Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “surface texturing”

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.

354 records · Page 20
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Spin-polarized imaging of strongly interacting fermions in the ferrimagnetic state of the Weyl candidate CeBi

CeBi has an intricate magnetic phase diagram whose fully polarized state has recently been suggested as a Weyl semimetal, though the role of f states in promoting strong interactions has remained elusive. Here we focus on the less-studied but also time-reversal symmetry-breaking ferrimagnetic phase of CeBi, where our density functional theory (DFT) calculations predict additional Weyl nodes near the Fermi level E F . We use spin-polarized scanning tunneling microscopy and spectroscopy to image the surface ferrimagnetic order on the itinerant Bi p states, indicating their orbital hybridization with localized Ce f states. We observe suppression of this spin-polarized signature at E F , coincident with a Fano line shape in the conductance spectra, suggesting the Bi p states partially Kondo screen the f magnetic moments, and this p – f hybridization causes strong Fermi-level band renormalization. Furthermore, the p-band flattening is supported by our quasiparticle interference measurements, which also show band splitting in agreement with DFT, painting a consistent picture of a strongly interacting magnetic Weyl semimetal.

75 CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND↗
DOE OSTI2024

Responses of Drying-rewetting (Transient Soil Moisture) and Steady State Soil Moisture Incubation on Soil Organic Carbon Dynamics in Three US Soils, 2017

This data set contains measurements of soil characteristics (aggregate size distribution and mean size, total aggregate associated carbon, extractable organic C, and microbial biomass C), microbial respiration, and soil metabolite concentrations from a transient and steady soil moisture incubation experiment using soils of different textures (sandy, loamy, and clayey). The study investigated mechanisms driving the Birch effect (increased carbon mineralization pulses with wetting following a drying period) in differing soil textures. Three different soils of distinctly different textures were collected from 0-15cm depth in Georgia (sandy, 2017-05-01), Missouri (loamy, 2017-06-14), and Texas (clayey, December 2017). Soils were incubated for 140 days with destructive harvests done on days 1, 29, 33, 56, 112, 116, and 140 in transient soil moisture incubation and on days 1, 33, 116, and 140 in steady state soil moisture incubation. This dataset contains six data files in comma separate (.csv) format. Additional metadata are provided: six data dictionaries and a file-level metadata file in comma separate (*.csv) format and a user guide in PDF (*.pdf) format.

1-Methyladenosine concentration↗
DOE OSTI2020

Wire-Based Additive Manufacturing of Stainless Steel Components

In this work three different wire-fed additive manufacturing (AM) processes were employed to evaluate differences between laser, arc, and electron beam heat sources used for high-deposition-rate AM on the order of 1 kg/h. Optimum weld and build parameters were developed independently to match the characteristics of each heat source using 308L stainless steel welding wire as the feedstock. Laser-wire AM was made with the lowest energy per unit length of weld and had the best control of the melt pool and surface finish. Wire arc-based AM had an intermediate energy per unit length of weld of approximately 5× that of the laser process, while electron beam wire AM had the highest energy per unit length of weld at approximately 10× that of the laser process. Analysis of the parts that were built included evaluation of mechanical properties and microstructures, and these properties are discussed with respect to the difference in input energy and cooling rates. Results show that all three processes build parts with properties that exceed those of annealed 304L wrought stainless steel. However, significant differences exist between the processes, and the results presented here can be used to help select the best wire-fed process for a given high-deposition-rate application.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Mechanically and electrically tunable Rashba-Edelstein effect in ferroelectric semiconductors, CsGe⁢𝑋 3 (𝑋 = I, Br, Cl)

The ability of materials to convert charge current into spin current is fundamental to many spintronics applications. One means of realizing this conversion is via Rashba-Edelstein effect (REE). Using density functional theory simulations, we predict that REE can be induced in the recently discovered family of semiconducting ferroelectrics, CsGe⁢𝑋 3 (𝑋 = I, Br, Cl). The effect is quantified through Rashba-Edelstein coefficients, 𝜒 𝑥⁢𝑦 =−𝜒 𝑦⁢𝑥 , which are nonzero in valence and conduction bands. The largest values, obtained for CsGeI 3 , are 3.45 × 10 10 $\frac{ℏ}{Λ cm}$ and 0.97 × 10 10 $\frac{ℏ}{Λ cm}$ in the conduction and valence bands, respectively. The values are comparable to, and sometimes exceed, those of other inorganic materials, although the maximal values occur away from the band edges. The coefficients' sign couples to the direction of spontaneous polarization, offering opportunities for nonvolatile spin current manipulation via external electric field. Furthermore, these coefficients are highly tunable through strain engineering owing to strain-induced variations in spin textures and energy isosurfaces. Specifically, 𝜒 in the valence band of CsGeI 3 is enhanced to 3.61 × 10 10 $\frac{ℏ}{Λ cm}$ under 5% biaxial strain. Given this potential, we synthesized CsGeI 3 to validate our simulation structure and found excellent agreement between experiment and simulation, thereby allowing extrapolation of our findings to practically significant temperatures. Furthermore, our study identifies promising materials for nonvolatile, multifunctional spintronic applications.

Electronic structure↗
DOE OSTI2022

Spatial heterogeneity effects on land surface modeling of water and energy partitioning

Abstract. Understanding the influence of land surface heterogeneity on surface water and energy fluxes is crucial for modeling earth system variability and change. This study investigates the effects of four dominant heterogeneity sources on land surface modeling, including atmospheric forcing (ATM), soil properties (SOIL), land use and land cover (LULC), and topography (TOPO). Our analysis focused on their impacts on the partitioning of precipitation (P) into evapotranspiration (ET) and runoff (R), partitioning of net radiation into sensible heat and latent heat, and corresponding water and energy fluxes. An initial set of 16 experiments were performed over the continental US (CONUS) using the E3SM land model (ELMv1) with different combinations of heterogeneous and homogeneous datasets. The Sobol' total and first-order sensitivity indices were utilized to quantify the relative importance of the four heterogeneity sources. Sobol' total sensitivity index measures the total heterogeneity effects induced by a given heterogeneity source, consisting of the contribution from its own heterogeneity (i.e., the first-order index) and its interactions with other heterogeneity sources. ATM and LULC are the most dominant heterogeneity sources in determining spatial variability of water and energy partitioning, mainly contributed by their own heterogeneity and slightly contributed by their interactions with other heterogeneity sources. Their heterogeneity effects are complementary, both spatially and temporally. The overall impacts of SOIL and TOPO are negligible, except TOPO dominates the spatial variability of R/P across the transitional climate zone between the arid western and humid eastern CONUS. Accounting for more heterogeneity sources improves the simulated spatial variability of water and energy fluxes when compared with ERA5-Land reanalysis dataset. An additional set of 13 experiments identified the most critical components within each heterogeneity source, which are precipitation, temperature, and longwave radiation for ATM, soil texture, and soil color for SOIL and maximum fractional saturated area parameter for TOPO.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

High-Silicon Steel Strip by Single-Step Shear Deformation Processing

It is well known that Fe-Si alloys with Si content higher than in conventional electrical sheet steels (>3.2% Si) can make a significant impact in improving the efficiency of electrical motors if they are available in sheet/foil (strip) forms at suitable cost. While the magnetic and electrical attributes (e.g., resistivity, core loss) of these high-Si Fe alloys, of relevance to electrical motor core laminations, are known to be exceptional, the alloys have limited workability, making them difficult to produce consistently in sheet/foil (strip) forms. Current processing techniques such as rolling, while adequate for producing conventional electrical steel sheet, do have important disadvantages - large energy consumption and emissions, limitations in processing of low-workability alloys (e.g., high-Si content steels), large-scale plant infrastructure, and less than adequate capability to engineer sheet metals with specific microstructures (e.g., fine-grained) and crystallographic textures (e.g., shear textures). It is therefore of interest to have an alternative commercial process that can produce sheet/foil (strip) from high-Si Fe alloys and which can also overcome some of the deficiencies of current multistage strip processes. The goal of the present project was design and demonstration of a new energy-efficient pilot process for producing high-Si electrical steel strip of commercial widths and thickness, and with superior electrical and magnetic properties than current electrical steels (Fe-3.2% Si as benchmark). The applications domain for these steels is electrical motor core laminations. We have addressed this goal by accomplishment of the following specific objectives and tasks: a) Development of an Fe-4Si-4Cr alloy with electrical resistivity >80 μΩ-cm, induction flux density >1.48 T at 5000 A/m and core loss 35% lower than the benchmark 3.2% Si alloy. The alloy which meets DOE target specifications for motor core attributes was designed with the Si content controlled for the electrical properties and the Cr content tailored to meet material/process workability requirements. b) A unique machining-based deformation processing system was designed and scaled-up to produce strip of commercial width (25 mm to 150 mm) and thickness (up to 0.5 mm) from the Fe-4Si-4Cr alloy and other alloys of varied workability including copper, Al6061-T6 and naval brass. The key attributes of the machining-based strip production are deformation processing by concentrated simple-shear; single-step production of strip from ingot using compact machine infrastructure; strip surface finish of Ra 0.35 to 1 micrometer that is comparable/superior to that of rolled strip; discrete production of strip that can potentially be done at point of use; and controllability of strip mechanical/formability properties by deformation control. c) The electrical, magnetic, surface quality, mechanical, formability, and metallurgical properties/attributes of the machining-based strip were established by direct ASTM standard or equivalent measurement techniques. d) Punching characteristics of the strip in terms of load, edge quality and macro defects were similar to those of conventional 3.2% Si electrical steels. These punching characteristics are critical from a manufacturability perspective for motor/transformer core applications. e) A modeling framework for energy analysis of multistage rolling and the machining-based deformation processing has been established. Application of this modeling to the two strip-processes showed that the machining-based process requires significantly lower specific energy for processing, ~ 25% of that for rolling. The modeling framework can be adapted for a range of sheet-metal forming, bulk metal forming, and machining processes. It can be used to identify key parameters controlling process specific energy. f) A comparative analysis of advantages and disadvantages of machining-based processing against rolling for strip production. The single stage machining-based processing, with compact infrastructure, represents a new manufacturing paradigm for sheet and foil manufacturing that can potentially also be applied to advanced titanium, aluminum, copper and magnesium alloys. The goals and objectives were accomplished by a cross-disciplinary project team comprising of personnel from Purdue University; M4 Sciences LLC, a small-business focused on advanced manufacturing technology development; the Pacific Northwest National Labs; and tool manufacturers. The team is currently in advanced discussions with multiple entities for future process development for commercialization.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Emergence of Moiré Dirac Fermions at the Interface of Topological and 2D Magnetic Insulators

Dirac Fermions on the surface of the topological insulator are spin-momentum locked and topologically protected, making them interesting for spintronics and quantum computing applications. When in proximity to magnetism and superconductivity, these electronic states could result in quantum anomalous Hall effect and Majorana Fermions, respectively. An even more dramatic enrichment of the topological insulators’ physics is expected for moiré superlattices, where, analogously to the twisted graphene layers, electronic correlations could be strongly enhanced, a task previously notoriously difficult to achieve in topological matter. Until now, the experimental confirmation of such moiré properties has remained elusive. Here, we grow the two-dimensional van der Waals magnetic insulators FeX 2 (where X = Cl or Br) on top of the topological insulator Bi 2 Se 3 and establish a moiré superlattice formation at the interface. By means of scanning tunneling microscopy and angle-resolved photoemission spectroscopy, we investigate the electronic properties of the formed moiré superlattice and demonstrate its tunability via the film choice. We reveal replicated Dirac cones and focus on their intersections, which, in the case of FeBr 2 /Bi 2 Se 3 , occur below the Fermi level. We identify the signatures of small gaps at the intersections around the M̅ i points that we attribute to the moiré interaction. These findings point to the specific type of magnetic moiré potential that breaks the time-reversal symmetry at these points but not at the $\barΓ$ point. Our observations provide an intriguing scenario of correlated topological phases induced by moiré superlattice that may result in topological superconductivity, high Chern number phases, and exotic noncollinear magnetic textures.

2D magnets↗
DOE OSTI2025

Experimental signature of layer skyrmions and implications for band topology in twisted WSe 2 bilayers

Twisted homobilayers of transition-metal dichalcogenides have been established as an ideal platform for studying strong correlation phenomena, as exemplified by the recent discovery of fractional Chern insulator states in twisted MoTe 2 , as well as Chern insulators and unconventional superconductivity in twisted WSe 2 . In these systems, a non-trivial topology in the strongly layer-hybridized regime can arise from a spatial patterning of interlayer tunnelling amplitudes and layer-dependent potentials that yields a lattice of layer skyrmions. Here, in this work, we report experimental signatures of skyrmion textures in the layer degree of freedom of rhombohedral-stacked twisted WSe 2 homobilayers. Using scanning tunnelling spectroscopy that separately resolves the Γ-valley and K-valley moiré electronic states, we reveal opposite layer polarizations of the K valley at two different lattice sites with opposite stacking order within the moiré unit cell. These findings are consistent with the theoretically predicted layer-skyrmion texture. We also use our experimental results to parameterize a common continuum model of moiré bands in twisted bilayers, further establishing a direct correlation between the shape of the local density of states in real space and the topology of the topmost moiré band.

electronic properties and materials↗
DOE OSTI2025

Metagenome-assembled genomes from topsoils collected during NEON campaign in East River, CO (06/14/2018-06/28/2018)

The Watershed Function Science Focus Area (WF SFA) at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab is working to build a mechanistic understanding of the distribution and dynamics of biogeochemical processes in mountainous watersheds and their response to perturbation. In June 2018, the NEON (National Ecological Observatory Network) Airborne Observatory Platform (AOP) performed a taskable airborne imaging campaign to collect visible to shortwave infrared (VSWIR) imaging spectroscopy and LiDAR data across 330 km2 in the Upper East River at Crested Butte, CO. We conducted a parallel ground sampling campaign to sample vegetation traits, as well as soil physical, chemical, and microbiological characteristics. We collected these samples from 438 sites across 12 locations spanning much of the elevation, topographic, and geologic variability across the study area. A subset of 250 samples were used for soil metagenomics which is presented here. In addition, at each site, vegetation samples were collected to measure species-specific leaf water content and leaf mass area, foliar elemental composition and foliar CN stable isotope ratios. Soil samples were collected to measure soil physical properties which include bulk density and soil texture analysis. A suite of soil chemical properties was measured from the samples collected at each site, including pH, organic matter, concentrations exchangeable cations, total elemental composition, and the concentrations of extractable N pools (e.g. total free amino acids, ammonium, nitrate, dissolved organic N, and total dissolved N). Additionally, we have measured soil microbial biomass CN stoichiometry. Here, we present 1982 metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal community from topsoil collected from during NEON 2018 campaign. All metagenomes were sequenced at JGI (Joint Genome Institute) (GOLD Study ID: Gs0149986). Metagenomes were assembled using JGI Metagenome Workflow (10.1128/mSystems.00804-20). The dataset includes (1) zip files for 1982 MAG fasta files (neon_genomes1-5.tar.gz, split into 5 tarballs to keep tarballs under 0.5 GB), (2) neon_Gs0149986_samples_soilproperties_metagenomes.csv: the sample information together with the accession numbers for the underlying metagenomes and the associated soil physical and chemical measurements in NMDC (National Microbiome Data Collaborative) compliant format, (3) neon_Gs0149986.kml: location bounding box file for the sampled locations, (4) samples.csv: sample metadata file used to register Internationall Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), (5) flmd.csv: file level metadata file, and (6) dd.csv: data dictionary file. 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.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
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↗