Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “OTHER INSTRUMENTATION”

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 901 records · Page 50
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

The 6-minute walk test predicts mortality in a pulmonary nontuberculous mycobacteria-predominant bronchiectasis cohort

Background: Bronchiectasis is a chronic lung condition frequently associated with nontuberculous mycobacteria pulmonary (NTM) disease. Persons with these conditions are at increased risk of mortality. Patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments and the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) have been shown to predict mortality for several lung conditions, but these measures have not been fully evaluated for bronchiectasis and NTM. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among adult patients enrolled in a natural history study of bronchiectasis at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Electronic medical records were queried for demographic, clinical, microbiologic, radiographic, and PRO instrument data: St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, and the Pulmonary Symptom Severity Score (PSSS). The study baseline date was defined as the patient’s first visit after January 1st, 2015 with a SGRQ or 6MWT completed. Follow-up was defined as the interval between the study baseline visit and date of death or December 31st, 2019. Sex-stratified Cox proportional-hazards regression was conducted to identify predictors of mortality. Separate models were run for each PRO and 6MWT measure, controlling for age, body mass index (BMI), fibrocavitary disease status, and M. abscessus infection. Results: In multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models, the PSSS-severity (aHR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04–1.59), the 6MWT total distance walked (aHR 0.938, 95% CI 0.896–0.981) and distance saturation product (aHR 0.930, 95% CI 0.887–0.974) independently predicted mortality. In addition, BMI was significantly predictive of mortality in all models. Conclusions: The 6MWT and a PRO instrument capturing symptom severity are independently predictive of mortality in our cohort of bronchiectasis patients.

6-minute walk test↗
DOE OSTI2021

Accurate determination of genotypic variance of cell wall characteristics of a Populus trichocarpa pedigree using high-throughput pyrolysis-molecular beam mass spectrometry

Abstract Background Pyrolysis-molecular beam mass spectrometry (py-MBMS) analysis of a pedigree of Populus trichocarpa was performed to study the phenotypic plasticity and heritability of lignin content and lignin monomer composition. Instrumental and microspatial environmental variability were observed in the spectral features and corrected to reveal underlying genetic variance of biomass composition. Results Lignin-derived ions (including m/z 124, 154, 168, 194, 210 and others) were highly impacted by microspatial environmental variation which demonstrates phenotypic plasticity of lignin composition in Populus trichocarpa biomass. Broad-sense heritability of lignin composition after correcting for microspatial and instrumental variation was determined to be H 2 = 0.56 based on py-MBMS ions known to derive from lignin. Heritability of lignin monomeric syringyl/guaiacyl ratio ( S / G ) was H 2 = 0.81. Broad-sense heritability was also high (up to H 2 = 0.79) for ions derived from other components of the biomass including phenolics (e.g., salicylates) and C5 sugars (e.g., xylose). Lignin and phenolic ion abundances were primarily driven by maternal effects, and paternal effects were either similar or stronger for the most heritable carbohydrate-derived ions. Conclusions We have shown that many biopolymer-derived ions from py-MBMS show substantial phenotypic plasticity in response to microenvironmental variation in plantations. Nevertheless, broad-sense heritability for biomass composition can be quite high after correcting for spatial environmental variation. This work outlines the importance in accounting for instrumental and microspatial environmental variation in biomass composition data for applications in heritability measurements and genomic selection for breeding poplar for renewable fuels and materials.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Combined EDS and EBSD dataset from TiB2 ceramic material

This is supplemental information to a paper to be submitted, tentatively titled Cluster analysis of combined EDS and EBSD data to solve ambiguous phase identifications. Data was acquired from a TiB2 ceramic provided by Missouri University of Science and Technology. Simultaneous EDS and EBSD were acquired on a Tescan MIRA3 GMH field-emission SEM equipped with Oxford Instruments Symmetry CMOS-based EBSD detector and Oxford Instruments UltimMax 170 mm2 silicon-drift detector EDS. Data was acquired using Oxford Instruments AZtec 4.0 software. Data was acquired at 20 keV, 70° tilt, and ≈1 nA probe current. An 80×60 pixel, 40×30 μm map (500 nm pixel pitch) was acquired. EBSD indexing was performed using TiB2, space group 191 P6/mmm, and TiC, space group 225 Fm \bar{3}m, crystal cards.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2022

Utah FORGE Well 56-32 Sludge XRF

This is an Excel spreadsheet containing the results of X-ray fluorescence from well 56-32 sludge samples. The instrumentation used was a Olympus Vanta M series handheld XRF analyzer. A glass (SiO2) "blank" was analyzed at the beginning and end of each sample batch to detect contamination within the instrument. The standard 2711A was analyzed at the beginning and end of each sample batch to detect drift in instrument precision over time. Material was analyzed in a plastic cup with a prolene thin film cover for minimal interference.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Cation Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2014-2025)

This data package contains mean values for cation concentration for water samples taken from the East River Watershed in Colorado. Inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS) has been used to measure the concentrations of elements of interest simultaneously for the East River Watershed, Colorado groundwater and surface water samples to inform insights on the biogeochemistry processes within the watershed. The East River is part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. For samples collected prior to 06-16-2021, the instrumentation, Elan DRC II, PerkinElmer SCIEX, automatically switches among the three models necessary to analyze all 37 elements. These 37 elements include: (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be), Boron (B), Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al), Silicon (Si), Phosphorus (P), Titanium (Ti), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Caesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th), Uranium (U) using standard model, argon Ar as reaction gas, (2) Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca), Vanadium (V), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe) using dynamic reaction cell (DRC) model, ammonia NH3 as reaction gas, and (3) Phosphorus (P) and Selenium (Se) using DRC model, oxygen O2 as reaction gas. Note for the samples with higher concentrations of chloride (Cl-), asenic (As) concentrations were analysed with DRC model (oxygen O2 as reaction gas) to avoid the interference of chloride. For samples collected on and after 06-16-2021, an advanced Agilent 8900 triple quadrupole inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry system (Agilent 8900 QQQ ICP-MS, Agilent Technologies) has been used to measure the concentrations of interested 36 elements simultaneously for environmental samples, including (1) Lithium (Li), Beryllium (Be) and Boron (B) using standard no gas mode, (2) Sodium (Na), Magnesium (Mg), Aluminium (Al) Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Chromium (Cr), Manganese (Mn), Iron (Fe), Cobalt (Co), Nickel (Ni), Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn), Germanium (Ge), Arsenic (As), Rubidium (Rb), Strontium (Sr), Zirconium (Zr), Molybdenum (Mo), Silver (Ag), Cadmium (Cd), Tin (Sn), Antimony (Sb), Cesium (Cs), Barium (Ba), Europium (Eu), Lead (Pb), Thorium (Th) and Uranium (U) using standard helium (He) collision mode, (3) Titanium (Ti) and Vanadium (V) using high Energy (HEHe) helium (He) collision mode, and (4) Silicon (Si), Calcium (Ca) and Selenium (Se) using standard H2 reaction mode. All samples were prepared/diluted with 2% (v/v) ultrapure nitric acid in Milli-Q water (18.2 mega ohm-cm), and analyzed under a rigorous quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) process. This data package contains (1) a zip file (cation_data_2014_2025.zip) containing a total of 5,849 files: 5.848 data files of cation data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v6_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; (4) PDF and docx files for the detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS PerkinElmer DRC II instrumentation (Detemination_of_Method_Detection_Limits__MDLs__for_ICP_MS__PerkinElmer_Elan_DRC_II__LBL_Bldg74_Lab214D) for samples before November 2021; (5) PDF and docx files for the determination of MDLs for ICP-MS Agilent 8900 QQQ instrumentation (ICP_MS_Analysis_detection_limits_and_QA_QC_WenmingDong_updated_2026-08-06) for samples November 2021 and onward. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 113 locations containing cation data. Update on 2021-04-11: Added Detemination of Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for ICP-MS document, which can be accessed as a PDF or with Microsoft Word. Update on 2022-06-10: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated cation data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) removed suffix and prefix on two variables (“aqberylliumion_asberyllium” and “aqlithiumion_aslithium”), (5) added -9999 for empty numerical cells, and (6) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-01-05. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-10-16. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Updated versions of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available cation data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). Updated versions, as of 2026-08-06, of the PDF and docx files for determination of MDLs for ICP-MS data were added to this dataset for samples starting in November 2021.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

CHESS 2025: Leaf Area Index (LAI) for meadow, shrub, tree, and understory vegetation

This dataset contains Leaf Area Index (LAI) measurements made as part of the Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) during June and July of 2025. Data were collected in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, across three study domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). Field observations of LAI were collected within 72 hours of airborne data collection by the National Ecological Observatory Network’s Aerial Observation Platform (NEON AOP). The NEON AOP collected waveform LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and imaging spectrometer data in 426 spectral bands from the visible to shortwave infrared. LAI measurements were collected using the LICOR LAI-2200C Plant Canopy Analyzer following protocols outlined in the instrument manual (LI-COR 2019). Sampling targeted four distinct vegetation types: meadows, shrubs, trees, and aspen forest understory. We have archived data separately by site type because different field methods were used for each. At meadow sites, measurements were made at the four corners of 1m x 1m plots, with the instrument moving inward toward the center of the plot. At shrub sites, we measured the canopies of individual shrubs. At tree sites, we made measurements within a 10m x 10m subplot centered around a focal tree, with 30 observations taken on a regular grid. At aspen understory sites, we measured overstory trees following the tree protocol and understory herbaceous vegetation following the meadow protocol. All measurements included above-canopy (A) and below-canopy (B) readings, with specific protocols for scattering correction measurements in direct-sun conditions. Data were processed using the R package `rlai` (Worsham 2025). This package includes functions to calculate LAI, gap fraction, apparent clumping factor (Ω), scattering correction, and other canopy metrics. Package contents: Full file descriptions appear in ‘flmd.csv’. Files named according to the convention ‘lai_*_summary_data_cleaned.csv’ contain summary values of LAI, apparent clumping factor (Ωapp), and scattering correction factors for each site. These are the analysis-ready products that most data users will work with. Files named ‘lai_*_metadata_cleaned.csv’ contain additional site-level observations made during field collection. We have also archived intermediate and supplementary data for users who wish to check our processing approach or apply alternative methods. ‘raw_lai_2200C.zip’ contains the raw files as read from the LI-COR instrument, with no processing applied, in TXT format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type, which are further subdivided by sampling area. Filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘intermediate_results.zip’ contains detailed output from the processing routines, in JSON format. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘scattering_correction_logs.zip’ contains logfiles from the implementation of Kobayashi et al.'s (2013) scattering correction algorithm. The logfiles report values of several parameters at each iteration of the algorithm, as the model converges toward a stable solution. They are intended for users who want to verify scattering correction performance. The zip archive contains subdirectories by site type; filenames correspond to the sampling site number. ‘spot_checks.csv’ reports LAI and other values for a small number of files processed with LI-COR FV2200 software (LI-COR 2013) using the same control parameters as in our R-based approach. Additional metadata are provided in a data dictionary describing column names and definitions (dd.csv), and in a file-level metadata file (flmd.csv). All zip files can be expanded with common archive utilities. TXT, CSV, and JSON files can be ingested into R or Python computing environments or read in common text editor utilities. Geospatial information: Geospatial data for mapping measurement site locations are in the files CHESS_polygons_lai_UTM.geojson, CHESS_polygons_shrub_UTM.geojson, and CHESS_polygons_meadow_UTM.geojson in the companion geospatial package for the 2025 CHESS campaign, ‘CHESS 2025: Location data for field observations and sampling’ (Henderson et al., 2026). CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. Funding Acknowledgement: Field and remote-sensing data acquisition was performed under a grant from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NSSC24K1005). This work was also 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. * Todorov and Worsham are co–first authors.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
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 OSTI2020

Recovery and Calibration of Legacy Underground Nuclear Test Seismic Data from the Leo Brady Seismic Network

The Leo Brady Seismic Network (LBSN, originally the Sandia Seismic Network) was established in 1960 by Sandia National Laboratories to monitor underground nuclear tests (UGTs) at the Nevada National Security Site (NNSS, formerly named the Nevada Test Site). The LBSN has been in various configurations throughout its existence, but it has generally been comprised of four to six stations at regional distances (~150–400 km) from the NNSS with approximately evenly spaced azimuthal coverage. Between 1962 and the end of nuclear testing in 1992, the LBSN—and a sister network operated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories—was the most comprehensive United States source of regional seismic data of UGTs. Approximately 75% of all UGTs performed by the United States occurred in the predigital era. At that time, LBSN data were transmitted as frequency-modulated (FM) audio over telephone lines to a central location and recorded as analog waveforms on high-fidelity magnetic audio tapes. These tapes have been in dry temperature-stable storage for decades and contain the sole record of this irreplaceable data; full waveforms of LBSN-recorded UGTs from this era were not routinely digitized or otherwise published. We have developed a process to recover and calibrate data from these tapes. First, we play back and digitize the tapes as audio. Next, we demodulate the FM “audio” into individual waveforms. We then estimate the various instrument constants through careful measurement of “weight-lift” tests performed prior to each UGT on each instrument. Finally, these coefficients allow us to scale and shape the derived instrument response of the seismographs and compute poles and zeros. Finally, the result of this process is a digital record of the recorded seismic ground motion in a modern data format, stored in a searchable database. To date, we have digitized tapes from 592 UGTs.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
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 OSTI2020

Micropulse Differential Absorption Lidar (MPD) Network Demonstration Field Campaign Report

The National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and Montana State University (MSU) are nearing completion of a National Science Foundation (NSF) major research instrumentation grant to build five micropulse differential absorption lidars (MPDs) for water vapor profiling. The first demonstration of the MPD configured as a five-unit network occurred at the Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility Southern Great Plains (SGP) field sites near Lamont, Oklahoma from 17 April–21 July 2019 for a total of 96 days of operation. The field deployment was funded in part by DOE (which provided support for the MPD installation, power at the field sites, personnel to launch 3-hourly radiosondes from the Central Facility, and the cost of the radiosondes themselves), internal NCAR funds (to support the MPD shipping costs and NCAR staff travel expenses), and NSF/Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) funds (to support the MSU travel expenses to participate in the instrument setup).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

5G Enabled Energy Innovation: Advanced Wireless Networks for Science (Workshop Report)

Rapidly expanding, new telecommunications infrastructure based on 5G technologies will disrupt and transform how we design, build, operate, and optimize scientific infrastructure and the experiments and services enabled by that infrastructure, from continental-scale sensor networks to centralized scientific user facilities, from intelligent Internet of Things devices to supercomputers. Concurrently, 5G will introduce, or exacerbate, challenges related to protecting infrastructure and associated scientific data as well as to fully leveraging opportunities related to expanded infrastructure scale and complexity. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science operates scientific infrastructure, supporting some of the nation’s most advanced intellectual discoveries, spanning the country and including 30 world-class user facilities from supercomputers to accelerators. Along with field experiments and remote observatories, every aspect of DOE’s scientific enterprise will be affected by 5G, which amounts to a complete renovation of the underpinnings of the nation’s information infrastructure. In this report we explore the scientific opportunities and new research challenges associated with 5G, ranging from scalability to heterogeneity to cybersecurity. The rapid commercial deployment of 5G opens the opportunity to rethink and reinvent DOE’s scientific infrastructure and experimentation, from intelligent sensor networks at unprecedented scales to a digital continuum of cyberinfrastructure spanning low-power sensors, high-performance computing embedded within and at the edge of the network, and DOE’s large-scale user instrument and computing facilities. New programming paradigms, workflow and data frameworks, and AI-based system design, operation, and autonomous adaptation and optimization will be necessary in order to exploit these new opportunities. Field deployments and centralized scientific instruments can also be revolutionized, moving (without traditional performance penalties) from wired to wireless connectivity for data and control systems, improving flexibility, and opening new sensing modalities, including the use of the 5G electromagnetic spectrum itself as an environmental probe. For DOE science, in contrast to commercial 5G applications and settings, devices will be deployed in extreme environments such as cryogenically cooled instrument control systems and in remote settings with harsh conditions, requiring the design of new materials for RF communication and edge processing to operate in these regimes. Concurrently, 5G infrastructure comprises both hardware and sophisticated software systems - currently closed and proprietary. The cybersecurity challenges to 5G-empowered reinvention mirror the complexity and variety of new 5G features, from virtualization to private network slices to ubiquitous access. Research is also needed in order to accelerate the development of secure and open 5G software infrastructure, reducing reliance on hardware and software produced outside the United States and providing the transparency and rigorous evaluation and testing afforded through open software. Twelve broad research thrusts are laid out in four chapters, with a companion fifth chapter (and three additional research thrusts) underscoring the needs and opportunities for an aggressive testbed program co-designed by networking experts and scientists involved in the 15 research thrusts. The urgency of undertaking this research is fueled by a global, accelerating deployment of new telecommunications infrastructure that is designed for entertainment and commercial applications - barely scratching the surface of what 5G can do to extend U.S. leadership in scientific discovery.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Capturing the full benefits of bifacial modules to approach an LCOE of 3c/kWh through a regional optimization of the electrical architecture (Final Technical Report)

This is the final technical report for the Cypress Creek Renewables project focused on bifacial plant performance. The project consisted of building a heavily instrumented Bifacial test sites with several cell technologies; instrumenting >1 MW scale commercial sites with both monofacial and bifacial arrays in order to understand real-world differences; and to engage with the performance modeling and financial stakeholder community to improve accuracy and increase investor confidence. The data from the test and commercial sites has been used to validate and improve the accuracy of both physics-based and reduced order modeling software. The heavily instrumented nature has been used to understand how light contributions from the sky and reflected from the ground impact different portions of the module and array while the data from the commercial sites has directly impacted how independent engineers model production from bifacial systems. The latter point has led to an increase in over 2% compared to earlier predictions. Even this modest increase has had significant downward pressure on project LCOE. As the data and results are both public, this refined modeling and empirical evidence for a higher bifacial gain than modeled, the benefits to the broader US solar community are assured.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

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↗
DOE OSTI2020

Radiation Hardened Electronics for Reactor Environments

Radiation-hardened (rad-hard) electronics have been the shortcoming in nuclear sensing and instrumentation. Placing advanced sensors and associated electronics closer to a nuclear reactor core will improve reactor control and operation through increased signal accuracy, precision, and fidelity, resulting in safer, more efficient energy production. However, the extreme temperature and bombarding radiation environment of nuclear applications make research and development into electronics and electronic materials technologies essential to enabling improved safety, monitoring, and control of the existing nuclear reactor fleet and the next generation of reactors, including microreactors. To help the US Department of Energy (DOE) define a course for the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE)-funded rad-hard electronics research, Oak Ridge National Laboratory staff present this summary of the state-of-the-art (SOA) technology for the design and implementation of rad-hard electronics and systems, including research efforts and commercial offerings. A collection of technological gaps associated with reactor applications are compiled herein. Based on the radiation degradation mechanisms discussed in this report, along with the state-of-the-art summary survey and a compiled list of gaps, a high-level research plan of future NE funding direction was developed and is provided. This report outlines these activities and provides a summary of SOA electronics technology for rad-hard instrumentation in reactors, a list of the major technology gaps observed, and a draft plan for addressing the present and future needs of reactor instrumentation.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2020

“Mirror” magnet experiment for quench studies, quench analysis techniques development and in support of superconducting magnet modeling

In order to progress on various research points related to superconducting magnets, we suggest performing series of tests with induced and natural quenches on a mirror magnet, probably using a “11 T” coil. The “mirror” is to have voltage taps instrumented on half the strands, on both coil ends. It is to be instrumented with multiple spot-heaters, of the order of ten, in designated pole-turn areas. Instrumentation is to include quench antenna array facing the inner coil surface, as well as acoustic sensors on the inner layer pole. Further, acoustic sensors at the magnet ends and an acoustic calibration transducer are to be installed. Thus, we are to test sensitivity and precision of acoustic and quench antenna (QA) array sensors, both at close proximity to the coil, and we are to test and commission acoustic on-magnet real-time “calibration”. New or extended DAQ will be tested as well. In addition to diagnostic development, the purpose of the magnet experiment is to investigate current redistribution in the coil, both during quenching and in operating conditions; to assess voltage build up across strands and in the coil segments during quenching, to explore voltage signature differentiation between different type of quenches; to improve modeling of processes during quenching and for magnet design purposes. In this experiment, we expect to be able to characterize the processes during a quench in unprecedented details.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2021

The Usage of Observing System Simulation Experiments and Reinforcement Learning to Optimize Experimental Design and Operation

Various organizations regularly conduct field campaigns across the globe designed to probe and improve atmospheric process understanding. However, these campaigns are mostly designed ad-hoc, and rely on anecdotes and knowledge of what was successful in previous campaigns. Such ad-hoc experiment design results in sub-optimal instrument siting and operation strategies. Inadequate targeted data collection of extreme weather is a major limitation to Earth and Environmental Systems Science Division (EESSD)’s goals of data model integration (4.5.3), which limits the knowledge gained through the collected observations, holding back significant advances in predictability. While advances in instrument design are always chipping away at these limitations, we are not optimally utilizing the instrumentation we currently possess.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗