Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “water metering”

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 OSTI2022

ResOpsUS, a dataset of historical reservoir operations in the contiguous United States

Abstract There are over 52,000 dams in the contiguous US ranging from 0.5 to 243 meters high that collectively hold 600,000 million cubic meters of water. These structures have dramatically affected the river dynamics of every major watershed in the country. While there are national datasets that document dam attributes, there is no national dataset of reservoir operations. Here we present a dataset of historical reservoir inflows, outflows and changes in storage for 679 major reservoirs across the US, called ResOpsUS. All of the data are provided at a daily temporal resolution. Temporal coverage varies by reservoir depending on construction date and digital data availability. Overall, the data spans from 1930 to 2020, although the best coverage is for the most recent years, particularly 1980 to 2020. The reservoirs included in our dataset cover more than half of the total storage of large reservoirs in the US (defined as reservoirs with storage greater 0.1 km 3 ). We document the assembly process of this dataset as well as its contents. Historical operations are also compared to static reservoir attribute datasets for validation.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Search for low-mass electron-recoil dark matter using a single-charge sensitive SuperCDMS-HVeV detector

We present constraints on low-mass dark matter electron scattering and absorption interactions using a SuperCDMS high-voltage eV-resolution (HVeV) detector. Data were taken underground in the NEXUS facility located at Fermilab with an overburden of 225 meters of water equivalent. The experiment benefits from the minimizing of luminescence from the printed circuit boards in the detector holder used in all previous HVeV studies. A blind analysis of 6.1 g · days of exposure produces exclusion limits for dark matter-electron scattering cross sections for masses as low as 1 MeV/𝑐 2 , as well as on the photon-dark photon mixing parameter and the coupling constant between axionlike particles and electrons for particles with masses >1.2 eV/𝑐 2 probed via absorption processes.

dark matter direct detection↗
DOE OSTI2025

Light dark matter constraints from SuperCDMS HVeV detectors operated underground with an anticoincidence event selection

This article presents constraints on dark-matter-electron interactions obtained from the first underground data-taking campaign with multiple SuperCDMS HVeV detectors operated in the same housing. An exposure of 7.63 g−days is used to set upper limits on the dark-matter-electron scattering cross section for dark matter masses between 0.5 and 1000 MeV/𝑐 2 , as well as upper limits on dark photon kinetic mixing and axionlike particle axioelectric coupling for masses between 1.2 and 23.3 eV/𝑐 2 . Compared to an earlier HVeV search, sensitivity was improved as a result of an increased overburden of 225 meters of water equivalent, an anticoincidence event selection, and better pile-up rejection. In the case of dark-matter-electron scattering via a heavy mediator, an improvement by up to a factor of 25 in cross section sensitivity was achieved.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2025

Search for low-mass electron-recoil dark matter using a single-charge sensitive SuperCDMS-HVeV Detector

We present constraints on low mass dark matter-electron scattering and absorption interactions using a SuperCDMS high-voltage eV-resolution (HVeV) detector. Data were taken underground in the NEXUS facility located at Fermilab with an overburden of 225 meters of water equivalent. The experiment benefits from the minimizing of luminescence from the printed circuit boards in the detector holder used in all previous HVeV studies. A blind analysis of $6.1\,\mathrm{g\cdot days}$ of exposure produces exclusion limits for dark matter-electron scattering cross-sections for masses as low as $1\,\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$, as well as on the photon-dark photon mixing parameter and the coupling constant between axion-like particles and electrons for particles with masses $>1.2\,\mathrm{eV}/c^2$ probed via absorption processes.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
NASA NTRS1973

The use of near-infrared photography for biodegradable pollution monitoring of tidal rivers

On October 2, 1972, a pattern of chlorophyll a containing phytoplankton (algae) was detected from 3-km altitude in a series of near-infrared photographs of the Potomac River 'Salt Wedge Area.' Densitometer traces over the film images, related to in situ measurements of chlorophyll a concentrations that varied from 4 to more than 3000 micrograms/liter, revealed a phytoplankton 'bloom' threshold in the near infrared between the concentration of 34 and 51 micrograms/liter. The photography also revealed bottom features through two meters of water and made it possible to integrate chlorophyll a concentrations over a 16 sq km area to demonstrate this remote sensing technique for biodegradable pollution monitoring.

Bressette, W. E.↗
NASA NTRS1982

A Miocene submarine volcano at Low Layton, Jamaica

A submarine fissure eruption of Upper Miocene age produced a modest volume of alkaline basalt at Low Layton, on the north coast of Jamaica. The eruption occurred in no more than a few hundred meters of water and produced a series of hyaloclastites, pillow breccias and pillow lavas, massive lavas, and dikes with an ENE en echelon structure. The volcano lies on the trend of one of the island's major E-W strike-slip fault zones; the Dunavale Fault Zone. The K-Ar age of the eruption of 9.5 plus or minus 0.5 Ma. B.P. corresponds to an extension of the Mid-Cayman Rise spreading center inferred from magnetic anomalies and bathymetry of the Cayman Trough to the north and west of Jamaica. The Low Layton eruption was part of the response of the strike-slip fault systems adjacent to this spreading center during this brief episode of tectonic readjustment.

Wadge, G.↗
NASA NTRS1993

The ancient oxygen exosphere of Mars - Implications for atmosphere evolution

The paper considers absorption of oxygen (atoms and ions) by the surface as a mechanism for the early Martian atmosphere escape, due to the effect of high EUV flux of the ancient sun. Hot oxygen exosphere densities in ancient atmosphere and ionosphere are calculated for different EUV fluxes and the escape fluxes associated with these exposures. Using these densities, the ion production rate above the ionopause is calculated for different epochs including photoionization, charge exchange, and solar wind electron impact. It is found that, when the inferred high solar EUV fluxes of the past are taken into account, oxygen equivalent to that in several tens of meters of water, planet-wide, should have escaped Martian atmosphere to space over the last 3 Gyr.

Zhang, M. H. G.↗
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 Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors at Snodgrass Mountain. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format SG-X-Y, where SG refers to Snodgrass Mountain, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, SG-EHS is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and SG-ERTn (upslope n=1) are points along the Snodgrass electrical resistivity tomography transect not associated with the existing site names in the directory. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at 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↗
NASA NTRS1991

Water on Mars: Volatile history and resource availability

The existence of water on Mars is undisputed today. Measurements of atmospheric water vapor have shown that the abundance varies with location and season in a systematic way which depends on processes of exchange with the polar caps, regolith, and atmosphere. Channels, which give the appearance of having been carved by water or of having had water involved in their formation, appear in various locations on the surface; some were formed by catastrophic outflow of water from beneath the surface, while others form valley networks which give the appearance of having formed over long periods of time primarily early in the planet's history. The north polar residual cap consists of water ice, possibly containing an amount of water equivalent to a global layer several tens of meters thick. Finally, water is observed within the regolith, as adsorbed water or as water of hydration.

Jakosky, Bruce M.↗
NASA NTRS1950

Effects of Inlet Icing on Performance of Axial-flow Turbojet Engine in Natural Icing Conditions

A flight investigation in natural icing conditions was conducted to determine the effect of inlet ice formations on the performance of axial-flow turbojet engines. The results are presented for icing conditions ranging from a liquid-water content of 0.1 to 0.9 gram per cubic meter and water-droplet size from 10 to 27 microns at ambient-air temperature from 13 to 26 degrees F. The data show time histories of jet thrust, air flow, tail-pipe temperature, compressor efficiency, and icing parameters for each icing encounter. The effect of inlet-guide-vane icing was isolated and shown to account for approximately one-half the total reduction in performance caused by inlet icing.

COMPRESSORS - AXIAL FLOW↗
NASA NTRS2022

Mapping Firn Saturation over Greenland using NASA’s Soil Moisture Active Passive Satellite

Mapping the spatial extent of recently identified englacial hydrological features (i.e., ice slabs and perennial firn aquifers) formed by meters-thick water-saturated firn layers over the percolation facies of the Greenland Ice Sheet using L-band microwave radiometry has recently been demonstrated. However, these initial maps are binary, and do not provide a parameter to estimate the spatial variability in the thickness and volumetric fraction of meltwater stored within the firn pore space. Here, we exploit enhanced-resolution vertical-polarization L-band brightness temperature (T^(B)_(V)) imagery (2015–2019) generated using observations collected over Greenland by NASA’s Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) satellite and a simple two-layer L-band brightness temperature model. We map water-saturated firn layers via a “firn saturation” parameter, and interpret our results together with ice slab and perennial firn aquifer spatial extents, estimates of snow accumulation simulated via the Regional Atmospheric Climate Model (RACMOp2.3), and airborne radar surveys collected via NASA’s Operation IceBridge (OIB) campaigns. We find that variable firn saturation parameter values are mapped in lower snow accumulation ice slab areas in western, northern, and northeastern Greenland, where firn is colder and water-saturated firn layers seasonally refreeze as solid-ice. Higher firn saturation parameter values are mapped in higher snow accumulation perennial firn aquifer areas in southeastern, southern, and northwestern Greenland, where firn is near the melting point, and meters-thick water-saturated firn layers exist. Our results have implications for identifying expansive englacial reservoirs that store significant volumes of meltwater in locations that are vulnerable to meltwater-induced hydrofracturing and accelerated outlet glacier flow year-round.

Greenland ice sheet↗
NASA NTRS2016

Inland and Near-Shore Water Profiles Derived from the High-Altitude Multiple Altimeter Beam Experimental Lidar (MABEL)

The Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System (ATLAS) on the Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat-2) mission is a six beam, low energy, high repetition rate, 532-nanometer laser transmitter with photon counting detectors. Although designed primarily for detecting height changes in ice caps, sea ice, and vegetation, the polar-orbiting satellite will observe global surface water during its designed three-year life span, including inland waterbodies, coasts, and open oceans. In preparation for the mission, an ICESat-2 prototype, the Multiple Altimeter Beam Experimental Lidar (MABEL), was built and flown on high-altitude aircraft experiments over a range of inland and near-shore targets. The purpose was to test the ATLAS concept and to provide a database for developing an algorithm that detects along track surface water height and light penetration under a range of atmospheric and water conditions. The current analysis examines the data sets of three MABEL transects observed from 20 kilometers above ground of coastal and inland waters conducted in 2012 and 2013. Transects ranged from about 2 to 12 kilometers in length and included the middle Chesapeake Bay, the near-shore Atlantic coast at Virginia Beach, and Lake Mead. Results indicate MABEL's high capability for retrieving surface water height statistics with a mean height precision ofapproximately 5-7 centimeters per 100-meter segment length. Profiles of attenuated subsurface backscatter, characterized using a Signal to Background Ratio written in Log10 base, or LSBR (sub 0), were observed over a range of 1.3 to 9.3 meters, depending on water clarity and atmospheric background. Results indicate that observable penetration depth, although primarily dependent on water properties, was greatest when the solar background rate was low. Near-shore bottom reflectance was detected only at the Lake Mead site down to a maximum of 10 meters under a clear night sky and low turbidity of approximately 1.6 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). The overall results suggest that the feasibility of retrieving operational surface water height statistics from space-based photon counting systems such as ATLAS is very high for resolutions down to about 100 meters, even in partly cloudy conditions. The capability to observe subsurface backscatterprofiles is achievable but requires much longer transects of several hundreds of meters.

inland↗
DOE OSTI2020

Hedonic Price Estimates of Lake Water Quality: Valued Attribute, Instrumental Variables, and Ecological-Economic Benefits

We estimate the effect of lake water quality on residential housing prices using cross-sectional data on water clarity from 113 lakes across the United States. An instrumental-variables approach is developed to address potential endogeneity bias in the water-clarity variable. Three lake-based physical variables serve as instrumental variables: total nitrogen concentration in lake water, total phosphorus concentration in lake water, and water temperature near the lake surface. The econometric results include three methodological findings: the instruments are valid and strong; the ordinary-least-squares estimate of the coefficient on the water-clarity variable is unbiased; and water clarity is the attribute of water quality valued in the housing market. The estimated water-clarity effect shows that a one-tenth of a meter change in water clarity leads to a one-percent change in housing price, or an elasticity of 0.20 at mean clarity. Coupling this effect with estimates of an ecological production function, a lake-specific benefit index is developed that shows the effect on housing values of bringing lakes into compliance with the US Environmental Protection Agency's regional recommendations for phosphorous concentration in lake waters.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2021

Coastal California Water Resources II: Utilizing NASA Earth Observations to Detect and Assess the Impacts of Estuarine Breach Events for Improved Coastal Wetland Monitoring and Management

Estuaries are dynamic environments that provide a host of vital ecosystem services. California’s Marine Life Protection Act protects such ecosystems by creating Marine Protected Areas. California has approximately 440,000 acres of estuarine habitats as well as 23 Estuarine Marine Protected Areas (EMPAs); thus, in situ data collection is often difficult due to time and resource constraints. This project used remote sensing to gather data that examined the health and dynamics of California EMPAs in order to supplement ground-based field measurements. Through the use of Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager (OLI) and Thermal Infrared Sensor (TIRS), Sentinel-2 Multispectral Instrument (MSI) and Sentinel-1 C-band Synthetic Aperture Radar (C-SAR), this project assessed mouth state, inundation extent, turbidity, temperature, and tidal measurements for observable estuaries. The Normalized Water Difference Index from Sentinel-2 MSI captured estuary mouth state and inundation extent. Landsat 8 OLI and Sentinel-2 MSI detected differences in water quality metrics that correlated to changes in estuary mouth state (i.e., open or closed). The team’s California Estuary Assessment (CEA) tool in Google Earth Engine was successful in analyzing estuary mouth state, inundation, and water quality. It was most effective when breach events were larger than 10 meters in resolution, water surface was smooth, and imagery was unimpeded by algae or sun glint. The CEA tool will allow the partners, the Ocean Protection Council, Central Coast Wetlands Group, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and Davis (UCD), to better understand estuary dynamics and more effectively conduct in situ estuary monitoring.

Sarah Payne↗
NASA NTRS1985

Observation of EAS using a large water tank

Using a large water tank (30 m in diameter, 4.5 m in depth) transition of extensive air showers (EAS) was investigated at Taro (200 m above sea level). There are set 150,0.4 sq m proportional counters on the bottom of the water tank. A conventional EAS array of 25 plastic scintillation detectors was arranged within several tens meter from the water tank. A proportional counter (10x10x200 cc x2) is made of a square shaped pipe of iron. Tungsten wire (100 mu m phi) is stretched tight in the center of the counter. A gas mixture of 90% argon and 10% methane is used at 760 mmHg. About 3000 EAS were obtained through 1 m of water since 1984.

Inoue, K.↗