge transfer excitons in the crystalline systems.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2024

Exploration of Factors That Influence Willingness to Consider Pooled Rideshare

Ridesharing has become an increasingly prevalent form of transportation. Although transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft initially started as a personal rideshare service where individuals ride alone or with people they know, rideshare services have been expanded to pooled rideshare—a dynamic rideshare system where an individual rides with passengers they do not know. Despite the growth in rideshare services worldwide, the use of pooled rideshare in the U.S.A. is relatively low compared to other forms of transportation. A national U.S. survey (N = 5385) was conducted to investigate reasons why individuals are willing or unwilling to consider pooled rideshare. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed, where the exploratory factor analysis suggests five factors, specifically,service experience,time/cost,traffic/environment,privacy, andsafety. Model fit indices of the confirmatory factor analysis verified that these five factors can represent the factors behind riders’ willingness to consider pooled rideshare. Furthermore, a binomial logistic regression was conducted to explore how the five factors influence riders’ willingness to consider pooled rideshare. The three factors that influence riders’ willingness to consider pooled rideshare wereservice experience(B = 1.05),traffic/environment(B = .38), andtime/cost(B = .26), while a lack ofprivacy(B = −1.46) can be a deterrent for pooled rideshare.Safetyis important for those who are both willing and unwilling to consider the use of pooled rideshare. Understanding these factors is important for the future of pooled rideshare services in the U.S.A.

Engineering↗

DOE OSTI2025

Phase-field modeling and experiments of dynamic fracture in single crystal quartz

Predicting the onset and characteristics of brittle fracture is important for a wide range of engineering and geological material applications. In this paper, we study important aspects of brittle fracture in α-quartz by phase-field modeling and experiments using a top-down approach. In the modeling framework, the work term in the Griffith energy balance is replaced with internal energy contributions that represent surface energy, thermal energy, and elastic strain energy stored in defects. This allows parametrization of individual energy contributions in terms of internal state variables and keeps track of energy partitioning after the onset of fracture. The path and history dependence of fracture is included in evolution laws for internal state variables, e.g., entropy evolution, while the energy remains a true potential. In the experimental part, dynamic compression experiments coupled with X-ray phase contrast imaging are performed on cube-like samples with a hole. In the top-down analysis, dynamic compression and three point bending experiments from the literature are simulated with the developed phase-field damage model. In conclusion, the fitted model highlights the strain rate, size, and stress state dependence of damage nucleation and evolution in single crystal α-quartz.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2022

ASP (Adaptive Splines for Prediction) [SWR-22-66]

This software package provides functionality to fit piecewise cubic splines to model the relationship between a univariate X (independent variable) and a univariate Y (dependent variable). The output is akin to linear regression but has higher "capacity" in that it can learn more complicated relationships despite leveraging only a single predictor. It thus can learn very reasonable relationships between X and Y with minimal effort. The canonical intended use case is for predicting electric demand (Y) from temperature (X). There can be complicated, non-linear relationships between these two variables, but these can be reasonably approximated by the sum of: 1) an "aggregate" relationship between daily average temperature and daily average demand, and 2) intra-day patterns represented as hourly offsets from the daily average load. The spline functionality is used for learning a robust "aggregate" relationship without the inconvenience of manual feature engineering while still ensuring robust results. The model fitting workhorse is R's built-in smooth.spline. This package provides a suite of options for controlling how smooth.spline fits a spline to the data. In particular, it is designed to return a model with a single critical point (i.e., a single location along the domain/support where the first derivative is zero). This is to ensure that predicted changes in electric demand are always positive as temperatures become more extreme. This helps to prevent overfitting, particularly when the input data has few observations or has significant uncertainty from other sources.

Murphy, Sinnott↗

DOE OSTI2021

Optimization and supervised machine learning methods for fitting numerical physics models without derivatives

Here, we address the calibration of a computationally expensive nuclear physics model for which derivative information with respect to the fit parameters is not readily available. Of particular interest is the performance of optimization-based training algorithms when dozens, rather than millions or more, of training data are available and when the expense of the model places limitations on the number of concurrent model evaluations that can be performed. As a case study, we consider the Fayans energy density functional model, which has characteristics similar to many model fitting and calibration problems in nuclear physics. We analyze hyperparameter tuning considerations and variability associated with stochastic optimization algorithms and illustrate considerations for tuning in different computational settings.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2022

A Search for Sterile-Neutrino-Based Muon Neutrino Disappearance Using the MicroBooNe Deep Learning Analysis

We describe a search for νµ disappearance using the MicroBooNE Deep Learning analysis 1µ1p selection. Presently, the unexplained MiniBooNE and LSND anomalies could be explained by a sterile neutrino impacting neutrino oscillations. Our analysis searches for the allowed parameter space that could describe such a sterile neutrino. We determine the allowed and excluded region of a 3+1 sterile-based muon neutrino disappearance model in MicroBooNE at 90% confidence. Our allowed region includes both the null model, and current global best fit model. Context for the underlying Deep Learning analysis is provided and several validation studies surrounding both the disappearance search, and originating 1µ1p selection are performed to strengthen confidence in the result. In addition, a next-generation deep learning tool for cosmic-ray-muon event discrimination is proposed and evaluated, demonstrating a removal of 70% of the remaining event background when added to current methods, under the cut criteria used.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2022

A Search for Sterile-Neutrino-Based Muon Neutrino Disappearance Using the MicroBooNe Deep Learning Analysis

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Active learning using hybrid surrogate tool life modeling for machining process optimization

Here, this paper describes an active learning approach for part-to-part iterative machining process optimization using a hybrid surrogate tool life model. A probabilistic interpolating tool life model is developed by combining the empirical Taylor-type tool life equation and the model fit error. The probabilistic tool life model is then used to calculate the machining cost per part distribution. The optimal machining parameters are selected using an expected improvement in machining cost per part criterion. The method is validated numerically using experimental results; the results show a median convergence error of 2.2% after three tests over 400 simulations. The method is validated experimentally on two industrial applications for Ti-6Al-4V roughing resulting in a cost per part reduction greater than 23% after two tests. The described method is a robust solution for rapid convergence to optimal machining parameters in an industrial production environment.

Active learning↗