SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
Tracktable is a toolkit for analysis and visualization of the trajectories of moving objects. Its main focus is on air and sea traffic. It can also work with more abstract trajectories such as eye tracking data. We supply a set of core data structures, input/output routines, math and machine learning algorithms that operate on those data structures, and visualization algorithms to produce movies and still images of the results.
The Dynamic Contingency Analysis Tool (DCAT) is being developed to mimic the response of generation dynamics, protection, and load components to extreme contingencies in power systems. Currently, DCAT generates a huge data set, with the analysis results stored in multiple subfolders using a great many files in different formats (power flow cases, time series, figures, spreadsheets). To help power system engineers thoroughly understand and analyze system behavior under many scenarios and contingencies, we developed a database management module (DBM) that enables future integration of DCAT with industry-grade Big Data analytical and interactive visualization platforms. In this paper, we demonstrate the DBM framework with interactive analytics and visualization for DCAT on the synthetic South Carolina 500-bus power system model using hurricane contingencies that capture possibilities for an extreme contingency. DCAT’s advanced data management and interactive visualization can help planning engineers to visually explore and analyze system behavior, all in one view.
In scientific simulations, observations, and experiments, the transfer of data to and from disk and across networks has become a major bottleneck for data analysis and visualization. Compression techniques have been employed to tackle this challenge, but traditional lossy methods often demand conservative error tolerances to meet the numerical accuracy requirements of both anticipated and unknown data analysis tasks. Progressive data compression and retrieval has emerged as a promising solution, where each analysis task dictates its own accuracy needs. However, few analysis algorithms inherently support progressive data processing, and adapting compression techniques, file formats, client/server frameworks, and APIs to support progressivity can be challenging. Here, this paper presents a framework that enables progressive-precision data queries for any data compressor or numerical representation. Our strategy hinges on a multi-component representation that successively reduces the error between the original and compressed field, allowing each field in the progressive sequence to be expressed as a partial sum of components. We have implemented this approach with four established scientific data compressors and assessed its effectiveness using real-world data sets from the SDRBench collection. The results show that our framework competes in accuracy with the standalone compressors it is based upon. Additionally, (de)compression time is proportional to the number of components requested by the user. Finally, our framework allows for fully lossless compression using lossy compressors when a sufficient number of components are employed.
Software, Documentation, Tutorials, Testing data, Example data for processing, analysis, filtering, querying, visualization and otherwise transforming genomic data for scientific analysis and discovery.
Approximately 20% of primary energy consumed in the U.S. is attributed to HVAC use. Ideally, HVAC operation would be driven by actual building occupancy, but lack of reliable occupancy information often results in the use of conservative static schedules. This disparity is even more pronounced in a college campus, where the function of each space differs by building (classrooms, offices, libraries) and the class schedules change frequently -- every semester, day of week, and hour. While several research papers propose the use of counts of the Wi-Fi connections (e.g., phones, computers) as a proxy for occupancy, few real-world implementations exist. This paper describes the development and deployment of an open-source Wi-Fi-to-Occupancy software library in 65 buildings of a college campus, and the planned integration with the building energy management and control system at the building scale. Over a year of Wi-Fi data was gathered into distinct academic periods, including fall and spring semester, academic breaks, and summer sessions. Patterns such as students moving between classrooms, closing laptops before exams, etc., can be visualized from the data. Approximating occupancy from Wi-Fi data presents challenges which we address in this project -- for example, identifying static devices, or estimating the ratio of devices per person. Utilizing real-time occupancy data to inform optimal HVAC schedules and ventilation rates creates the potential to identify and reduce energy waste. Other potential applications include forecasting occupancy, and using Wi-Fi data to predict peak demands. Finally, the paper discusses how to easily scale these tools to other buildings.
PDB‐101 is an online portal for teachers, students, and the general public to promote exploration of the structural biology of proteins and nucleic acids ( pdb101.rcsb.org ). Learning about the diverse shapes and functions of these biological macromolecules helps to understand all aspects of biomedicine and agriculture, from protein synthesis to health and disease to biological energy. Why PDB‐101? Researchers around the world are studying these molecules at the atomic level. These 3D structures are freely available at the Protein Data Bank (PDB), the central storehouse of biomolecular structures. This website builds introductory materials to help beginners get started in the basics of biomolecular structure and function (“101”, as in an entry level course) as well as resources for extended learning. Since 2011, PDB‐101 has been developed by the RCSB PDB , a global resource for the advancement of research and education in biology and medicine. Along with our Worldwide PDB collaborators, RCSB PDB curates, annotates, and makes publicly available the PDB data deposited by scientists around the globe. The RCSB PDB then provides a window to these data through a rich online resource with powerful searching, reporting, and visualization tools for researchers. This information is then streamlined for students and teachers at PDB‐101. Features include the ongoing Molecule of the Month series, educational materials such as paper models, posters, molecular animations, educational curricula and more. The section “Guide to Understanding PDB Data” is a primer for detailed PDB‐specific information: PDB Data, Visualizing Structures, Reading Coordinate Files, scientific methods for structure determination, and more. PDB‐101 also runs annual Video Challenges for high school students. Participants create short videos that tell molecular stories that connect structural biology and medicine. Previous topics have included HIV/AIDS, diabetes, and antimicrobial resistance. The 2022 challenge will focus on Molecular Mechanisms of Cancer. PDB‐101 activities are evaluated using user surveys, feedback from in‐person activities, and website analytics. In 2020, PDB‐101 hosted >850,000 users and >2.6 million page views.
As computational models scale to larger computers, the rate at which they produce data has far outstripped the same computers ability to write that data and further the file systems ability to store that data. Almost all of the SciDAC applications, but especially those related to fusion solve very large scale PDEs whose scientific output his impacted by this problem. To gain access to dynamics in an exascale simulation that are not identifiable a priori and to make that dynamical data available to machine learning requires fundamental research in the area of in situ data data analytics. Here data analytics includes compression, visualization, uncertainty quantification, and machine learning. This in situ data analytics will enable on-the-fly spatial and temporal compression of solution dynamics, expose that space-time compressed field to machine learning algorithms that have been specialized to work with dynamically evolving data (existing machine learning algorithms treat data sets as static), greatly improving the opportunity for machine learning to provide feedback to the compression, all within an ongoing simulation, without the need to write data to files. The same concepts are also being applied to uncertainty quantification and multi-fidelity modeling which have similar needs for spatial and temporal compression of the ongoing exascale simulation to perform either without the typical, unacceptable writing of data to files.
This presentation highlights the role of advanced visualization techniques at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in supporting cutting-edge research across diverse energy domains. From immersive analytics and uncertainty visualization to high-resolution and real-time data analysis, NREL's visualization capabilities enable scientists to explore complex datasets more effectively. These tools are critical for advancing research in materials science, renewable energy technologies, biofuels, electric vehicle infrastructure, energy efficiency - from industrial processes to entire communities - and then bringing these innovations to practice through energy systems integration. NREL's visualization tools drive innovation across renewable energy and grid modernization efforts by providing deeper insights and improving decision-making.
SAND2022-14694 O CrystalVR is a CAD2VR plugin which enables the import of crystallographic information files (CIF) into a virtual reality (VR) environment for visualization and interaction. Crystallographic data is incredibly complex and difficult to navigate and visualize on a two-dimensional or 2D screen. CrystalVR empowers users to step inside their crystals, allowing them to intuitively grow, shrink, and scale the crystal structure. Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525.
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.
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.
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.
Modern scientific experiments generate massive amounts of data at a pace much faster than humans can manually analyze. While machine learning has revolutionized commercial data analysis (such as recommending movies or recognizing faces), applying these tools to complex scientific discovery is challenging because scientific answers must be precise, interpretable, and adhere to physical laws. The research under this project aims to develop new mathematical tools and computer algorithms specifically designed for scientific applications. Major progress has been made in automatically cleaning and deconstructing messy experimental data, analyzing the visual information of physical phenomena, determining the underlying physical variables, and providing rig orous mathematical analysis of interesting algorithms and concepts widely used in machine learning. This project addressed the critical gap between our ability to generate massive scientific data and our ability to extract interpretable information from it. We established mathematical foundations for Scientific Machine Learning (SciML) aimed at effective data analytics and automated discovery. Our work focused on three core objectives: (1) developing reliable feature extraction methods for dynamic high-dimensional data, (2) establishing mathematical foundations for discovering dynamics via neural networks, and (3) creating rigorous optimization techniques for these models. Key outcomes come from two fronts. On the practical side, they include the development of algorithms that significantly enhance the extraction of signals from field data, as well as the capability to handle situations that exhibit smooth variations or physical stretching due to temperature changes. They also include the creation of an automated framework for discovering fundamental state variables from raw experimental data, demonstrating the ability to identify intrinsic physical dimensions without prior knowledge of the governing laws. On the theoretical front, the research results in theoretical advances in Optimal Transport, a widely used notion in SciML, specifically regarding functions with fixed-size nodal sets, provide sharp bounds relevant to uncertainty quantification. Meanwhile, the outcomes also include the establishment of convergence theories for nonlocal gradient descent methods, enabling robust optimization with noisy data in high-dimensional settings commonly encountered in scientific modeling. The project also helps creating opportunities to train the next generation of researchers, equipping them with the necessary technical skills for today’s workplace and preparing them for future advances.
There is currently a lack of software that meets the needs for the analysis of raw data produced by modern isotope ratio mass spectrometers for both R&D and routine use at SRNL and other US national labs • Needs to accommodate multiple isotope systems, instruments, and manufacturers • Include modern statistical methods and handling/visualization of uncertainty • Flexible software with transparent (no “black box”) and reproducible methods • This project is inspired by existing discipline-specific data analysis software (e.g., Tripoli1 , ET_Redux2 , IsoplotR3) used in the geochemical community • Our goal is to build an open source data analysis software package that focuses on flexibility, transparency, and reproducibility
Abstract not provided.
Carbonate clumped isotope thermometry has been applied to fossil mollusk shells from Tibet to reconstruct the paleoclimate and paleoelevation of the region. However, inferred paleoelevation and climatic conditions from this proxy are inconsistent with paleontological evidence. Here, we report new clumped isotope data from both modern and fossil (5–4 Ma) freshwater mollusk shells with the results of X-ray diffraction (XRD) analyses of fossil shells from the Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau. Although all of the fossil shells analyzed in this study appeared pristine based on visual inspection, XRD data reveal that more than half of these apparently “pristine” fossil shells contain trace amounts of calcite. Clumped isotope temperatures derived from the fossil shells display a large range of variation (>22 °C). Among the fossil shells analyzed, those containing traces of calcite have yielded temperatures that are on average ~10 °C lower than those with no detectable calcite from the same strata. These observations suggest that clumped isotope alteration can occur in aragonite shells in low-temperature environments and even in shells with no visible signs of alteration that contain only traces of calcite. The temperatures derived from fossil shells with no detectable calcite are on average 4 °C higher than those derived from modern shells, indicating that southwest Tibet was warmer 4–5 Ma than today. After accounting for temperature change due to global cooling, the difference in clumped isotope temperatures between pristine fossil shells and modern shells suggests that the paleoelevation of the southwestern Tibetan Plateau in the Pliocene was similar to its present-day elevation.
To comply with U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations, licensees and entities authorized under Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 26 Section 26.3 (§ 26.3) are required to have fitness-for-duty (FFD) programs. Under § 26.3, the expectation of these FFD programs is to provide reasonable assurance that individuals who are granted unescorted access to nuclear power reactor protected areas and Category I fuel cycle facility material control areas are trustworthy, will perform their tasks in a reliable manner, are not under the influence of any substance, legal or illegal, that may impair their ability to perform their duties, and are not mentally or physically impaired from any cause that can adversely affect their ability to safely and competently perform their duties. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) was tasked with developing a performance monitoring program to risk inform NRC inspection and policy regarding quantitative FFD performance data. To meet this need, PNNL developed methodologies that could be implemented within a performance monitoring program. Throughout this report, these methodologies are referred to as comparative metrics. The NRC provided PNNL with 2016–2019 data from annual reporting forms and single positive test forms provided by licensees and other entities. For most of the comparative metrics, the analyses required customized processing, such as creating filtering fields, adding data fields and summaries, and joining datasets. The comparative metrics developed include: random testing rate, random policy violation rate, pre-access policy violation rate, subversion attempt rate, and number of policy violations by labor category. The comparative metrics can be used for parsing and visualizing FFD program data and monitoring FFD performance at the labor category, facility, licensee, and industry levels to risk inform NRC inspection and policy with regard to the FFD data currently collected from licensees and other entities that implement Part 26 requirements. Furthermore, these developed comparative metrics allow a more in-depth look at the FFD programs for the industry to discern trends and patterns that may warrant changes at an industry level and to inform policy decisions. These analyses should be refreshed as new FFD data become available.
The Tianlai project is a 21cm intensity mapping experiment for detecting dark energy by measuring the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) features in the large scale structure power spectrum. This experiment provides an opportunity to test the data processing methods for cosmological 21cm signal extraction, which is still a great challenge in current radio astronomy research. The 21cm signal is much weaker than the foregrounds and easily aected by the imperfections in the instrumental responses. Furthermore, processing the large volumes of interferometer data poses a practical challenge. We have developed a data processing pipeline called tlpipe to process the drift scan survey data from the Tianlai experiment. It performs oine data processing tasks such as radio frequency interference (RFI) agging, array calibration, binning, and map-making, etc. It also includes utility functions needed for the data analysis, such as data selection, transformation, visualization and others. A number of new algorithms are implemented, for example the eigenvector decomposition method for array calibration and the Tikhnov regularization for m-mode analysis. In this paper we describe the design and implementation of the pipeline and illustrate its functions with some analysis of real data. Finally, we outline directions for future development of this publicly code.