SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “missing information”

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 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 OSTI2025

Economic and environmental performance of biomass gasification for renewable natural gas production in the context of the U.S. natural gas supply

Bioenergy technologies offer potential for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. One such promising technology is biomass gasification, which is the conversion of biomass into renewable natural gas (RNG) for use with a natural gas combined-cycle power generation system. However, the associated economic and emission effects need to be better understood to enable optimal decision-making and avoid missed opportunities for enhancing efficiency and increasing system circularity. This analysis explores opportunities to (1) decarbonize natural-gas-based systems and (2) leverage the extensive US natural gas infrastructure to mobilize biomass resources to achieve environmental and economic benefits. Here, in this analysis, the research team used a spatially explicit biomass logistics model (integrated with relevant biomass availability, technoeconomic analysis, and life cycle assessment information) to simulate economically optimal biomass allocation for RNG production and use for decarbonization in the United States. Results show that the United States has the potential to produce 9203 million GJ of RNG within the expected range of $\$$12–30/GJ. Further analyses tested the overall RNG production system's sensitivity to economic and emissions parameters of nine different processes. The sensitivity analysis results indicate that the median carbon abatement cost of RNG is most sensitive to changes in emissions associated with conversion processes and land use changes. These findings provide a deeper understanding of RNG's economic and emission potential for decision-making and guiding future research.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

DOE OSTI2014

Development of Bayesian analysis program for extraction of polarisation observables at CLAS

At the mass scale of a proton, the strong force is not well understood. Various quark models exist, but it is important to determine which quark model(s) are most accurate. Experimentally, finding resonances predicted by some models and not others would give valuable insight into this fundamental interaction. Several labs around the world use photoproduction experiments to find these missing resonances. The aim of this work is to develop a robust Bayesian data analysis program for extracting polarisation observables from pseudoscalar meson photoproduction experiments using CLAS at Jefferson Lab. This method, known as nested sampling, has been compared to traditional methods and has incorporated data parallelisation and GPU programming. It involves an event-by-event likelihood function, which has no associated loss of information from histogram binning, and results can be easily constrained to the physical region. One of the most important advantages of the nested sampling approach is that data from different experiments can be combined and analysed simultaneously. Results on both simulated and previously analysed experimental data for the K{sup +}Λ channel will be discussed.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2018

Machine Learning to Improve Retrieval by Category in Big Volunteered Geodata

Nowadays, Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) is commonly used in research and practical applications. However, the quality assurance of such a geographic data remains a problem. In this study we use machine learning and natural language processing to improve record retrieval by category (e.g. restaurant, museum, etc.) from Wikimapia Points of Interest data. We use textual information contained in VGI records to evaluate its ability to determine the category label. The performance of the trained classifier is evaluated on the complete dataset and then is compared with its performance on regional subsets. Preliminary analysis shows significant difference in the classifier performance across the regions. Such geographic differences will have a significant effect on data enrichment efforts such as labeling entities with missing categories.

Sorokine, Alexandre↗

DOE OSTI2023

Reducing Artifacts in BF and HAADF-STEM Images of Pt/C Fuel Cells using MBIR-ARAR

Electron tomography is a powerful tool for characterization of three-dimensional (3D) nanoscale materials and devices. Bright-field (BF) and high-angle annular dark-field (HAADF) scanning transmission electron microscopy (STEM) are two widely used imaging modes in electron tomography. These imaging modalities have proven to be useful for characterizing the structure of carbon-supported platinum (Pt/C) electrocatalysts used in fuel cells, which are an important class of clean energy conversion systems. BF and HAADF-STEM images are typically simultaneously acquired due to the complementary information they contain, as BF-STEM is more suitable for characterizing carbon due to its ability to detect lighter elements, while HAADF-STEM is more suitable for characterizing platinum due to its sensitivity to atomic number. However, the quality of BF- and HAADF-STEM images is often compromised by various artifacts, such as local blurring due to abrupt contrast changes as well as missing wedge artifacts which can severely impact the accuracy of the reconstructed 3D images. The traditional methods of reconstruction, such as Filtered Back-projection (FBP), Simultaneous Iterative Reconstruction Technique (SIRT), and Model-Based Iterative Reconstruction (MBIR), are often not suitable for removing these artifacts effectively. Here, to address this challenge, we present a novel approach called MBIR with Artifact Reduction and Adaptive Regularization (MBIR-ARAR).

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗

DOE OSTI2024

COMPASS-FME Synoptic Sites Level 1 Sensor Data v1-2

This is the version 1-2 Level 1 (L1) data release for COMPASS-FME environmental sensors located at our synoptic field sites. COMPASS-FME is studying sites in two distinct regions, the Chesapeake Bay and the Western Lake Erie Basin. We established the network at seven "synoptic" (observational) sites along the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie coastlines, collectively generating over three million observations per month, to track and comprehend environmental changes where land and water intersect. Additionally, the two regions provide an interesting contrast of saltwater and freshwater coasts that allow us to differentiate the impacts of inundation and coastal water chemistries in two nationally important coastal systems.L1 data are close to raw, but are units-transformed and have out-of-instrument-bounds and out-of-service flags added. Duplicates and missing data are removed but otherwise these data are not filtered, and have not been subject to any additional algorithmic or human QA/QC. Any scientific analyses of L1 data should be performed with care. **This dataset will be updated quarterly with new data for the duration of the project**This dataset includes:- An overall dataset README file that describes the current version, gives citation and contact information, etc.- Site- and year-specific folders, each holding up to 12 CSV (comma separated value) data files for each site and plot in that year.- Metadata files within each site-year folder provide full information on data units, expected ranges, contact information, as well as a general description of the site.- Environmental sensor types that appear in the data files include weather (ClimaVUE50, CS, RM Young, and LI instruments in the graphs below); soil conditions (TEROS12); soil redox state (Redox); groundwater variables (AquaTROLL200 and AquaTROLL600); open water sondes (Exo); tree sap velocity (Sapflow); and system voltage and state (Datalogger). Data are normally logged every 15 minutes. Please see v1-2 Synoptic L1 Sensor Package Quick Start.pdf for detailed information on data package structure, temporal coverage, and versioning.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

COMPASS-FME Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments (TEMPEST) Experiment Level 1 Sensor Data v1-2

This is the version 1-2 Level 1 (L1) data release for COMPASS-FME environmental sensors located at our Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments (TEMPEST) experimental site. This manipulative, ecosystem-scale TEMPEST experiment addresses the potential for freshwater and estuarine-water disturbance events to alter tree function, species composition, and ecosystem processes in a deciduous coastal forest in MD, USA. The experiment uses a large-unit (2000 m2), un-replicated experimental design, with three 50 m × 40 m plots serving as control, freshwater, and estuarine-water treatments.L1 data are close to raw, but are units-transformed and have out-of-instrument-bounds and out-of-service flags added. Duplicates and missing data are removed but otherwise these data are not filtered, and have not been subject to any additional algorithmic or human QA/QC. Any scientific analyses of L1 data should be performed with care. **This dataset will be updated quarterly with new data for the duration of the project**This dataset includes:- An overall dataset README file that describes the current version, gives citation and contact information, etc.- Site- and year-specific folders, each holding up to 12 CSV (comma separated value) data files for each site and plot in that year.- Metadata files within each site-year folder provide full information on data units, expected ranges, contact information, detailed flood times, as well as a general description of the site.- Environmental sensor types that appear in the data files include weather (ClimaVUE50, CS, RM Young, and LI instruments in the graphs below); soil conditions (TEROS12); soil redox state (Redox); groundwater variables (AquaTROLL200 and AquaTROLL600); open water sondes (Exo); tree sap velocity (Sapflow); and system voltage and state (Datalogger). Data are normally logged every 15 minutes.Please see v1-2 TEMPEST L1 Sensor Package Quick Start.pdf for detailed information on data package structure, temporal coverage, and versioning.The TEMPEST flood events occurred on the following dates. They lasted for ~10 hours each day and delivered ~80,000 gallons to each plot; many data streams are available at 1 or 5 minute frequency during these periods.* Tests: Aug 25 (fresh plot) and Sep 9 (salt plot), 2021* TEMPEST 1: June 22, 2022* TEMPEST 2: June 6-7, 2023* TEMPEST 3: June 11-13, 2024

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

COMPASS-FME Synoptic Sites Level 1 Sensor Data v2-1

This is the version 2-1 Level 1 (L1) data release for COMPASS-FME environmental sensors located at our synoptic field sites. COMPASS-FME is studying sites in two distinct regions, the Chesapeake Bay and the Western Lake Erie Basin. We established the network at seven "synoptic" (observational) sites along the Chesapeake Bay and Lake Erie coastlines, collectively generating over three million observations per month, to track and comprehend environmental changes where land and water intersect. Additionally, the two regions provide an interesting contrast of saltwater and freshwater coasts that allow us to differentiate the impacts of inundation and coastal water chemistries in two nationally important coastal systems. L1 data are close to raw, but are units-transformed and have out-of-instrument-bounds, out-of-service, and outlier flags added. Duplicates and missing data are removed but otherwise these data are not filtered, and have not been subject to any additional algorithmic or human QA/QC. Any scientific analyses of L1 data should be performed with care. **This dataset will be updated quarterly with new data for the duration of the project** This dataset includes: - An overall dataset README file that describes the current version, gives citation and contact information, etc. - Site- and year-specific folders, each holding up to 12 CSV (comma separated value) data files for each site and plot in that year. - Metadata files within each site-year folder provide full information on data units, expected ranges, contact information, as well as a general description of the site. - Environmental sensor types that appear in the data files include weather (ClimaVUE50, CS, RM Young, and LI instruments in the graphs below); soil conditions (TEROS12); soil redox state (Redox); groundwater variables (AquaTROLL200 and AquaTROLL600); open water sondes (Exo); tree sap velocity (Sapflow); and system voltage and state (Datalogger). Data are normally logged every 15 minutes. Please see v2-0 Synoptic L1 Sensor Package Quick Start.pdf for detailed information on data package structure, temporal coverage, and versioning. This dataset was updated 2026-03-12: (i) data now go through 2025-12-31 (previous end was 2025-06-30) and (ii) dataset and file names updated to “…v2-1” (previously was “v2-0”).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

COMPASS-FME Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments (TEMPEST) Experiment Level 1 Sensor Data v2-1

This is the version 2-1 Level 1 (L1) data release for COMPASS-FME environmental sensors located at our Terrestrial Ecosystem Manipulation to Probe the Effects of Storm Treatments (TEMPEST) experimental site. This manipulative, ecosystem-scale TEMPEST experiment addresses the potential for freshwater and estuarine-water disturbance events to alter tree function, species composition, and ecosystem processes in a deciduous coastal forest in MD, USA. The experiment uses a large-unit (2000 m2), un-replicated experimental design, with three 50 m × 40 m plots serving as control, freshwater, and estuarine-water treatments. L1 data are close to raw, but are units-transformed and have out-of-instrument-bounds, out-of-service, and outlier flags added. Duplicates and missing data are removed but otherwise these data are not filtered, and have not been subject to any additional algorithmic or human QA/QC. Any scientific analyses of L1 data should be performed with care. **This dataset will be updated quarterly with new data for the duration of the project** This dataset includes: - An overall dataset README file that describes the current version, gives citation and contact information, etc. - Site- and year-specific folders, each holding variable-specific CSV (comma separated value) data files for each site and plot in that year. - Metadata files within each site-year folder provide full information on data units, expected ranges, contact information, detailed flood times, as well as a general description of the site. - Environmental sensor types that appear in the data files include weather (ClimaVUE50, CS, RM Young, and LI instruments in the graphs below); soil conditions (TEROS12); soil redox state (Redox); groundwater variables (AquaTROLL200 and AquaTROLL600); open water sondes (Exo); tree sap velocity (Sapflow); and system voltage and state (Datalogger). Data are normally logged every 15 minutes. Please see v2-1 TEMPEST L1 Sensor Package Quick Start.pdf for detailed information on data package structure, temporal coverage, and versioning. The TEMPEST flood events occurred on the following dates. They lasted for ~10 hours each day and delivered ~80,000 gallons to each plot; many data streams are available at 1 or 5 minute frequency during these periods. * Tests: Aug 25 (fresh plot) and Sep 9 (salt plot), 2021 * TEMPEST 1: June 22, 2022 * TEMPEST 2: June 6-7, 2023 * TEMPEST 3: June 11-13, 2024 This dataset was updated 2026-03-12: (i) data now go through 2025-12-31 (previous end was 2025-06-30) and (ii) dataset and file names updated to “…v2-1” (previously was “v2-0”).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS1989

STS-27R OV-104 Orbiter TPS damage review team, volume 1

Following the return to earth on December 2, 1988, of Orbiter OV-104, Atlantis, it was observed that there was substantial Thermal Protection System (TPS) tile damage present on the lower right fuselage and wing. Damage sites were more numerous than on previous flights and conversely, there was almost no damage present on Atlantis' left side. A review team investigated the cause beginning with a detailed inspection of the Atlantis TPS damage, and a review of related inspection reports to establish an indepth anomaly definition. An exhaustive data review followed. A fault tree and several failure scenarios were developed. Finally, the failure scenarios were categorized as either not possible, possible but not probable, or probable. This and other information gained during the review formed the basis for the team's findings and recommendations. The team concluded that the most probable cause of the severe STS-27R Orbiter tile damage is that the ablative insulating material covering the RH SRB Nose Cap dislodged and struck the Orbiter tile near 85 seconds into flight and possibly that debris from other sources, including repaired insulation and missing joint cork, caused minor tile damage. Findings are presented, and recommendations that are believed pertinent to minimizing the potential for inflight debris are described.

Thomas, John W.↗

NASA NTRS2002

Flight Test Evaluation of the Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing (AILS) Concept

The Airborne Information for Lateral Spacing (AILS) concept is designed to support independent parallel approach operations to runways spaced as close as 2,500 feet. This report briefly describes the AILS operational concept and the results of a flight test of one implementation of this concept. The focus of this flight test experiment was to validate a prior simulator study, evaluating pilot performance, pilot acceptability, and minimum miss-distances for the rare situation in which an aircraft on one approach intrudes into the path of an aircraft on the other approach. Although the flight data set was not meant to be a statistically valid sample, the trends acquired in flight followed those of the simulator and therefore met the intent of validating the findings from the simulator. Results from this study showed that the design-goal mean miss-distance of 1,200 feet to potential collision situations was surpassed with an actual mean miss-distance of 1,859 feet. Pilot reaction times to the alerting system, which was an operational concern, averaged 0.65 seconds, were well below the design goal reaction time of 2.0 seconds. From the results of both of these tests, it can be concluded that this operational concept, with supporting technology and procedures, may provide an operationally viable means for conducting simultaneous, independent instrument approaches to runways spaced as close as 2500 ft.

Abbott, Terence S.↗

NASA NTRS2006

Improved Thin Cirrus and Terminator Cloud Detection in CERES Cloud Mask

Thin cirrus clouds account for about 20-30% of the total cloud coverage and affect the global radiation budget by increasing the Earth's albedo and reducing infrared emissions. Thin cirrus, however, are often underestimated by traditional satellite cloud detection algorithms. This difficulty is caused by the lack of spectral contrast between optically thin cirrus and the surface in techniques that use visible (0.65 micron ) and infrared (11 micron ) channels. In the Clouds and the Earth s Radiant Energy System (CERES) Aqua Edition 1 (AEd1) and Terra Edition 3 (TEd3) Cloud Masks, thin cirrus detection is significantly improved over both land and ocean using a technique that combines MODIS high-resolution measurements from the 1.38 and 11 micron channels and brightness temperature differences (BTDs) of 11-12, 8.5-11, and 3.7-11 micron channels. To account for humidity and view angle dependencies, empirical relationships were derived with observations from the 1.38 micron reflectance and the 11-12 and 8.5-11 micron BTDs using 70 granules of MODIS data in 2002 and 2003. Another challenge in global cloud detection algorithms occurs near the day/night terminator where information from the visible 0.65 micron channel and the estimated solar component of 3.7 micron channel becomes less reliable. As a result, clouds are often underestimated or misidentified near the terminator over land and ocean. Comparisons between the CLAVR-x (Clouds from Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer [AVHRR]) cloud coverage and Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (GLAS) measurements north of 60 N indicate significant amounts of missing clouds from CLAVR-x because this part of the world was near the day/night terminator viewed by AVHRR. Comparisons between MODIS cloud products (MOD06) and GLAS in the same region also show similar difficulties with MODIS cloud retrievals. The consistent detection of clouds through out the day is needed to provide reliable cloud and radiation products for CERES and other research efforts involving the modeling of clouds and their interaction with the radiation budget.

Trepte, Qing↗

DOE OSTI2016

SU-F-J-140: Using Handheld Stereo Depth Cameras to Extend Medical Imaging for Radiation Therapy Planning

Purpose: A correct body contour is essential for the accuracy of dose calculation in radiation therapy. While modern medical imaging technologies provide highly accurate representations of body contours, there are times when a patient’s anatomy cannot be fully captured or there is a lack of easy access to CT/MRI scanning. Recently, handheld cameras have emerged that are capable of performing three dimensional (3D) scans of patient surface anatomy. By combining 3D camera and medical imaging data, the patient’s surface contour can be fully captured. Methods: A proof-of-concept system matches a patient surface model, created using a handheld stereo depth camera (DC), to the available areas of a body contour segmented from a CT scan. The matched surface contour is then converted to a DICOM structure and added to the CT dataset to provide additional contour information. In order to evaluate the system, a 3D model of a patient was created by segmenting the body contour with a treatment planning system (TPS) and fabricated with a 3D printer. A DC and associated software were used to create a 3D scan of the printed phantom. The surface created by the camera was then registered to a CT model that had been cropped to simulate missing scan data. The aligned surface was then imported into the TPS and compared with the originally segmented contour. Results: The RMS error for the alignment between the camera and cropped CT models was 2.26 mm. Mean distance between the aligned camera surface and ground truth model was −1.23 +/−2.47 mm. Maximum deviations were < 1 cm and occurred in areas of high concavity or where anatomy was close to the couch. Conclusion: The proof-of-concept study shows an accurate, easy and affordable method to extend medical imaging for radiation therapy planning using 3D cameras without additional radiation. Intel provided the camera hardware used in this study.

60 APPLIED LIFE SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2015

Comparison of Surface and Column Variations of CO2 Over Urban Areas for Future Active Remote CO2 Sensors

High resolution in-situ CO2 measurements were recorded onboard the NASA P-3B during the DISCOVER-AQ (Deriving Information on Surface Conditions from Column and Vertically Resolved Observations Relevant to Air Quality) Field Campaign, to investigate the ability of space-based observations to accurately assess near surface conditions related to air quality. This campaign includes, Washington DC/Baltimore, MD (July 2011), San Joaquin Valley, CA (January - February 2013), Houston, TX (September 2013), and Denver, CO (July-August 2014). Each of these campaigns consisted of missed approaches and approximately two hundred vertical soundings of CO2 within the lower troposphere (surface to about 5 km). In this study, surface (0 - 1 km) and column-averaged (0 - 3.5 km) CO2 mixing ratio values from the vertical soundings in the four geographically different urban areas are used to investigate the temporal and spatial variability of CO2 within the different urban atmospheric emission environments. Tracers such as CO, CH2O, NOx, and NMHCs are used to identify the source of CO2 variations in the urban sites. Additionally, we apply nominal CO2 column weighting functions for potential future active remote CO2 sensors operating in the 1.57-microns and 2.05-microns measurement regions to convert the in situ CO2 vertical mixing ratio profiles to variations in CO2 column optical depths, which is what the active remote sensors actually measure. Using statistics calculated from the optical depths at each urban site measured during the DISCOVER-AQ field campaign and for each nominal weighting function, we investigate the natural variability of CO2 columns in the lower troposphere; relate the CO2 column variability to the urban surface emissions; and show the measurement requirements for the future ASCENDS (Active Sensing of CO2 Emissions over Nights, Days, and Seasons) in the continental U.S. urban areas.

Choi, Yonghoon↗

DOE OSTI2016

A distributed decision framework for building clusters with different heterogeneity settings

In the past few decades, extensive research has been conducted to develop operation and control strategy for smart buildings with the purpose of reducing energy consumption. Besides studying on single building, it is envisioned that the next generation buildings can freely connect with one another to share energy and exchange information in the context of smart grid. It was demonstrated that a network of connected buildings (aka building clusters) can significantly reduce primary energy consumption, improve environmental sustainability and building s resilience capability. However, an analytic tool to determine which type of buildings should form a cluster and what is the impact of building clusters heterogeneity based on energy profile to the energy performance of building clusters is missing. To bridge these research gaps, we propose a self-organizing map clustering algorithm to divide multiple buildings to different clusters based on their energy profiles, and a homogeneity index to evaluate the heterogeneity of different building clusters configurations. In addition, a bi-level distributed decision model is developed to study the energy sharing in the building clusters. To demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed clustering algorithm and decision model, we employ a dataset including monthly energy consumption data for 30 buildings where the data is collected every 15 min. It is demonstrated that the proposed decision model can achieve at least 13% cost savings for building clusters. Furthermore, the results show that the heterogeneity of energy profile is an important factor to select battery and renewable energy source for building clusters, and the shared battery and renewable energy are preferred for more heterogeneous building clusters.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

NASA NTRS1996