Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Location”

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 757 records · Page 42
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Historic climate, cosmogenic 10Be, denudation-rate, and geospatial datasets from the Pikes Peak region, Colorado, USA

This data package contains geographic information system (GIS) layers and tabular datasets associated with the study of elevation-dependent denudation rates on Pikes Peak in the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, Colorado, USA. The package includes GIS layers used to produce the study-area map, including sample locations, sample watershed boundaries, the Pikes Peak batholith, Pleistocene glacier extent, weather station locations, and elevation and hillshade rasters, together with comma-separated value (CSV) tables and matching CSV data dictionaries. These mapped layers provide the geographic framework for interpreting denudation patterns across the Pikes Peak region and for relating sample locations to watershed geometry, bedrock setting, glacial history, and nearby climate stations. The first group of tables reports climate and geospatial context for the study area. These files include station-based temperature and precipitation data used to characterize elevational gradients in mean annual climate and monthly climate seasonality, sample locations, denudation-rate and topographic metrics, fixed frost-cracking model parameters, frost-cracking intensity and precipitation-frequency metrics, and stream-power inversion results. Together, these data provide the basis for evaluating how denudation varies with elevation, climate, and landscape form across sampled catchments on Pikes Peak. The second group of tables reports cosmogenic nuclide and erosion-model results used in the denudation analysis. Included files contain accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) measurements for in situ-produced cosmogenic beryllium-10 (10Be), including sample identifiers, measured 10Be:9Be ratios, analytical uncertainties, carrier mass, quartz mass, blank corrections, blank-group statistics, and calculated 10Be concentrations and uncertainties. Additional tables summarize stream-power-law inversion results for sampled catchments, including optimized model parameters, predicted erosion rates, residual metrics, channel-pixel counts, and convergence status, as well as regression equations and summary statistics used to evaluate relationships among elevation, climate, frost cracking, precipitation forcing, and denudation rate. The package contains GIS files, comma-separated value files (.csv), Microsoft Excel files (.xlsx), CSV data dictionaries, a file-level metadata table, and a readme text file.

10Be cosmogenic nuclides↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil carbon stocks from soil organic carbon at the Teller 47, Teller 27, and Kougarok 86 field sites, Seward Peninsula, Alaska, 2021 – 2023

Carbon stored in permafrost soils represents the largest terrestrial storage and hence has key significance for the global carbon cycle, yet the site-specific estimates of permafrost soil carbon are limited. To better understand permafrost carbon storage, soil organic content (SOC) was measured from soils collected at the Teller 27, Teller 47, and Kougarok 86 field sites on the Seward Peninsula, Alaska in the summers of 2019 and 2021-2023. Soil samples were collected from locations with and without near-surface permafrost to varied depths within the permafrost, where present. In addition to sample collection for soil organic carbon analysis, bulk density samples were also collected within each soil profile to allow for calculation of carbon stocks. Carbon to nitrogen ratios are also reported. Location data were collected at each observation point using a handheld GPS unit with waypoint averaging to reduce location measurement error to within 3 m. SOC was measured using elemental analysis in the laboratory. This dataset contains a *.csv file of soil carbon stocks, a *.kml file of measurement locations, a *.pdf user guide, a *.csv data dictionary, and a *.csv file level metadata.

EARTH SCIENCE > CRYOSPHERE > FROZEN GROUND↗
DOE OSTI2021

AmeriFlux US-xLE NEON Lenoir Landing (LENO)

This is the AmeriFlux version of the carbon flux data for the site US-xLE NEON Lenoir Landing (LENO). Site Description - This terrestrial field site is located in a hardwood bottomland with seasonal flooding each spring located in southwest Alabama. The meteorological/flux tower and tower sampling plots are located at Lenoir Landing and the distributed plots are located approximately 5 km south of the tower at Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge. The ecosystem at LENO is dominated by closed-canopy pine-oak mixed forest with a developed understory, and also includes a small fraction of meadows, wetlands, and smaller water bodies. Dominant plant species include American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge also provides a protected wintering area for waterfowl and wood duck brood habitat. This site is colocated with the Lower Tombigbee river aquatic site.

Network), NEON (National Ecological Observatory↗
DOE OSTI2026

AmeriFlux FLUXNET-1F US-xLE NEON Lenoir Landing (LENO)

This is the AmeriFlux Management Project (AMP) created FLUXNET-1F version of the carbon flux data for the site US-xLE NEON Lenoir Landing (LENO). This is the FLUXNET version of the carbon flux data for the site US-xLE NEON Lenoir Landing (LENO) produced by applying the standard ONEFlux (1F) software. Site Description - This terrestrial field site is located in a hardwood bottomland with seasonal flooding each spring located in southwest Alabama. The meteorological/flux tower and tower sampling plots are located at Lenoir Landing and the distributed plots are located approximately 5 km south of the tower at Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge. The ecosystem at LENO is dominated by closed-canopy pine-oak mixed forest with a developed understory, and also includes a small fraction of meadows, wetlands, and smaller water bodies. Dominant plant species include American sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), American hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge also provides a protected wintering area for waterfowl and wood duck brood habitat. This site is colocated with the Lower Tombigbee river aquatic site.

Network), NEON (National Ecological Observatory [N↗
DOE OSTI2020

Revised Kimberlina Groundwater Simulations

Kimberlina Groundwater Qaulity Simulations (Version 3: 2015 October) by Lawrence Livermore National Labratory. Submitted to the EDX team at the National Energy Technology Laboratory for research use. This dataset contains 562 updated groundwater quality simulations based on the Kimberlina site. It is a six-layer model including the aquifers and aquitards inbetween the ground surface and the reservoir. The input files and associated leakage information for these simulations are included in the zip file "nrap_kim_well31_fluxes and inputs.tar.gz". These 562 simulations are the successful results out of 1000 monte carlo simulations, with time length greater than 5 years. Each simulation consists 6 output files, therefore, there are 3372 files (6*562) in total. One single example simulation of full time length (200 year) is also provided in the zip file "single_simulation_200yr_sim0012.tar.gz". These 6 groundwater quality parameters are: - pH (use absolute value) - TDS (mg/kg) - Pressure (Pa) - CO2 Liquid Saturation (fraction range 0.0-1.0) - CO2 Gas Concentration (mol/L) - CO2 Liquid Concentration (mol/kg) Their correponding file names, take the first simulation for example, are: ph0001.ntab (for pH) , tds0001.ntab (for TDS), usnt0001.p.ntab (for pressure), usnt0001.s_liquid.ntab (for liquid saturation), usnt0001.c_co2_gas.ntab (for CO2 gas concentration) and usnt0001.c_co2_liquid.ntab (for CO2 liquid concentration). Each output file contains at least 19 columns (variables). The total number of columns depends on the simulation time length. The column data include the information of numerical records, geologic location and sizes and the simulated parameter values over time. The first 13 variables are about numerical records and relative geologic information for a simulation grid: 1. index: simulation index 2. i: the ith grid of x-axis 3. j: the jth grid of y-axis 4. k: the kth grid of z-axis 5. element_ref: element type reference 6. nuft_ind: nuft index 7. x: grid location in the x axis direction 8. y: grid location in the y axis direction 9. z: grid location in the z axis direction 10. dx: grid length in the x axis direction 11. dy: grid length in the y axis direction 12. dz: grid length in the z axis direction 13. volume: volume of the simulation grid The rest (14, 15, 16...) variables are the simulated parameter values over time, take pH as an example, are: 14. ph000y: initial pH value. 15. ph001y: simulated pH value at the end of the 1st year. 16. ph002y: simulated pH value at the end of the 2nd year. ... (and so on)... The zip input files have the input fluxes of brine and CO2 (in kg/s) allocated to model layers 1,2,3 and 5 (layers 4 and 6 are assumed to be no-flow aquitards) through the following nodes: (src1 WELL 7 7 25 25 10 32) #Etchegoin (src2 WELL 7 7 25 25 33 72) #Macoma Chanac (src3 WELL 7 7 25 25 73 83) #Santa Margarita Mclure (src4 WELL 7 7 25 25 84 89) #Fruitvale Round Mountain (aquitard) (src5 WELL 7 7 25 25 90 96) #Olcese Sand (thief zone) (src6 WELL 7 7 25 25 97 99) #tremblor Freeman (aquitard) ex: brn1 is assigned to src 1 from i=(7,7), j=(25,25), k=(10,32) Edited by Ya-Mei Yang at National Energy Technology Laboratory

brine leakage↗
DOE OSTI2021

A New Experimental Station for Liquid Interface X-Ray Scattering At NSLS-II Beamline 12-ID

Open Platform and Liquids Scattering (OPLS) is a new experimental station recently built and currently being commissioned at the Soft Matter Interfaces (SMI) beamline 12-ID at NSLS-II. The new instrument expands SMI’s beamline scientific capabilities via the addition of X-ray scattering techniques from liquid surfaces and interfaces. The design of this new instrument, located inside the 12-ID beamline shielding enclosure (hutch B), is based on a single Ge (111) crystal deflector, which bounces the incident x-ray beam downward towards a liquid sample which must be maintained in a horizontal orientation (gravity-driven consideration). The OPLS instrument has a variable deflector-to-sample distance ranging from 0.6 m to 1.5 m. X-ray detectors are mounted on a 2-theta scattering arm located downstream of the sample location. The 2-theta arm is designed to hold up to three X-ray detectors, with fixed 2-theta angular offsets, each dedicated to a different X-ray technique such as X-ray reflectivity, grazing-incidence X-ray scattering, and small- and wide-angle X-ray scattering. Currently, the OPLS experimental station intercepts the SMI beam that otherwise propagates to the experimental endstation located in hutch C and can be retracted to a ’parking’ position laterally out of this beam to allow installation of a removable beam pipe that is needed to support operations in hutch C. The design of OPLS is flexible enough to quickly adapt to a planned future configuration of the SMI beamline in which a OPLS is illuminated separately from the main SMI branch via a second, canted undulator source and a separate photon delivery system. In this future configuration, both branches will be able to operate independently and simultaneously.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2023

QUENCH DETECTION IN A SUPERCONDUCTING RADIO FREQUENCY CAVITY WITH COMBINED TEMPERATURE AND MAGNETIC FIELD MAPPING

Local dissipation of RF power in superconducting radio frequency cavities create so called "hot-spots", primary precursors of cavity quench driven by either thermal or magnetic instability. These hot-spots are detected by a temperature mapping system, and a large increase in temperature on the outer surface is detected during cavity quench events. Here, we have used combined magnetic and temperature mapping systems using anisotropic magneto-resistance (AMR) sensors and carbon resisters to locate the hot spots and areas with high trapped flux on a 3.0 GHz single-cell Nb cavity during the RF tests at 2.0 K. The quench location and hot spots were detected near the equator when the residual magnetic field in the Dewar is kept < 1 mG. The hot spots and quench locations moved when the magnetic field is trapped locally, as detected by T-mapping system. No significant dynamics of trapped flux is detected by AMR sensors, however change in magnetic flux during cavity quench is detected by a flux gate magnetometer, close to the quench location. The result provide the direct evidence of hot spots and quench events due to localized trapped vortices.

Ciovati, Gianluigi↗
DOE OSTI2022

Classification and Localization of Fracture-Hit Events in Low-Frequency Distributed Acoustic Sensing Strain Rate with Convolutional Neural Networks

Summary Distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) has been used in the oil and gas industry as an advanced technology for surveillance and diagnostics. Operators use DAS to monitor hydraulic fracturing activities, examine well stimulation efficacy, and estimate complex fracture system geometries. Particularly, low-frequency DAS can detect geomechanical events such as fracture hits because hydraulic fractures propagate and create strain rate variations in the rock. Analysis of DAS data today is mostly done post-job and subject to interpretation methods. However, the continuous and dense data stream generated live by DAS poses the opportunity for more efficient and accurate real-time data-driven analysis. The objective of this study is to develop a machine learning-based workflow that can identify and locate fracture-hit events in simulated strain rate responses correlated with low-frequency DAS data. In this paper, “fracture hit” refers to a hydraulic fracture originating from a stimulated well intersecting an offset well. We start with building a single fracture propagation model to produce strain rate patterns observed at a hypothetical monitoring well. This model is used to generate two sets of strain rate responses with one set containing fracture-hit events. The labeled synthetic data are then used to train a custom convolutional neural network (CNN) model for identifying the presence of fracture-hit events. The same model is trained again for locating the event with the output layer of the model replaced with linear units. We achieved near-perfect predictions for both event classification and localization. These promising results prove the feasibility of using CNN for real-time event detection from fiber-optic sensing data. Additionally, we use edge detection techniques to recognize fracture-hit event patterns in strain rate images. The fracture-hit location can be identified using recognized pixels in the image. The accuracy of edge detection-based location identification is also plausible, but edge detection is dependent on the assumption of pattern shape and image quality, hence it is less robust compared to CNN models. This comparison further supports the need for CNN applications in image-based real-time fiber-optic sensing event detection.

Engineering↗
DOE OSTI2020

Sedimentary Geothermal Resources in Nevada, Utah, Colorado, and Texas

The objectives of this project were to (1) perform a literature review of sedimentary geothermal resources, (2) identify data sources and develop data-collection methodologies that characterize selected resources, (3) screen sedimentary basins and formations for sedimentary geothermal potential, and (4) evaluate the technical feasibility of one or more selected locations. Numerous publications have characterized geothermal resources within sedimentary basins. A literature search reviewed publications describing resources located in Colorado, Louisiana, Nevada, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. The most attractive resources have high temperature gradients, low drilling costs, and reservoir permeabilities greater than 10 millidarcies (mD). Prospects in Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and Utah exhibit attractive characteristics and were chosen for further analysis. Sedimentary resources in Nevada and Utah are most attractive, followed by tested resources in Texas and untested resources in Colorado. The identified resources in Wyoming and Louisiana had lower geothermal gradients and were not evaluated. Reservoir modeling and techno-economic analysis were performed at Marys River Basin–North in Nevada. Geothermal energy production at this location is expected to have a levelized cost of energy (LCOE) ranging between 10 and 20 cents/kWh. Additional work may result in lower LCOE estimates at this location and at other attractive prospects in these three regions. The Great Basin carbonate and alluvial aquifer system of eastern Nevada and western Utah includes a lower carbonate aquifer unit, which has the potential for hosting both conduction- and convection-dominated geothermal systems. Mapping has identified lateral thickness variability expressed as a roughly 120–150-km-wide central corridor, which hosts the thickest and most continuous formations and extends from near Las Vegas north to the Idaho border. Purchase and analysis of privately held legacy seismic data could potentially compensate for the lack of sufficient data documenting measured depth to the lower carbonate aquifer unit. Multiple orogenies, extension episodes, and intrusive events have deformed and displaced the target formations of the lower carbonate aquifer unit. This structural complexity and potential for dipping reservoirs emphasizes the need for detailed geological, geophysical, and reservoir modeling. Heat flow within three Colorado sedimentary basins reviewed as part of this study was calculated in targeted studies by the Colorado Geologic Survey and Colorado School of Mines. These calculations are based on bottom-hole temperature data sets with significant limitations and some variability but produce values consistently higher than the global continental average of 65 mW/m2 for all three basins. Heat flow in the Raton Basin is the highest; however, permeability measurements from specific sedimentary formations with high heat flow have not been obtained. Promising formations for sedimentary geothermal systems were found in all three regions studied—Nevada-Utah, Colorado, and Texas. The next steps for developing sedimentary geothermal resources vary due to differences in available data and resource uncertainties. Additional scopes of work are recommended for identified basins in these three regions.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Adaptive Recovery Model: Designing Systems for Testing Tracing and Vaccination to Support COVID-19 Recovery Planning.

This report documents a new approach to designing disease control policies that allocate scarce testing, contact tracing, and vaccination resources to better control community transmission of COVID19 or similar diseases. The Adaptive Recovery Model (ARM) combines a deterministic compartmental disease model with a stochastic network disease propagation model to enable us to simulate COVID-19 community spread through the lens of two complementary modeling motifs. ARM contact networks are derived from cell-phone location data that have been anonymized and interpreted as individual arrivals to specic public locations. Modeling disease spread over these networks allows us to identify locations within communities conducive to rapid disease spread. ARM applies this model- and data-derived abstractions of community transmission to evaluate the effectiveness of disease control measures including targeted social distancing, contact tracing, testing and vaccination. The architecture of ARM provides a unique capacity to help decision makers understand how best to deploy scarce testing, tracing and vaccination resources to minimize disease-spread potential in a community. This document details the novel mathematical formulations underlying ARM, presents a dynamical stability analysis of the deterministic model components, a sensitivity analysis of control parameters and network structure, and summarizes a process for deriving contact networks from cell-phone location data. An example use case steps through applying ARM to evaluate three targeted social distancing policies using Bernalillo County, New Mexico as an exemplar test locale. This step-by-step analysis demonstrates how ARM can be used to measure the relative performance of competing public health policies. Initial scenario tests of ARM shows that ARMs design focus on resource utilization rather than simple incidence prediction can provide decision makers with additional quantitative guidance for managing ongoing public health emergencies and planning future responses.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Application of Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates to Watersheds

This report documents work sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) as part of the RES project, “Application of Point Precipitation Frequency Estimates to Watersheds.” This project was implemented as part of the Probabilistic Flood Hazard Assessment (PFHA) Research Program. The objective of the PFHA Research Program is to develop tools and guidance on the use of PFHA methods to risk-inform NRC’s licensing of new facilities as well as licensing and oversight of currently operating facilities as they relate to flooding hazards. Many nuclear power plants (NPPs) are located on or near rivers so riverine flooding hazards need to be considered in their design and operation. Probabilistic riverine flood models are important tools for realistic assessment of flooding risks. However, these models require areal estimates of the depth, duration, and frequency of rainfall distributed over the watershed, which are not often available. Point precipitation frequency estimates are more widely available. For example, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has published NOAA Atlas 14, which provides point precipitation frequency estimates for 5-minute through 60-day durations at average recurrence intervals of 1-year through 1,000-year. The research documented in this report addresses areal reduction factors (ARFs), which can be used to convert the widely available point precipitation frequency estimates, to estimates of areal precipitation frequency over a watershed. The most widely used ARF source is Technical Paper 29 (TP-29) published by the then U.S. Weather Bureau in 1958. However, both the methods and the underlying precipitation data used to produce TP-29 are seriously out of date. For example, due to the small gauge network available at the time of TP-29’s compilation, ARF estimates developed are only for watersheds smaller than about 400 square miles. Due to the relatively short record lengths of precipitation data available, frequency considerations could not be accurately determined. Other factors such as regional climate and seasonality were not addressed. Several newer methods have been published since TP-29 was developed and both the type and quantity of precipitation data have increased significantly, along with computational resources and analytical tools such as geographic information systems. This report reviewed and assessed the available precipitation products and methods for conducting ARF analysis. The work applied up-to-date precipitation data products and analysis methods with a novel watershed-based approach to investigate how ARF estimates vary across different methods, data sources, geographical locations, return periods, and seasons. The overall findings reported here regarding basic ARF trends are in line with other recent studies showing that ARFs decrease with increasing area, increase with increasing duration, and decrease with increasing return period. This study found significant differences among the available ARF methods. This work also found a strong geographical variability across different US hydrologic regions, suggesting that the ARF are specific to regional climate patterns and geographical characteristics and should not be applied arbitrarily to other locations. The results also reveal the importance of data record length, especially for high return level ARFs. The work reported in NUREG/CR-7271 will assist NRC staff in assessing different classes of ARF methods in conjunction with available rainfall data sets. It will also support the development of guidance for application of point precipitation data in PFHAs. It should be noted that the ARF values presented in this report for any location or region were developed for the purposes of comparing methods and investigating the factors that influence ARFs. They should not be considered official and should not be used in leu of a site-specific analysis.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Y-12 Groundwater Protection Program Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling and Analysis Plan (CY 2021)

This plan provides a description of the groundwater and surface water quality monitoring activities planned for calendar year (CY) 2021 at the U.S. Department of Energy Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) that will be managed by the Y-12 Groundwater Protection Program (GWPP). Groundwater and surface water monitoring is performed by the GWPP. Groundwater and surface water monitoring will be performed in three hydrogeologic regimes at Y-12: the Bear Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (Bear Creek Regime), the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (East Fork Regime), and the Chestnut Ridge Hydrogeologic Regime (Chestnut Ridge Regime). The Bear Creek and East Fork regimes are located in Bear Creek Valley and the Chestnut Ridge Regime is located south of Y-12. Additional surface water monitoring will be performed north of Pine Ridge along the boundary of the Oak Ridge Reservation. The following sections of this report provide details regarding the CY 2021 groundwater and surface water monitoring activities. Section 2 describes the monitoring locations in each regime and the processes used to select the sampling locations. A description of the field measurements and laboratory analytes is provided in Section 3. Sample collection methods and procedures are described in Section 4, and Section 5 lists the documents cited for more detailed operational and technical information. The narrative sections of the report reference several appendices. Figures (maps and diagrams) and tables (excluding a data summary table presented in Section 4) are in Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively. Groundwater Monitoring Schedules (when issued throughout CY 2021) will be inserted in Appendix C, and addenda to this plan (if issued) will be inserted in Appendix D. Laboratory requirements (bottle lists, holding times, etc.) are provided in Appendix E, and an approved Waste Management Plan is provided in Appendix F. Modifications to the CY 2021 monitoring program may be necessary during implementation. Changes in programmatic requirements may alter the analytes specified for selected monitoring wells or may add or remove wells from the planned monitoring network. Each modification to the monitoring program will be approved by the Y-12 GWPP manager and documented as an addendum to this sampling and analysis plan.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Data Analysis of the 2020 Central Idaho Mainshock-Aftershock Sequence

In an effort to inform the Senior Seismic Hazard Analysis Committee for the Idaho National Laboratory, we provide an improved aftershock catalog related to the March 31, 2020, Mw6.5 Stanley, Idaho earthquake from picks related to a temporary network of two real-time and 15 non-telemetered seismometers within the epicentral area. From the permanent and temporary (XP) real-time network, the USGS cataloged 1,946 aftershocks between April 1, 2020 and October 31, 2020. To improve aftershock location and magnitudes, we manually picked arrival times of P and S waves from off-line stations in the XP temporary network, generated a new crustal velocity model, and independently relocated each event using the HypoDD double-difference earthquake algorithm. We created our new velocity model from existing broadband and active source seismic campaign data that were acquired near the epicentral region prior to the 2020 earthquake. We compare arrival time differences, epicentral locations and depths between aftershocks recorded with the two catalogs. We find the addition of local stations provides tighter aftershock clustering that suggests an improved aftershock locations. To detect lower magnitude events, we employed deep learning. Our method solves common problems associated with detecting many events that have a low signal-to-noise ratio. From the machine learning database, we detected more than 74,000 aftershocks. Based on the number of identified earthquakes and Gutenberg-Richter relationships derived from the USGS catalog, we estimate that we have reduced the completion magnitude for the Stanley earthquake sequence to below M1 using this machine learning approach. We located each aftershock with our new velocity model. Our new velocity model and picks suggests aftershocks occurred mostly at shallower depths than assessed in the USGS catalog. These aftershocks align along two linear trends that suggest the activation of two unnamed primary faults.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

Analysis and Optimization of Seismo-Acoustic Monitoring Networks with Bayesian Optimal Experimental Design

The Bayesian optimal experimental design (OED) problem seeks to identify data, sensor configurations, or experiments which can optimally reduce uncertainty. The goal of OED is to find an experiment that maximizes the expected information gain (EIG) about quantities of interest given prior knowledge about expected data. Therefore, within the context of seismic monitoring, we can use Bayesian OED to configure sensor networks by choosing sensor locations, types, and fidelity in order to improve our ability to identify and locate seismic sources. In this work, we develop the framework necessary to use Bayesian OED to optimize the ability to locate seismic events from arrival time data of detected seismic phases. In order to do utilize Bayesian OED we must develop four elements:1. A likelihood function that describes the uncertainty of detection and travel times; 2. A Bayesian solver that takes a prior and likelihood to identify the posterior; 3. An algorithm to compute EIG; and, 4. An optimizer that finds a sensor network which maximizes EIG. Once we have developed this framework, we can explore many relevant questions to monitoring such as: how and what multiphenomenology data can be used to optimally reduce uncertainty, how to trade off sensor fidelity and earth model uncertainty, and how sensor types, number, and locations influence uncertainty

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2021

Y-12 Groundwater Protection Program Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling and Analysis Plan for Calendar Year 2022

This plan provides a description of the groundwater and surface water quality monitoring activities planned for calendar year (CY) 2022 at the U.S. Department of Energy Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) that will be managed by the Y-12 Groundwater Protection Program (GWPP). Groundwater and surface water monitoring will be performed in three hydrogeologic regimes at Y-12: the Bear Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (Bear Creek Regime), the Upper East Fork Poplar Creek Hydrogeologic Regime (East Fork Regime), and the Chestnut Ridge Hydrogeologic Regime (Chestnut Ridge Regime). The Bear Creek and East Fork regimes are located in Bear Creek Valley and the Chestnut Ridge Regime is located south of Y-12. Additional surface water monitoring will be performed north of Pine Ridge along the boundary of the Oak Ridge Reservation. The following sections of this report provide details regarding the CY 2022 groundwater and surface water monitoring activities. Section 2 describes the monitoring locations in each regime and the processes used to select the sampling locations. A description of the field measurements and laboratory analytes is provided in Section 3. Sample collection methods and procedures are described in Section 4, and Section 5 lists the documents cited for more detailed operational and technical information.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗