Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Air Force”

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.

600 records · Page 34

Using CESM-RESFire to understand climate–fire–ecosystem interactions and the implications for decadal climate variability

Large wildfires exert strong disturbance on regional and global climate systems and ecosystems by perturbing radiative forcing as well as the carbon and water balance between the atmosphere and land surface, while short- and long-term variations in fire weather, terrestrial ecosystems, and human activity modulate fire intensity and reshape fire regimes. The complex climate–fire–ecosystem interactions were not fully integrated in previous climate model studies, and the resulting effects on the projections of future climate change are not well understood. Here we use the fully interactive REgion-Specific ecosystem feedback Fire model (RESFire) that was developed in the Community Earth System Model (CESM) to investigate these interactions and their impacts on climate systems and fire activity. We designed two sets of decadal simulations using CESM-RESFire for present-day (2001–2010) and future (2051–2060) scenarios, respectively, and conducted a series of sensitivity experiments to assess the effects of individual feedback pathways among climate, fire, and ecosystems. Our implementation of RESFire, which includes online land–atmosphere coupling of fire emissions and fire-induced land cover change (LCC), reproduces the observed aerosol optical depth (AOD) from space-based Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite products and ground-based AErosol RObotic NETwork (AERONET) data; it agrees well with carbon budget benchmarks from previous studies. We estimate the global averaged net radiative effect of both fire aerosols and fire-induced LCC at –0.59±0.52 W m –2 , which is dominated by fire aerosol–cloud interactions (–0.82±0.19 W m –2 ), in the present-day scenario under climatological conditions of the 2000s. The fire-related net cooling effect increases by ~170 % to –1.60±0.27 W m –2 in the 2050s under the conditions of the Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5 (RCP4.5) scenario. Such considerably enhanced radiative effect is attributed to the largely increased global burned area (+19 %) and fire carbon emissions (+100 %) from the 2000s to the 2050s driven by climate change. The net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of carbon between the land and atmosphere components in the simulations increases by 33 % accordingly, implying that biomass burning is an increasing carbon source at short-term timescales in the future. High-latitude regions with prevalent peatlands would be more vulnerable to increased fire threats due to climate change, and the increase in fire aerosols could counter the projected decrease in anthropogenic aerosols due to air pollution control policies in many regions. We also evaluate two distinct feedback mechanisms that are associated with fire aerosols and fire-induced LCC, respectively. On a global scale, the first mechanism imposes positive feedbacks to fire activity through enhanced droughts with suppressed precipitation by fire aerosol–cloud interactions, while the second one manifests as negative feedbacks due to reduced fuel loads by fire consumption and post-fire tree mortality and recovery processes. These two feedback pathways with opposite effects compete at regional to global scales and increase the complexity of climate–fire–ecosystem interactions and their climatic impacts.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Data and scripts associated with the manuscript evaluating the hydrologic responses of the Pacific Northwest watersheds to wildfires (v2)

This data package is associated with the publication “Evaluating Post-fire Watershed Response to Varying Burn Severity and Precipitation Regimes Using Fully-distributed and Integrated Hydrologic Models” submitted to Journal of Hydrology (Li et al. 2025). In this study, we employed the Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), an integrated watershed model that couples surface flow, subsurface flow, and canopy biophysical processes, to investigate post-fire hydrologic responses in a few selected watersheds with varying burn severity.The data package contains the required input data (meteorological forcing, Leaf Area Index, wildfire burn severities, etc.) to run the model, configuration files, the Jupyter notebooks in Python to pre-process and post-process data, the figures in the manuscript, and the modeling output files. The variables include watershed-averaged evapotranspiration, watershed-averaged surface/subsurface/canopy water content, and river discharge at watershed outlet.The data package contains a file-level metadata that lists and describes all the files contained in the data package (ATS_flmd.csv), a data dictionary file that defines columns headers across all csv files contained in the data package (ATS_dd.csv), a data package level readme file (the current file), and four zipped folders.The ‘data’ folder provides data needed to run the model in .h5, .i2s, .xyz, .shp, and .exo formats. The sub-folders are for each data types. The ‘model’ folder provides input files (.xml format) and essential model outputs. Each sub-folder provides the files from each simulated watershed. The ‘notebooks’ folder provides the Jupyter notebooks (.ipynb format) for pre- and post- processing model files, and for producing the figures in the manuscript. The ‘figures’ folder provides the figures associated with manuscript in .pdf and .png formats.The ‘model’ folder and the ‘data’ folder have been split into 5GB-large pieces using the Linux command ‘split -b 5120m model.zip model.zip.’ and ‘split -b 5120m data.zip data.zip.’, respectively. They can be merged back using the Linux command ‘cat model.zip.* > model.zip’ and ‘cat data.zip.* > data.zip’, respectively.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Large-Eddy Simulations of Marine Boundary Layer Clouds Associated with Cold-Air Outbreaks during the ACTIVATE Campaign. Part II: Aerosol–Meteorology–Cloud Interaction

Aerosol effects on micro/macrophysical properties of marine stratocumulus clouds over the western North Atlantic Ocean (WNAO) are investigated using in situ measurements and large-eddy simulations (LES) for two cold-air outbreak (CAO) cases (28 February and 1 March 2020) during the Aerosol Cloud Meteorology Interactions over the Western Atlantic Experiment (ACTIVATE). The LES is able to reproduce the vertical profiles of liquid water content (LWC), effective radius r eff and cloud droplet number concentration N c from fast cloud droplet probe (FCDP) in situ measurements for both cases. Furthermore, we show that aerosols affect cloud properties (N c , r eff , and LWC) via the prescribed bulk hygroscopicity of aerosols ($\bar{κ}$) and aerosol size distribution characteristics. N c , r eff , and liquid water path (LWP) are positively correlated to $\bar{κ}$ and aerosol number concentration (N a ) while cloud fractional cover (CFC) is insensitive to $\bar{κ}$ and aerosol size distributions for the two cases. The realistic changes to aerosol size distribution (number concentration, width, and the geometrical diameter) with the same meteorology state allow us to investigate aerosol effects on cloud properties without meteorological feedback. We also use the LES results to evaluate cloud properties from two reanalysis products, ERA5 and MERRA-2. Compared to LES, the ERA5 is able to capture the time evolution of LWP and total cloud coverage within the study domain during both CAO cases while MERRA-2 underestimates them.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

The Role of Internal Variability in Springtime Arctic Amplification from 1980 to 2022

Arctic amplification (AA) refers to the enhanced warming of the Arctic relative to the global average due to rising greenhouse gases, measured as the ratio of Arctic-mean to global-mean surface air temperature (SAT) trends. From 1980 to 2022, annual-mean AA reached 4.2 (Arctic defined as north of 70°N). Climate models simulate AA but fail to reproduce its magnitude. Sweeney et al. attributed much of this model–observation discrepancy to internal variability. AA shows seasonality and so does the discrepancy. Spring (March–May) shows the largest gap: Observed AA is 4.2, while the multimodel mean is 2.7. This raises several questions: 1) What role does internal variability play in observed spring AA? 2) How does simulated spring AA compare to observations when internal variability is removed? 3) If internal variability is significant, what mechanisms drive it? To address these, we adapted the machine learning algorithm from Sweeney et al., training on simulated multidecadal spring SAT and sea level pressure (SLP) trend maps. Our results show that internal variability enhanced spring Arctic warming by 37% and reduced global warming by 10%. Removing internal variability reconciles the spring AA discrepancy. The estimated internal contribution to Arctic spring warming is supported by an independent dynamical adjustment approach. We identify an atmospheric circulation pattern in observations associated with this internal warming. Observed internal Siberian SAT and SLP trends follow the simulated SAT–SLP relationship but lie at the distribution’s extreme, suggesting models generally underestimate internal variability unless the observed configuration reflects a rare real-world realization.

Arctic↗

The Short Life of Upvalley Wind in a High‐Altitude Valley in the Colorado Rocky Mountains

Thermally driven upvalley (UV) wind in the upper East River Valley in the Colorado Rocky Mountains often unexpectedly stops in midmorning and reverses back to downvalley (DV) wind. We use a comprehensive observational data set for a nearly two‐year long period to analyze the wind system and boundary layer evolution in this high‐altitude valley and determine the reason for this early wind reversal. Days with short UV wind predominantly occur during the warm season when the valley floor is free of snow and the convective boundary layer (CBL) grows well above the height of the surrounding ridges. UV wind persists throughout the day only on a few days during the warm season. We link differences in valley wind evolution to wind direction at upper levels at and above ridge height and propose forced channeling mechanisms to describe coupling between valley and upper‐level wind when the CBL grows above ridge height. The frequency distribution of upper‐level wind direction is such that channeling in the DV direction is favored, which explains the predominance of days with short UV wind. The deep CBL is supported by the presence of a deep weakly stably stratified residual layer with high aerosol content, which is regularly present over the mountain range during the warm season. On days when the CBL does not grow above ridge height, for example, when the valley floor is covered by snow, thermally driven UV wind is able to persist throughout the day independent of upper‐level wind direction.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗