The need for common information ontologies
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
ontology object model↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “common information model”
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.
Macro-physical Properties of Shallow Cumulus from Integrated ARM Observations (Final Report)
Fair-weather shallow cumuli (ShCu) play an important role in many climate-related processes. Irregular geometry of ShCu and their strong temporal and spatial variability make it challenging to observe ShCu holistically and to represent them correctly in climate models. To improve ShCu parameterizations, information on both vertically and horizontally resolved cloud properties is required. Commonly, the vertically resolved cloud properties are provided by zenith pointing lidar-radar observations with a very narrow field of view (FOV). Thus, these “pencil-beam” properties may not be representative of a larger surrounding area. Limited number of areal-averaged cloud properties, such as fractional sky cover (FSC), are offered typically by wide-FOV observations. The main goal of our project was to integrate advantages of the narrow-FOV (vertical structure of clouds) and wide-FOV (spatial arrangement of clouds) observations for an improved characterization of single-layer ShCu observed at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Southern Great Plains (SGP) site for an 18-yr period (2000-2017). There are four major accomplishments of our project, First, an updated operational cloud classification for days with ShCu has been suggested and evaluated through a detailed comparison with the manually curated records. Our classification extends successfully the latest ARM cloud type Value Added Product (VAP) based on the Active Remote Sensing of Clouds (ARSCL) cloud product by incorporating both cloud fraction (CF) provided by narrow-FOV ceilometer data and FSC from wide-FOV images offered by a Total Sky Imager (TSI). Moreover, our classification allows one to identify impact of instrumentation changes at the SGP site, namely the transition to KAZRARSCL with the updated cloud radar, on the identification of periods with single-layer ShCu. Second, a new approach that resolves cloud area distributions for a given region (up to 4x4 km 2 ) has been suggested and cloud equivalent diameters (CEDs) have been estimated for the first time. These estimations have been performed over a wide range of cloud sizes (about 0.01–3.5 km) with high temporal resolution (30s) using wide-FOV TSI images and cloud base height (CBH) provided by complementary narrow-FOV lidar measurements. Our simple and computationally inexpensive approach offers a previously unavailable dataset for process studies in the convective boundary layer and evaluation of ShCu parameterizations in cloud-resolving models. Third, a long-term integrated record of ShCu macrophysical properties has been developed. The developed record represents the longest available compilation of events with ShCu and includes (i) a novel visualization of the spatial variability in cloud cover both along- and across-wind directions, (ii) updated estimates of narrow-FOV CF and wide-FOV FSC, (iii) updated narrow-FOV CBH, and (iv) complementary data, such as wind speed and direction from the 915-MHz Radar Wind Profiler (RWP) data. The developed record has been used successfully to assess conventional observational estimates of cloud cover and their sensitivity to the following two factors: (i) instrument-dependent cloud detection and data merging criteria and (ii) FOV configuration. Fourth, co-variability of the ShCu macrophysical properties and environmental parameters has been analyzed for a 3-yr period (2016-2018). Our initial analysis includes diurnal changes of FSCs obtained for clouds with small, moderate and large CEDs and several environmental parameters, such as lifted condensation level (LCL) and mixed layer height (zi). Preliminary results of our analysis suggest that the horizontal extent of ShCu is controlled substantially by the sign and magnitude of difference between these two parameters (zi-LCL): the CED tends to grow with increase of this difference (zi exceeds LCL). We have initiated relationships between the ShCu and key atmospheric parameters that control both the development and evolution of ShCu using our new data product, which combines effectively the advantages of narrow-FOV data offered by zenith pointing cloud radars and lidars and wide-FOV TSI images. While the latest instrumentation at the ARM sites may address these challenging relationships in the future, we believe that the historical ARM data at the SGP site has not yet been fully utilized. Overall, our data product can be used by researchers working on a wide range of climate-related projects. These projects may include (i) a comprehensive evaluation of outputs from the Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) and single-column models for their future improvement, (ii) the representativeness of “short-period” results obtained from the previous model and observational studies and (iii) the planning of future field campaigns with focus on improved understanding of the diurnal cycle of cumulus convection.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
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↗
A Method for Measuring Coupled Individual and Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards
Although models of social vulnerability to environmental hazards are commonly developed to support policy interventions in emergencies and disasters, their utility is hindered by a lack of contextual information on individuals exposed to and affected by hazards. We develop a novel approach to model social vulnerability that couples individuals and their varying forms of protective capacity with the social fabric of the communities in which they reside. The backbone of our model is the Public-Use Microdata Sample (PUMS), a product of the U.S. Census Bureau that preserves a representative sample of completed responses to the American Community Survey (ACS). The PUMS enables us to understand the full range of individual protective capacities against a hazard in an exposed area, which we term individual vulnerability profiles (IVPs). In this case, we examine IVPs in the Coney Island-Brighton Beach section of New York City, which suffered severe impacts during Hurricane Sandy in 2012. To manage the large number of unique IVPs in Coney Island-Brighton Beach, we perform a segmentation analysis to generalize them into thematic cohort vulnerability profiles (CVPs) representing a typology of vulnerable people in Coney Island-Brighton Beach during Sandy. From synthetic populations of CVPs, we then estimate how individuals in varying housing types were coexposed to Sandy at the census tract level by classifying these areas into community social vulnerability profiles (SVPs). Our results provide a topology of social vulnerability that simultaneously links individual, community, and population-wide concerns, enabling a more holistic understanding of resources and interventions beneficial to human security during events like Sandy than is attainable with area-level metrics.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Exploring Hydrologic Model Process Connectivity at the Continental Scale Through an Information Theory Approach
Exploring water fluxes between hydrological model (HM) components is essential to assess and improve model realism. Many classical metrics for HM diagnosis rely solely on streamflow and hence provide limited insights into model performance across processes. This study applies an information theory measure known as “transfer entropy” (TE) to systematically quantify the transfer of information among major HM components. To test and demonstrate the benefits of TE, we use the Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE) model to mimic and compare four commonly used HM structures, VIC, PRMS, SACRAMENTO, and TOPMODEL, across 671 catchments spanning a variety of hydrologic regimes in the conterminous United States. We explore connections between HM components and catchment landscape characteristics (e.g., climate, topography, soil, and vegetation) and characterize their nonlinear associations using distance correlation and Spearman correlation coefficients. Our results indicate that while the information transferred from precipitation to runoff is similar across model structures (likely as a result of calibration), the information transferred among other components can vary significantly from a FUSE structure to another. We find that aridity, precipitation duration and frequency, snow fraction, mean elevation, forest area, and leaf area index are often significantly associated with TE between the main HM components. Here, we propose that the presence of meaningful nonlinear associations can be used to diagnose process representation in HMs. Our results highlight the necessity to enhance the conventional streamflow-only calibration approach for a more realistic representation of water dynamics in the models.
large-sample hydrology↗
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↗
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↗
A Real-Time Operations Manual for the IEEE 118 Bus Transmission Model
This document presents a sample operations manual for the IEEE 118 Bus Model, which is a synthetic test case developed in 1962 from a section of the transmission grid operated by American Electric Power (AEP). The model is one of the most used synthetic test cases for development of power system applications and is referenced by over 9000 papers. However, the model lacks any context for use with real-time energy management system (EMS) applications, including common considerations, such as generator ramp rates, reactive capabilities, operating limits, and other information typically used by power system operators for real-time decision making. This manual divides the IEEE 118 Bus Model into three operating areas, defines various operating limits, and sets recommended operating procedures for responding to a few types of emergency operating conditions. The manual can be used in support of a wide variety of human-in-the-loop evaluation methodologies for new advanced power applications.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
Strong Lensing by Galaxies
Strong gravitational lensing at the galaxy scale is a valuable tool for various applications in astrophysics and cosmology. Some of the primary uses of galaxy-scale lensing are to study elliptical galaxies’ mass structure and evolution, constrain the stellar initial mass function, and measure cosmological parameters. Since the discovery of the first galaxy-scale lens in the 1980s, this field has made significant advancements in data quality and modeling techniques. In this review, we describe the most common methods for modeling lensing observables, especially imaging data, as they are the most accessible and informative source of lensing observables. We then summarize the primary findings from the literature on the astrophysical and cosmological applications of galaxy-scale lenses. We also discuss the current limitations of the data and methodologies and provide an outlook on the expected improvements in both areas in the near future.
79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
GriddingMachine, a database and software for Earth system modeling at global and regional scales
Land and Earth system modeling is moving towards more explicit biophysical representations, requiring increasing variety of datasets for initialization and benchmarking. However, researchers often have difficulties in identifying and integrating non-standardized datasets from various sources. We aim towards a standardized database and one-stop distribution method of global datasets. Here, we present the GriddingMachine as (1) a database of global-scale datasets commonly used to parameterize or benchmark the models, from plant traits to vegetation indices and geophysical information and (2) a cross-platform open source software to download and request a subset of datasets with only a few lines of code. The GriddingMachine datasets can be accessed either manually through traditional HTTP, or automatically using modern programming languages including Julia, Matlab, Octave, Python, and R. The GriddingMachine collections can be used for any land and Earth modeling framework and ecological research at the regional and global scales, and the number of datasets will continue to grow to meet the increasing needs of research communities.
58 GEOSCIENCES↗
Ontology Development and Evolution in the Accident Investigation Domain
InvestiigationOrganizer (IO) is a collaborative semantic web system designed to support the conduct of mishap investigations. IO provides a common repository for a wide range of mishap related information, allowing investigators to integrate evidence, causal models, and investigation results. IO has been used to support investigations ranging from a small property damage case to the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Through IO'S use in these investigations, we have learned significant lessons? about the application of ontologies and semantic systems to solving real-world problems. This paper will describe the development of the ontology within IO, from the initial development, its growth in response to user requests during use in investigations, and the recent work that was done to control the results of that growth. This paper will also describe the lessons learned from this experience and how they may apply to the implementaton of future ontologies and semantic systems.
Carvalho, Robert↗
Updated Stagnation Point Aeroheating Correlations for Mars Entry
The objective of this work was to develop new engineering correlations for stagnation point aeroheating for Mars entry vehicles. New convective and radiative heating relations have been formulated over a wide range of entry conditions. These relations have been formulated using information from recent experimental testing and modeling enhancements. The new correlations are compared to existing relations commonly used in engineering design and analysis. Finally the correlations are tested by applying them to the Mars Pathfinder entry trajectory to demonstrate their applicability. These new correlations are a significant improvement over existing relations in terms of the accuracy, domain of applicability, and the captured physics.
Brandis, A. M.↗
OGLE-2014-BLG-0962 and a Comparison of Galactic Model Priors to Microlensing Data
OGLE-2014-BLG-0962 (OB140962) is a stellar binary microlensing event that was well covered by observations from the Spitzer satellite as well as ground-based surveys. Modeling yields a unique physical solution: a mid-M+M-dwarf binary with M(prim) = 0.20 ± 0.01 M(☉) and M(sec) = 0.16 ± 0.01 M(☉), with projected separation of 2.0 ± 0.3 au. The lens is only D(LS) = 0.41 ± 0.06 kpc in front of the source, making OB140962 a bulge lens and the most distant Spitzer binary lens to date. In contrast, because the Einstein radius (θ(E) = 0.143 ± 0.007 mas) is unusually small, a standard Bayesian analysis, conducted in the absence of parallax information, would predict a brown dwarf binary. We compare the results of Bayesian analysis using two commonly used Galactic model priors to the measured values for a set of Spitzer lenses. We find all models tested predict lens properties consistent with the Spitzer data. Furthermore, we illustrate the methodology for probing the Galactic distribution of planets by comparing the cumulative distance distribution of the Spitzer two-body lenses to that of the Spitzer single lenses.
Yutong Shan↗
Astrodynamics Convention and Modeling Reference for Lunar, Cislunar, and Libration Point Orbits
The purpose and direction of this document is to provide U.S. government agencies, specifically National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and Department of Defense (DoD) space related centers, with a foundational summary of astrodynamics concepts for trajectory design, navigation, and operations in the cislunar, lunar, and libration point regions. This document is provided in response to an Interagency Agreement (IAA) between NASA and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA). With applications to these regions of the Earth-Moon system, this document summarizes: the definitions of standard and unique coordinate systems for Positioning, Navigation, Timing and targeting (PNT), transformations between those coordinate frames, definitions of common time systems, a description of numerical integration, description of a widely-used and approximate dynamical model of a three-body system for preliminary analysis and nomenclature definition, description of higher-fidelity models of cislunar space, and the application of these concepts to sample scenarios with a focus on common steps in trajectory and maneuver design for a spacecraft in cislunar space. This information is critical to mission design and navigation far above the geosynchronous orbit region, where lunar perturbations are required to be modeled accurately and consistently but render trajectory design and analysis a complex procedure. Software tools such as the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) open source General Mission Analysis Tool (GMAT) is used as a reference, along with a wide variety of resources constructed by NASA and other government agencies, academia, and industry, for mathematical specifications and practical considerations. This document has been prepared by and under the auspices of NASA. The GSFC Mission Engineering and Systems Analysis (MESA) Division (Code 590) and the Navigation and Mission Design Branch (Code 595) are part of NASA. Their engineers and scientists have expertise in lunar, cislunar, and libration point region trajectory guidance and navigation and timing. NASA GSFC has supported many successful lunar and cislunar missions over the past several decades. These missions include the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), the two Acceleration, Reconnection, Turbulence and Electrodynamics of the Moon’s Interaction with the Sun (ARTEMIS) spacecraft, Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS), Lunar Prospector, Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS), Clementine, and several Sun-Earth libration point missions such as WIND and Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR), dating back four decades. NASA GSFC also supports the upcoming Gateway lunar mission, the Artemis Lunar Program and Human Landing Systems, and leads both the Lunar IceCube low thrust mission and concept design for the Lunar Communication Relay and Navigation System (LCRNS).
Lunar, CisLunar, Libration, trajectory dynamics, p↗
Analytical Sensitivity Analysis of a Spent Nuclear Fuel Cask
Here, we report nuclear science and engineering is a field increasingly dominated by computational studies resulting from increasingly powerful computational tools. As a result, analytical studies, which previously pioneered nuclear engineering, are increasingly viewed as secondary or unnecessary. However, analytical solutions to reduced-fidelity models can provide important information concerning the underlying physics of a problem and aid in guiding computational studies. Similarly, there is increased interest in sensitivity analysis studies. These studies commonly use computational tools. However, providing a complementary sensitivity study of relevant analytical models can lead to a deeper analysis of a problem. This work provides the analytical sensitivity analysis of the one-dimensional (1D) cylindrical mono-energetic neutron diffusion equation using the forward sensitivity analysis procedure (FSAP) developed by Cacuci. Further, these results are applied to a reduced-fidelity model of a spent nuclear fuel cask, demonstrating how computational analysis might be improved with a complementary analytic sensitivity analysis.
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Extraction and Analysis of Time Series Data from Building Automation Systems Using Large Language Models
Semantic schemas like Haystack 4, Brick and ASHRAE standard 223 enable the structured, standardized, and machine-readable representation of building data, facilitating interoperability, data integration, and advanced analytics. However, extracting information from these models requires specialized expertise in SPARQL and other programming languages, skills that are not commonly found among building professionals. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, enable the construction of queries using natural language, making it easier for individuals to interact with these systems in a manner that resembles everyday speech. However, these methods have not yet been tested on building semantic ontologies. This paper introduces a novel workflow and tool for enabling users to ask questions about a specific building's data, using natural language and receive answers automatically generated by GPT-4o. Our approach integrates semantic ontologies with advanced LLM capabilities to automate three critical steps: (1) generating SPARQL queries to retrieve time series references from ontological models, (2) extracting the corresponding time series data from the Building Automation System, and (3) performing computations and visualizations tailored to the user's query. The proposed method simplifies access to BAS data, allowing both domain experts and non-specialists to conduct sophisticated analyses without needing extensive technical knowledge of semantic web technologies. By demonstrating this pipeline, we facilitate more accessible and scalable data-driven decision-making in building operations and management.
Mulayim, Ozan Baris↗
Comparison Study of Upper Subcritical Limits Derived Using Sensitivity/Uncertainty Tools Case Studies of Benchmarks and Applications
Neutron transport methods used to establish subcriticality require validation by comparison to critical experiments considered to be benchmarks. Whisper is a sensitivity/uncertainty analysis tool developed to assist with the task of validation in nuclear criticality safety. Details on the Whisper methodology can be found in References 1-3 on the MCNP ® reference collection website at https://mcnp.lanl.gov. Whisper-1.0 was originally developed in 2014 and used to assist with nuclear criticality safety validation at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Whisper was upgraded in 2016 to Whisper-1.1 and prepared for release with MCNP6.2. Whisper contains a library of over 1100 critical experiment benchmarks and quantifies neutronic similarity of an application to benchmarks in the library. Using highest similarity benchmarks, Whisper computes a calculational margin (CM) encompassing of the worst-case bias and bias uncertainty at a 99% confidence level for each application. In addition, portions of the margin of subcriticality (MOS) for nuclear data uncertainty and potential code errors are computed. The baseline upper subcritical limit (USL) computed by Whisper is comprised of the CM, MOS nuclear data , and MOS code errors . The Whisper baseline USL is absent a portion of the MOS due to the area of application, which is applied based upon judgment by the criticality safety analyst. An objective of this paper is to present the baseline USL, CM and portions of the MOS as computed by Whisper for comparison with similar sensitivity/uncertainty tools, such as those used by IRSN and ORNL. The initial comparison involves four critical experiment benchmarks: HEU-MET-FAST-013-001, HEU-SOLTHERM-001-008, PU-MET-FAST-022-001, AND PU-SOL-THERM-001-001, which have been: 1. modeled independently by LANL, IRSN, and ORNL based upon information provided in the ICSBEP Handbook, 2. are common in S/U libraries for LANL, IRSN, and ORNL, 3. span a range of energy spectrum and fissile material, and 4. taken as applications for the purposes of this study and therefore excluded from use as a benchmark for calculating the upper subcritical limit. Results presented in this paper have been computed using covariance data for all isotopes in ENDF/BVII.0 using a 44-group energy structure. Benchmarks in the Whisper library were run in MCNP6.2 using 100,000 neutrons per cycle, skipping 100 cycles for 500 active cycles. Reference 10 also compares the results for baseline USL with an order of magnitude greater neutrons, using the same total number of cycles with 1,000,000 neutrons per cycle. Subsequent to the results presented in Reference 10 changes were made to the benchmark library, as discussed in Reference 11. Newer results using the revised benchmark library are presented herein.
73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
Extraction and Analysis of Time Series Data from Building Automation Systems Using Large Language Models
Semantic schemas like Haystack 4, Brick and ASHRAE standard 223 enable the structured, standardized, and machine-readable representation of building data, facilitating interoperability, data integration, and advanced analytics. However, extracting information from these models requires specialized expertise in SPARQL and other programming languages, skills that are not commonly found among building professionals. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, enable the construction of queries using natural language, making it easier for individuals to interact with these systems in a manner that resembles everyday speech. However, these methods have not yet been tested on building semantic ontologies. This paper introduces a novel workflow and tool for enabling users to ask questions about a specific building's data, using natural language and receive answers automatically generated by GPT-4o. Our approach integrates semantic ontologies with advanced LLM capabilities to automate three critical steps: (1) generating SPARQL queries to retrieve time series references from ontological models, (2) extracting the corresponding time series data from the Building Automation System, and (3) performing computations and visualizations tailored to the user's query. The proposed method simplifies access to BAS data, allowing both domain experts and non-specialists to conduct sophisticated analyses without needing extensive technical knowledge of semantic web technologies. By demonstrating this pipeline, we facilitate more accessible and scalable data-driven decision-making in building operations and management.
Mulayim, Ozan Baris↗