SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
This paper will present the research data using samples collected from the Mars 2001 orbiter, Odyssey, and all environmental samples collected from the cleanroom, during final assembly.
A system which simplifies the complex monitoring methods used to measure the astronaut's radiation exposure in space is proposed. The excess dose equivalents of trapped protons and secondary neutrons, protons, and alpha particles from local nuclear interactions are determined and a combined thermoluminescent dosimeter (TLD)/nuclear emulsion method which measures the absorbed dose with thermoluminescent dosimeter chips is presented.
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.
This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors 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.
Simulating chemically reactive phenomena such as proton transport on nanosecond to microsecond and beyond time scales is a challenging task. Ab initio methods are unable to currently access these time scales routinely, and traditional molecular dynamics methods feature fixed bonding arrangements that cannot account for changes in the system’s bonding topology. The Multiscale Reactive Molecular Dynamics (MS-RMD) method, as implemented in the Rapid Approach for Proton Transport and Other Reactions (RAPTOR) software package for the LAMMPS molecular dynamics code, offers a method to routinely sample longer time scale reactive simulation data with statistical precision. RAPTOR may also be interfaced with enhanced sampling methods to drive simulations toward the analysis of reactive rare events, and a number of collective variables (CVs) have been developed to facilitate this. Key advances to this methodology, including GPU acceleration efforts and novel CVs to model water wire formation are reviewed, along with recent applications of the method which demonstrate its versatility and robustness.
This CY 2020 annual sampling report presents the background of the FFACO and Sampling Plan implementation, sampling and analysis methods, sampling results, quality assurance and quality control, regulatory requirements, and analytical data for the CY 2020. Appendix A presents data from samples collected in CY 2020 from the YF/CM CAU and the RM/SM CAU. This sampling was conducted in support of the Sampling Plan at these CAUs prior to approval of the final CRs. Appendix B presents the well completion diagrams for the wells sampled in CY 2020. Appendix C presents data from samples collected in CY 2019. These results were not reported in the previous sampling report because they were not available from the specialized laboratories at the time of the report’s publication.
It was shown how full-width at half maximum (FWHM), full-width at 1/e(sup 2) (FW1/e(sup 2)), Strehl ratio, and encircled energy figures of merit vary with different types of aberration and measurement methods. The array sampling method and the slit-scan method are examined in detail. Our irradiance in the exit pupil of the optical system is a simple gaussian. It was found that in general the slit-scan method and the array method do not yield the same result. The width measurements for the central lobe of the diffraction pattern are very insensitive to aberration.
Response surface functions are often used as simple and inexpensive replacements for computationally expensive computer models that simulate the behavior of a complex system over some parameter space. Progressive response surfaces are ones that are built up progressively as global information is added from new sample points in the parameter space. As the response surfaces are globally upgraded based on new information, heuristic indications of the convergence of the response surface approximation to the exact (fitted) function can be inferred. Sampling points can be incrementally added in a structured fashion, or in an unstructured fashion. Whatever the approach, at least in early stages of sampling it is usually desirable to sample the entire parameter space uniformly. At later stages of sampling, depending on the nature of the quantity being resolved, it may be desirable to continue sampling uniformly over the entire parameter space (Progressive response surfaces), or to switch to a focusing/economizing strategy of preferentially sampling certain regions of the parameter space based on information gained in early stages of sampling (Adaptive response surfaces). Here we consider Progressive response surfaces where a balanced indication of global response over the parameter space is desired.We use a variant of Moving Least Squares to fit and interpolate structured and unstructured point sets over the parameter space. On a 2-D test problem we compare response surface accuracy for three incremental sampling methods: Progressive Lattice Sampling; Simple-Random Monte Carlo; and Halton Quasi-Monte-Carlo sequences. We are ultimately after a system for constructing efficiently upgradable response surface approximations with reliable error estimates.
In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) enables future planetary exploration by using local resources to supply mission consumables. This idea of 'living off the land' has the potential to reduce mission cost and risk. On the moon, water has been identified as a potential resource (for life support or propellant) at the lunar poles, where it exists as ice in the subsurface. However, the depth and content of this resource has yet to be confirmed on the ground; only remote detection data exists. The upcoming Resource Prospector mission (RP) will 'ground-truth' the water using a rover, drill, and the RESOLVE science package. As the 2020 planned mission date nears, component level hardware is being tested in relevant lunar conditions (thermal vacuum). In August 2014 a series of drilling tests were performed using the Honeybee Robotics Lunar Prospecting Drill inside a 'dirty' thermal vacuum chamber at the NASA Glenn Research Center. The drill used a unique auger design to capture and retain the lunar regolith simulant. The goal of these tests was to investigate volatiles (water) loss during drilling and sample transfer to a sample crucible in order to validate this regolith sampling method. Twelve soil samples were captured over the course of two tests at pressures of 10(exp-5) Torr and ambient temperatures between -80C to -20C. Each sample was obtained from a depth of 40 cm to 50 cm within a cryogenically frozen bed of NU-LHT-3M lunar regolith simulant doped with 5 wt% water. Upon acquisition, each sample was transferred and hermetically sealed inside a crucible. The samples were later baked out to determine water wt% and in turn volatile loss by following ASTM standard practices. Of the twelve tests, four sealed properly and lost an average of 30% of their available water during drilling and transfer. The variability in the results correlated well with ambient temperature (lower the temperature lower volatiles loss) and the trend agreed with the sublimation rates for the same temperature. Moisture retention also correlated with quantity of sample: a larger amount of material resulted in less water loss. The drilling process took an average of 10 minutes to capture and transfer each sample. The drilling power was approximately 20 Watt with a Weight on Bit of approximately 30 N. The bit temperature indicated little heat input into formation during the drilling process.
Sampling devices for sampling an aqueous source (e.g., field testing of ground water) for multiple different analytes are described. Devices include a solid phase extraction component for retention of a wide variety of targeted analytes. Devices include analyte derivatization capability for improved extraction of targeted analytes. Thus, a single device can be utilized to examine a sample source for a wide variety of analytes. Devices also include an isotope dilution capability that can prevent error introduction to the sample analysis and can correct for sample loss and degradation from the point of sampling until analysis as well as correction for incomplete or poor derivatization reactions. The devices can be field-deployable and rechargeable.
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.
For interplanetary spacecraft that will travel to destinations where future life detection experiments may be conducted or samples are to be returned to earth, we should archive and preserve relevant samples from the spacecraft and cleanrooms for evaluation at a future date.
This report presents a summary of the long-term monitoring (LTM) activities that occurred in 2019 and 2020 at Wilson Corners, Solid Waste Management Unit 001, at the John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida. The site is monitored under KSC’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. Adaptive site management is being utilized through ongoing assessment, design, and interim measures. This approach also meets the requirements of Chapter 62-780, Florida Administrative Code. The goal of LTM at this site is threefold: to determine groundwater flow characteristics, monitor the downgradient concentration trends, and monitor select locations internal to the groundwater plume. Every 5 years, upgradient and side-gradient monitoring wells are sampled to verify delineation. The last time this was performed was in 2015. Sampling of these wells in 2020 was replaced with the direct push technology investigations in October 2020 and April 2021. The activities presented in this report include three field events: (1) December 2019 -groundwater gauging of 38 monitoring wells and sampling of 36 monitoring wells; (2) May 2020 - groundwater sampling of 7 monitoring wells; and (3) December 2020 - groundwater gauging of 49 monitoring wells and sampling of 43 monitoring wells. During the December 2019 and May 2020 events, monitoring wells were sampled using passive diffusion bags and were analyzed for a “full list” of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including Freon 113. During the December 2020 event, the low flow sampling method was used, and samples were analyzed for a “select list” of VOCs, including Freon 113. The following conclusions can be made based on the 2019 and 2020 LTM results: •In December 2019 and December 2020, groundwater flow for the site was generally to the west with the individual zones only varying by occasional northerly and southerly components. This is generally consistent with historical observations at the site. •The GCTL plume continues to extend both horizontally and vertically beyond our current monitoring well network. •The vertical extent of VOCs was historically generally delineated by monitoring wells screened greater than 48 feet bls. The results from the two vertical extent monitoring wells WILC-MW0078 and WILC-MW0130 that were sampled during the 2019 and 2020 LTM indicate that groundwater VOC concentrations in both wells were greater than the GCTL. •Freon 113 was not detected above GCTLs during the 2019 and 2020 LTM events. Based on groundwater sampling activities performed during this reporting period, including recent DPT groundwater sampling conducted for the implementation of an air sparge system, the following recommendations are provided: •Install 10 new monitoring wells, which will be sampled along with 49 existing monitoring wells, to assist with delineation of the low concentration plume. The wells are listed inTable 4-1, and the proposed locations are presented on Figures4 -1 through 4-5. (Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-5 also show updated plumes and proposed performance monitoring well locations. This information will be discussed and presented under a separate cover.) •Modify the annual LTM sampling plan as presented inTable 4-1. •Sampling for future events at the site will be conducted using low flow pumping methods. The next annual LTM sampling event is currently planned for December 2021. Please note the 10 new monitoring wells will not be installed before this event but will be installed as part of the upcoming IM construction and will be sampled during baseline sampling, along with the 49 existing monitoring wells. Following this sampling event, it is recommended that the Annual LTM be combined with the performance monitoring under the IM implementation, and LTM be temporarily discontinued. Objectives of the 2021 LTM are to: (i) evaluate groundwater gradient and flow direction by collecting depth to water measurements from LTM wells; (ii) continue monitoring the peripheral VOC trends in the northern, southern, and western portions of the site by monitoring existing wells and installing and monitoring new wells as recommended; and (iii) monitor select internal plume wells.
Microbiological sampling methods presently used for enumeration of microorganisms on spacecraft surfaces require contact with easily damaged components. Estimation of viable particles on surfaces using air sampling methods in conjunction with a mathematical model would be desirable. Parameters necessary for the mathematical model are the effect of angled surfaces on viable particle collection and the number of viable cells per viable particle. Deposition of viable particles on angled surfaces closely followed a cosine function, and the number of viable cells per viable particle was consistent with a Poisson distribution. Other parameters considered by the mathematical model included deposition rate and fractional removal per unit time. A close nonlinear correlation between volumetric air sampling and airborne fallout on surfaces was established with all fallout data points falling within the 95% confidence limits as determined by the mathematical model.
# 2022 Central California Travel Study The 2022 Central California Travel Study collected demographic and travel pattern information to better understand household travel behavior in the state’s San Joaquin Valley region. ## Data Collection Agency The Fresno Council of Governments conducted the household travel study in collaboration with metropolitan planning organizations in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties in California. ## Survey Methodology The two-part study consisted of a survey and a travel diary. The survey gathered data on household demographic composition and typical travel behaviors. The travel diary gathered individual travel data during a specified travel period for all members of a given household. ## Travel Diary Methods Households with smartphones were encouraged to complete their travel diaries using the rMove smartphone app for up to seven consecutive days. Households without smartphones or those unwilling to participate via smartphone completed their travel diaries online (using the web-version of rMove) or by calling the survey call center. These households reported travel for one day (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday). ## Recruitment Sampling Methods The majority of the recruitment was conducted via address-based sampling, a type of probability sampling, with a focus on reaching county-level targets in collaboration with metropolitan planning organizations in the region. Supplemental sampling methods, primarily non-probability, were employed during all waves of data collection to improve survey representation. The supplemental sample included targeted outreach to hard-to-survey populations via transit rider email lists; local housing authorities; Nichols Research, a California-based market research firm; and the Ipsos™ KnowledgePanel, an online random probability panel. See the documentation for more information about sampling and weighting. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation In total, 7,406 households completed 19,084 surveys representing 150,012 trips across 42,567 person-days.
# 2022 Central California Travel Study The 2022 Central California Travel Study collected demographic and travel pattern information to better understand household travel behavior in the state’s San Joaquin Valley region. ## Data Collection Agency The Fresno Council of Governments conducted the household travel study in collaboration with metropolitan planning organizations in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties in California. ## Survey Methodology The two-part study consisted of a survey and a travel diary. The survey gathered data on household demographic composition and typical travel behaviors. The travel diary gathered individual travel data during a specified travel period for all members of a given household. ## Travel Diary Methods Households with smartphones were encouraged to complete their travel diaries using the rMove smartphone app for up to seven consecutive days. Households without smartphones or those unwilling to participate via smartphone completed their travel diaries online (using the web-version of rMove) or by calling the survey call center. These households reported travel for one day (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday). ## Recruitment Sampling Methods The majority of the recruitment was conducted via address-based sampling, a type of probability sampling, with a focus on reaching county-level targets in collaboration with metropolitan planning organizations in the region. Supplemental sampling methods, primarily non-probability, were employed during all waves of data collection to improve survey representation. The supplemental sample included targeted outreach to hard-to-survey populations via transit rider email lists; local housing authorities; Nichols Research, a California-based market research firm; and the Ipsos™ KnowledgePanel, an online random probability panel. See the documentation for more information about sampling and weighting. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation In total, 7,406 households completed 19,084 surveys representing 150,012 trips across 42,567 person-days.
# 2022 Central California Travel Study The 2022 Central California Travel Study collected demographic and travel pattern information to better understand household travel behavior in the state’s San Joaquin Valley region. ## Data Collection Agency The Fresno Council of Governments conducted the household travel study in collaboration with metropolitan planning organizations in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties in California. ## Survey Methodology The two-part study consisted of a survey and a travel diary. The survey gathered data on household demographic composition and typical travel behaviors. The travel diary gathered individual travel data during a specified travel period for all members of a given household. ## Travel Diary Methods Households with smartphones were encouraged to complete their travel diaries using the rMove smartphone app for up to seven consecutive days. Households without smartphones or those unwilling to participate via smartphone completed their travel diaries online (using the web-version of rMove) or by calling the survey call center. These households reported travel for one day (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday). ## Recruitment Sampling Methods The majority of the recruitment was conducted via address-based sampling, a type of probability sampling, with a focus on reaching county-level targets in collaboration with metropolitan planning organizations in the region. Supplemental sampling methods, primarily non-probability, were employed during all waves of data collection to improve survey representation. The supplemental sample included targeted outreach to hard-to-survey populations via transit rider email lists; local housing authorities; Nichols Research, a California-based market research firm; and the Ipsos™ KnowledgePanel, an online random probability panel. See the documentation for more information about sampling and weighting. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation In total, 7,406 households completed 19,084 surveys representing 150,012 trips across 42,567 person-days.
# 2022 Central California Travel Study The 2022 Central California Travel Study collected demographic and travel pattern information to better understand household travel behavior in the state’s San Joaquin Valley region. ## Data Collection Agency The Fresno Council of Governments conducted the household travel study in collaboration with metropolitan planning organizations in Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, and Tulare counties in California. ## Survey Methodology The two-part study consisted of a survey and a travel diary. The survey gathered data on household demographic composition and typical travel behaviors. The travel diary gathered individual travel data during a specified travel period for all members of a given household. ## Travel Diary Methods Households with smartphones were encouraged to complete their travel diaries using the rMove smartphone app for up to seven consecutive days. Households without smartphones or those unwilling to participate via smartphone completed their travel diaries online (using the web-version of rMove) or by calling the survey call center. These households reported travel for one day (Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday). ## Recruitment Sampling Methods The majority of the recruitment was conducted via address-based sampling, a type of probability sampling, with a focus on reaching county-level targets in collaboration with metropolitan planning organizations in the region. Supplemental sampling methods, primarily non-probability, were employed during all waves of data collection to improve survey representation. The supplemental sample included targeted outreach to hard-to-survey populations via transit rider email lists; local housing authorities; Nichols Research, a California-based market research firm; and the Ipsos™ KnowledgePanel, an online random probability panel. See the documentation for more information about sampling and weighting. ## Survey Records, Data, and Documentation In total, 7,406 households completed 19,084 surveys representing 150,012 trips across 42,567 person-days.