SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Data Variables”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 595 records · Page 33

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2021

The Attraction Indian Buffet Distribution

We propose the attraction Indian buffet distribution (AIBD), a distribution for binary feature matrices influenced by pairwise similarity information. Binary feature matrices are used in Bayesian models to uncover latent variables (i.e., features) that explain observed data. The Indian buffet process (IBP) is a popular exchangeable prior distribution for latent feature matrices. In the presence of additional information, however, the exchangeability assumption is not reasonable or desirable. The AIBD can incorporate pairwise similarity information, yet it preserves many properties of the IBP, including the distribution of the total number of features. Thus, much of the interpretation and intuition that one has for the IBP directly carries over to the AIBD. A temperature parameter controls the degree to which the similarity information affects feature-sharing between observations. Unlike other nonexchangeable distributions for feature allocations, the probability mass function of the AIBD has a tractable normalizing constant, making posterior inference on hyperparameters straight-forward using standard MCMC methods. A novel posterior sampling algorithm is proposed for the IBP and the AIBD. We demonstrate the feasibility of the AIBD as a prior distribution in feature allocation models and compare the performance of competing methods in simulations and an application.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2020

PDQ Users Manual Version 1 for PDQ Code Version 1.12

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2020

SAM Plug-in Development (Phase I Final Report)

The DOE Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) has created an extensive set of advanced modeling and simulation tools for nuclear engineering analysis. The advanced capabilities of these newer analysis codes require more in-depth training, skills, and knowledge in order to effectively utilize them for the design, analysis, and licensing of advanced nuclear systems and experiments. A high learning curve for inexperienced users may deter organizations from incorporating these tools into their internal processes. This project involved development of a plug-in to the Symbolic Nuclear Analysis Package (SNAP) for the System Analysis Module (SAM) tool. SAM is an advanced system analysis tool for reactor transient analyses being developed at Argonne National Laboratory under the U.S. DOE Office of Nuclear Energy’s Nuclear Energy Advanced Modeling and Simulation (NEAMS) program. SAM utilizes an object-oriented application framework (MOOSE), and its underlying meshing and finite-element library (libMesh) and linear and non-linear solvers (PETSc), to leverage modern advanced software environments and numerical methods. SNAP provides a highly flexible framework for creating, modifying and documenting input for engineering analysis codes such as SAM as well as extensive functionality for submitting, monitoring, and interacting with the codes through an intuitive graphical user interface (GUI). The common user interface provided by SNAP minimizes the learning curve for engineers starting with a new analysis code and provides an intuitive framework for transitioning between different analysis codes. SNAP provides a powerful but intuitive interface to facilitate access to advanced modeling and simulation tools for inexperienced users. Unlike many “form based” GUI’s, SNAP maps each engineering code’s component input to an internal database which manages all component input parameters along with component interconnections. This level of abstraction permits SNAP to support several advanced capabilities such as renodalization, model validation and consistency checks, embedded documentation, model notebook generation, data ownership and reviewer tracking, and variable assignment for inputs to name a few. SNAP includes a built-in Python interpreter and is interfaced to several commercial and open source packages including CPython, MATLAB/OCTAVE, Microsoft Office, Open Office, and SANDIA’s DAKOTA package which provides Uncertainty Quantification analysis through the SNAP plug-ins. Phase I of this project involved development a fully functional basic SAM plug-in to SNAP. This plug-in provides the ability to import existing models, graphically construct, edit and submit models using SNAP’s extensive functionality.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗

DOE OSTI2022

PDQ Users Manual. Manual Version 2, for PDQ Code Version 1.20

PDQ is a tool for the management of the input and execution of batch jobs for simulation codes that use a text based input system. It accomplishes this goal by operating at two levels. First, it takes input file templates (commonly known at LANL as input deck templates) and creates multiple instantiations by performing substitutions of data from table files into symbols (variables) found in the template. Second, it provides commands to submit the created files to the SLURM batch system for execution. These two activities taken together produce a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts and provides an elegant way of executing studies across multiple similar simulations while minimizing the risk of typographical errors in the input files. PDQ was originally developed as a job management system called XVS by Jeff McAninch while he was at LANL. Besides the capabilities described here, XVS had many other features specific for interactions with particular simulation codes. After Jeff’s departure, maintenance of XVS was taken over by Rendell Carver; he added some new features as well as kept it functioning as the batch system at LANL was changed from LSF to MOAB to SLURM. In 2017, Rob Pelak decided to develop a different version that removed the additional features (many of which were rendered obsolete with the retirement of the simulation code or batch system that they supported) and produced a cleaner “bare bones” version of XVS. A few other behaviors of XVS that Rob found irksome were altered. Rob gave the resulting code a new name: PDQ. In 2022 Danielle McDermott developed a version that runs under Python 3.X. As suggested by Rob, she used the python2to3 utility to identify most changes. Given that PDQ continues to operate with Python version 2.7 we have advanced the version number to 1.20.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2022

Tracking the Sun: Pricing and Design Trends for Distributed Photovoltaic Systems in the United States, 2022 Edition

Berkeley Lab’s annual Tracking the Sun report describes trends among grid-connected, distributed solar photovoltaic (PV) systems in the United States. The latest edition of the report focuses on systems installed through year-end 2021, and is based on data from roughly 2.5 million systems. New to the report this year is an expanded coverage of paired PV-plus-storage systems, including details on system design and pricing trends. The report describes trends related to: -Project characteristics, including system size, module efficiencies, prevalence of paired PV with storage, use of module-level power electronics, third-party ownership, mounting configurations, panel orientation, and non-residential customer segmentation ownership -Median installed-price trends, both nationally and by state, including preliminary data for first half of 2022 -Variability in pricing according to system size, state, installer, equipment type, and other factors, relying on both descriptive and econometric analysis

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Adaptive Sampling for In Situ Cloud Probe (Final Report)

Clouds play a leading role in the Earth's global energy and solar radiation balance and hydrological cycle. Improving cloud models requires detailed information on the cloud microphysical properties, such as droplet size distribution and number density, liquid water content and cloud composition (droplets, ice particles), which can only be provided by aerial in situ measurements. However, for many atmospheric measurement instruments, the lack of flexibility in selecting the operational mode during operation can lead to uncertainties in sampling and measurement characteristics under continuously varying atmospheric conditions. This SBIR project is developing an advanced, compact optical imaging technology for in situ characterization of cloud hydrometeors. The development involves a deep modification of the existing Mesa Photonics’ Cloud Droplet Measurement System (CDMS) in order to implement real-time automatic adaptive sampling based on the acquired in situ data and environmental parameters. The new system, CDMS-2, implements two measurement modes: side-scatter imaging for smaller hydrometeors and direct bright-field-illumination imaging for larger hydrometeors in a significantly larger sample volume. The system measures the droplet size distribution (DSD) and number density with an added capability of discriminating between liquid water and ice hydrometeors (based on polarization-resolved side-scatter imaging). The instrument will implement automatic switching or alternating between the regular side-scatter imaging mode and sparse/large hydrometeor mode (based on the acquired data). Other adaptive sampling capabilities include variable sample volume and dynamic range (based on the measured DSD). The preferred deployment platforms are uncrewed aircraft systems (UAS) and tethered balloon/kite systems (TBS). The Phase I project achieved (or exceeded) the goals listed in the Work Plan. A CDMS-2 laboratory prototype implementing the polarization-resolved side-scatter imaging mode and direct bright-field-illumination imaging mode was designed and built. Additional capabilities included the variable illumination pulse energy and sample volume. The smallest detectable droplet diameter was improved to 3–4 μm (from the nominal 10 μm value specified for the original CDMS). Discrimination between water droplets and ice particles was experimentally demonstrated. The Phase I prototype was extensively tested and calibrated in the laboratory and also tested in the Pi Cloud Chamber at Michigan Technological University (MTU). The two intensive experimental campaigns at MTU provided unique opportunities of testing the CDMS-2 laboratory prototype under realistic warm and mixed-phase cloud conditions (stable for long periods of time), testing different sampling modes and intercomparing the CDMS-2 prototype to other co-located cloud characterization instruments. The Phase I project successfully demonstrated the feasibility of the proposed technology and identified the engineering challenges of designing a field deployable prototype instrument in Phase II. The Phase I study provides a solid basis for development, characterization and field-testing of the proposed advanced cloud probe with adaptive sampling in Phase II followed by commercialization of the technology in Phase III.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

DOE OSTI2024

Mixed-phase Convective Clouds in the Polar Marine Boundary Layer

This proposal, a collaboration between two universities, firstly aims to describe the high-latitude CAO cloud regime using the array of instruments at the NSA (Barrow, Alaska) and at two mobile ARM sites (MARCUS 2017-18, and COMBLE 2020). These ARM data, and the multi-sensor variables we propose to derive, allow detailed descriptions of mesoscale organization of precipitation, thermodynamic profiles, vertical velocity, cloud depth, and cloud and precipitation properties. These observations are key for our second goal, which is to use output from validated cloud- and eddy-resolving simulations to gain insights into the linkages between microphysical processes, the MBL vertical structure, and the MBL dynamics that control cloud macrostructure.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Genomes to ecosystem function: Targeting critical knowledge gaps in methanogenesis and translation to updated global biogeochemical models

Natural freshwater temperate wetland systems currently represent the largest natural source of atmospheric methane, but are relatively understudied using systems biology tools (e.g. meta-omics) compared to other high producing methane systems (e.g. peat, tropical, or reconstructed wetlands). Using field investigations at the NOAA operated sentinel site on Lake Erie, methane producing activities and responses to geochemical conditions will be determined along seasonal and spatial gradients (Objective 1). Here, a combination of high-throughput activity and gas measurements, combined with high-resolution systems biology and analytical methods, will provide in depth knowledge of the microbiological, chemical, and physical constraints on methane production in wetlands. Using laboratory microcosms, the formation of anoxic microsites and their capacity to facilitate methane production in wetland soils will be simulated (Objective 2). This objective will validate the findings from the field investigations, offering a more controlled environment for teasing out the role of different yet interrelated variables. Lastly, these field and laboratory data will be used for multi-scale, process-level evaluation of an ecosystem biogeochemical model that accommodates these newly identified processes and parameterizes representation of these processes along relevant environmental gradients (Objective 3).This research will identify multiple interacting geochemical, ecological, and metabolic constraints that are poorly understood, oversimplified, or missing in global biogeochemical methane models. This proposal targets the role of oxygen limitation on methane processes in soil domains, to improve reactive transport models of microbial carbon cycling across terrestrial-aquatic soils and generate data on nutrient cycling activities in Great Lake wetlands. This information could provide new insights into the microbial controllers of Lake Erie eutrophication.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

ARM Trajectories Data Set Value-Added Product Report

The U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility’s ARM Trajectories Data Set (ARMTRAJ) Value-Added Product (VAP) provides trajectory data sets initialized at ARM deployment coordinates and configured using ARM data sets. The four trajectory data sets support aerosol, cloud, and planetary boundary-layer research. Trajectory calculations use the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model informed by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) fifth-generation atmospheric reanalysis (ERA5) data set at its highest spatial resolution (~31 km). HYSPLIT also runs at multiple initial starting locations surrounding ARM deployments (in latitude/longitude and/or vertical coordinates), facilitating an ensemble for each sample in the data sets. The ensemble mean and variability reported in ARMTRAJ improve the fidelity and provide uncertainty estimates of trajectory coordinates, thermodynamic properties, and other output fields.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

ARM Trajectories Data Set Value-Added Product Report

The U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility’s ARM Trajectories Data Set (ARMTRAJ) Value-Added Product (VAP) provides trajectory data sets initialized at ARM deployment coordinates and configured using ARM data sets. The six trajectory data sets support aerosol, cloud, planetary boundary layer, and related research (aerosol-cloud interactions, etc.), as well as studies using ARM Aerial Facility (AAF) and tethered balloon system (TBS) measurements. Trajectory calculations use the Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model informed by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) fifth-generation atmospheric reanalysis (ERA5) data set at its highest spatial resolution (~31 km). HYSPLIT also runs at multiple initial starting locations surrounding ARM deployments (in latitude/longitude and/or vertical coordinates), facilitating an ensemble for each sample in the data sets. The ensemble mean and variability reported in ARMTRAJ improve the fidelity and provide uncertainty estimates of trajectory coordinates, thermodynamic properties, and other output fields.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

An approach to learn regulation to maximize growth and entropy production rates in metabolism

Elucidating cell regulation remains a challenging task due to the complexity of metabolism and the difficulty of experimental measurements. Here we present a method for prediction of cell regulation to maximize cell growth rate while maintaining the solvent capacity of the cell. Prediction is formulated as an optimization problem using a thermodynamic framework that can leverage experimental data. We develop a formulation and variable initialization procedure that allows for computing solutions of the optimization with an interior point method. The approach is applied to photoheterotrophic growth of Rhodospirilium rubrum using ethanol as a carbon source, which has applications to biosynthesis of ethylene production. Growth is captured as the rate of synthesis of amino acids into proteins, and synthesis of nucleotide triphoshaptes into RNA and DNA. The method predicts regulation that produces a high rate of protein and RNA synthesis while DNA synthesis is reduced close to zero in agreement with production of DNA being turned off for much of the cell cycle.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

On the Use of Field RR Lyrae As Galactic Probes: IV. New Insights Into and Around the Oosterhoff Dichotomy

We discuss the largest and most homogeneous spectroscopic data set of field RR Lyrae variables (RRLs) available to date. We estimated abundances using both high-resolution and low-resolution ($Δ$S method) spectra for fundamental (RRab) and first overtone (RRc) RRLs. The iron abundances for 7941 RRLs were supplemented with similar estimates that are available in the literature, ending up with 9015 RRLs (6150 RRab, 2865 RRc). The metallicity distribution shows a mean value of $\langle$[Fe/H]$\rangle$ = -1.51 ± 0.01, and $σ$(standard deviation) = 0.41 dex with a long metal-poor tail approaching [Fe/H] ≃ - 3 and a sharp metal-rich tail approaching solar iron abundance. The RRab variables are more metal-rich ( $\langle$[Fe/H]$\rangle$ ab = -1.48 ± 0.01, $σ$ = 0.41 dex) than RRc variables ($\langle$[Fe/H]$\rangle$ c = -1.58 ± 0.01, $σ$ = 0.40 dex). The relative fraction of RRab variables in the Bailey diagram (visual amplitude versus period) located along the short-period (more metal-rich) and the long-period (more metalpoor) sequences are 80% and 20%, while RRc variables display an opposite trend, namely 30% and 70%, respectively. We found that the pulsation period of both RRab and RRc variables steadily decreases when moving from the metal-poor to the metal-rich regime. Furthermore, the visual amplitude shows the same trend, but RRc amplitudes are almost two times more sensitive than RRab amplitudes to metallicity. We also investigated the dependence of the population ratio (N $c$ /N tot ) of field RRLs on the metallicity and we found that the distribution is more complex than in globular clusters. The population ratio steadily increases from ~0.25 to ~0.36 in the metal-poor regime, it decreases from ~0.36 to ~0.18 for -1.8 ≤ [Fe/H] ≤ -0.9 and it increases to a value of ~0.3 approaching solar iron abundance.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗

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 OSTI2022

Identifications of RR Lyrae Stars and Quasars from the Simulated Data of Mephisto-W Survey

We have investigated the feasibilities and accuracies of the identifications of RR Lyrae stars and quasars from the simulated data of the Multi-channel Photometric Survey Telescope (Mephisto) W Survey. Based on the variable sources light curve libraries from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Stripe 82 data and the observation history simulation from the Mephisto-W Survey Scheduler, we have simulated the uvgriz multi-band light curves of RR Lyrae stars, quasars and other variable sources for the first-year observation of Mephisto W Survey. We have applied the ensemble machine learning algorithm Random Forest Classifier (RFC) to identify RR Lyrae stars and quasars, respectively. We build training and test samples and extract ~150 features from the simulated light curves and train two RFCs respectively for the RR Lyrae star and quasar classification. We find that, our RFCs are able to select the RR Lyrae stars and quasars with remarkably high precision and completeness, with purity = 95.4% and completeness = 96.9% for the RR Lyrae RFC and purity = 91.4% and completeness = 90.2% for the quasar RFC. In conclusion, we have also derived relative importances of the extracted features utilized to classify RR Lyrae stars and quasars.

(galaxies:) quasars: general↗

DOE OSTI2025

Data and scripts from: “Denoising autoencoder for reconstructing sensor observation data and predicting evapotranspiration: noisy and missing values repair and uncertainty quantification”

This data package includes data and scripts from the manuscript “Denoising autoencoder for reconstructing sensor observation data and predicting evapotranspiration: noisy and missing values repair and uncertainty quantification”.The study addressed common challenges faced in environmental sensing and modeling, including uncertain input data, missing sensor observations, and high-dimensional datasets with interrelated but redundant variables. Point-scaled meteorological and soil sensor observations were perturbed with noises and missing values, and denoising autoencoder (DAE) neural networks were developed to reconstruct the perturbed data and further predict evapotranspiration. This study concluded that (1) the reconstruction quality of each variable depends on its cross-correlation and alignment to the underlying data structure, (2) uncertainties from the models were overall stronger than those from the data corruption, and (3) there was a tradeoff between reducing bias and reducing variance when evaluating the uncertainty of the machine learning models.This package includes:(1) Four ipython scripts (.ipynb): “DAE_train.ipynb” trains and evaluates DAE neural networks, “DAE_predict.ipynb” makes predictions from the trained DAE models, “ET_train.ipynb” trains and evaluates ET prediction neural networks, and “ET_predict.ipynb” makes predictions from trained ET models.(2) One python file (.py): “methods.py” includes all user-defined functions and python codes used in the ipython scripts.(3) A “sub_models” folder that includes five trained DAE neural networks (in pytorch format, .pt), which could be used to ingest input data before being fed to the downstream ET models in ‘ET_train.ipynb” or ‘ET_predict.ipynb’.(4) Two data files (.csv). Daily meteorological, vegetation, and soil data is in “df_data.csv”, where “df_meta.csv” contains the location and time information of “df_data.csv”. Each row (index) in “df_meta.csv” corresponds to each row in “df_data.csv”. These data files are formatted to follow the data structure requirements and be directly used in the ipython scripts, and they have been shuffled chronologically to train machine learning models. The meteorological and soil data was collected using point sensors between 2019-2023 at(4.a) Three shrub-dominated field sites in East River, Colorado (named “ph1”, “ph2” and “sg5” in “df_meta.csv”, where “ph1” and “ph2” were located at PumpHouse Hillslopes, and “sg5” was at Snodgrass Mountain meadow) and(4.b) One outdoor, mesoscale, and herbaceous-dominated experiment in Berkeley, California (named “tb” in “df_meta.csv”, short for Smartsoils Testbed at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab).- See "df_data_dd.csv" and "df_meta_dd.csv" for variable descriptions and the Methods section for additional data processing steps. See "flmd.csv" and "README.txt" for brief file descriptions.- All ipython scripts and python files are written in and require PYTHON language software.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Prediction of Potential and Actual Evapotranspiration Fluxes Using Six Meteorological Data-Based Approaches for a Range of Climate and Land Cover Types

Evapotranspiration is the major component of the water cycle, so a correct estimate of this variable is fundamental. The purpose of the present research is to assess the monthly scale accuracy of six meteorological data-based models in the prediction of evapotranspiration (ET) losses by comparing the modelled fluxes with the observed ones from eight sites equipped with eddy covariance stations which differ in terms of vegetation and climate type. Three potential ET methods (Penman-Monteith, Priestley-Taylor, and Blaney-Criddle models) and three actual ET models (the Advection-Aridity, the Granger and Gray, and the Antecedent Precipitation Index method) have been proposed. The findings show that the models performances differ from site to site and they depend on the vegetation and climate characteristics. Indeed, they show a wide range of error values ranging from 0.18 to 2.78. It has been not possible to identify a single model able to outperform the others in each biome, but in general, the Advection-Aridity approach seems to be the most accurate, especially when the model calibration in not carried out. It returns very low error values close to 0.38. When the calibration procedure is performed, the most accurate model is the Granger and Gray approach with minimum error of 0.13 but, at the same time, it is the most impacted by this process, and therefore, in a context of data scarcity, it results the less recommended for ET prediction. The performances of the investigated ET approaches have been furthermore tested in case of lack of measured data of soil heat fluxes and net radiation considering using empirical relationships based on meteorological data to derive these variables. Results show that, the use of empirical formulas to derive ET estimates increases the errors up to 200% with the consequent loss of model accuracy.

net radiation↗