Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Data modeling”

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 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Mechanical separations of corn stover anatomical fractions in an integrated feedstock preprocessing system: An experimental and data-driven modeling study

High variabilities of material attributes in lignocellulosic biomass present risks for biofuel and biochemical productions and must be mitigated via preprocessing. Since almost no mechanical device is originally designed for processing biomass, how to operate existing apparatuses with efficient performance has not been investigated extensively. This work presents a study on an integrated screening and air classification to separate cobs and stalks from husks and leaves in corn stover. Prototype machine learning models were developed to assess the feasibility of predicting the process outcome based on the measurable parameters. The models trained upon limited experimental data rendered decent predictive accuracy of yield and purity. The experimental data and modeling results collectively suggest decreasing throughput leads to a higher purity. To the contrary, if throughput increases, a lower purity is likely. A possible trade-off between yield and purity of the separated streams indicates the need for optimal combinations of feedstock size, moisture, and throughput to achieve optimized separations. The results of this study also suggest the need to further improve model predictability by developing more accurate formulations for physics governing the integrated unit operations. To accomplish this, additional experimental data needs to be generated for model training.

09 - BIOMASS FUELS↗
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

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

Electromagnetic Transient Modeling of Large Data Centers for Grid-Level Studies

The magnitude and complexity of electricity usage patterns from large data centers are having significant impacts on the operation and dynamics of the power grid; grid operators and planners require a range of specialized data center models to properly evaluate these impacts and specify technical solutions as needed. Towards addressing this need, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has developed a library of electromagnetic transient (EMT) models for grid-level studies of data centers called the data center model library (DML). This report describes how the DML was created and how it may properly be used. The models present in the DML are generic models; subject matter expertise and additional technical data are needed to modify these models before they can represent any real data center. However, they will significantly reduce the level of effort required to develop site-specific models and can serve as a common starting point to guide industry towards a more refined consensus. Most of the models within DML are dedicated to representing the power electronics interfaces commonly used in modern data centers, such as double-conversion uninterruptible power supplies and single-phase power factor correction converters. These models are intended for use in grid-level studies and are a simplified aggregation of many small components. That said, background material on the physical and electrical design of large data centers is provided as companion material so that users can be aware of many of the details which have been omitted or streamlined as a matter of practical necessity. Additionally, guidance on the application of EMT analysis for data center interconnection studies is provided, which aids users in identifying when the DML is necessary and what sort of additional model development may be necessary for conducting real-world studies.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Electromagnetic Transient Modeling of Large Data Centers for Grid-Level Studies: Beta Release

The magnitude and complexity of electricity usage patterns from large data centers are having significant impacts on the operation and dynamics of the power grid; grid operators and planners require a range of specialized data center models to properly evaluate these impacts and specify technical solutions as needed. Towards addressing this need, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has developed a library of electromagnetic transient (EMT) models for grid-level studies of data centers called the data center model library (DML). This report describes how the DML was created and how it may properly be used. This report details the DML’s beta release, completed in July 2026. This is a revision and expansion of the alpha release, which was made available in January 2026 The models present in the DML are generic models; subject matter expertise and additional technical data are needed to modify these models before they can represent any real data center. However, they will significantly reduce the level of effort required to develop site-specific models and can serve as a common starting point to guide industry towards a more refined consensus. Most of the models within DML are dedicated to representing the power electronics interfaces commonly used in modern data centers, such as double-conversion uninterruptible power supplies and single-phase power factor correction converters. These models are intended for use in grid-level studies and are a simplified aggregation of many small components. That said, background material on the physical and electrical design of large data centers is provided as companion material so that users can be aware of many of the details which have been omitted or streamlined as a matter of practical necessity. Additionally, guidance on the application of EMT analysis for data center interconnection studies is provided, which aids users in identifying when the DML is necessary and what sort of additional model development may be necessary for conducting real-world studies.

electromagnetic transients↗
DOE OSTI2026

Electromagnetic Transient Modeling of Data Centers

This report serves as a user manual for the accompanying EMT model library developed by the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) for various equipment in large data centers. The EMT model library enables detailed modeling of large data center loads for conducting grid stability studies. The EMT model library for data centers include detailed models of a 5.5 kW power supply unit (PSU), a 2.5 uninterruptible power supply (UPS), a 260 MW gas turbine-generator, a 500 kW motor load, and a 33 kW IT rack. These components represent all major equipment in data centers that need to be modeled for performing grid stability studies for data centers.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2025

Combining physics-based and data-driven models for quantitatively accurate plasma profile prediction that extrapolates well; with application to DIII-D, AUG, and ITER tokamaks

For design, scenario planning, and control, ITER and all other envisioned tokamaks rely on a variety of statistical and physics-based models to extrapolate to unseen regimes; most notably from low plasma current to high. A 'meta-learning' methodology for combining the accuracy of data-driven models with the generalizability of physics-based models is described and tested, yielding a 5–10 percent improvement in performance beyond either alone for the task of extrapolating time-dependent plasma profile prediction from low- to high- plasma current DIII-D tokamak discharges. Meanwhile, it is shown that both machine learning models extrapolated far-distribution and state-of-the-art 'physics-based' profile predictors fare worse than merely assuming plasma profiles do not change from their initial values. Finally, a variety of other mechanisms for helping data-driven models generalize—transfer learning, adding contextual information from physics simulators, and adding data from the ASDEX Upgrade tokamak—are attempted for similar extrapolation tasks but, in the methodology used in this paper, yield no significant improvement beyond simple data-driven models. Results are summarized in figures 15 and 16.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

LASSO for CALPHAD Model Selection Enables Data-Efficient Thermodynamic Modeling: An Application in Thermochemical Hydrogen Production Materials

Phenomenological CALPHAD (CALculation of PHAse Diagrams) models, widely used for multicomponent materials, often contain a considerable number of parameters and require fitting using data from a relatively small number of experimental measurements or theoretical calculations. Sometimes these parameters are introduced for the purpose of improving model fits but without clear physical justification, which leads to overparametrized models with poor generalization performance. Automated approaches for optimal model selection based on the available data therefore become critical. Here, in this work, a least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO)-based approach is developed for model selection by leveraging the linearity of the CALPHAD model with respect to its parameters to convert the model selection and fitting to a LASSO minimization problem. We demonstrate its utility for thermodynamic modeling of thermochemical hydrogen (TCH) production materials using lanthanum strontium manganite (LSM) as an example. Various TCH-relevant properties, including oxygen stoichiometry as a function of oxygen partial pressure, enthalpy of reduction, and entropy of reduction, are successfully predicted with reasonable accuracy using a minimal set of model parameters. Importantly, the model selection and fitting involve minimal human decision; it can therefore be applied to high-throughput DFT defect calculations and yield efficient workflows for TCH material modeling and optimization.

CALPHAD↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data-driven model validation for neutrino-nucleus cross section measurements

Neutrino-nucleus cross section measurements are needed to improve interaction modeling to meet the precision needs of neutrino experiments in efforts to measure oscillation parameters and search for physics beyond the Standard Model. We review the difficulties associated with modeling neutrino-nucleus interactions that lead to a dependence on event generators in oscillation analyses and cross section measurements alike. We then describe data-driven model validation techniques intended to address this model dependence. The method relies on utilizing various goodness-of-fit tests and the correlations between different observables and channels to probe the model for defects in the phase space relevant for the desired analysis. These techniques shed light on relevant mismodeling, allowing it to be detected before it begins to bias the cross section results. We compare more commonly used model validation methods which directly validate the model against alternative ones to these data-driven techniques and show their efficacy with fake data studies. These studies demonstrate that employing data-driven model validation in cross section measurements represents a reliable strategy to produce robust results that will stimulate the desired improvements to interaction modeling.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Data-driven model validation for neutrino-nucleus cross section measurements

Neutrino-nucleus cross section measurements are needed to improve interaction modeling to meet the precision needs of neutrino experiments in efforts to measure oscillation parameters and search for physics beyond the Standard Model. We review the difficulties associated with modeling neutrino-nucleus interactions that lead to a dependence on event generators in oscillation analyses and cross section measurements alike. We then describe data-driven model validation techniques intended to address this model dependence. The method relies on utilizing various goodness-of-fit tests and the correlations between different observables and channels to probe the model for defects in the phase space relevant for the desired analysis. These techniques shed light on relevant mismodeling, allowing it to be detected before it begins to bias the cross section results. We compare more commonly used model validation methods which directly validate the model against alternative ones to these data-driven techniques and show their efficacy with fake data studies. These studies demonstrate that employing data-driven model validation in cross section measurements represents a reliable strategy to produce robust results that will stimulate the desired improvements to interaction modeling.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Data-Driven Model for Photovoltaic Generation: Comparison with Physical Models Using a Microgrid in Puerto Rico

Photovoltaic (PV) generation is a critical component of microgrids, but its accurate modeling is challenging due to the complex and dynamic interactions between solar irradiance, temperature, and PV system installation. This paper develops a multilayer perceptron (MLP) model that inputs solar irradiance and temperature to estimate the PV generation, and it compares the proposed data-driven model’s performance to two well-known physical models: the single-diode model and the inverter model. The results demonstrate that all the models can reach high levels of accuracy. However, the MLP model outperforms the physical models on average by 4.5 to 6.6 percent in R squared scores and 220 to 290 Watts in RMSE scores, and it does not require physical system parameters. Moreover, the data-driven model can overcome the limitations of the lack of real-time PV generation data.

R pesante colón, Marcos↗
DOE OSTI2026

Data-Driven Modeling and Correction of Vehicle Dynamics

We develop a data-driven framework for learning and correcting nonautonomous vehicle dynamics. Physics-based vehicle models are often simplified for tractability and therefore exhibit inherent model-form uncertainty, motivating the need for data-driven correction. Moreover, nonautonomous dynamics are governed by time-dependent control inputs, which pose challenges in learning predictive models directly from temporal snapshot data. To address these, we reformulate the vehicle dynamics via a local parameterization of the time-dependent inputs, yielding a modified system composed ofa sequence of local parametric dynamical systems. Here, we approximate these parametric systems using two complementary approaches. First, we employ the dimension reduction and interpolation in parameter space (DRIPS) methodology to construct efficient linear surrogate models, equipped with lifted observable spaces and manifold-based operator interpolation. This enables data-efficient learning of vehicle models whose dynamics admit accurate linear representations in the lifted spaces. Second, for more strongly nonlinear systems, we employ flow map learning (FML), a deep neural network (DNN) approach that approximates the parametric evolution map without requiring special treatment of nonlinearities. We further extend FML with a transfer-learning-based model correction procedure, enabling the correction of misspecified prior models using only a sparse set of high-fidelity or experimental measurements, without assuming a prescribed form for the correction term. Through a suite of numerical experiments on unicycle, simplified bicycle, and slip-based bicycle models, we demonstrate that DRIPS offers robust and highly data-efficient learning of nonautonomous vehicle dynamics, while FML provides expressive nonlinear modeling and effective correction of model-form errors under severe data scarcity.

data-driven modeling↗
DOE OSTI2024

Uncertainty Visualization Challenges in Decision Systems with Ensemble Data & Surrogate Models

Uncertainty visualization is a key component in translating important insights from ensemble simulation data into actionable decision-making by visually conveying various aspects of uncertainty within a system. With the recent advent of fast surrogate models trained on ensemble data, we can substitute computationally expensive simulations, which allows users to interact with more aspects of data spaces than ever before. However, the use of ensemble data with surrogate models in a decision-making tool brings up new challenges for uncertainty visualization, namely how to reconcile and communicate the new and different types of uncertainties brought in by surrogates and how to utilize these new data estimates in actionable ways. In this work, we examine these issues as they relate to high-dimensional data visualization, the integration of discrete datasets and the continuous representations of those datasets, and the unique difficulties associated with systems that allow users to iterate between input and output spaces. We assess the role of uncertainty visualization in facilitating intuitive and actionable interaction with ensemble data and surrogate models, and highlight key challenges in this new frontier of computational simulation.

ensemble data↗
DOE OSTI2024

Next-Generation Materials Design: Quantum Mechanics and Data-Driven Modeling

The future of materials design is rapidly advancing through the combination of quantum mechanics and data-driven modeling. These approaches integrate quantum principles with advanced data analysis, enabling precise insights into material behavior. This talk will highlight recent progress in using these methods for computational design, particularly in high-entropy alloy catalysts, emphasizing the role of hierarchical machine-learning architectures for accurate predictions. Additionally, I will discuss our work on developing machine learning interatomic potentials (MLPs) for single-element metals, metal oxides, and alloys under extreme conditions, focusing on melting behavior and phase properties at high temperatures and pressures. We have also refined our MLP models to capture dynamic surface interactions, such as CO2 and CO adsorption on MgO, using both static and molecular dynamics simulations. These models maintain high accuracy while significantly reducing computational costs compared to first-principles calculations. By enabling efficient and accurate simulations, this work supports broader community adoption, optimizes datasets for materials discovery, and extends the accessible time, size, and environmental conditions beyond the limits of experiments and traditional simulations.

machine learning↗
DOE OSTI2025

Influence of initial conditions on data-driven model identification and information entropy for ideal mhd problems

Data-driven methods of model identification are able to discern governing dynamics of a system from data. Such methods are well suited to help us learn about systems with unpredictable evolution or systems with ambiguous governing dynamics given our current understanding. Many plasma problems of interest fall into these categories as there are a wide range of models that exist, however each model is only useful in a certain regime and often limited by computational complexity. To ensure data-driven methods align with theory, they must be consistent and predictable when acting on data whose governing dynamics are known. Weak Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamics (WSINDy) is a recently developed data-driven method that has shown promise in learning governing dynamics from data with high noise levels [1]. This work examines how WSINDy acts on ideal MHD test problems as the initial conditions are varied and specifies limiting requirements for successful equation identification. Furthermore, it is hard to recover the governing dynamics from data that emphasize a single dominant behavior. In these low information cases, Shannon information entropy is able to pick up on the redundancies in the data that affect recoverability.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Object storage model for CMS data

In CMS, data access and management is organized around the data-tier model: a static definition of what subset of event information is available in a particular dataset, realized as a collection of files. In previous work, we have proposed a novel data management model that obviates the need for data tiers by exploding files into individual event data product objects. In this work, we estimate the potential savings in data volume based on user analysis patterns.

Smith, Nick↗