Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Fitting”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2025

Impact of LHC precision measurements of inclusive jet and dijet production on the CTEQ-TEA global PDF fit

In this study, we investigate the impact of new Large Hadron Collider (LHC) inclusive jet and dijet measurements on parton distribution functions (PDFs) that describe the proton structure, with a particular focus on the gluon distribution at large momentum fraction, x , and the corresponding partonic luminosities. We assess constraints from these datasets using next-to-next-to-leading-order (NNLO) theoretical predictions, accounting for a range of uncertainties from scale dependence and numerical integration. From the scale choices available for the calculations, our analysis shows that the central predictions for inclusive jet production show a smaller scale dependence than dijet production. We examine the relative constraints on the gluon distribution provided by the inclusive jet and dijet distributions, and also explore the phenomenological implications for inclusive H , t t ¯ , and t t ¯ H production at the LHC at 14 TeV. Published by the American Physical Society 2025

Ablat, Alim (ORCID:0009000519877755)↗
DOE OSTI2025

Characterization and Optimization of the Fitting of Quantum Correlation Functions

This case study presents a characterization and optimization of an application code for extracting parton distribution functions from high energy electron-proton scattering data. Profiling this application code reveals that the phase-space density computation accounts for 93% of the overall execution time for a single iteration on a single core. When executing multiple iterations in parallel on a multicore system, the application spends 78% of its overall execution time idling due to load imbalance. We address these issues by first transforming the application code from Python to C++ and then tackling the application load imbalance via a hybrid scheduling strategy that combines dynamic and static scheduling. These techniques result in a 62% reduction in CPU idle time and a 2.46x speedup in overall execution time per node. In addition, the typically enabled power-management mechanisms in supercomputers (e.g., AMD Turbo Core, Intel Turbo Boost, and RAPL) can significantly impact intra-node scalability when more than 50% of the CPU cores are used. This finding underscores the importance of understanding system interactions with power management, as they can adversely impact application performance, and highlights the necessity of intra-node scaling tests to identify performance degradation that inter-node scaling tests might otherwise overlook.

Chuang, Pi-Yueh [Virginia Tech,Dept. of Computer S↗
DOE OSTI2026

BRCore: an R package implementing flexible selection of core taxa using contribution to Bray-Curtis dissimilarity and neutral model fitting

Identifying core taxa in microbial ecology highlights groups likely to participate in a broad range of potential ecological interactions. Here, we present BRCore, an R package to identify core taxa using abundance-occupancy distributions and beta-diversity contributions across ecological niches, and predict stochastic and deterministic taxa.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Bayesian Fit for the NOvA Three Flavor Oscillation Analysis

NOvA is a long baseline neutrino oscillation experiment, using Fermilab's NuMI beam and a functionally identical near and far detector. NOvA measures muon neutrino disappearance and electron neutrino appearance to probe neutrino oscillation parameters, including the large neutrino mixing angle, the mass ordering, and the CP-violating phase. NOvA has developed a Bayesian analysis in addition to its Frequentist analysis, using Markov Chain Monte Carlo. This Bayesian framework allows for measurements previously difficult to make with the Frequentist framework, such as the Jarlskog invariant and the reactor mixing angle. The details and status of the Bayesian Framework will be presented, as well as latest NOvA results on measurements of three-flavor oscillation parameters.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Is Clean Hydrogen Production a Good Fit for Questa? (Final Economic Impact Results) [Slides]

The Village of Questa, New Mexico is aiming to become a regional clean energy hub with robust and diverse employment opportunities for the local community supported by the energy sector and by other businesses inspired or attracted by abundant clean energy, outdoor recreation, and cultural opportunities. A coalition of stakeholders in the Village of Questa, comprising the Village, Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (KCEC), Questa Economic Development Fund, and Chevron, is exploring options to develop hydrogen production facilities as an opportunity to create jobs, provide reliable clean energy, and utilize former mine resources. Questa is home to a molybdenum mine owned by Chevron that closed in 2014. Several residents in Questa and surrounding communities lost their jobs when the mine closed and transitioned from active operations into environmental remediation. Although remediation efforts have been ongoing since 2014 and are expected to continue for at least 16 more years, the number of jobs with Chevron is much smaller now than it was before the closure. Between available workforce, brownfield land, and water rights formerly supporting mine operations but now in a transition period, there are considerable local resources that could be directed toward clean energy generation. Questa's electricity supply is already 100% solar during daylight hours thanks to Kit Carson Electric Cooperative's (KCEC's) strategic decision-making and partnering over the last decade. Now, Questa, KCEC, and Chevron are exploring the potential costs and benefits of siting an electrolytic hydrogen production facility and additional solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity in Questa to further advance the region's clean energy economy. In this report, we estimated the potential economic impacts (i.e., jobs, value added, gross output, tax revenue) of constructing and operating a combined hydrogen (32 MW polymer electrolyte membrane electrolizer + 7.5 MW fuel cell) and solar facility (22.5 MW) in the Village of Questa, as well as the resulting economic spillovers to Taos County and the state of New Mexico. We employ an input-output model that leverages IMPLAN's economic data for the region complemented by construction and operating expenses estimated by NREL and feedback from the local coalition to evaluate the direct, indirect and induced effects of the project construction (transient impacts) and operation (more permanent impacts). Based on the area's average trade profile, feedback from the coalition and current market conditions, these projects are expected to support 487 full-time equivalent jobs during construction, generating $\$24$ million in income for those workers and $\$82$ million in local economic activity in the state. Of those jobs, 106 are expected to be construction sector jobs. These investments are also estimated to add $\$36.5$ million to New Mexico's gross state product (GSP). In the Village of Questa, we estimate 16 jobs will be supported in construction and transportation industries, generating $\$0.9$ million in earnings. In Taos County, the construction phase is expected to support 285 jobs primarily in construction and professional services, while manufacturing jobs dominate the results for the Rest of New Mexico. The Village is also estimated to receive $\$0.9$ million in tax revenue from the construction phase alone. Once in operation, the project continues to impact the state and Questa. Around 20 jobs (full-time equivalent for each year of operation) are supported across New Mexico, with approximately 11 directly employed in Questa by both facilities. The total annual local economic activity supported by ongoing operations is just over $\$1.3$ million/yr, generating $\$1.6$ million/yr in additional income in the state. Annual operations are estimated to add $\$2.1$ million to the state's GSP. The Village is expected to receive around $\$43,000$/yr in tax revenue. Impacts vary significantly depending on which businesses are supplying materials, equipment and services, and where construction workers reside. Choosing local suppliers will most benefit Questa and the New Mexico economy, adding up to 500 jobs during construction and 13 long-term jobs. Local and state governments may consider ways to incentivize local businesses in order to maximize economic benefits.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2024

Is Clean Hydrogen Production a Good Fit for Questa? Final Economic Impact Results

The Village of Questa, New Mexico is aiming to become a regional clean energy hub with robust and diverse employment opportunities for the local community supported by the energy sector and by other businesses inspired or attracted by abundant clean energy, outdoor recreation, and cultural opportunities. A coalition of stakeholders in the Village of Questa, comprising the Village, Kit Carson Electric Cooperative (KCEC), Questa Economic Development Fund, and Chevron, is exploring options to develop hydrogen production facilities as an opportunity to create jobs, provide reliable clean energy, and utilize former mine resources. Questa is home to a molybdenum mine owned by Chevron that closed in 2014. Several residents in Questa and surrounding communities lost their jobs when the mine closed and transitioned from active operations into environmental remediation. Although remediation efforts have been ongoing since 2014 and are expected to continue for at least 16 more years, the number of jobs with Chevron is much smaller now than it was before the closure. Between available workforce, brownfield land, and water rights formerly supporting mine operations but now in a transition period, there are considerable local resources that could be directed toward clean energy generation. Questa's electricity supply is already 100% solar during daylight hours thanks to Kit Carson Electric Cooperative's (KCEC's) strategic decision-making and partnering over the last decade. Now, Questa, KCEC, and Chevron are exploring the potential costs and benefits of siting an electrolytic hydrogen production facility and additional solar photovoltaic (PV) capacity in Questa to further advance the region's clean energy economy. In this report, we estimated the potential economic impacts (i.e., jobs, value added, gross output, tax revenue) of constructing and operating a combined hydrogen (32 MW polymer electrolyte membrane electrolizer + 7.5 MW fuel cell) and solar facility (22.5 MW) in the Village of Questa, as well as the resulting economic spillovers to Taos County and the state of New Mexico. We employ an input-output model that leverages IMPLAN's economic data for the region complemented by construction and operating expenses estimated by NREL and feedback from the local coalition to evaluate the direct, indirect and induced effects of the project construction (transient impacts) and operation (more permanent impacts). Based on the area's average trade profile, feedback from the coalition and current market conditions, these projects are expected to support 487 full-time equivalent jobs during construction, generating $\$24$ million in income for those workers and $\$82$ million in local economic activity in the state. Of those jobs, 106 are expected to be construction sector jobs. These investments are also estimated to add $\$36.5$ million to New Mexico's gross state product (GSP). In the Village of Questa, we estimate 16 jobs will be supported in construction and transportation industries, generating $\$0.9$ million in earnings. In Taos County, the construction phase is expected to support 285 jobs primarily in construction and professional services, while manufacturing jobs dominate the results for the Rest of New Mexico. The Village is also estimated to receive $\$0.9$ million in tax revenue from the construction phase alone. Once in operation, the project continues to impact the state and Questa. Around 20 jobs (full-time equivalent for each year of operation) are supported across New Mexico, with approximately 11 directly employed in Questa by both facilities. The total annual local economic activity supported by ongoing operations is just over $\$1.3$ million/yr, generating $\$1.6$ million/yr in additional income in the state. Annual operations are estimated to add $\$2.1$ million to the state's GSP. The Village is expected to receive around $\$43,000$/yr in tax revenue. Impacts vary significantly depending on which businesses are supplying materials, equipment and services, and where construction workers reside. Choosing local suppliers will most benefit Questa and the New Mexico economy, adding up to 500 jobs during construction and 13 long-term jobs. Local and state governments may consider ways to incentivize local businesses in order to maximize economic benefits.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2026

Fitting the RESRAD External Dose Rate Coefficients Model to the FGR 15 Data

FGR15 (Bellamy et al. 2025) lists external dose rate coefficients for radionuclides in soil, water and air. It has five tables of coefficients for contaminated soil; one for radionuclides on the surface of the soil and one each for radionuclides in soil layers of 1 cm, 5 cm, 15 cm and infinite thickness. Each table contains 7512 coefficients, quantifying the external dose rate from each of the 1252 ICRP107 radionuclides, to each of the six reference persons of different ages.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Challenges and Solutions for Leave-One-Out Biosensor Design in the Context of a Rugged Fitness Landscape

The leave-one-out (LOO) green fluorescent protein (GFP) approach to biosensor design combines computational protein design with split protein reconstitution. LOO-GFPs reversibly fold and gain fluorescence upon encountering the target peptide, which can be redefined by computational design of the LOO site. Such an approach can be used to create reusable biosensors for the early detection of emerging biological threats. Enlightening biophysical inferences for nine LOO-GFP biosensor libraries are presented, with target sequences from dengue, influenza, or HIV, replacing beta strands 7, 8, or 11. An initially low hit rate was traced to components of the energy function, manifesting in the over-rewarding of over-tight side chain packing. Also, screening by colony picking required a low library complexity, but designing a biosensor against a peptide of at least 12 residues requires a high-complexity library. This double-bind was solved using a “piecemeal” iterative design strategy. Also, designed LOO-GFPs fluoresced in the unbound state due to unwanted dimerization, but this was solved by fusing a fully functional prototype LOO-GFP to a fiber-forming protein, Drosophila ultrabithorax, creating a biosensor fiber. One influenza hemagglutinin biosensor is characterized here in detail, showing a shifted excitation/emission spectrum, a micromolar affinity for the target peptide, and an unexpected photo-switching ability.

Chemistry↗
DOE OSTI2024

Fitness-for-Service Analysis of Reactor Components under Flexible Load-Following Operating Conditions

Conventional power-generation plants, including nuclear plants, have been traditionally designed to provide a steady baseload energy capacity, optimizing output efficiency while minimizing variable costs. However, the growing adoption of large-scale renewable energy-generation systems, which rely on intermittent sources such as solar and wind, has introduced more variability into the energy supply in interconnected electricity grids. As a result, the next generation of power plants needs to operate in what is known as the load-following mode, requiring flexible adjustments in electricity production to align with the energy demand on the grid. This transition from the steady baseload operation to load-following operating conditions can significantly increase the number of times various plant components are exposed to transient stresses. This increased thermo-mechanical cycling can lead to accelerated material degradation, thereby elevating the risk of premature failure of a component. It becomes imperative to conduct a comprehensive analysis of fatigue, creep-fatigue, and stress corrosion cracking life, to assess the resilience of the various engineering components under these flexible load-following operating conditions. This study aims to develop a comprehensive numerical model of a light-water reactor pressure vessel (RPV) to investigate its degradation under various operating scenarios. This coupled thermo-mechanical finite element analysis evaluated the stress response of the RPV caused by considering fluctuations in thermal and mechanical loads caused by the varying pressure and temperature occurring during the load-following operation. Critical locations on the RPV are subsequently identified based on the stress response. The stress intensity factors for the postulated flaws at those locations are then calculated, followed by an evaluation of the reactor's life in accordance with the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code Section XI. This comprehensive life assessment covers a number of transients expected during the flexible load-following operation, providing invaluable insights into the RPV's structural integrity. Moreover, the development methodology can be adapted to other reactor components, as well as components of conventional power stations that are affected by varying operating conditions.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Alleviating prior dependencies for DESI DR1 clustering fits through reparameterization

Bayesian analyses of the full-shape clustering of Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) Data Release 1 (DR1) exhibit prior-volume projection effects, whereby weakly constrained nuisance parameters of the Effective Field Theory of Large Scale Structure (EFTofLSS) shift marginalized cosmological posteriors away from the posterior maximum. We reanalyze DESI DR1 power spectrum multipoles using two complementary mitigation strategies: (i) nonlinear orthogonalization to decorrelate nuisance and cosmological parameter priors, and (ii) a fully reparameterization-invariant Jeffreys prior over all EFTofLSS coefficients, evaluated on-the-fly via closed-form Jacobians. Including data from DESI, Big-Bang Nuclesynthesis and a constraint on $n_{\mathrm{s}}$, baseline priors lead to multi-$σ$ projection in the Hubble parameter $H_{0}$ and dark energy equation of state parameters $w_{0}$ and $w_{a}$; the Jeffreys prior successfully recenters these posteriors to enclose the maximum a posteriori estimate within the 68% credible regions, demonstrating clear mitigation of projection effects for these late-time expansion parameters. A hybrid Jeffreys+baseline-Gaussian configuration controls residual over-broad tails in the physical cold dark matter density $ω_{\mathrm{c}}$ while preserving the volume correction, and is our favoured approach. We compare the credible intervals derived using our methodology to those obtained using Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD)-informed priors and to confidence intervals derived using frequentist profile likelihood analyses, finding agreement in both central values and degeneracy directions in the $w_{0}$--$w_{a}$ plane. This demonstrates that, once projection effects are properly controlled, we can make robust inferences about the late-time cosmological expansion independent of the statistical framework adopted.

Bonici, M. [Waterloo U.; Perimeter Inst. Theor. Ph↗
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↗