Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Colorado”

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 487 records · Page 27
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 OSTI2026

Hyporheic zone, river, and groundwater metagenome resolved genomes and rpS3 genes in East River Watershed, Colorado USA Summer 2020, 2021

Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from water filter collected across 8 locations along the East River Watershed, CO, and 1 nearby groundwater well. The purpose was to look for connectivity and similarities across the network and to see the impact of the groundwater. As a part of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Science Focus Area (SFA), we assessed community composition and strain similarities between the sites and we also compared it to previous metagenomic studies within the watershed looking at floodplain (Matheus Carnevali et al. 2021) and hillslope (Lavy et al. 2019) microbiomes. Here we present metagenome assembled genomes (MAGs) for the bacterial and archaeal communities from filters across 8 locations during August 2020 and July 2021. This resulted in 32 samples. The groundwater sample was sequenced at UC Berkley's QB3. The other 31 samples were sequenced at University of Maryland. Metagenomes were assembled using four autobinners and the best bins were selected using dasTool. The genomes were dereplicated at 95% with dRep and the subset of winning genomes were manually curated based on visual inspection of taxonomic profile, GC content, coverage, and a set of 51 bacterial single copy genes (BSCG), and 38 archaeal signal copy genes (ASCG). The dataset includes a zip file of 311 genomes (HZ_River_SW_MAGS_Dereplicated_95.zip). The dataset additionally includes a zipped file of ribosomal protein small subunit 3 (rpS3) proteins from the hyporheic zone and river data (rpS3_Proteins_HZ_River.zip), a metadata file used to register associated samples with IGSNs (International Generic Sample Numbers) (samples.csv), a location metadata file (locations.csv). 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.

DNA↗
DOE OSTI2013

Predicted Versus Actual Savings for a Low-Rise Multifamily Retrofit in Boulder, Colorado

To determine the most cost-effective methods of improving buildings, accurate analysis and prediction of the energy use of existing buildings is essential. However, multiple studies confirm that analysis methods tend to over-predict energy use in poorly insulated, leaky homes and thus, the savings associated with improving those homes. In NREL's report titled 'Assessing and Improving the Accuracy of Energy Analysis of Residential Buildings,' researchers propose a method for improving the accuracy of residential energy analysis methods. A key step in this process involves the comparisons of predicted versus metered energy use and savings. In support of this research need, CARB evaluated the retrofit of a multifamily building in Boulder, CO. The updated property is a 37 unit, 2 story apartment complex built in 1950, which underwent renovations in early 2009 to bring it into compliance with Boulder, CO's SmartRegs ordinance. Goals of the study were to: 1) evaluate predicted versus actual savings due to the improvements, 2) identify areas where the modeling assumptions may need to be changed, and 3) determine common changes made by renters that would negatively impact energy savings. In this study, CARB seeks to improve the accuracy of modeling software while assessing retrofit measures to specifically determine which are most effective for large multifamily complexes in the cold climate region. Other issues that were investigated include the effects of improving building efficiency on tenant comfort, the impact on tenant turnover rates, and the potential market barriers for this type of community scale project.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2013

Predicted Versus Actual Savings for a Low-Rise Multifamily Retrofit in Boulder, Colorado

To determine the most cost-effective methods of improving buildings, accurate analysis and prediction of the energy use of existing buildings is essential. However, multiple studies confirm that analysis methods tend to over-predict energy use in poorly insulated, leaky homes and thus, the savings associated with improving those homes. In this project, the Building America CARB team evaluated the retrofit of a multifamily building in Boulder, CO. The updated property is a 37 unit, 2 story apartment complex built in 1950, which underwent renovations in early 2009 to bring it into compliance with Boulder, CO's SmartRegs ordinance. Goals of the study were to: 1) evaluate predicted versus actual savings due to the improvements, 2) identify areas where the modeling assumptions may need to be changed, and 3) determine common changes made by renters that would negatively impact energy savings. Other issues that were investigated include the effects of improving building efficiency on tenant comfort, the impact on tenant turnover rates, and the potential market barriers for this type of community scale project.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2013

A Pilot Demonstration of Electrochromic and Thermochromic Windows in the Denver Federal Center, Building 41, Denver, Colorado

Chromogenic glazing materials are emerging technologies that tint reversibly from a clear to dark tinted state either passively in response to environmental conditions or actively in response to a command from a switch or building automation system. Switchable coatings on glass manage solar radiation and visible light while enabling unobstructed views to the outdoors. Building energy simulations estimate that actively controlled, near-term chromogenic glazings can reduce perimeter zone heating, ventilation, and airconditioning (HVAC) and lighting energy use by 10-20% and reduce peak electricity demand by 20-30%, achieving energy use levels that are lower than an opaque, insulated wall. This project demonstrates the use of two types of chromogenic windows: thermochromic and electrochromic windows. By 2013, these windows will begin production in the U.S. by multiple vendors at high-volume manufacturing plants, enabling lower cost and larger area window products to be specified. Both technologies are in the late R&D stage of development, where cost reductions and performance improvements are underway. Electrochromic windows have been installed in numerous buildings over the past four years, but monitored energy-efficiency performance has been independently evaluated in very limited applications. Thermochromic windows have been installed in one other building with an independent evaluation, but results have not yet been made public.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2016

University of Colorado - Center for Research and Education in Wind (CREW): Cooperative Research and Development Final Report, CRADA Number CRD-11-446

Enabled by petascale supercomputing, the next generation of computer models for wind energy will simulate a vast range of scales and physics, spanning from turbine structural dynamics and blade-scale turbulence to mesoscale atmospheric flow. A single model covering all scales and physics is not feasible. Thus, these simulations will require the coupling of different models/codes, each for different physics, interacting at their domain boundaries.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2017

Progress report for DOE Award Number SC0008482, Colorado State University

In this project we proposed to study the real-time dynamics of driven superconducting vortices moving in a periodic potential, using the technique of high-bandwidth scanning Hall probe microscopy to understand the local spatial and temporal characteristics of vortex motion in periodic potentials. During the term of the project we made significant progress towards these goals, but the overall project goal was unfortunately not met. Nonetheless, certain intermediate goals were met, and we believe that even though the project has officially ended we will be able to finish the proposed experiments.

75 CONDENSED MATTER PHYSICS, SUPERCONDUCTIVITY AND↗
DOE OSTI2017

Measuring Non-Market Values for Hydropower Production and Water Storage on the Colorado River: A White Paper Investigation

This study presents a conceptual framework for capturing the spatial and temporal aspects of non-market dimensions of value (DOV) and how they vary as the result of policy changes for hydropower generation and developed water uses. The foundation of this project is a literature review that reveals that focused, sector specific valuations are no longer adequate if the goal is to provide decision makers with a complete understanding of their decisions. Rather, estimates of non-market values for informing decisions regarding dam operations and/or other water management alternatives must consider the entire spectrum of market and non-market values, and the tradeoffs (both positive and negative) between those values over time and space, while considering shifting preferences in an uncertain environment. This document describes the history and reasoning for these conclusions and presents a conceptual framework for understanding non-market values as a function of changes to hydropower operations and water resources management.

13 HYDRO ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Proceedings of the 2019 PV Reliability Workshop, 26-28 February 2019, Lakewood, Colorado

NREL hosts an annual Photovoltaic Reliability Workshop (PVRW) so solar technology experts can share information leading to the improvement of PV module reliability. Such improvement reduces the cost of solar electricity and promotes investor confidence in the technology - both critical goals for moving PV technologies deeper into the electricity marketplace. This document collects the presentations and posters from the 2019 PV Reliability Workshop, which was hosted by NREL from Tuesday, February 26, to Thursday, February 28, 2019.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Cost Effectiveness of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for the State of Colorado

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2016 edition from Standard 90.1-2013 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Regolith, rock and fluid distributions at the Upper Colorado River Basin via a multicomponent seismic imaging approach

In October 2018, we conducted an exploratory seismic survey of the East River Watershed Function Science Focus Area, near Crested Butte, CO. Our survey goals were to map seismic bedrock, regolith and sediment properties and relate them to geomorphic and hydrologic processes. We acquired ~12 km of seismic data along roads with a 72-channel, 1.25m spaced streamer, an average shot spacing of 2.5m and an average acquisition rate of 3 km/day. We also obtained ~3km of planted geophone data with geophone and shot spacing between 2.5 and 5 meters and an acquisition rate of 0.5 km/day. Vp results show a sharp transition between regolith and bedrock along hillslopes suggesting a similarly abrupt change in porosity. Vp anisotropy in the Mancos Shale is observable in the lower reaches of the watershed, but is absent in regions near crystalline intrusions where contact metamorphism has likely modified pore structure within the shale. Alluvium thickness varies along the river axis from 0 to > 20 meters reflecting variations in depositional processes as function of stream gradient. We show that when strong discontinuities at the regolith base are present, inhomogeneous waves that travel along subsurface interfaces are generated and can be measured on vertical component geophones. We present a summary manuscript in the report appendix.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2016

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Residential Provisions of the 2015 IECC for Colorado

These analyses evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the prescriptive path of the 2015 edition of the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC), relative to the 2012 and 2009 IECC for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The analysis covers one- and two-family dwelling units, townhomes, and low-rise multifamily residential buildings covered by the residential provisions of the 2015 IECC. These reports were originally published in October 2015, and revised in February 2016 to update numbers reported in certain results tables.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2021

Cost-Effectiveness of ANSI/ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2019 for Colorado

This report describes the methodology and results of a state cost-effectiveness analysis of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. Moving to the Standard 90.1-2019 edition from Standard 90.1-2016 is found to be cost-effective for the state. Annual energy cost savings, added construction costs, and life-cycle costs are all described and presented here for various building types and climate zones.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2022

EVs@Scale Lab Consortium Bi-Annual Stakeholder Meeting, 17 August 2022, Golden, Colorado [Slides]

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Electric Vehicles at Scale Lab Consortium (EVs@Scale Lab Consortium) is accelerating research to support the establishment of a secure and scalable national network of charging infrastructure. This network will be critical to support tens of millions of light-, medium-, and heavy-duty EVs on American roads by 2030. The EVs@Scale Lab Consortium brings together national laboratories and key stakeholders to conduct infrastructure research and development (R&D) that advances innovations in, and sets unified standards for, high-power and wireless charging. The effort will also develop technologies to integrate vehicle charging with the power grid, and develop cybersecurity measures to protect drivers, vehicles, equipment, and the grid. The first hybrid EVs@Scale Lab Consortium Biannual Stakeholder Meeting was held at NREL on August 17, 2022, to identify research, development, and deployment needs to accelerate technology development for electric vehicles at scale and explore opportunities for collaboration across government, academia, and industry.

33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Understanding Building Energy Use in the Cheyenne-Denver-Colorado Springs Area: Basic Building Stock Characterization

This report is part of a publication series that focuses on approximately 100 different local geographies, or "clusters." Each report provides commercial and multifamily building characteristic and energy data for a local geography, with the intention of helping policymakers at the city, county and state levels better understand building energy use. Specifically, this report breaks down the building stock in the counties shown in Figure 1 by building type, size, energy consumption, and emissions.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗