Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “FITTING”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 937 records · Page 52
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Is Clean Hydrogen Production a Good Fit for Questa? Intermediate Feasibility Study Results

NREL conducted a feasibility study for a clean hydrogen production facility that would be located in Questa, New Mexico. This slide deck presents the history of the coalition of stakeholders that received NREL technical assistance through the Department of Energy's Communities Leading Energy Action Program. It describes how hydrogen is generated and its end uses. It describes two conceptual applications explored in the feasibility analysis, a grid-tied power generation and long-term storage application and a heavy-duty vehicle fueling application. The presentation details the configuration of these to applications in the Questa pilot facility, including system components, required inputs (water, electricity, and land for pv generation), and outputs in kilograms of hydrogen, megawatt hours of power delivered, and hours of vehicle hours of operation. The presentation addresses key concerns raised by groups engaged through a public outreach process, including safety, health, and environmental issues; water use; visual impacts; and costs and alternatives.

heavy-duty vehicle fueling↗
DOE OSTI2024

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

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

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Alleviating prior dependencies for DESI DR1 clustering fits through reparameterization

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

Bonici, M. [Waterloo U.; Perimeter Inst. Theor. Ph↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
NASA NTRS2021

LOFTID Heat Flux Gauge Calibration: What is Truth?

The Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID) is a demonstration of Hypersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator (HIAD) technology, which may enable the delivery of heavy payloads to Mars, Venus, and Titan, as well as return to Earth. Unlike rigid aeroshells that are constrained by the size of the rocket’s shroud, inflatable aeroshells can be deployed to a much larger scale, thus allowing a spacecraft to begin its deceleration earlier and experience less heating. On LOFTID, there will be 4 total heat flux gauges (HFG) with a range of 70 W/cm2 and 1 radiometer with a range of 3 W/cm2, arranged as shown in Fig. 1. Both the radiometer and total HFGs are Schmidt-Boelter gauges purchased from an external vendor. Radiative calibrations were performed in-house at NASA Ames’ Sensors and TPS Advanced Research Laboratories (STAR Labs) before and after environmental testing to investigate how the testing affected the sensors' response. Additional rounds of radiative calibration at STAR Labs were also performed in order to investigate the large uncertainties associated with these tests. For example, a survey of multiple calibration facilities concluded that the uncertainty within a given facility was +/-3% [1]. An additional NIST study that calibrated heat flux gauges at 7 different facilities also found the variation in calibration coefficients to be up to ~3% within a given facility, but up to 15% between facilities, suggesting systematic differences between test setups [2]. Finally, the response of heat flux gauges to radiative versus convective heat flux has shown to differ by up to 20% [3],[4]. Because the heat flux gauges on LOFTID will predominantly experience convective heat flux during flight, a convective calibration study was performed at Boeing's Large-Core Arc Tunnel (LCAT) facility. Radiative Calibration Procedure The calibrations performed at STAR Labs utilize a quartz lamp bank (QLB) that provides a maximum heat flux of 50 W/cm2, which bounds the expected LOFTID flight environment. The calibration involves exposing a water-cooled Gardon gauge (reference) and then the unit-under-test (UUT) to 5 different heat fluxes multiple times for 10 seconds each, and then calculating a linear fit. The test setup is shown in Fig. 2. The total HFGs were calibrated at STAR Labs 3 times, denoted as STAR 1 (before environmental testing), STAR 2 (after protoflight vibration and thermal-vacuum testing), and STAR 3 (no change from previous test). All 8 flight-lot total HFGs showed a decrease in full-scale output from STAR 1 to STAR 2 by between 0.5% and 10. The first portion of this investigation was to determine whether the change could be due to differences in temperature between the two calibration runs. A typical linear fit to the calibration data was performed using Eq. 1 where q’ is the heat flux in W/cm2, c is the calibration coefficient, and mV is the sensor output. To account for temperature, the data were fit to a nonlinear function that included both the sensor output (mV) and the temperature from the thermocouple embedded inside the HFG near the surface (T): q'=mV/(c1* T + c0}. The residuals between the fits and the actual data points were calculated for every point, and proven to be much smaller for the temperature-compensated fits than for the linear fits for all sensors. An example is shown in Fig. 3. When the temperature-compensated fits from STAR 1 were applied to the STAR 2 data, the residuals did not improve, suggesting that the change in sensitivity between these two calibration runs was not due to temperature. A third round of calibration (STAR 3) was conducted to further address the temperature dependence of the total HFGs, and the resulting sensitivities matched closely to STAR 2 (within 2%). Temperature-compensated calibration curves were once again fit to the data. In this case, when the temperature-compensated fits from STAR 3 were applied to STAR 2 data, the residuals between the fits and STAR 2 data were much lower than the residuals due to the linear fits. This suggests that the changes seen between STAR 1 and STAR 2 were likely due to actual changes in the sensors caused by the environmental testing between the two calibrations. A modification of the original calibration process, in which the UUT was exposed to each heat flux for just 3 seconds (instead of 10) to reduce the temperature increase during the test, was additionally performed on several of the HFGs. In general, the sensitivities were 1-1.5% lower than from the 10-second tests, but the temperatures were also significantly lower. When the temperature-compensated fits from the 10-second tests were applied to the 3-second test data, the residuals were greatly improved than when just using the linear fits, further suggesting that the temperature-compensated fits may lead to better accuracy than the linear fits in flight. Convective Calibration The second portion of this study was to create a mapping between the radiative and convective calibration coefficients. The majority of the heating during flight will be convective, so it is important to understand how the HFG response differs under these conditions. However, there are no standardized methods for convective calibration [5]. Because the TPS aerothermal response models were validated at LCAT, the same facility was chosen for convective calibration of two of the total HFGs (Fig. 4). Preliminary results showed that the full-scale output was 3% and 8% higher in convective heat flux as compared to radiative heat flux. However, tunnel variation may have contributed to noise and uncertainty in the measurements, and more testing and analysis remains to be done. Scope of Presentation The presentation will include an overview of the changes seen in HFG calibration before and after environmental testing, differences between radiative and convective calibrations, the modeling work done to aid in understanding the sensor response to varying environments, and recommended future work.

H S Alpert↗
NASA NTRS2026

Performance Optimization for Lunar Extravehicular Activity Readiness (POLAR) Study: Methods Paper

To better understand which aspects of physical fitness may be most related to performance during Lunar surface operations and thereby help to inform the current NASA fitness standards, much can be learned from fields encompassing the “tactical athlete.” Other physically demanding professions such as law enforcement, military, or rescue professionals often require candidates to meet occupationally-relevant fitness standards. The determination of such standards is a multistep process, including both objective and subjective measures, to determine tasks essential to occupational performance and identify the minimal fitness profile needed to meet physical demands of the job. Notably, fitness is only one component which may contribute to the demands of astronaut selection, flight assignment, and occupational performance. Utilizing a framework to systematically determine which domains of fitness most contribute to relevant job tasks can aid in the refinement of current NASA-STD-3001 fitness standards. Therefore, NASA’s Exercise Physiology & Countermeasures Laboratory conducted the Performance Optimization for Lunar Extravehicular Activity Readiness (POLAR) study to identify and examine a comprehensive list of fitness tests (including NASA-STD-3001 assessments: 1-Repetition Maximum [1-RM] bench press and deadlift) and determine preliminary relationships between identified fitness parameters and novel Artemis-relevant tasks to help inform future investigations for the continued development of aerobic and muscular fitness standards for surface EVAs. This was accomplished through 1) a review of the literature relating fitness assessments to simulated or real EVA performance to identify fitness tests that are most correlated with simulated EVA task performance; 2) a task analysis following a modified framework for physical employment standards development to down select mission critical tasks; and 3) development and pilot testing of a novel, portable Artemis-relevant EVA task circuit to relate to a battery of fitness assessments. The current report describes the methodology used to complete the task analysis, EVA task circuit development, and the pilot study.

Nicole C Strock↗
DOE OSTI2020

Benefits of colorectal cancer screening using fecal immunochemical testing with varying positivity thresholds by age and sex

Background Fecal immunochemical test (FIT) performance for colorectal cancer screening varies by age and sex, yet most FIT-based screening programs use uniform positivity thresholds. This study assessed the potential benefits of stratifying FIT thresholds based on age and sex. Methods We conducted a meta-analysis of FIT sensitivity and specificity at various positivity thresholds by age and sex. We then used these estimates in 2 microsimulation models of colorectal cancer and projected lifetime clinical outcomes, incremental costs, and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained from age- and sex-stratified FIT strategies. FIT thresholds ranged from 10 to 50 µg hemoglobin per gram of feces. Results For current uniform FIT screening (20 µg hemoglobin/gram of feces), models projected 85.67 to 122.15 QALYs gained at incremental costs of ‒$982 to $504 per 1000 individuals compared with no screening. At equivalent costs to current uniform screening, only 1 model found stratified FIT approaches cost-effective, yielding a marginal increase of 1.04 and 1.10 QALYs gained/1000 female and male individuals, respectively. At a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100 000/QALYs gained, both models found stratified FIT cutoffs to be the best strategy, with cutoffs being equal to or higher for males and lowest at older ages (70-75 years). Uniform strategies showed comparable effectiveness, falling within 1 quality-adjusted life-day per person of efficient strategies at up to $112 more per person. Results were sensitive to FIT test performance characteristics and 1-time setup costs. Conclusion Stratifying FIT thresholds by age and sex may be cost-effective compared to current screening. The gain in expected health benefits with stratified FIT screening, however, is likely small.

Harlass, Matthias↗
DOE OSTI2022

Diffuse X-ray scattering from polished silicon: application of the distorted wave Born approximation

Measured diffuse X-ray scattering data for a `smooth' as well as for a `rough' silicon sample were fit to theoretical expressions within the distorted wave Born approximation (DWBA). Data for the power spectral density (PSD) for both samples were also obtained by means of atomic force microscopy and optical interferometry. The Fourier transforms of trial correlation functions were fit to the PSD data and then applied to the DWBA formalism. The net correlation functions needed to fit the PSD data for each sample comprised the sum of two terms with different cutoff lengths and different self-affine fractal exponents. At zero distance these correlation functions added up to yield net values of σ 2 = (2) 2 and (71) 2 Å 2 for the smooth and rough samples, respectively. X-ray scattering data were obtained at beamline 1-BM of the Advanced Photon Source. Data and fits at values of q z = 0.05 and 0.10 Å −1 for the smooth sample are reported. Good fits for the smooth sample were obtained at both q z values simultaneously, that is, identical fitting parameters were applied at both values of q z . The smooth sample also exhibited weak Yoneda wings and a clear distinction between the strong specular scattering and the weak diffuse scattering. Data for the rough sample were qualitatively different and exhibited very weak scattering at the specular condition in contrast to extremely large Yoneda wings. Fits for the rough sample are reported for q z = 0.04, 0.05, and 0.06 Å −1 . Although the large Yoneda wings could be fit quite well in both position and amplitude, scattering near the specular condition could not be equally well fit by applying the same fitting parameters at all values of q z . Albeit imperfect, best-fitting results at the specular condition were obtained by invoking only diffuse scattering, that is, without including a separate theoretical expression for specular scattering.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS1992

Derivation of surface properties from Magellan altimetry data

The fit of the Hagfors model to the Magellan altimetry data provides a means to characterize the surface properties of Venus. However, the derived surface properties are only meaningful if the model provides a good representation of the data. The Hagfors model provides a good representation of the data. The Hagfors model is generally a realistic fit to surface scattering properties of a nadir-directed antenna such as the Magellan altimeter; however, some regions of the surface of Venus are poorly described by the existing model, according to the goodness of fit parameter provided on the ARCDR CD-ROMs. Poorly characterized regions need to be identified and fit to new models in order to derive more accurate surface properties for use in inferring the geological processes that affect the surface in those regions. We have compared the goodness of fit of the Hagfors model to the distribution of features across the planet, and preliminary results show a correlation between steep topographic slopes and poor fits to the standard model, as has been noticed by others. In this paper, we investigate possible relations between many classes of features and the ability of the Hagfors model to fit the observed echo profiles. In the regions that are not well characterized by existing models, we calculate new models that compensate for topographic relief in order to derive improved estimates of surface properties. Areas investigated to date span from longitude 315 through 45, at all latitudes covered by Magellan. A survey of those areas yields preliminary results that suggest that topographically high regions are well suited to the current implementation of the Hagfors model. Striking examples of such large-scale good fits are Alpha Regio, the northern edges of Lada Terra, and the southern edge of Ishtar Terra. Other features that are typically well fit are the rims of coronae such as Heng-O and the peaks of volcanos such as Gula Mons. Surprisingly, topographically low regions, such as the ubiquitous plains areas, are modeled poorly in comparison. However, this generalization has has exceptions: Lakshmi Planum is an elevated region that is not well fit compared to the rest of neighboring Ishtar, while the southern parts of topographically low Guinevere Planitia are characterized quite well by the Hagfors model. Features that are candidates for improved models are impact craters, coronae, ridges of significant scale, complex ridged terrains, moderate-sized mountains, and sharp terrain boundaries. These features are chosen because the goodness of fit is likely to be most affected either by departures from normal incidence angles or by sharp changes in terrain type within a single footprint. Most large features that are elevated with respect to their surroundings will suffer from steep slope effects, and smaller coronae and impact craters will probably suffer due to rapid changes in their appearance within a single footprint (10-20 km).

Lovell, Amy J.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Recommendations for Using Noise Monitors to Estimate Noise Exposure During X-59 Community Tests

A low fidelity simulation approach is used to explore how to place and use noise monitors during X-59 QueSST community tests, where people’s annoyance to the noise produced by the X-59 aircraft will be gathered. Several recommendations are provided including: 1) the desired number of sparsely spaced noise monitor sites within the survey area, 2) whether to group and average measurements across multiple noise monitors located at a site, 3) what spacing should be used if grouped noise monitors are used, 4) an approach to mitigate ambient noise contamination at the measurement sites, 5) a method to combine empirical and predicted dose estimates to provide a single dose estimate for respondents, and 6) assessing how changes in turbulence intensity and array configuration affect dose uncertainty. To make these recommendations, the error that is expected when fitting contrived, smoothly varying sonic boom “reference exposure surfaces” is studied when a spatially sparse and scattered set of samples is used as responses for the fit. The reference exposure surfaces mimic the sonic boom exposure at ground level that might be expected in the X-59 survey area in the absence of atmospheric turbulence, ambient noise, and other localized effects. The spatial extent of these surfaces varies and is representative of the different survey area sizes that might be expected during future X-59 community overflight tests. These contrived reference surfaces are sampled, and those reference samples are then perturbed to mimic atmospheric turbulence, ambient noise and other localized effects that might affect noise monitor measurements within overflown communities. Two different surface fitting methods are investigated when fitting these perturbed samples to approximate the reference surface. The first method uses interpolation between the perturbed data at the scattered sites to compute the fit. The second method fits a polynomial surface model to the perturbed data using ordinary least squares regression analysis. For both fitting methods, the root mean square fit error is computed from the pointwise difference between the fit surface and the reference surface as the count and configuration of the sites is varied while also averaging the error across many different realizations of both the smooth variation of the reference exposure surface and the random, localized perturbations at the sample sites. Different site configurations are compared using this error statistic to make the recommendations noted above. Additionally, the two fitting approaches (interpolation vs linear regression) are compared based on the fit error observed in these simulations. These analyses, comparisons, and recommendations should inform future decisions on the noise monitor placement and the methods used to analyze the noise monitor data that is collected during X-59 community overflights.

sonic boom↗
DOE OSTI2021

Quantitative analysis of Raman spectral parameters for carbon fibers: practical considerations and connection to mechanical properties

Although the literature on the Raman spectra of carbon fibers is vast, no consistent, robust predictive relationship between mechanical properties of carbon fibers and spectral parameters exists. This shortcoming is due to the use of numerous fitting functions to evaluate Raman spectra of carbon fibers and the inconsistencies in establishing the best fitting models in a statistically robust fashion. To address this gap, we present a comprehensive work on the Raman spectra of carbon fibers that combines a vast library of experimental data with a robust numerical analysis and a statistical evaluation of a wide range of suggested fitting models. This manuscript begins with a brief review of the commonly applied fitting models. Then, the Raman spectra of 32 commercially available polyacrylonitrile-based carbon fibers collected at excitation wavelengths 532, 633, and 785 nm are presented and the best fit for all fibers is evaluated based on several statistical criteria in conjunction with numerical calculations and physical arguments. The results suggest that high-performance fibers must be fit with at least five peaks, whereas high-tensile modulus fibers are best fit with at least six distinct peaks. Finally, we employ simultaneous fitting of the Raman spectra of specific fibers and wavelengths and demonstrate that strong correlations exist between mechanical properties and the D1 peak position and shape across the range of evaluated mechanical properties. Finally, we suggest straightforward improvements in fitting analysis procedures that can be implemented to increase coherency in the understanding of the underlying carbon fiber microstructure intuited from Raman spectroscopy.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Generating mock galaxy catalogues for flux-limited samples like the DESI Bright Galaxy Survey

ABSTRACT Accurate mock galaxy catalogues are crucial to validate analysis pipelines used to constrain dark energy models. We present a fast HOD-fitting method which we apply to the AbacusSummit simulations to create a set of mock catalogues for the DESI Bright Galaxy Survey, which contain r-band magnitudes and $(g-r)$ colours. The halo tabulation method fits HODs for different absolute magnitude threshold samples simultaneously, preventing unphysical HOD crossing between samples. We validate the HOD fitting procedure by fitting to real-space clustering measurements and galaxy number densities from the MXXL BGS mock, which was tuned to the SDSS and GAMA surveys. The best-fitting clustering measurements and number densities are mostly within the assumed errors, but the clustering for the faint samples is low on large scales. The best-fitting HOD parameters are robust when fitting to simulations with different realizations of the initial conditions. When varying the cosmology, trends are seen as a function of each cosmological parameter. We use the best-fitting HOD parameters to create cubic box and cut sky mocks from the AbacusSummit simulations, in a range of cosmologies. As an illustration, we compare the ${}^{0.1}M_r\lt -20$ sample of galaxies in the mock with BGS measurements from the DESI one-percent survey. We find good agreement in the number densities, and the projected correlation function is reasonable, with differences that can be improved in the future by fitting directly to BGS clustering measurements. The cubic box and cut-sky mocks in different cosmologies are made publicly available.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
NASA NTRS1994

Simulations of deep galaxy fields. 1: Monte Carlo simulations of optical and near-infrared counts

Monte Carlo simulations of three-dimensional galaxy distributions are performed, following the 1988 prescription of Chokshi & Wright, to study the photometric properties of evolving galaxy populations in the optical and near-infrared bands to high redshifts. In this paper, the first of a series, we present our baseline model in which galaxy numbers are conserved, and in which no explicit 'starburst' population is included. We use the model in an attempt to simultaneously fit published blue and near-infrared photometric and spectroscopic observations of deep fields. We find that our baseline models, with a formation redshift, z(sub f), of 1000, and H(sub 0) = 50, are able to reproduce the blue counts to b(sub j) = 22, independent of the value of Omega(sub 0), and also to provide a satisfactory fit to the observed blue-band redshift distributions, but for no value of Omega(sub 0) do we achieve an acceptable fit to the fainter blue counts. In the K band, we fit the number counts to the limit of the present-day surveys only for an Omega(sub 0) = 0 cosmology. We investigate the effect on the model fits of varying the cosmological parameters H(sub 0), the formation red-shift z(sub f), and the local luminosity function. Changing H(sub 0) does not improve the fits to the observations. However, reducing the epoch of a galaxy formation used in our simulations has a substantial effect. In particular, a model with z(sub f) approximately equal to 5 in a low Omega(sub 0) universe improves the fit to the faintest photometric blue data without any need to invoke a new population of galaxies, substantial merging, or a significant starburst galaxy population. For an Omega(sub 0) = 1 universe, however, reducing z(sub f) is less successful at fitting the blue-band counts and has little effect at all at K. Varying the parameters of the local luminosity function can also have a significant effect. In particular the steep low end slope of the local luminosity function of Franceschini et al. allows an acceptable fit to the b(sub j) less than or equal to 25 counts for Omega(sub 0) = 1, but is incompatible with Omega(sub 0) = 0.

Chokshi, Arati↗
NASA NTRS2014

Model Evaluation of Methods for Estimating Surface Emissions and Chemical Lifetimes from Satellite Data

Column densities from satellite retrievals can provide valuable information for estimating emissions and chemical lifetimes objectively across the globe. To better understand the uncertainties associated with these estimates, we test four methods using simulated column densities from a point source: a box model approach, a 2D Gaussian fit, an Inverse Radius fit and an Exponentially-Modified Gaussian fit. The model results were simulated using the WRF and CAMx models for the year 2005, for a single point source outside Atlanta in Georgia, USA with specified emissions and three chemical scenarios: no chemical reactions, 12 h chemical lifetime and 1 h chemical lifetime. No other sources were included in the simulations. We find that the box model provides reliable estimates irrespective of plume speed and plume direction, if the plume speed and the chemical lifetime are known accurately. The 2D Gaussian fit was found to be sensitive to plume speed and direction, and requires omnidirectional dispersion in order to have a decent fit. However, the 2D Gaussian fit is only an approximate fit to the data, and the discrepancies mean that the results are dependent on the geographical domain used for the optimization. An Inverse Radius fit is introduced to correct this issue, which is found to provide improved emissions and lifetime estimates. The Exponentially-Modified Gaussian fit also gave improved estimates. It is however dependent on accurate plume rotation such that reported chemical lifetimes with this method could be significantly underestimated.

Emission inventory↗