Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “model exploration”

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 919 records · Page 51
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

The right conditions for high-precision dynamic temperature and heat capacity measurement via pyrometry and conductivity

The pursuit of accurate bulk temperature T under extreme conditions has been a long-standing goal of the high pressure science community, complicated by a lack of data to inform models. To reach these extremely high-pressure, high-temperature (high P − T) conditions, a combination of dynamic and heated static experiments (e.g., diamond or gem anvil cel experiments) are used. For example, in a diamond anvil cell (DAC) experiment, a sample placed in the DAC is first pressurized. Following pressurization, the sample T is increased either by heating the entire DAC (usually using resistive heating, and limited to ∼1000K) or by applying intense laser power to the sample surfaces. In a dynamic experiment, the process of pressurizing the sample also heats it. In the case of shock physics experiments, such heating is substantial, easily reaching thousands of Kelvin; in our work we have seen T ∼17000K. Most methods of measuring temperature at ambient are not compatible with experiments under these high-pressure, high-temperature conditions: thermocouples break, melt, or have conductivity properties that differ from ambient where they are calibrated; thermometers would melt; both are too slow. As a result most methods are based on non-contact techniques such as x-ray diffraction broadening, neutron scattering, or optical methods. Of these, optical methods using the visible and near-infrared region of the spectrum are the most commonly used as the sources and detectors are readily available. In the case of optical methods the optical depth, and therefore the measurement location, is limited to the surface. When a window or anvil material is used, heat flows from the sample into the window/anvil. Likewise, if the sample undergoes a change in thermodynamic state, such as expansion upon release, different T may be expected. As a result, the surface or apparent temperature T app measurement will differ from the bulk or interior temperature that is desired. This surface measurement must be related to the bulk measurement using thermal transport models and material models. While it is tempting to conclude that one should just use x-ray methods that directly probe the interior, even these methods have been shown to depend on thermal transport and material models. Regardless of the method used to create the high P − T condition, therefore, we must understand the role of thermal transport and material models upon our interpretation of the T measurement, as well as the errors and uncertainties associated with the choice of models used in the analysis. This is a substantial area of research and this paper is by no means a complete survey of the relevant sources of uncertainty. For example, we have yet to begin to address alternate transport models in a detailed manner (e.g., Tan-Ahrens), or the many models that use additional layers to approximate melting, turbulence, or epitaxial phenomena). Likewise, we have not explored the impact upon uncertainty of thermal models that use temperature-dependent thermal transport coefficients, or the wide range of material models that can be applied. Instead, this paper focuses on using one simple model, the Urtiew-Grover model, to understand the sources of error in T measurement so that we may identify how best to focus future research efforts to return the best improvements and avoid working on over-optimizing a single type of measurement. To this end, we work through some of the best and worst case scenarios for T measurement.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2024

Structural properties of plastically deformed SrTiO 3 and KTaO 3

Dislocation engineering has the potential to open new avenues toward the exploration and modification of the properties of quantum materials. Strontium titanate (SrTi⁢O 3 , STO) and potassium tantalate (KTa⁢O 3 , KTO) are incipient ferroelectrics that show metallization and superconductivity at extremely low charge-carrier concentrations and have been the subject of resurgent interest. These materials also exhibit remarkable ambient-temperature ductility, and thus represent exceptional platforms for studies of the effects of deformation-induced dislocation structures on electronic properties. Recent work on plastically deformed STO revealed an enhancement of the superconducting transition temperature and the emergence of local ferroelectricity and magnetism near self-organized dislocation walls. Here, in this work, we present a comprehensive structural analysis of plastically deformed STO and KTO, employing specially designed strain cells, diffuse neutron and x-ray scattering, Raman scattering, and nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR). Diffuse scattering and NMR provide insight into the dislocation configurations and densities and their dependence on strain. As in the prior work on STO, Raman scattering reveals evidence for local ferroelectric order near dislocation walls in plastically deformed KTO. Our findings provide valuable information about the self-organized defect structures in both materials, and they position KTO as a second model system in which to explore the associated emergent physics.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2023

NED_Asteroid_Energy_Deposition

In the event of a potentially catastrophic asteroid impact, with sufficient warning time, deploying a nuclear device remains a powerful option for planetary defense if a kinetic impactor proves insufficient. Predicting the effectiveness of a potential nuclear deflection or disruption mission depends on accurate multiphysics simulations of the device's x-ray energy deposition into the asteroid and the resulting material ablation. These simulations span many orders of magnitude, require a variety of different complex physics packages, and are computationally expensive. Having an efficient and accurate way of modeling this system is necessary for exploring a mission's sensitivity to the asteroid's range of physical properties. To expedite future simulations, we present a completed x-ray energy deposition model developed using the radiation-hydrodynamics code Kull which can be used to initiate a nuclear mitigation mission hydrocode. The model spans a wide variety of possible mission initial conditions: four different asteroid-like materials (Silicon Dioxide, Forsterite, Iron, and Ice), two different source spectra (1 and 2 keV blackbodies), and then a broad range of radiation fluences (0.0001 to 1 kt per square meter), source durations (10 to 100 ns), and asteroid porosities (0 to 80 percent). Using blowoff momentum as the primary metric, the modelinitiated simulation results match the full radiation-hydrodynamics results to within 10 percent. Please reference the journal article: Burkey et al., X-Ray Energy Deposition Model for Simulating Asteroid Response to a Nuclear Planetary Defense Mitigation Mission, Planetary Science Journal, (2023) for more information.

Managan, RobertA↗
DOE OSTI2021

Tools for Assessing Performance Project: FY2021 Quarter 4 Report

The rotatable building located at Texas Tech’s Reese Technology Center is approximately 14 m wide (width being defined as more normal to the wind than parallel), 9 m long (aligned more with the wind than perpendicular), and 4 m tall. By placing 29 sonic anemometers downwind of the building, see Fig. 1, this facility provided a chance to collect data concerning both the wake velocity deficit distribution in the downstream and crosssteam directions (relative to the mean wind) behind an isolated building. A preliminary comparison between this data and the recently- developed fast-running diffusive wake model, which was developed based on wind tunnel and LES (performed with JOULES) simulations, for the purpose of either validating this model of understanding potential persistent differences between the idealized wind tunnel or LES conditions and those of full-scale real world phenomena. For this preliminary exploration, we utilized the diffusive wake model implemented in the QUIC model.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Innovative Subsurface Learning and Hawaiian Exploration using Advanced Tomography (ISLAND HEAT) Phase 1 (Final Report)

The Innovative Subsurface Learning and Hawaiian Exploration using Advanced Tomography (ISLAND HEAT) project aims to leverage and enhance existing Hawai'i geothermal play fairway analysis (PFA) results and validate a conceptual model-driven, optimized, least-cost exploration and geophysical suite at a proven geothermal field with known permeability, the Puna Geothermal Venture, located in the Lower East Rift Zone. The abundance of geophysical scrutinization before, during, and after the 2018 Kilauea eruption at and around the broader Puna system offers a rare opportunity to elucidate geophysical expressions within a dynamic magmatic rift setting. Development of the methodology continues with its application at a second prospective site identified by the PFA, Mauna Kea, which serves as confirmation of the integrated approach.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2023

X-Ray Energy Deposition Model for Simulating Asteroid Response to a Nuclear Planetary Defense Mitigation Mission

Abstract In the event of a potentially catastrophic asteroid impact, with sufficient warning time, deploying a nuclear device remains a powerful option for planetary defense if a kinetic impactor or other means of deflection proves insufficient. Predicting the effectiveness of a potential nuclear deflection or disruption mission depends on accurate multiphysics simulations of the device's X-ray energy deposition into the asteroid and the resulting material ablation. The relevant physics in these simulations span many orders of magnitude, require a variety of different complex physics packages, and are computationally expensive. Having an efficient and accurate way of modeling this system is necessary for exploring a mission's sensitivity to the asteroid's range of physical properties. To expedite future simulations, we present a completed X-ray energy deposition model developed using the radiation-hydrodynamics code Kull that can be used to initiate a nuclear mitigation mission calculation. The model spans a wide variety of possible mission initial conditions: four different asteroid-like materials at a range of porosities, two different source spectra, and a broad range of radiation fluences, source durations, and angles of incidence. Using blowoff momentum as the primary metric, the model-initiated simulation results match the full radiation-hydrodynamics results to within 10%.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Insights into Methodologies and Operational Details of Resource Adequacy Assessment: A Case Study with Application to a Broader Flexibility Framework

Assessing and maintaining resource adequacy (RA) is a core pillar of power systems. However, recent changes in the physical makeup of these systems and the conditions under which these systems must operate have yielded a renewed interest in the methods, metrics, and assumptions that underpin RA assessments. In this paper, we systematically explore a wide range of RA modeling dimensions, including: the objective function and level of operational detail in the underlying model formulation; the quantity (look-ahead) and quality (accuracy) of data that is available for making operational decisions within those models; and the physical configuration of solar photovoltaics (PV) with battery storage hybrid resources. We apply a set of probabilistic RA tools and production cost modeling tools to a realistic test system based loosely on a future Electric Reliability Council of Texas power system dominated by solar PV resources. Under the assumptions of our system and models, we find that multi-stage probabilistic assessments may provide a more robust evaluation of RA by capturing a wider range of operational and system interactions, but this comes at a computational cost of 1-2 orders of magnitude longer run time depending on the specific configuration. In addition, the information on thermal generator availability impacts RA performance by an order of magnitude more than solar resource forecasts, which is driven by the comparatively larger magnitude of thermal outages than solar forecast errors within our test system. Lastly, the flexibility provided by hybrid and other resources can help reduce system load-shedding event frequencies and enable the system to be more robust to inaccurate forecast information, and alternative hybrid inverter sizes can impact RA levels by 1-2 orders of magnitude. Our results point to the importance of a broader flexibility framework to describe the interaction between (1) flexibility "supply" from both physical resource capabilities and operational constraints considered in the modeling, and (2) flexibility "demand" from forecast errors, thermal generator outages, and other sources of uncertainty, as well as their RA impacts. Results are likely sensitive to the system buildout explored; future work could consider additional system configurations and conditions.

ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY,POWER TRANSMI↗
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 OSTI2021

Progress on continuum modeling of lithium–sulfur batteries

While lithium–sulfur batteries are a promising next-generation chemistry devices due to their high theoretical energy density, commercialization has been slow due to low coulombic efficiency and poor cycle life. This review explores the ways in which continuum modeling contributes to the understanding of lithium–sulfur (LiS) battery mechanisms and cell-level performance through the lens of micro- and macroscale phenomena. We examine different approaches to modeling important physical phenomena such as reaction mechanisms, cathode microstructure, shuttling, nucleation and precipitation, and transport limitations. This paper also emphasizes the significance and challenge of connecting typical modeling parameters and assumptions to systems-level metrics of a standard state-of-art high performing lithium–sulfur cell. Particularly important, the considerations for high energy density cells and the areas where continuum models can facilitate better collaboration are discussed. Here, we also summarize a few selected works to highlight experimentally-driven modeling, use of electroanalytical techniques, and parameter identification approaches to enable model-based design and advanced battery management systems.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2022

Modeling the Joint Effects of Vegetation Characteristics and Soil Properties on Ecosystem Dynamics in a Panama Tropical Forest

Abstract In tropical forests, both vegetation characteristics and soil properties are important not only for controlling energy, water, and gas exchanges directly but also determining the competition among species, successional dynamics, forest structure and composition. However, the joint effects of the two factors have received limited attention in Earth system model development. Here we use a vegetation demographic model, the Functionally Assembled Terrestrial Ecosystem Simulator (FATES) implemented in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) Land Model (ELM), ELM‐FATES, to explore how plant traits and soil properties affect tropical forest growth and composition concurrently. A large ensemble of simulations with perturbed vegetation and soil hydrological parameters is conducted at the Barro Colorado Island, Panama. The simulations are compared against observed carbon, energy, and water fluxes. We find that soil hydrological parameters, particularly the scaling exponent of the soil retention curve ( B sw ), play crucial roles in controlling forest diversity, with higher B sw values (>7) favoring late successional species in competition, and lower B sw values (1 ∼ 7) promoting the coexistence of early and late successional plants. Considering the additional impact of soil properties resolves a systematic bias of FATES in simulating sensible/latent heat partitioning with repercussion on water budget and plant coexistence. A greater fraction of deeper tree roots can help maintain the dry‐season soil moisture and plant gas exchange. As soil properties are as important as vegetation parameters in predicting tropical forest dynamics, more efforts are needed to improve parameterizations of soil functions and belowground processes and their interactions with aboveground vegetation dynamics.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Ventenata dubia projected to expand in the western United States despite future novel conditions

Abstract Distributions of both native and invasive species are expected to shift under future climate. Species distribution models (SDMs) are often used to explore future habitats, but sources of uncertainty including novel climate conditions may reduce the reliability of future projections. We explore the potential spread of the invasive annual grass ventenata ( Ventenata dubia ) in the western United States under both current and future climate scenarios using boosted regression tree models and 30 global climate models (GCMs). We quantify novel climate conditions, prediction variability arising from both the SDMs and GCMs, and the agreement among GCMs. Results demonstrate that currently suitable habitat is concentrated inside the invaded range of the northwest, but substantial habitat exists outside the invaded range in the Southern Rockies and southwestern US mountains. Future suitability projections vary greatly among GCMs, but GCMs commonly projected decreased suitability in the invaded range and increased suitability along higher elevations of interior mountainous areas. Climate novelty did not appear to undermine the prediction reliability in many cases where the climate–species relationship was fully represented by the occurrence data. GCM‐derived variability resulting from variation in future cool season precipitation and temperature seasonality was greatest in the Rocky Mountains. SDM‐derived variability was higher in currently suitable habitat, and few GCMs projections agreed that these areas would contain future suitable habitat. However, while prediction variability was high, many GCM projections agreed that parts of the Rocky, Wasatch, and Uinta Mountains would contain highly suitable habitat in the future. As disturbances in the interior mountains occur in coming decades, reducing some natural barriers to invasion, land managers, and conservationists will need to monitor for ventenata in post‐disturbance environments. Changes to invasion potential may not play out for several decades, but results related to current potential may have applications for early detection and rapid response planning.

Environmental Sciences & Ecology↗
DOE OSTI2021

Jet wake from linearized hydrodynamics

We explore how to improve the hybrid model description of the particles originating from the wake that a jet produced in a heavy ion collision leaves in the droplet of quark-gluon plasma (QGP) through which it propagates, using linearized hydrodynamics on a background Bjorken flow. Jet energy and momentum loss described by the hybrid model become currents sourcing linearized hydrodynamics. By solving the linearized hydrodynamic equations numerically, we investigate the development of the wake in the dynamically evolving droplet of QGP, study the effect of viscosity, scrutinize energy-momentum conservation, and check the validity of the linear approximation. We find that linearized hydrodynamics works better in the viscous case because diffusive modes damp the energy-momentum perturbation produced by the jet. We calculate the distribution of particles produced from the jet wake by using the Cooper-Frye prescription and find that both the transverse momentum spectrum and the distribution of particles in azimuthal angle are similar in shape in linearized hydrodynamics and in the hybrid model. Their normalizations are different because the momentum-rapidity distribution in the linearized hydrodynamics analysis is more spread out, due to sound modes. Since the Bjorken flow has no transverse expansion, we explore the effect of transverse flow by using local boosts to add it into the Cooper-Frye formula. After including the effects of transverse flow in this way, the transverse momentum spectrum becomes harder: more particles with transverse momenta bigger than 2 GeV are produced than in the hybrid model. Although we defer implementing this analysis in a jet Monte Carlo, as would be needed to make quantitative comparisons to data, we gain a qualitative sense of how the jet wake may modify jet observables by computing proxies for two example observables: the lost energy recovered in a cone of varying open angle, and the fragmentation function. We find that linearized hydrodynamics with transverse flow effects added improves the description of the jet wake in the hybrid model in just the way that comparison to data indicates is needed. Our study illuminates a path to improving the description of the wake in the hybrid model, highlighting the need to take into account the effects of both transverse flow and the broadening of the energy-momentum perturbation in spacetime rapidity on particle production.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2021

Impact of Precipitation Parameters on the Specific Surface Area of PuO 2

Controlling the properties of PuO 2 through processing is of vital importance to environmental transport and fate, production of nuclear fuels, nuclear forensic analyses, stockpile stewardship, and storage of nuclear wastes applications. A number of processing conditions have been identified to control final product properties, including specific surface area (SSA), residual carbon content, adsorption of volatile species, morphology, and particle size. In this paper, a novel approach is developed for the prediction of PuO 2 SSA via the synthetic route of Pu(IV) oxalate precipitation followed by calcination. The proposed model utilizes multivariate regression methodology and leave one out formalism to link Savannah River Site (SRS) precipitation and calcination production data to the SSA of the final product. A comparison among the models provides insight into the accuracy and ability to identify variations amongst the processing data. Additionally, the models may also be used to fit new data outside of the parameters explored in a production facility. Finally, the trained model was compared to a similarly trained conventional model form to illustrate the influence of precipitation parameters on the prediction of the final SSA. The models presented here attempt to provide new methods for more accurate prediction of the PuO 2 product properties in a production scale environment for key environmental and nuclear applications.

38 RADIATION CHEMISTRY, RADIOCHEMISTRY, AND NUCLEA↗
DOE OSTI2022

RDPM: An Extensible Tool for Resilience Design Patterns Modelling

Resilience to faults, errors, and failures in extreme-scale high-performance computing (HPC) systems is a critical challenge. Resilience design patterns offer a new, structured hardware and software design approach for improving resilience. While prior work focused on developing performance, reliability, and availability models for resilience design patterns, this paper extends it by providing a Resilience Design Patterns Modeling (RDPM) tool which allows (1) exploring performance, reliability, and availability of each resilience design pattern, (2) offering customization of parameters to optimize performance, reliability, and availability, and (3) allowing investigation of trade-off models for combining multiple patterns for practical resilience solutions.

Kumar, Mohit↗
DOE OSTI2026

Effects of slope steepness and cross-slope wind speed on fire spreading behavior for various vegetation

Wildland fire behavior is significantly influenced by environmental factors such as slope steepness, wind speed, and fuel type. Understanding these interactions is critical for improving predictive models and fire management. This study explores how slope steepness and cross-slope wind speed influence fire spread dynamics in various fuel bed types. Simulations are conducted using a physics-based wildland fire model, HIGRAD/FIRETEC, across six slope angles (0–50 %), four cross-slope wind speeds (4–10 m s –1 ), and three fuel bed types (grass, shrubland, and forest). Representative cases are additionally compared with FARSITE fireline evolution. Fire behavior is categorized into distinct propagation types based on spread characteristics and analyzed. The fire propagation angle, which indicates deviation from the wind direction, generally increases with steeper slopes and decreases with stronger cross-slope winds. Secondary upslope propagation is observed in shrubland under moderate slopes, while secondary downwind propagation occurs in all fuel beds at higher wind speeds. These findings highlight fire spread characteristics that differ from predictions by traditional models like Rothermel’s. By capturing complex propagation patterns and dynamics, this study demonstrates the value of a physics-based, atmosphere-fire coupled model for accurate wildland fire prediction. Incorporating secondary propagations and the influence of fuel bed complexities into predictive models can improve the accuracy of fire spread forecasts, enabling more effective fire management and risk mitigation efforts.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Autonomous design of new chemical reactions using a variational autoencoder

Artificial intelligence based chemistry models are a promising method of exploring chemical reaction design spaces. However, training datasets based on experimental synthesis are typically reported only for the optimal synthesis reactions. This leads to an inherited bias in the model predictions. Therefore, robust datasets that span the entirety of the solution space are necessary to remove inherited bias and permit complete training of the space. In this study, an artificial intelligence model based on a Variational AutoEncoder (VAE) has been developed and investigated to synthetically generate continuous datasets. The approach involves sampling the latent space to generate new chemical reactions. This developed technique is demonstrated by generating over 7,000,000 new reactions from a training dataset containing only 7,000 reactions. The generated reactions include molecular species that are larger and more diverse than the training set.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗