Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “TaB”

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 OSTI2020

Cloud-based implementation of white-box model predictive control for a GEOTABS office building: A field test demonstration

Model predictive control (MPC) has been proven in simulations and pilot case studies to be a superior control strategy for large buildings. MPC can utilize the weather and occupancy schedule forecasts, together with the system model, to predict the future thermal behavior of the building and minimize the overall energy use and maximize thermal comfort. However, these advantages come with the cost of increased modeling effort, computational demands, communication infrastructure, and commissioning efforts. Thus a typical approach is to, often rapidly, simplify the building modeling and MPC optimization problem while paying a price of not reaching the full performance potential. It has been shown that by employing accurate physics-based models, MPC performance can be notably increased closer to its theoretical performance bound. However, implementation of such high-fidelity MPC in real buildings remains a challenge, resulting in a lack of successful field test studies. This work presents the methodology and field test demonstration of a computationally efficient implementation of the white-box MPC in an office building in Belgium. The detailed model of the building is based on first-principle physical equations. The deployment and supervision of MPC operation in a practical setting are supported by an automated cloud-based communication infrastructure. The motivating factor behind the cloud-based architecture is its compatibility with a commercially appealing control as a service concept. The building is equipped with a ground source heat pump (GSHP) and thermally activated building structures (TABS), where the combination of both is also known as GEOTABS. From a control perspective, GEOTABS buildings are particularly challenging systems due to large scale, complex heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system, and slow dynamics with time delays. On the other hand, there is an increased potential for energy savings due to the high thermal mass, which acts as thermal storage. The MPC operation is demonstrated during the challenging transient seasons (switching between heating and cooling), and its performance is compared to a traditional rule-based controller (RBC). We provide a proof of concept of real MPC operation for the most difficult seasons with notable GSHP energy use savings equal to 53.5% and thermal comfort improvement by 36.9%. Other MPC applications found in the literature describe tests for only cooling or only heating, and up to now only for a black-box or a grey-box approach.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Micro-photoluminescence mapping and Chemometrics for the rapid classification of rare earth materials

This article introduces advancements in chemically mapping rare earth materials using photoluminescence (PL) and chemometrics. By leveraging the high sensitivity and selectivity of PL compared to alternative optical techniques, as well as its compatibility with microscopy, we present enhanced capabilities for noninvasive material screening and characterization. Exemplary PL spectra of samarium(III) and europium(III) in oxide, nitrate, and chloride forms demonstrated the ability to extract detailed chemical information of diverse rare earth particles. Additionally, we introduced efficient PL mapping sequences capable of covering a 9 mm diameter carbon tab within minutes, which highlighted the benefits of rapid, large-area imaging. Furthermore, an integrated approach combining PL mapping with principal component analysis and a random forest classifier enabled the resolution of overlapping spectral peaks from different chemistries and provided accurate material classification. In conclusion, these advancements underscored the versatility and robustness of PL for chemically mapping rare earth materials, with the potential to support applications in mining, energy, environmental monitoring, isotope production and beyond.

Chemometrics↗
DOE OSTI2025

Microextraction-Single Particle-Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry for the Direct Analysis of Nanoparticles on Surfaces

A novel employment of single particle-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (SP-ICP-MS) was developed, where a microextraction (ME) probe is used to sample nanoparticles from a surface and analyze them in a single analytical step. The effects of several parameters on the performance of ME-SP-ICP-MS were investigated, including the flow rate, choice of carrier solution, particle size, and the design of the microextraction probe head itself. The optimized ME-SP-ICP-MS technique was used to compare the extraction efficiency (EE, defined as the ratio of particles measured to particles deposited on the surface) of the commercial probe head to a newly designed SP polyether ether ketone (PEEK) probe head. The SP PEEK probe head was found to have increased EE compared to the commercial probe head (8.5 ± 3% vs 3.9 ± 3%, respectively). Increasing the carrier solution flow rate was found to decrease the total analysis time at the cost of decreasing EE. Extraction efficiencies for ME-SP-ICP-MS were typically 4–10%, which is similar to transport efficiencies (1–10%) for conventional SP-ICP-MS. Lastly, ME-SP-ICP-MS was employed for the analysis of nano- and microparticles. The sizes of gold nanoparticles, 30 ± 3 and 51 ± 1.9 nm (certified sizes), and iron-based microparticles, 1000 ± 50 nm (certified size), were accurately determined to be 32.2 ± 2.5, 50.8 ± 3.4, and 1030 ± 57 nm, respectively, by ME-SP-ICP-MS. Further, this work demonstrates the potential of ME-SP-ICP-MS for the direct analysis of particles on common collection surfaces (GSR tabs, carbon planchettes, etc.) while retaining spatial information on particle distribution across the surface.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2021

Complementary Electrolyte Design for Li Metal Batteries in Electric Vehicle Applications

In this report a complementary electrolyte system with 0.8 M lithium bis(fluorosulfonylimide) (LiFSI) salt and 2 wt % lithium perchlorate (LiCLO4) additive in fluoroethylene carbonate (FEC)/ethyl methyl carbonate (EMC) solution enables not only stable cycling of lithium metal batteries (LMBs) with practical loading (<30 μm lithium anode, cathode loading > 4 mAh/cm 2 ) but also outstanding degradation stability toward the end of cycle life when compared to the conventional electrolyte. Although the use of LiFSI salt can increase the electrolyte conductivity and lengthen the cycle life of LMBs, the aged lithium anode morphology formed by the sacrificial decomposition of LiFSI is highly porous, leading to an abrupt cell capacity drop toward the end of cycling. Moreover, the inability to stop aluminum corrosion by the LiFSI-based electrolyte also causes cracking of the cathode tab during prolonged cycling. It is observed that a highly porous aged lithium consumed electrolyte at a higher rate, leading to the dry-out of electrolyte solvents. On the contrary, dense aged lithium anode morphology increased the localized current applied on the lithium, causing the formation of lithium dendrite. Thus, porosity control is the key to enhance battery performance. In this complementary system, LiClO 4 was introduced as an advanced additive to not only improve the capacity retention rate but also mitigate the abrupt capacity drop toward the end of cycle life because LiClO 4 acted as a pore astringent reducing the porosity of the aged lithium metal anode to the desired level. Moreover, the addition of LiClO 4 can also suppress the AI corrosion, allowing stable high-voltage cycling of LMBs. The synergistic effect of combining LiFSI salt and a LiClO 4 additive leads to an electrolyte system that can facilitate the application of high-energy LMBs with practical electrode loading.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2024

VIBES: a workflow for annotating and visualizing viral sequences integrated into bacterial genomes

Abstract Bacteriophages are viruses that infect bacteria. Many bacteriophages integrate their genomes into the bacterial chromosome and become prophages. Prophages may substantially burden or benefit host bacteria fitness, acting in some cases as parasites and in others as mutualists. Some prophages have been demonstrated to increase host virulence. The increasing ease of bacterial genome sequencing provides an opportunity to deeply explore prophage prevalence and insertion sites. Here we present VIBES (Viral Integrations in Bacterial genomES), a workflow intended to automate prophage annotation in complete bacterial genome sequences. VIBES provides additional context to prophage annotations by annotating bacterial genes and viral proteins in user-provided bacterial and viral genomes. The VIBES pipeline is implemented as a Nextflow-driven workflow, providing a simple, unified interface for execution on local, cluster and cloud computing environments. For each step of the pipeline, a container including all necessary software dependencies is provided. VIBES produces results in simple tab-separated format and generates intuitive and interactive visualizations for data exploration. Despite VIBES’s primary emphasis on prophage annotation, its generic alignment-based design allows it to be deployed as a general-purpose sequence similarity search manager. We demonstrate the utility of the VIBES prophage annotation workflow by searching for 178 Pf phage genomes across 1072 Pseudomonas spp. genomes.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Validation of Advanced Photovoltaic Module Materials and Processes by Combined-Accelerated Stress Testing (C-AST)

Tessolar module technology was developed to allow the incorporation of 5 incremental module material innovations. Combined, these innovations may improve the efficiency and durability of the standard silicon cell module. The innovations evaluated are: electrically conductive adhesive (ECA) replacing soldering of tabbing ribbons, light-capturing ribbon (LCR), silicone encapsulant, 2 mm front glass with backsheet, and a polymer-composite module frame. Tessolar-constructed individually encapsulated cells incorporating the material innovations are used to assemble 60-cell modules. 2 x 2 cell mini-modules of the same materials were produced for combined-accelerated stress testing (C-AST). C-AST results demonstrate that the 2 x 2 cell mini-module of Tessolar construction out-performed mini-modules using both ECA with EVA and standard solder with EVA constructions in power production over 108 cycles of testing.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

Melting point of group IV and V transition metal diborides

The environmental conical nozzle levitator system enables cooling trace experiments above 4000 K. These cooling trace experiments were used to determine the melting points through observation of thermal arrest of group IV and V transition metal diborides (TiB 2 , T m = 3313 ± 33 K; ZrB 2 , T m = 3404 ± 38 K; HfB 2 , T m = 3529 ± 33 K; and TaB 2 , T m = 3284 ± 10 K; note: mean ± 2 standard error). Temperature measurements were conducted utilizing dual single-color pyrometers at wavelengths of 0.9 and 0.65 µm. This system utilizes aerodynamic levitation and dual laser heating to achieve temperatures approaching 4000 K. The samples were synthesized from commercial powders using ceramic gel-casting to produce high-density spherical components. The measurements obtained were compared to previously reported melting temperature values and were generally found to be in agreement with most of the published values.

Materials science↗
DOE OSTI2021

Simulation Dataset - Input files

The input data that are required to run the model are divided into fundamental data and advanced data. The fundamental data are essential to run the model, while the advanced data allow optional model features to be activated. The names of all input data files are to be entered as ASCII characters in a tabular format. Spaces, commas, or tabs can separate numeric fields, the use of any other special visible or hidden characters must be avoided. It may be useful to note that all files are generally read in using standard free-format style FORTRAN READ statements. The input data files can be generated/modified using any standard editor, spreadsheet or word processor (in non-document mode), given that the above guidelines are complied with. However, the inclusion of special formatting characters and the insertion of blank lines must be avoided. The input data files may also be generated through the use of special purpose translation programs that convert the input data files that were initially generated for another traffic simulation or transportation planning model into an INTEGRATION format.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

ResStock™ v3.2.0 [SWR-19-15 and SWR-20-07]

The ResStock™ analysis tool was built on NREL's OpenStudio® platform, and is a project geared at modeling existing residential building stocks at national, regional, or local scales with a high-degree of granularity (e.g., one physics-based simulation model for every 200 dwelling units), using the EnergyPlus® simulation engine. Information about ComStock™, a sister tool for modeling the commercial building stock, can be found here: https://www.nrel.gov/buildings/comstock.html This repository contains: Housing characteristics of the U.S. residential building stock, in the form of conditional probability distributions stored as tab-separated value (.tsv) files. Comments at the bottom of each file document data sources and assumptions for each. A library of housing characteristic "options" that translate high-level characteristic parameters into arguments for OpenStudio measures, and which are referenced by the housing characteristic .tsv files and building energy upgrades defined in project definition files Project definition files: v2.3.0 and later: buildstockbatch YML files openable in any text editor v2.2.5 and prior: Project folder openable in PAT Unit-level OpenStudio Measures for automatically constructing OpenStudio Models of each representative dwelling unit model: v3.0.0 and later: OpenStudio-HPXML Measures v2.5.0 and prior: OpenStudio Measures Higher-level OpenStudio Measures for controlling simulation inputs and outputs This repository does not contain software for running ResStock simulations, which can be found as follows: Versions 2.3.0 and later only support the use of buildstockbatch for deploying simulations on high-performance or cloud computing. Version 2.3.0 also removed separate projects for single-family detached and multifamily buildings, in lieu of a combined project_national representing the U.S. residential building stock. See the changelog for more details. Versions 2.2.5 and prior support the use of the publicly available OpenStudio-PAT software as an interface for deploying simulations on cloud computing. Read the documentation for v2.2.5.

Horowitz, Scott↗
DOE OSTI2024

TTW (Transition to Wire Device) [SWR-25-02]

The Transition to Wire (TTW) hardware project is a method for connecting solar research samples with fragile interconnects to robust, weatherproof and consistent commercial connectors. The Transition to Wire device is a printed circuit board designed to facilitate the transition from tab ribbon or other unsecured electrical contacts on research samples to either wires or a connector. The four pin connector provides a kelvin (4 wire) connection at the solder pad where the sample connects.

McDanold, Byron↗
DOE OSTI2023

Layer-wise Imaging Dataset from Powder Bed Additive Manufacturing Processes for Machine Learning Applications (Peregrine v2022-10.1)

This release consists of six datasets which together include multi-modal layer-wise powder bed images from two different powder bed printing technologies. These datasets are designed primarily to facilitate the development and testing of new computer vision and machine learning based anomaly and defect detection algorithms. The authors provide both training data with corresponding ground truth pixel masks and evaluation data with corresponding baseline prediction pixel masks made by a trained neural network. The laser powder bed fusion (L-PBF) datasets are sourced from EOS M290 and AddUp FormUp 350 printers and the binder jet (BJ) dataset is sourced from an ExOne M-Flex printer. The materials represented in these datasets include 17-4 PH Stainless Steel, GammaPrint-700, Inconel 718, Maraging Steel, and H13 Steel. The sensor imaging modalities represented include visible-light (VL), temporally-integrated (i.e., long duration exposure) near-infrared (TI-NIR), and wide-band infrared (IR). To download the dataset: (1) Create a Globus account. (2) Create a Globus Endpoint on your computer. (3) Transfer the dataset from the OLCF DOI-DOWNLOADS Collection to your Collection. Common troubleshooting steps: (a) Confirm that the transfer is going from OLCF DOI-DOWNLOADS to your Collection. (b) Create an exception for Globus in your antivirus software so that it can create an Endpoint. (c) Manually create a Globus access directory (where the data will be downloaded) by going to the Preferences > Access tab.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Motion Tracking Above and Below Water Dataset

This data set includes one trial of above and under water motion tracking measurements from a Qualysis motion tracking system. The Qualisys native .qtm file can be opened by the Qualisys Track Manager software. Data from this file has been exported to a tab separated value (.tsv) file which is a generic ASCII file format that can be read by a text editor, MATLAB, Excel, etc... Also exported is a native MATLAB formatted file (.mat) which can be loaded directly into MATLAB. The trial is from a three body wave energy converter device, using the underwater system for the central nacelle data, and above water system for the fore and aft floats.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2024

Transforming Drainage Research Data (USDA-NIFA Award No. 2015-68007-23193)

This dataset contains research data compiled by the “Managing Water for Increased Resiliency of Drained Agricultural Landscapes” project a.k.a. Transforming Drainage. This project was funded from 2015-2021 by the United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA-NIFA, Award No. 2015-68007-23193). Data are also available from a separate web-accessible application (drainagedata.org). At drainagedata.org, users can visualize the data with customized tools, query based on specific sites and measurements of interest, and access site photographs, maps, summaries, and publications. Additional data or edits made following the publication of this data here at USDA NAL Ag Data Commons will be posted under the Versions tab on drainagedata.org. These data began in 1996 and include plot- and field-level measurements for 39 experiments across the Midwest and North Carolina. Practices studied include controlled drainage, drainage water recycling, and saturated buffers. In total, 219 variables are reported and span 207 site-years for tile drainage, 154 for nitrate-N load, 181 for water quality, 92 for water table, and 201 for crop yield.

Modeling↗
DOE OSTI2025

The Pan-Arctic Vegetation Cover (PAVC) database v1.1

The Pan-Arctic Vegetation Cover (PAVC) database contains synthesized field-data observations of vegetation cover from 978 Arctic Alaska plots with observations from 2010 to 2021. The cover datasets contain plot data at both the plant functional type (PFT) and species-level resolution, with standardized PFT definitions and species names. We synthesized publicly available point-intercept and visual estimate plots from the Arctic Vegetation Archive of Alaska, the Alaska Vegetation Plots Database, the North Slope Science Catalog, and the National Ecological Observatory Network; as well as previously unpublished data from the Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic).Users will find four synthesized datasets, 4 associated data descriptor (dd) files, and 1 metadata file in the PAVC database:synthesized_species_fcover.csv contains fractional cover (fcover) for unique accepted species names, where names include vegetation identified at the family, genus, species, subspecies, and variety levels, as well as general functional types across all 5 data sources. The synthesized_species_fcover_dd.csv accompanies this dataset with header information.synthesized_pft_fcover.csv contains fcover for the following PFTs: non-vascular plants with lichen and bryophyte subcategories, trees with deciduous and evergreen subcategories, shrubs with deciduous and evergreen subcategories, graminoids (grasses), and forbs (herbaceous flowering plants) measured as total cover. Litter and “other” cover are also included as total cover. Additional “types” include water and bare ground, which were measured as top cover. The synthesized_pft_fcover_dd.csv accompanies this dataset with header information.species_pft_checklist.csv is a lookup table containing the translation from a dataset species name to an accepted species name and to a PFT. This table can be used to clarify our species to PFT adjudications, and to aid users in assigning their own PFTs. Any issues found in this checklist should be reported in the Issues tab of our github.survey_unit_information.csv contains auxiliary information about the plots synthesized in this database. It contains useful information for filtering plots of interest based on temporal, geospatial, and contextual information about the plot surveys.flmd.csv contains metadata information about each file in the database.This research was performed as a part of the NGEE Arctic project. The NGEE Arctic project was a research effort to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research.The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska.Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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 OSTI2023

Litterfall and Branchfall Mass Flux in Malaysia Lambir Hills GEM plots (2008-2010)

This data package includes two folders: Litterfall and Branchfall. The Litterfall folder includes three files: "GEM_Lambir_Hills_Litterfall_Mass_Flux_Data_2008_to_2010.csv" includes the litterfall data, the "GEM_Lambir_Hills_Litterfall_Metadata.xlx" includes the descripion of the columns in the data file, and the PDF file "GEM_Lambir_Hills_Litterfall_Methods_Description" includes a brief description of the litterfall sampling methods. The Branchfall Folder includes four files: the "GEM_Lambir_Hills_Branchfall_Data_2009_to_2010.csv" file includes the branchfall data, the "GEM_Lambir_Hills_Branchfall_Metadata_2009_to_2010.xlsx" includes the description of the columns in the csv data file, the "GEM_Lambir_Hills_Branchfall_Methods_Description.pdf" includes a brief description of the branchfall collection methods, and the "GEM_Lambir_Hills_Branchfall_Data_Metadata_Methods_TransectSums.xlx" includes data, metadata, methods description, and a 'TransectsSums' tab where the reader can find the sum of the branchfall data in each transect Litterfall and Branchfall data were collected to quantify canopy productivity and net primary productivity allocated to branch turnover, which are components of the total net primary productivity and ecosystem carbon budget. The methods follow the Global Ecosystems Monitoring (GEM) protocols (see gem.tropicalforests.ox.ac.uk). The data collection took place from 2008 to 2010 in two 1-ha GEM plots in Lambir Hills National Park, Sarawak, Malaysia, within the Lambir 52-ha ForestGEO plots. One of the plots was located on clay soil and the other on sandy loam. The site is an old-growth moist tropical forest dominated by Dipterocarpacea. The climate is moist tropical and aseasonal. Litterfall was collected biweekly from 25 litter traps per plot. Branchfall was estimated using four 100-m transects, which were surveyed every two months.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗