Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Data Sharing”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 433 records · Page 24
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Computing Sparse Tensor Decompositions via Chapel and C++/MPI Interoperability without Intermediate I/O

We extend an existing approach for efficient use of shared mapped memory across Chapel and C++ for graph data stored as 1-D arrays to sparse tensor data stored using a combination of 2-D and 1-D arrays. We describe the specific extensions that provide use of shared mapped memory tensor data for a particular C++ tensor decomposition tool called GentenMPI. We then demonstrate our approach on several real-world datasets, providing timing results that illustrate minimal overhead incurred using this approach. Finally, we extend our work to improve memory usage and provide convenient random access to sparse shared mapped memory tensor elements in Chapel, while still being capable of leveraging high performance implementations of tensor algorithms in C++.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Control systems and data management for high-power laser facilities

The next generation of high-power lasers enables repetition of experiments at orders of magnitude higher frequency than what was possible using the prior generation. Facilities requiring human intervention between laser repetitions need to adapt in order to keep pace with the new laser technology. A distributed networked control system can enable laboratory-wide automation and feedback control loops. These higher-repetition-rate experiments will create enormous quantities of data. A consistent approach to managing data can increase data accessibility, reduce repetitive data-software development and mitigate poorly organized metadata. An opportunity arises to share knowledge of improvements to control and data infrastructure currently being undertaken. We compare platforms and approaches to state-of-the-art control systems and data management at high-power laser facilities, and we illustrate these topics with case studies from our community

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
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 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 OSTI2021

Priority-enabled Load Balancing for Dispersed Computing

Opportunistic managed access to local in-network compute resources can improve the performance of distributed applications and reduce the dependence on shared network resources. Instead of backhauling application data to a centralized cloud data center for processing, networked services may be adaptively and continuously dispersed into shared compute resources that are closer to the source of need. While this approach has several benefits, support for mission-aware access to computation is often an afterthought, and is implemented as a brittle extension over traditional load-balancer solutions.In this work, we investigate the design of two priority-aware resource allocation strategies and two load-balancing dispatching strategies as first class citizens in an open-source dispersed computing middleware. We present a control theoretic analysis of these load-balancing primitives to identify weaknesses and strengths in our design, and recommend future directions. In parallel, we prototype two priority-aware allocation algorithms to validate our priority predictions. In initial experiments our prototype shows substantial gains in processing prioritized load. Finally, we make our source-code and experimental configurations open source.

Paulos, Aaron↗
DOE OSTI2024

Utah FORGE: Fiber Optic Cumulative Strain Change and Strain Change Rate Data From Well 16A Stimulation at Well 16B

This dataset includes Rayleigh Frequency Shift (RFS) Distributed Strain Sensing (DSS) cumulative strain change and change rate data. The data was acquired during the stimulation of Utah FORGE Well 16A(78)-32 in April 2024 via fiber installed in Well 16B(78)-32. The fiber optic data was acquired using Neubrex SR7000 RFS DSS Distributed Strain sensing instruments and is saved here in the format of HDF5 files (.h5 extension). The spatial sampling on the full wellbore profiles is 0.20 centimeters. The data is the far field strain change response from a baseline profile made down the 16B well on April 3, 2024, so each strain value represents the strain change or strain change rate at each depth relative to the baseline reference profile. The data arrays for each type share the same dimensions (number of channels and time stamps).

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Route Energy Prediction (RouteE) Powertrain Validation Report

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory's flagship package in the RouteE suite, RouteE-Powertrain, is a mesoscopic energy model that predicts vehicle energy consumption given discrete attributes that describe each segment or link in a vehicle's path on a road network. High-frequency, physics-based, powertrain simulators, such as NREL's FASTSim, are well-suited to model vehicle energy consumption when real driving data and a detailed understanding of the vehicle powertrain specifications are available. However, there are a variety of situations in the past, present (real-time), and future where high-frequency driving data and/or vehicle information may not be available, but reliable energy consumption is still desired, such as energy-aware vehicle routing. These are the ideal applications for RouteE-Powertrain. The suite of RouteE tools also includes RouteE-Compass, which is an eco-routing software that incorporates energy consumption into network routing algorithms, and RouteE-Mobile, which is a prototype smartphone navigation app to demonstrate the integrated capabilities of the RouteE suite for real-world eco-routing. The focus of this validation report is to share key metrics about the data sets and models behind RouteE-Powertrain. The set of RouteE-Powertrain models discussed in this report are made available through the RouteE web API through the NREL Developer Network.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Health Assessment and Performance Monitoring of Large Machine Diagnostics

Presentation to be given at the CCS-6 Statistical Seminar Series. Regularly maintained and operated diagnostic machines are a backbone of data collection and are a vital component of the Stockpile Stewardship Program’s efforts to better understand nuclear physics. The Cygnus X-ray machine, stationed at the Nevada National Security Site’s U1a underground facility, is one such diagnostic that provides a radiographic capability for the subcritical experiment program. Component failures within Cygnus can result in catastrophic downtime for the diagnostic, affecting performance, schedules, and cost. However, over the years various measurements have been collected on the two Cygnus axes, including voltage and current measurements at different locations, which we believe have predictive power to indicate machine health. We will share preliminary insight into this data and the machine learning approaches we are taking to assess Cygnus’ health, observe declining performance, and predict failures.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Technical Specification Surveillance Interval Extension Using Self-Diagnostics

As part of the Light Water Reactor Sustainability program, an ongoing research effort is being conducted on technical specifications surveillance interval extension of digital equipment in nuclear power plants. The research team is led by Idaho National Laboratory and includes Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Technology Resources, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This research focuses on developing methods for applying the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)–approved guidance to implement a licensee-controlled, risk-informed surveillance frequency change program in digital instrumentation and control (I&C) systems that include self-diagnostics and online monitoring (OLM) capabilities. Although approved methods exist for extending technical specifications (TS) surveillance test intervals (STIs) for general equipment, including analog I&C equipment, gaps remain in technology and guidance on crediting newer digital equipment’s internal self-diagnostics and OLM characteristics. Previous research described a general methodology for crediting internal self-diagnostics for extending surveillance test intervals. The methodology used self-diagnostics to detect—and credited recovery from—failure. Self-diagnostics were also applied for performance monitoring during the extended surveillance interval. This report discusses the status of recent activities to evaluate the previously developed methodology using a pilot study. Although both a utility partner for a pilot study and a specific digital asset were identified in FY2020, delays in obtaining proprietary information resulted in a limited ability to fully evaluate the methodology, and further interactions were complicated by the COVID pandemic. Therefore, at that time, the use of public-domain information—along with current processes for surveillance interval extension through a surveillance frequency control program—identified the need to fully assess diagnostic coverage as part of the pilot study. Furthermore, self-diagnostics were also identified as a potential option to replace the drift analyses conducted as part of current STI extension procedures. In FY2022, the project was reconstituted with the industry partner, and information and data were made available by the industry partner to the research team for review. The shared information included failure event descriptions and data for a digital I&C system since its implementation, as well as recent STI extension interval reports developed by the utility partner on that digital I&C system. This report presents an evaluation of this information and data and describes an application of the proposed methodology cited above. The methodology seeks to take advantage of the self-diagnostics and OLM capabilities to reduce risk or reduce the level of qualitative monitoring assessment needed to perform a risk-informed STI extension using existing NRC approved guidance or both. Addressing these issues of STI extension by crediting self-diagnostics is likely to result in benefits for current and future nuclear power plant (NPP) operations, including lowering the barriers to adoption of digital I&C systems and increasing cost savings by deferring or eliminating unneeded preventive maintenance (tasks or checks or activities). Specifically, self-diagnostic and OLM capabilities of newer digital equipment being installed in non-safety and safety applications are designed to detect failures, provide early warning of potential failures, and notify plant operators to take appropriate action to reduce out of service (OOS) time thus protecting safety margins. Moreover, the equipment is expected to provide information that time-related operational degradation is identified early to ensure timely and planned corrective actions instead of a reactive and unplanned approach ahead of an extended-surveillance interval.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

ASCR Workshop Position Paper: Challenges and Opportunities in High Energy Physics

High energy particle physics and cosmology concern themselves with estimating fundamental parameters of nature, such as the masses and interactions of fundamental particles like the Higgs boson and the rate of expansion of the universe. In doing so, they analyze exabyte-scale datasets, some of the largest in all of science, and face many challenges in subsequent data analysis. These challenges are shared between the two disciplines, but we focus on particle physics to highlight one specific domain. In particle physics, the standard method for estimating parameters involves performing Monte Carlo (MC) integration as a function of both parameters of interest and nuisance parameters using an expensive simulator, counting the number of observed collision events (i.i.d. samples) from an experiment in the corresponding integration domains, and forming a Poisson likelihood function. This likelihood function is then used in a Frequentist manner to construct a maximum likelihood point estimate (MLE) and confidence set for the parameters. To sufficiently populate the high-dimensional integration domains, simulators consume billions of CPU-hours annually and produce hundreds of petabytes of intermediate output data. Several techniques have been developed to: optimize definitions of the integration domains so as to be maximally sensitive to a particular subset of parameters, efficiently estimate the integrals, and build robust surrogate models by interpolating between integral evaluations at different parameter points. One can view this whole endeavor as classical Simulation-Based Inference (SBI).

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Data for "Divergent urban land trajectories under alternative population projections within the shared socioeconomic pathways"

Datasets supporting findings and visualizations behind McManamay et al. (2024) Divergent urban land trajectories under alternative population projections within the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environmental Research Letters, DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ad2eec Using a spatial modeling experiment at high resolution (1-km), this study compared how two alternative US population projections, varying in the spatially explicit nature of demographic patterns and migration, affect urban land dynamics simulated by the Spatially Explicit, Long-term, Empirical City development (SELECT) model for SSP2, SSP3, and SSP5. The numerical experiment, inputs and outputs are fully described in McManamay et al. (2024). The datasets summarize SELECT model simulations within urban areas and rural areas of the conterminous United States. For code to reproduce the results, please refer to https://github.com/IMMM-SFA/mcmanamay_etal_2024_erl Please refer to the README file provided in Files for more details. Descriptions of the datasets are provided below. Dataset(s) Descriptions: Urban_Land_delta_UA_County.csv: Urban land area for original (default) population, updated population, and urban land delta (difference between the two) according to Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) and year. Urban land is summarized for U.S. counties (FIPS code) and urban areas (GEOID) as unique areas within various counties. JO_Gao_pop_ufdelta.csv: Comparison of population differences and urban land differences between the origial (default) and updated population projections. City_Case_studies.csv: Differences in urban land areas arising from different population projections summarized for selected cities (Atlanta, Los Angeles, Houston, and New York) and their surrounding rural areas UA_county_FID.zip: Zipped folder of .tiff file depicting unique combination of urban areas and US counties used for summarizing urban land differences in urban and rural areas based on different population projections. ULD_clusters.zip: Zipped folder of .csv files depicting normalized changes in urban land delta (difference in urban land arising from population projections) and the respective Ward's hierarchical clusters, which group urban and rural areas based on similarities in temporal trends. Urban_Percent_change_2100.zip: Zipped folder of .csv files depicting percent changes in urban land area for year 2100 based on differences in the original (default) population and updated population. Each file is for SSPs and urban or rural areas.

Land↗
DOE OSTI2023

Shared micromobility as a first- and last-mile transit solution? Spatiotemporal insights from a novel dataset

The first- and last-mile (FM/LM) problem is a major deterrent to public transit use. With the rise of shared micromobility options such as shared e-scooters in recent years, there is a growing interest in understanding their potential to serve as a last-mile transit solution. However, empirical data regarding the integrated use of shared micromobility and public transit have been limited so far. As a result, much is unknown regarding the spatiotemporal patterns and characteristics of shared micromobility trips serving as an FM/LM connection to transit. Here, this paper addresses these knowledge gaps by leveraging a novel dataset (i.e., the Spin post-ride survey dataset) that records thousands of transit-connecting shared e-scooter trips in Washington DC. Specifically, we used the dataset to reveal the spatiotemporal patterns of transit-connecting shared e-scooter trips in Washington DC, resulting in some major policy insights regarding the integral use of shared e-scooters and public transit. We further leveraged the dataset to validate if and to what extent a commonly applied buffer-zone approach can infer FM/LM micromobility trips accurately. Statistical tests showed that the actual FM/LM Spin e-scooter trips differ from inferred FM/LM Spin e-scooter trips in both spatial and temporal dimensions. This indicates that the common practice of inferring FM/LM micromobility trips with a buffer-zone approach can lead to inaccurate estimates of transit-connecting micromobility trips.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Results of an interlaboratory study on the working curve in vat photopolymerization II: Towards a standardized method

The working curve measurement in photopolymer additive manufacturing is a ubiquitous measure of the cure depth of a printing resin as a function of radiant exposure of light. The fit parameters from this measurement (the depth of light penetration D p and the critical exposure E c ) are used to evaluate and report a resin’s printability, optimize processing parameters, and inform print and resin quality control. Despite its widespread use, the working curve lacks a standard measurement method. Here, following up on our paper “Results of an Interlaboratory Study on the Working Curve in Vat Photopolymerization” from last year, an interlaboratory study on the working curve was performed using calibrated, reproducible, bandpass filtered light sources. With these light sources, the variability between labs in measured working curves was dramatically reduced from the initial interlaboratory study. Aggregate data from this experiment produced reliable D p and E c measurements at 385 nm of 39.2 ± 3.7 µm and 12.3 ± 3.0 mJ cm −2 , respectively. At 405 nm the values of D p and E c are 69.3 ± 3.8 µm and 17.9 ± 2.3 mJ cm −2 , respectively. The results are agnostic to the thickness measurement tool utilized by participants, ensuring broad applicability across laboratories. We also tested the generalizability of the proposed method of using a filtered light source by filtering a commercial 405 nm light source and obtaining a working curve in agreement with the aggregate data from the interlaboratory study. This interlaboratory study provides a basis for a documentary standard for the working curve, so that the entire photopolymer additive manufacturing industry can share reproducible and interoperable working curve data.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

High-Mileage Courier Fleet Vehicle On-Road Logger Data

This dataset describes the performance and fuel efficiency of AVTA test vehicles operating in commercial courier fleets the Phoenix, AZ metro area between 2010 and 2016. Aftermarket data loggers were installed in two to four vehicles of each of 30+ distinct year/make/models (see reference ["INL Advanced Vehicle Testing Activity: On-road Logger and Laboratory Battery Pack Testing Vehicle List"](https://avt.inl.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/reports/DatasetVehicleList.pdf) for full list of vehicles). Loggers recorded vehicle operation as they were driven up to 160,000 miles in up to three years of fleet testing. Parameters were logged at 1-second intervals, including - vehicle speed, - engine and/or electric motor speed, - fuel and/or electricity consumption, and - ambient temperature. This dataset includes both raw second-by-second data and trip-level metrics. This dataset is shared by API; a small sample of the vehicle and logger data has been extracted and is also available for download.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

High-Throughput Microstructural Characterization and Process Correlation Using Automated Electron Backscatter Diffraction

The need to optimize the processing conditions of additively manufactured (AM) metals and alloys has driven advances in throughput capabilities for material property measurements such as tensile strength or hardness. High-throughput (HT) characterization of AM metal microstructure has fallen significantly behind the pace of property measurements due to intrinsic bottlenecks associated with the artisan and labor-intensive preparation methods required to produce highly polished surfaces. This inequality in data throughput has led to a reliance on heuristics to connect process to structure or structure to properties for AM structural materials. In this study, we show a transformative approach to achieve laser powder bed fusion (LPBF) printing, HT preparation using dry electropolishing and HT electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD). This approach was used to construct a library of > 600 experimental EBSD sample sets spanning a diverse range of LPBF process conditions for AM Kovar. This vast library is far more expansive in parameter space than most state-of-the-art studies, yet it required only approximately 10 labor hours to acquire. Build geometries, surface preparation methods, and microscopy details, as well as the entire library of >600 EBSD data sets over the two sample design versions, have been shared with intent for the materials community to leverage the data and further advance the approach. Using this library, we investigated process–structure relationships and uncovered an unexpected, strong dependence of microstructure on location within the build, when varied, using otherwise identical laser parameters.

Characterization and Analytical Technique↗
DOE OSTI2022

Daylight simulation workflows incorporating measured bidirectional scattering distribution functions

Daylight predictions of architectural spaces depend on good estimates of light transfer through skylights, windows and other fenestration systems. For clear glazing and painted surfaces, parametric transmission and reflection models have proven adequate, but there are many cases where light-scattering, semi-specular shading and daylighting materials defy simple characterization. Something as commonplace as fabric roller shades and venetian blinds may turn daylight prediction into guesswork, and numerous advanced systems on the market tuned specifically to enhance daylight are not sufficiently characterized to distinguish their performance. In this paper, we describe new tools available to handle novel and specialized fabrics, materials, and devices using data-driven modelling of bi-directional scattering distribution functions (BSDFs). These representations are usually tabulated at constant or adjustable angular resolution for efficient point-in-time and annual daylight simulations. We describe a variety of BSDF simulation workflows, including some of the tools and methods that make advanced analysis possible, and highlight some of the current challenges. We conclude with a discussion of future work and how such data might be created and shared worldwide.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2024

Modelling and analysis of nuclear reactor system coupled with a liquid metal battery

Traditionally, nuclear power plants in the U.S. provide baseload power to the power grid because they have less flexibility for ramping their output power than natural gas peaking plants. However, achieving climate goals to reduce the consumption of fossil‐based natural gas places pressure on nuclear power plants and other power generators to ramp up their power output to balance grid generation with demand. This paper presents the modelling and performance analysis of a nuclear reactor system (NRS) coupled to a liquid‐metal battery (LMB) to improve its dynamic response and enable its black start capability. The NRS and LMB thermal behaviour are modelled in Dymola, while the electrical dynamics of the LMB and power grid are modelled in RTDS‐RSCAD. Both simulation platforms are coupled and share their thermal and electrical data using a Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) communication protocol. The dynamic performance of the NRS‐LMB integration is tested on the IEEE 9 bus, which demonstrates its ability to respond and provide frequency and voltage regulation. The black start capability of the NRS‐LMB is also evaluated by simulating a grid outage and using the LMB to supply the auxiliary loads required to bring the NRS back online as soon as possible. The results show that coupling an NRS to an LMB improves the system dynamic performance and enables it to black start after being disconnected from the grid for several days.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗