Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “model data volumes”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

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

At least 595 records · Page 33
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2018

Investigating Extreme Events in the NASA GEOS Multiscale Modeling System

Advances in computing capabilities and scientific development have come together to evolve general circulation models into multi-scale Earth system modeling tools. The Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) model is one such example of this evolution. The GEOS model is driven by the finite-volume cubed-sphere (FV3) non-hydrostatic dynamical core. Surrounding FV3 is a scale-aware physics package and data assimilation capability permitting multi-scale application of GEOS for sub-seasonal to seasonal climate prediction, medium range weather prediction, and global mesoscale modeling at convection allowing resolutions. GEOS also includes a comprehensive chemistry package representing a range of capabilities from basic chemistry and interactve aerosols and gaseous species, to carbon emissions and uptake, and complex ozone photochemistry. In this study, we apply the GEOS model to study the fidelity of these processes with increasing horizontal resolution and scale-aware processes in GEOS on extreme events. The GEOS model is run for 40-days beginning in August 2016 at three uniform global resolutions of 13-km (c768), 6-km (c1536) and 3-km (c3072) with 72 vertical levels up to 0.01mb. The model physics use the Grell-Freitas scale-aware convection scheme to dynamically reduce the role of parameterized deep convection as resolved scale processes in the model take over at higher resolutions. We will include high-resolution global emissions and fluxes of aerosols and carbon downscaled from recent satellite observations. We will compare these simulations with reanalyses and observations, focusing on rainfall, clouds and radiative forcing at hourly to monthly timescales. We will closely examine the probability distribution of precipitation intensities and radiative properties of clouds on a daily time scale. In addition, we will focus on extreme events, in particular the diurnal cycle of convection over the US and the frequency and physical nature of organized convection and heavy rain events across the globe.

Putman, William↗
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 OSTI2023

Towards operational atmospheric correction of airborne hyperspectral imaging spectroscopy: Algorithm evaluation, key parameter analysis, and machine learning emulators

Atmospheric correction of airborne hyperspectral imaging spectroscopy (AHIS) to obtain high-quality surface reflectance is the prerequisite for remote sensing applications. Over the last decades, different atmospheric correction methods have been developed based on radiative transfer models (RTMs), however, the relative performances of different algorithms are unclear. Automated operational atmospheric correction methods to process large-volume AHIS data in a high-accurate and high-throughput manner are still lacking. Therefore, this study proposed an operational atmospheric correction pipeline for deriving surface reflectance from AHIS data. To ensure the accuracy and efficiency of the pipeline, we focused on three specific aspects: (1) selecting a suitable RTM for the development of atmospheric lookup tables (LUTs) by comparing the commercial MODerate resolution atmospheric TRANsmission (MODTRAN) and open-sourced Library for Radiative TRANsfer (LibRadTRAN) models, where the widely-used software, Atmospheric/Topographic Correction for Airborne Imagery (ATCOR), was used as benchmarks; (2) identifying key atmospheric correction parameters and determining suitable sources for parameter retrievals including AHIS, Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET); and (3) testing the performance of using machine learning emulators to speed up the RTM-based atmospheric correction. Results indicate that (1) atmospheric correction based on MODTRAN LUTs can produce surface reflectance accurately with mean absolute errors < 0.05 and cosine similarities > 0.98 compared to field measurements, which is comparable to the software ATCOR and slightly outperforms the LibRadTRAN LUTs; (2) sobol global sensitivity analysis demonstrates that in the atmospheric correction, visibility and water vapor are two key parameters that can be accurately derived from AHIS in contrast to MODIS or AERONET data; and (3) Random Forest emulators can produce accurate estimations of surface reflectance with mean absolute errors < 0.03 and cosine similarities > 0.98 for higher processing efficiency and determine a suitable set of wavelengths for retrieving atmospheric visibility and water vapor. In conclusion, the proposed atmospheric correction pipeline also improved the four-stream radiative transfer theory for airborne applications by considering adjacent effects from airborne surrounding pixels and can also be applied for atmospheric correction of hyperspectral data from spaceborne missions.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
NASA NTRS2024

Evaluation, Analysis, and Application of Internal Strain-Gage Balance Data

Experimental processes, analytical methods, and numerical algorithms are described that may be used to predict the forces and moments of an internal strain–gage balance during a wind tunnel test. First, the control volume model of a strain–gage balance and the concepts of load state, load space, and output space are introduced. These important abstractions provide a better understanding of fundamental characteristics of different balance load prediction approaches. Then, the description of strain–gage balance data and the definition of the primary bridge sensitivity are discussed. Afterwards, basic elements of the calibration of a typical six–component balance are reviewed. Two fundamentally different balance load prediction methods, the processing of check loads, and related topics are also discussed. Three real–world balance data examples are reviewed in great detail to illustrate typical analysis results for a variety of strain–gage balance designs. Finally, important observations are summarized and recommendations are provided. – Additional information and detailed mathematical derivations can be found in the appendices of the document. They include the following topics: balance terminology, definitions of important statistical metrics, balance axis system conventions, balance load transformations, the combined load diagram, electrical output format options, bi–directional output characteristics, determination of the natural zeros, derivation of two balance load prediction methods, description of two tare load iteration algorithms, modeling of balance temperature effects, basics of three–component moment balances, definition of the percent contribution, detection of linear and near–linear dependencies in balance calibration data, a regression model search algorithm, balance interactions, and other related information.

strain-gage balance↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Towards Quantifying and Correlating RTV Intumescence to Entry-Relevant Conditions

Room Temperature Vulcanizing silicone (RTV) is a high-temperature adhesive used as a gap-filler between Thermal Protection System (TPS) tiles for heatshields on numerous missions. It is also adopted to bond instrumentation plugs of temperature and pressure sensors into heatshield’s tiles. While RTV has been traditionally assumed to be a non-porous and non-ablating material, numerous experiments have shown that RTV pyrolyzes and becomes highly porous as it is heated. Experimental data has also shown heating rate-dependent swelling (or intumescence) and shrinking of RTV, these volume changes may cause roughness-induced boundary layer transition. Outgassing and surface oxide formation of RTV upon decomposition also occur, which can be sources of contamination of heat shield sensors. This combination of detrimental effects motivates a critical need to develop a high-fidelity model for RTV ablation. As a first critical step in RTV modeling, a comprehensive material properties database for RTV was collected that account for the lack of data in properties such as pyrolysis char yield, shape change, virgin and char porosity. The next step is to quantify the volume change of RTV as a function of temperature. While this was done in previous campaigns, limited data was collected which showed a possible heating rate dependent intumescent behavior. To further understand the intumescence phenomenon of RTV, numerous dedicated experiments were performed at Beamline 8.3.2 of the Advanced Light Source, where RTV samples were heated while X-ray scans were taken in situ. Micro-Computed Tomography scans were taken in situ for low heating rates (≤ 60 °C/min), whereas continuous radiography scans were taken for higher heating rates (≤ 1500 ºC/min). Unconstrained samples and samples constrained in different holders (quartz, graphite, FiberForm and PICA) were tested to determine the change in intumescence due to confinement. Using deep learning techniques, the tomographies and radiographies are segmented to obtain volume change, porosity, pore size distributions and connectivity. From the results obtained, modifications to the previous RTV intumescence model are proposed, along with preliminary comparisons to testing RTV at high-enthalpy facilities.

RTV↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

High-Throughput Strategies that Encompass Experiments and Machine Learning to Predict the Mechanical Properties of Additive Manufactured Aerospace Alloys

Small Punch Test (SPT) uses a thin disk of material to predict mechanical properties. While SPT has existed for decades, it has been used largely as a qualitative evaluator of mechanical properties. Recent advances in computational modeling have enabled the extraction of uniaxial stress-strain response from the measured SPT load-displacement data. Due to small sample volumes and unidirectional testing, SPT is conducive to high-throughput automation and ideally suited to extract properties from high-cost materials. Aerospace alloys have been of recent interest to the Additive Manufacturing (AM) community due to AM’s unique ability to fabricate complex designs not possible, or extremely arduous, with conventional manufacturing. In this research, SPT, coupled with Materials Informatics and computational modeling, is used to develop relevant Process-Structure-Property relationships to decrease the cost and time of process optimization for AM aerospace alloys, namely Inconel 718, Inconel 625, and Niobium C103.

High-throughput Testing↗
DOE OSTI2023

Assessment of the Pan-Arctic Accelerated Rate of Sea Ice Decline in CMIP6 Historical Simulations

Abstract Arctic sea ice loss in response to a warming climate is assessed in 42 models participating in phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). Sea ice observations show a significant acceleration in the rate of decline commencing near the turn of the twenty-first century. It is our assertion that state-of-the-art climate models should qualitatively reflect this accelerated trend within the limitations of internal variability and observational uncertainty. Our analysis shows that individual CMIP6 simulations of sea ice depict a wide range of model spread on biases and anomaly trends both across models and among their ensemble members. While the CMIP6 multimodel mean captures the observed sea ice area (SIA) decline relatively well, an individual model’s ability to represent the acceleration in sea ice decline remains a challenge. Seventeen (40%) out of 42 CMIP6 models and 37 (13%) out of the total 286 ensemble members reasonably capture the observed trends and acceleration in SIA decline. In addition, a larger ensemble size appears to increase the odds for a model to include at least one ensemble member skillfully representing the accelerated SIA trends. Simulations of sea ice volume (SIV) show much larger spread and uncertainty than SIA; however, due to limited availability of sea ice thickness data, these are not as well constrained by observations. Finally, we find that models with more ocean heat transport simulate larger sea ice declines, which suggests an emergent constraint in CMIP6 ensembles. This relationship points to the need for better understanding and modeling of ice–ocean interactions, especially with respect to frazil ice growth.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS2014

Computational Aerodynamic Analysis of Three-Dimensional Ice Shapes on a NACA 23012 Airfoil

The present study identifies a process for performing computational fluid dynamic calculations of the flow over full three-dimensional (3D) representations of complex ice shapes deposited on aircraft surfaces. Rime and glaze icing geometries formed on a NACA23012 airfoil were obtained during testing in the NASA Glenn Research Center's Icing Research Tunnel (IRT). The ice shape geometries were scanned as a cloud of data points using a 3D laser scanner. The data point clouds were meshed using Geomagic software to create highly accurate models of the ice surface. The surface data was imported into Pointwise grid generation software to create the CFD surface and volume grids. It was determined that generating grids in Pointwise for complex 3D icing geometries was possible using various techniques that depended on the ice shape. Computations of the flow fields over these ice shapes were performed using the NASA National Combustion Code (NCC). Results for a rime ice shape for angle of attack conditions ranging from 0 to 10 degrees and for freestream Mach numbers of 0.10 and 0.18 are presented. For validation of the computational results, comparisons were made to test results from rapid-prototype models of the selected ice accretion shapes, obtained from a separate study in a subsonic wind tunnel at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The computational and experimental results were compared for values of pressure coefficient and lift. Initial results show fairly good agreement for rime ice accretion simulations across the range of conditions examined. The glaze ice results are promising but require some further examination.

Aerodynamics↗
NASA NTRS2014

Computational Aerodynamic Analysis of Three-Dimensional Ice Shapes on a NACA 23012 Airfoil

The present study identifies a process for performing computational fluid dynamic calculations of the flow over full three-dimensional (3D) representations of complex ice shapes deposited on aircraft surfaces. Rime and glaze icing geometries formed on a NACA23012 airfoil were obtained during testing in the NASA Glenn Research Centers Icing Research Tunnel (IRT). The ice shape geometries were scanned as a cloud of data points using a 3D laser scanner. The data point clouds were meshed using Geomagic software to create highly accurate models of the ice surface. The surface data was imported into Pointwise grid generation software to create the CFD surface and volume grids. It was determined that generating grids in Pointwise for complex 3D icing geometries was possible using various techniques that depended on the ice shape. Computations of the flow fields over these ice shapes were performed using the NASA National Combustion Code (NCC). Results for a rime ice shape for angle of attack conditions ranging from 0 to 10 degrees and for freestream Mach numbers of 0.10 and 0.18 are presented. For validation of the computational results, comparisons were made to test results from rapid-prototype models of the selected ice accretion shapes, obtained from a separate study in a subsonic wind tunnel at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The computational and experimental results were compared for values of pressure coefficient and lift. Initial results show fairly good agreement for rime ice accretion simulations across the range of conditions examined. The glaze ice results are promising but require some further examination.

Aerodynamics↗
DOE OSTI2020

Comparison of experimental and computational methods for discharge measurements from tidal wetlands

This short communication describes the use and comparison of three methods used to calculate the flow discharge from a tidal wetland stream. The techniques presented are a) bottom-mounted ADCP deployments, b) vessel-mounted ADCP transects, and c) a volume inundation spatial model that relies on a high-resolution LiDAR dataset and time-series of water surface elevation data. The relative agreement between these three methods is used to build confidence in the application of these techniques to the challenge of deducing flow discharge from tidal wetlands.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

NeRVI: Compressive neural representation of visualization images for communicating volume visualization results

We present NeRVI, a new deep-learning approach that compresses a large collection of visualization images generated from time-varying data for communicating volume visualization results. Based on an image-based implicit neural representation, our approach represents tens of thousands of high-resolution rendering images parametrized by different parameters via a hybrid model of multilayer perceptrons and convolutional neural networks. Here, our model predicts images and corresponding masks, and the masks are utilized for loss computation and network training to capture fine structural details and small components. In conjunction with model quantization and weight encoding, NeRVI yields highly compact compressive neural representations while preserving the image fidelity well. We demonstrate the effectiveness of NeRVI with isosurface rendering and direct volume rendering images generated from multiple data sets and compare NeRVI with other state-of-the-art deep learning-based (InSituNet, SIREN, NeRF, and NeRV) methods. Quantitative and qualitative results show that NeRVI provides an alternative solution that augments domain scientists' ability to manage, represent, and communicate scientific visualization output.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
NASA NTRS1975

Results of pressure distribution tests of a 0.010-scale space shuttle orbiter model (61-0) in the NASA/ARC 3.5-foot hypersonic wind tunnel (test OH38), volume 1

Test results are presented of hypersonic pressure distributions at simulated atmospheric entry conditions. Pressure data were obtained at Mach numbers of 7.4 and 10.4 and Reynolds numbers of 3.0 and 6.5 million per foot. Data are presented in both plotted and tabulated data form. Photographs of wind tunnel apparatus and test configurations are provided.

Dye, W. H.↗
NASA NTRS1997

A Comprehensive Opacities/Atomic Database for the Analysis of Astrophysical Spectra and Modeling

The main goals of this ADP award have been accomplished. The electronic database TOPBASE, consisting of the large volume of atomic data from the Opacity Project, has been installed and is operative at a NASA site at the Laboratory for High Energy Astrophysics Science Research Center (HEASRC) at the Goddard Space Flight Center. The database will be continually maintained and updated by the PI and collaborators. TOPBASE is publicly accessible from IP: topbase.gsfc.nasa.gov. During the last six months (since the previous progress report), considerable work has been carried out to: (1) put in the new data for low ionization stages of iron: Fe I - V, beginning with Fe II, (2) high-energy photoionization cross sections computed by Dr. Hong Lin Zhang (consultant on the Project) were 'merged' with the current Opacity Project data and input into TOPbase; (3) plans laid out for a further extension of TOPbase to include TIPbase, the database for collisional data to complement the radiative data in TOPbase.

Pradhan, Anil K.↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Snodgrass Mountain in East River Watershed, Colorado 2020-2025

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

A mean field homogenization model for the mechanical response of ceramic matrix composites

SiC/SiC composites offer exceptional mechanical stability at high temperatures and under irradiation. These ceramic matrix composites are therefore strong candidate materials for future nuclear energy applications. Their mechanical response, which exhibits pseudo-plasticity, is mediated by matrix cracking, fiber debonding, and fiber pull-out due to slip. Here, this study introduces a mechanistic model for the behavior of unidirectionally reinforced SiC/SiC composites. Specifically a mean field homogenization approach is proposed to account for all deformation and degradation modes during mechanical deformation. The homogenization scheme relies on a Mori Tanaka method that is extended to consider the effects of the coating’s elasto-plastic response on the development of micromechanical fields. Further, the model proposed introduces a method to effectively account for the role of localized damage (i.e., cracks) on mechanical fields within both the fiber and the matrix. Upon validating the model against experimental data, the roles of interface sliding, coating dimensions and intrinsic elastic response, as well as of microstructure (e.g. porosity, fiber volume fraction) are discussed.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Simulation and Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes modeling of a three-component Rayleigh-Taylor mixing problem with thermonuclear burn

Rayleigh-Taylor mixing in the presence of a third component with intermediate density is investigated through three-dimensional large-eddy simulation (LES) with a high-order compact finite-difference code. Two configurations are considered: (1) a symmetric configuration in which the Atwood number between the heavy and intermediate components matches the Atwood number between the intermediate and light components and (2) an asymmetric configuration in which the Atwood number between the heavy and intermediate components is an order of magnitude greater than the Atwood number between the intermediate and light components. Mass fraction covariances are extracted, and proposed Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) closures for density-specific-volume and density-mass-fraction covariances are evaluated in an a priori fashion. Additionally, a multicomponent extension of the k - Φ - L - a - V RANS model [Morgan, Phys. Rev. E 104, 015107 (2021)] is presented which includes model equations for the upper-triangular elements of the mass fraction covariance matrix. This model, referred to as the k - Φ - L - a - C model, is compared against results from LES and against other RANS models. Profiles of average mass fraction, mass-fraction covariance, and density-specific-volume covariance obtained with the k - Φ - L - a - C model are found to agree well with LES data. Finally, the impact of three-component turbulent mixing on average reaction rate is investigated in both premixed and nonpremixed cases by heating the mixing layer and allowing it to undergo thermonuclear (TN) burn. A closure model for average reaction rate is proposed for use with the k - Φ - L - a - C model, and when this model is applied, improved agreement is obtained between LES and RANS in total TN neutron production.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗