Results for “input data” — Page 56

DOE OSTI2022

NEWTS USGS Produced Waters Database

Data from the USGS Produced Waters Database on produced water compositions from across the US. Data has been filtered for completeness of data attributes. Data has been transposed and converted for ease of input into aqueous chemistry modeling software including OLI Systems and Geochemist's Workbench. Original data from: Blondes, M. S., Gans, K. D., Engle, M. A., Kharaka, Y. K., Reidy, M. E., Saraswathula, V., Thordsen, J. J., Rowan, E. L., & Morrissey, E. A. (2019). U.S. Geological Survey National Produced Waters Geochemical Database v2.3 [Data set]. U.S. Geological Survey. https://doi.org/10.5066/F7J964W8

Geochemists Workbench↗

DOE OSTI2022

Machine learning approaches to streamline and enhance the analysis of multiscale imaging data for bioaerosol and soil particles

Bioaerosol and soil particles are ubiquitous in the environment. They are multicomponent and complex in nature displaying mixed inorganic and organic components. The way components are mixed in a bioaerosol sample is referred to as its mixing state. Soil particles are also a mixture of inorganic (mineral) and organic (soil organic matter) components. Bioaerosol particles contribute to a major fraction of coarse mode atmospheric particles, especially in the tropical areas, contributing up to 80 % of the particle mass concentration. The mixing state of particles is crucial to evaluate because it impacts several important environmental processes such as warm and cold cloud formation and radiation budget. Mixing states in aerosols are accompanied by chemical reactions across solid-liquid-gas interfaces. In this study, we utilized elemental compositions and microcopy images of thousands of atmospheric particles acquired by computer-controlled scanning electron microscope equipped with an energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometer to compute the mixing state of atmospheric particles. A 2D convolutional neural network (CNN), also known as convnet, was used to model the relationship between low resolution imaging data and higher resolution spectroscopy data, with the former as training input and the latter as target output. Two types of CNNs were implemented and tested; a basic CNN and an Inception-v3 network. For binary classification, the basic CNN achieved an accuracy of 84.29 % across all atom types, and the Inception-v3-like network achieved an accuracy 85.51 %. This study demonstrates the applicability of deep learning to handle large amounts of imaging/chemical spectroscopy data efficiently and evaluate particle mixing state from a range of environmental samples.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Inverse Analysis with Variational Autoencoders: A Comparison of Shallow and Deep Networks

Inverse problems are applied to determine unknown properties by matching observational data with a physical model that often takes many parameters as input. To overcome the underconstrained nature of inverse problems and achieve good performance, an approach is presented involving regularization with a technique known as a variational autoencoder (VAE), which is trained to map a high-dimensional parameter space with a complex structure to a low-dimensional latent space with a simple structure. We apply this approach to unconditioned realizations of the parameters (heterogeneous hydraulic fields) for a hydrogeological inverse problem. Two types of hydraulic conductivity fields are used to evaluate the characterization for the different levels of heterogeneity complexity of the physical inputs. This approach keeps the computational cost of generating the training data low. The reason is unconditioned realizations neither rely on the observational data used to perform the inverse analysis nor require any groundwater flow model forward runs. In addition, this approach applies regularization on a low-dimensional latent space from the VAE and increases optimization efficiency through automatic differentiation. Furthermore, two different neural network (NN) structures are tested for their utility in using the VAE for inverse analysis. The performance of a deep, convolutional neural network strongly depends on the dimensionality of the latent space, which requires tuning. In contrast, a shallow, dense neural network provides consistently accurate characterization without tuning. Furthermore, our approach evaluates the advantages of the shallow, dense neural network over the deep, convolutional one and enables future application to a wide range of inverse problems.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2022

A New Integrated Analysis Suite for Fast-Ion Study in KSTAR

Here, an integrated workflow for fast-ion analysis was developed by adapting the One Modeling Framework for Integrated Task (OMFIT) workflow manager to support a standard and unified analysis platform for KSTAR users. The newly established analysis suite offers a graphical user interface–based workflow to enable users to readily access and handle experimental data archived in various data formats and servers. Further, users can analyze the data by importing modules designed for conducting certain tasks, such as profile fitting, equilibrium reconstruction, and postprocessing of tokamak data. The procedures for preparing the inputs for fast-ion simulations are streamlined by a common workflow manager, which enables the parallel processing of various tasks to efficiently analyze large fast-ion datasets. The OMFIT platform comprises a flexible Python-based application that enables users to freely manipulate the Python scripts for applications that are unavailable in the standard workflow. The framework also offers mapping tools to translate the output data into the Integrated Modeling and Analysis Suite format to maintain application compatibility for future ITER burning plasma experiments.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2024

Data and scripts associated with a manuscript on a meta-analysis synthesizing stream biogeochemical response to wildfires across space and time (v2)

This data package is associated with the publication “Catchment characteristics modulate the influence of wildfires on nitrate and dissolved organic carbon in lotic systems across space and time: A meta-analysis” submitted to Global Biogeochemical Cycles (Cavaiani et al. 2025). This study uses meta-analytical techniques to evaluate the effect of wildfire on in-stream responses in burned and unburned watersheds. The study aims to provide additional insight into the range of responses and net influences that wildfires have on hydro-biogeochemistry across broad spatial scales, burn extents, and the persistence of water-quality change. This study compiles data and metadata from 18 total publications that includes 1) surface water geochemistry data (dissolved organic carbon; nitrate), 2) climate classifications, 3) year of the wildfire, 4) the time lag between when the fire occurred and when the sampling occurred, and 5) study design of the publication. In total, this meta-analysis draws data that spans 8 climate guilds, 3 biomes, 62 watersheds, and 20 unique wildfires. See Sites_meta_data.csv for citations of the papers used in this meta-analysis. All R scripts and the associated data can also be found on GitHub at This data package was originally published in March 2024. It was updated in April 2025 (v2; new and modified files). See the change history section in the readme for more details. This data package contains five primary folders that include the following: (1) inputs; (2) output for analysis; (3) initial plots; (4) R scripts; and (5) GIS data. The data package also contains a data dictionary (dd) that provides column header definitions and a file-level metadata (flmd) file that describes every file. The “inputs” folder contains a list of all publications identified during the formal web search and an indication of whether each publication was included in the final analysis. Additionally, it includes site-level metadata, catchment characteristics, and GIS data for all publications included in the final analysis. The “Output_for_analysis” folder contains all data frames and figures generated from each R script used for additional data analysis. The “initial_plots” folder includes all exploratory figures that will be included in a supplemental and figures that will be submitted with the manuscript for publication. The “R_scripts” folder contains the scripts that perform all the data manipulations, statistical analyses, and plots. The “gis_data” folder includes shape files for each fire included in this meta-analysis. This data package contains the following file types: csv, pdf, jpeg, cpg, dbf, prj, shp, shp.ea.iso.xml, shp.iso.xml, shx.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Modeling of the metal–insulator transition temperature in alio-valently doped VO 2 through symbolic regression

The correlated semiconductor vanadium dioxide (VO 2 ) exhibits an insulator–metal transition (IMT) near room temperature, which is of interest in various device applications. Precise IMT temperature control is crucial to determine the use cases across technologies such as thermochromic windows, actuators for robots or neuronal oscillators. Doping the cation or anion sites can modulate the IMT by several tens of degrees and control hysteresis. However, modeling the effects of control parameters (e.g., doping concentration, type of dopants) is challenging due to complex experimental procedures and limited data, hindering the use of traditional data-driven machine learning approaches. Symbolic regression (SR) can bridge this gap by identifying nonlinear expressions connecting key input parameters to target properties, even with small data sets. In this work, we develop SR models to capture the IMT trends in VO 2 influenced by different dopant parameters. Using experimental data from the literature, our study reveals a dual nature of the IMT temperature with varying tungsten (W) doping concentrations. The symbolic model captures data trends and accounts for experimental variability, providing a complementary approach to first-principles calculations. Our feature-driven analysis across a broader class of dopants informs selectivity and provides qualitative insights into tuning phase transition properties valuable for neuromorphic computing and thermochromic windows.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2024

DeepUQ: Assessing the Aleatoric Uncertainties from two Deep Learning Methods

Assessing the quality of aleatoric uncertainty estimates from uncertainty quantification (UQ) deep learning methods is important in scientific contexts, where uncertainty is physically meaningful and important to characterize and interpret exactly. We systematically compare aleatoric uncertainty measured by two UQ techniques, Deep Ensembles (DE) and Deep Evidential Regression (DER). Our method focuses on both zero-dimensional (0D) and two-dimensional (2D) data, to explore how the UQ methods function for different data dimensionalities. We investigate uncertainty injected on the input and output variables and include a method to propagate uncertainty in the case of input uncertainty so that we can compare the predicted aleatoric uncertainty to the known values. We experiment with three levels of noise. The aleatoric uncertainty predicted across all models and experiments scales with the injected noise level. However, the predicted uncertainty is miscalibrated to $\rm{std}(\sigma_{\rm al})$ with the true uncertainty for half of the DE experiments and almost all of the DER experiments. The predicted uncertainty is the least accurate for both UQ methods for the 2D input uncertainty experiment and the high-noise level. While these results do not apply to more complex data, they highlight that further research on post-facto calibration for these methods would be beneficial, particularly for high-noise and high-dimensional settings.

Nevin, Rebecca↗

DOE OSTI2022

Luminosities and energies of e + e - collision data taken between $\sqrt{s}$=4.61 GeV and 4.95 GeV at BESIII*

From December 2019 to June 2021, the BESIII experiment collected approximately 5.85 fb -1 of data at center-of-mass energies between 4.61 and 4.95 GeV. This is the highest collision energy BEPCII has reached to date. The accumulated e + e - annihilation data samples are useful for studying charmonium(-like) states and charmed-hadron decays. By adopting a novel method of analyzing the production of $Λ^{+}_{c}$ $\overline{Λ}$ $^{-}_{c}$ pairs in e + e - annihilation, the center-of-mass energies are measured with a precision of ~0.6 MeV. Integrated luminosities are measured with a precision of better than 1% by analyzing the events of large-angle Bhabha scattering. These measurements provide important inputs to analyses based on these data samples.

73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Data-Driven Modeling and Correction of Vehicle Dynamics

We develop a data-driven framework for learning and correcting nonautonomous vehicle dynamics. Physics-based vehicle models are often simplified for tractability and therefore exhibit inherent model-form uncertainty, motivating the need for data-driven correction. Moreover, nonautonomous dynamics are governed by time-dependent control inputs, which pose challenges in learning predictive models directly from temporal snapshot data. To address these, we reformulate the vehicle dynamics via a local parameterization of the time-dependent inputs, yielding a modified system composed ofa sequence of local parametric dynamical systems. Here, we approximate these parametric systems using two complementary approaches. First, we employ the dimension reduction and interpolation in parameter space (DRIPS) methodology to construct efficient linear surrogate models, equipped with lifted observable spaces and manifold-based operator interpolation. This enables data-efficient learning of vehicle models whose dynamics admit accurate linear representations in the lifted spaces. Second, for more strongly nonlinear systems, we employ flow map learning (FML), a deep neural network (DNN) approach that approximates the parametric evolution map without requiring special treatment of nonlinearities. We further extend FML with a transfer-learning-based model correction procedure, enabling the correction of misspecified prior models using only a sparse set of high-fidelity or experimental measurements, without assuming a prescribed form for the correction term. Through a suite of numerical experiments on unicycle, simplified bicycle, and slip-based bicycle models, we demonstrate that DRIPS offers robust and highly data-efficient learning of nonautonomous vehicle dynamics, while FML provides expressive nonlinear modeling and effective correction of model-form errors under severe data scarcity.

data-driven modeling↗

DOE OSTI2024

Constraining the Dense Matter Equation of State with New NICER Mass–Radius Measurements and New Chiral Effective Field Theory Inputs

Pulse profile modeling of X-ray data from the Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer is now enabling precision inference of neutron star mass and radius. Combined with nuclear physics constraints from chiral effective field theory (χEFT), and masses and tidal deformabilities inferred from gravitational-wave detections of binary neutron star mergers, this has led to a steady improvement in our understanding of the dense matter equation of state (EOS). Here, we consider the impact of several new results: the radius measurement for the 1.42 M ⊙ pulsar PSR J0437−4715 presented by Choudhury et al., updates to the masses and radii of PSR J0740+6620 and PSR J0030+0451, and new χEFT results for neutron star matter up to 1.5 times nuclear saturation density. Using two different high-density EOS extensions—a piecewise-polytropic (PP) model and a model based on the speed of sound in a neutron star (CS)—we find the radius of a 1.4 M ⊙ (2.0 M ⊙ ) neutron star to be constrained to the 95% credible ranges ${12.28}_{-0.76}^{+0.50}$ km (${12.33}_{-1.34}^{+0.70}$ km) for the PP model and ${12.01}_{-0.75}^{+0.56}$ km (${11.55}_{-1.09}^{+0.94}$ km) for the CS model. The maximum neutron star mass is predicted to be ${2.15}_{-0.16}^{+0.14}$M ⊙ and ${2.08}_{-0.16}^{+0.28}$M ⊙ for the PP and CS models, respectively. We explore the sensitivity of our results to different orders and different densities up to which χEFT is used, and show how the astrophysical observations provide constraints for the pressure at intermediate densities. Moreover, we investigate the difference R 2.0 − R 1.4 of the radius of 2 M ⊙ and 1.4 M ⊙ neutron stars within our EOS inference.

gravitational wave sources↗

DOE OSTI2023

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a collection of objects stored within an RDate file, stateWaterRightsHarmonized.RData. Each object either describes how one should interact with the other objects, or contains the harmonized water rights data. Here is each object described in detail: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. The column headers for each data frame are: waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. allocatedFlow - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. rightsByState_surface: A list of the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, these lists are the merging of rightsByState_ground and rightsByState_surface by state. See rightsByState_ground for more details on how the data is formatted. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to included within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. Here we present a new dataset of western U.S. water rights records. This dataset provides consistent unique identifiers for each spatial unit of water management across the domain, unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of 7 broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of intersectoral water allocation changes through water markets (Grogan et al., in review). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, WBM, with a water rights module (Grogan et al., in review). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, U.S. west water management is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al, 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. west. The raw downloaded data for each state is described in Lisk et al. (in review), as well as here. The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. The first two characters of each file name is the abbreviation for the state the in which the file contains data for. After the abbreviation is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file type described in detail: XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. Essentially, this file is the merging of XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv and XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv by state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state the data comes from. FIPS - The two-digit numeric state ID code. waterRightID - The unique identifying ID of the water right, the same identifier as its state uses. priorityDate - The priority date associated with the right. origWaterUse - The original stated water use(s) from the state. waterUse - The water use category under the unified use categories established here. source - Whether the right is for surface water or groundwater. basinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA the record belongs to. CFS - The maximum flow of the allocation in cubic feet per second (ft3s-1). Arizona is unique among the states, as its surface and groundwater resources are managed with two different sets of boundaries. So, for Arizona, the basinNum column is missing and instead there are two columns: surBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the surface water WMA the record belongs to. grdBasinNum - The alpha-numeric identifier of the groundwater WMA the record belongs to. XXStatePOD.shp: A shapefile which identifies the location of the Points of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records in XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv have coordinates, and therefore may be missing from this file. XXStatePOU.shp: A shapefile which contains the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to include within this file. XXGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized groundwater rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. XXSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv: A file which contains only harmonized surface water rights collected from each state. See XXFullHarmonizedRights.csv for more details on how the data is formatted. Additionally, one file, stateWMALabels.csv, is not stored within a sub-directory. While we have referred to the spatial boundaries that each state uses to manage its water resources as WMAs, this term is not shared across all states. This file lists the proper name for each boundary set, by state. For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in which data was collected for. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the third index in this object, the data for California will also be in the third index for each accompanying list. rightsByState_ground: A list of data frames with the cleaned ground water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxGroundwaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. rightsByState_surface: A list of data frames with the cleaned surface water rights collected from each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxSurfaceWaterHarmonizedRights.csv files. fullRightsRecs: A list of the combined groundwater and surface water records for each state. This object holds the the data that is exported to created the xxFullHarmonizedRights.csv files. projProj: The spatial projection used for map creation in the beginning of the project. Specifically, the World Geodetic System (WGS84) as a coordinate reference system (CRS) string in PROJ.4 format. wmaStateLabel: The name and/or abbreviation for what each state legally calls their WMAs. h2oUseByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the area(s) in which each water right is claimed to be used. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed area(s) of use in this object. Currently, only Idaho and Washington provided valid data to be included in this object. h2oDivByState: A list of spatial points data frames which identifies the location of the Point of Diversion for the state's water rights. It should be noted that not all water right records have a listed Point of Diversion in this object. spatialWMAByState: A list of spatial polygon data frames which contain the spatial WMA boundaries for each state. The only data contained within the table are identifiers for each polygon. It is worth reiterating that Arizona is the only state in which the surface and groundwater WMA boundaries are not the same. wmaIDByState: A list which contains the unique ID values of the WMAs for each state. plottingDim: A character vector used to inform mapping functions for internal map making. Each state is classified as either "tall" or "wide", to maximize space on a typical 8x11 page. The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataHarmonization.

Economics↗

DOE OSTI2022

Chapter 8: Life-Cycle Testing and Analysis

Prior to a spacecraft launch, program mission assurance standards dictate that the flight battery power system should comply with mission requirements under the intended operating conditions. Ground life cycle testing (LCT) combined with an analysis on the electrical power system (EPS) battery is an empirical method used to demonstrate compliance to satellite service life requirements. The LCT compliance method adopted by the aerospace industry is based on demonstrating a space battery's life expectancy as a part of battery qualification. Real-time cell and lithium-ion battery (LIB) LCT data are commonly used for model inputs to EPS power and energy balance analyses, in LIB reliability analysis estimates, and to support on-orbit spacecraft mission life extension opportunities. This chapter describes the LCT planning steps, process approach, and analysis techniques commonly used to qualify space LIB power systems.

accelerated aging↗

DOE OSTI2024

Cyber100 Compass: Quantification of Cybersecurity Risks for Systems Transitioning to High Levels of Renewables (Final Report)

The shift to high levels of renewable deployment will entail a significant re-engineering of the grid. As investors, utilities, customers, and others prepare for clean energy transitions, there is need to understand how restructuring the grid to accommodate renewables will change the attack surface of the grid and accompanying cyber risk. However, today the cyber-physical risks associated with electric grids incorporating high levels of renewable deployment remain largely unknown. The Cyber100 Compass proof-of-concept application attempts to quantify future cyber-physical security risks by combining risk data gathered from subject matter experts (SMEs) with input from system planners about conditions they expect to be true about their electric systems in the future. Users provide data about their organization’s tolerance for risk; the value they place on avoiding the consequences of different cyber events; and conditions that they expect to be true on their systems at some point in the future. The SMEs provide baseline probabilities for different cyber events; the probability that an event will be low-, moderate-, or high-impact; and the amount by which user-identified conditions on their systems will change the likelihood of the cyber events. The application takes both the user and SME input and performs a series of Monte Carlo simulations to arrive at a quantification of risk.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

DOE OSTI2023

Leveraging the digital thread for physics-based prediction of microstructure heterogeneity in additively manufactured parts

A major limitation of additive manufacturing (AM) processes is that local conditions of material deposition frequently lead to unintentional heterogeneities in microstructure and properties within a single component, despite nominally uniform process conditions. Up to now, there has been no way to a priori determine the distribution of these heterogeneities, requiring expensive trial-and-error approaches to fabrication, testing, and characterization. Here, a physics-based framework for creating a digital representation of the laser powder bed fusion (PBF) process is proposed to predict the variation in solidification behavior that leads to heterogeneous microstructures in an as-built part. By leveraging in situ process data stored in the part’s digital thread, the scan path and process parameters were input into a heat transfer model which predicted solidification data at the melt pool scale. A two-step unsupervised clustering algorithm was used to first cluster the local solidification conditions (12.5µm 3 voxels) and then to cluster the regional behavior on the scale of multiple scan passes and print layers (250µm 3 super-voxels). This process was used to identify regions with similar solidification characteristics for multiple locations in a Stainless Steel 316-L component. The corresponding as-built part was sectioned and characterized using electron backscatter diffraction (EBSD). Quantitative analysis of the pole figures confirmed that the predicted regions of heterogeneity in the solidification conditions corresponded with differences in the observed microstructure. In conclusion, this work shows a viable path for estimating the microstructural heterogeneity for additively manufactured parts to either limit microstructural variation throughout a part or to enable functionality-based variation of the microstructure.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2024

Scattering Calorimeter FY24 Deliverable Report

A simulation-based method has been developed to prototype new detector designs for nuclear data measurements utilizing neutron scattering. This method uses representative physics inputs for signal and background generation, full detector resolution smearing benchmarked by experimental data, and a neutron beam timing simulation to produce analyzable output like a physical measurement. A test case has been studied using a hybrid time-of-flight calorimeter detector for scattering cross-section measurements on 239 Pu with 1-5 MeV incident monoenergetic neutrons. Data analysis methods have been developed to perform event-level particle reconstruction and reaction channel discrimination. This analysis has been used to estimate the capability of the test detector to perform simultaneous scattering and fission cross section measurements, as well as its ability to provide neutron spectra and particle angular information.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2024

HarDWR - Harmonized Water Rights Records

A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category

Economics↗