SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Data access”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 1,117 records · Page 62

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

TPSAS-NF1676L-35698-DND

The NASA Langley Atmospheric Science Data Center (ASDC) is using the Esri ArcGIS Platform to improve data discoverability, accessibility and interoperability to meet their diversified userbase. As a NASA Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC), ASDC is actively working to provide their atmospheric datasets as ArcGIS Image Services by leveraging the ArcGIS multidimensional suite of tools. This presentation will provide a brief overview of the ArcGIS Platform implementation at ASDC, an overview of the ArcGIS collaboration occurring among DAACs, as well as NASA Earth Science data application with partnering projects like the Prediction Of Worldwide Energy Resources (POWER).

Matthew Tisdale↗

NASA NTRS2003

Airport Choice in Sao Paulo Metropolitan Area: An Application of the Conditional Logit Model

Using the conditional LOGIT model, this paper addresses the airport choice in the Sao Paulo Metropolitan Area. In this region, Guarulhos International Airport (GRU) and Congonhas Airport (CGH) compete for passengers flying to several domestic destinations. The airport choice is believed to be a result of the tradeoff passengers perform considering airport access characteristics, airline level of service characteristics and passenger experience with the analyzed airports. It was found that access time to the airports better explain the airport choice than access distance, whereas direct flight frequencies gives better explanation to the airport choice than the indirect (connections and stops) and total (direct plus indirect) flight frequencies. Out of 15 tested variables, passenger experience with the analyzed airports was the variable that best explained the airport choice in the region. Model specifications considering 1, 2 or 3 variables were tested. The model specification most adjusted to the observed data considered access time, direct flight frequencies in the travel period (morning or afternoon peak) and passenger experience with the analyzed airports. The influence of these variables was therefore analyzed across market segments according to departure airport and flight duration criteria. The choice of GRU (located neighboring Sao Paulo city) is not well explained by the rationality of access time economy and the increase of the supply of direct flight frequencies, while the choice of CGH (located inside Sao Paulo city) is. Access time was found to be more important to passengers flying shorter distances while direct flight frequencies in the travel period were more significant to those flying longer distances. Keywords: Airport choice, Multiple airport region, Conditional LOGIT model, Access time, Flight frequencies, Passenger experience with the analyzed airports, Transportation planning

Moreno, Marcelo Baena↗

NASA NTRS1993

DataHub: Science data management in support of interactive exploratory analysis

The DataHub addresses four areas of significant needs: scientific visualization and analysis; science data management; interactions in a distributed, heterogeneous environment; and knowledge-based assistance for these functions. The fundamental innovation embedded within the DataHub is the integration of three technologies, viz. knowledge-based expert systems, science visualization, and science data management. This integration is based on a concept called the DataHub. With the DataHub concept, science investigators are able to apply a more complete solution to all nodes of a distributed system. Both computational nodes and interactives nodes are able to effectively and efficiently use the data services (access, retrieval, update, etc), in a distributed, interdisciplinary information system in a uniform and standard way. This allows the science investigators to concentrate on their scientific endeavors, rather than to involve themselves in the intricate technical details of the systems and tools required to accomplish their work. Thus, science investigators need not be programmers. The emphasis on the definition and prototyping of system elements with sufficient detail to enable data analysis and interpretation leading to information. The DataHub includes all the required end-to-end components and interfaces to demonstrate the complete concept.

Handley, Thomas H., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS1993

DataHub - Science data management in support of interactive exploratory analysis

DataHub addresses four areas of significant need: scientific visualization and analysis; science data management; interactions in a distributed, heterogeneous environment; and knowledge-based assistance for these functions. The fundamental innovation embedded within the DataHub is the integration of three technologies, viz. knowledge-based expert systems, science visualization, and science data management. This integration is based on a concept called the DataHub. With the DataHub concept, science investigators are able to apply a more complete solution to all nodes of a distributed system. Both computational nodes and interactive nodes are able to effectively and efficiently use the data services (access, retrieval, update, etc.) in a distributed, interdisciplinary information system in a uniform and standard way. This allows the science investigators to concentrate on their scientific endeavors, rather than to involve themselves in the intricate technical details of the systems and tools required to accomplish their work. Thus, science investigators need not be programmers. The emphasis is on the definition and prototyping of system elements with sufficient detail to enable data analysis and interpretation leading to information. The DataHub includes all the required end-to-end components and interfaces to demonstrate the complete concept.

Handley, Thomas H., Jr.↗

NASA NTRS2011

From Science to e-Science to Semantic e-Science: A Heliosphysics Case Study

The past few years have witnessed unparalleled efforts to make scientific data web accessible. The Semantic Web has proven invaluable in this effort; however, much of the literature is devoted to system design, ontology creation, and trials and tribulations of current technologies. In order to fully develop the nascent field of Semantic e-Science we must also evaluate systems in real-world settings. We describe a case study within the field of Heliophysics and provide a comparison of the evolutionary stages of data discovery, from manual to semantically enable. We describe the socio-technical implications of moving toward automated and intelligent data discovery. In doing so, we highlight how this process enhances what is currently being done manually in various scientific disciplines. Our case study illustrates that Semantic e-Science is more than just semantic search. The integration of search with web services, relational databases, and other cyberinfrastructure is a central tenet of our case study and one that we believe has applicability as a generalized research area within Semantic e-Science. This case study illustrates a specific example of the benefits, and limitations, of semantically replicating data discovery. We show examples of significant reductions in time and effort enable by Semantic e-Science; yet, we argue that a "complete" solution requires integrating semantic search with other research areas such as data provenance and web services.

Narock, Thomas↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Breaking Barriers: Integrating Geo-Leo Aerosol Data with an Open-Source Approach

The scientific community is still examining the novel data from geostationary satellite observations and evaluating methods for effectively fusing the polar observations with various spatial and temporal resolutions. However, the merged data will present a significant ""Big Data"" challenge, including processing, storage, data discoverability, accessibility, and migration within cloud computing environments. We have developed an open-source package to fuse aerosol optical depths (AOD) products from six satellite sensors in the past four years (2019~2023), and this presentation will update our recent progress. Using this Python-based package, we produced a level 3 global (AOD) product in a quarter-degree spatial resolution every half-hour, fusing the Level 2 AOD data with the Dark Target aerosol retrieval algorithm from six satellites: three geostationary (GOES-16/17 and Himawari-8) with high temporal resolution, and three polar orbiting (TERRA/MODIS, AQUA/MODIS, and SNPP-VIIRS) with global coverage. By integrating these observations, the diurnal cycle of global AOD in this fused product can be characterized at local, regional, and global scales. Furthermore, we are committed to openness and transparency by providing our package and its associated functionalities as open-source. Our dedication to adhering to the FAIR, CARE, and TRUST principles ensures that our users can rely on the integrity and ethical standards of our work. For instance of Interoperability, this package fuses remote sensing products on demand into desired temporal and spatial domains. It can be run in a central processing unit (CPU) or a Graphics processing unit (GPU) mode. This package will empower researchers and practitioners to use satellite and sensor data efficiently in various applications and research.

Xiaohua Pan↗

NASA NTRS1992

Knowledge-based assistance for science visualization and analysis using large distributed databases

Within this decade, the growth in complexity of exploratory data analysis and the sheer volume of space data require new and innovative approaches to support science investigators in achieving their research objectives. To date, there have been numerous efforts addressing the individual issues involved in inter-disciplinary, multi-instrument investigations. However, while successful in small scale, these efforts have not proven to be open and scaleable. This proposal addresses four areas of significant need: scientific visualization and analysis; science data management; interactions in a distributed, heterogeneous environment; and knowledge-based assistance for these functions. The fundamental innovation embedded within this proposal is the integration of three automation technologies, namely, knowledge-based expert systems, science visualization and science data management. This integration is based on the concept called the Data Hub. With the Data Hub concept, NASA will be able to apply a more complete solution to all nodes of a distributed system. Both computation nodes and interactive nodes will be able to effectively and efficiently use the data services (access, retrieval, update, etc.) with a distributed, interdisciplinary information system in a uniform and standard way. This will allow the science investigators to concentrate on their scientific endeavors, rather than to involve themselves in the intricate technical details of the systems and tools required to accomplish their work. Thus, science investigators need not be programmers. The emphasis will be on the definition and prototyping of system elements with sufficient detail to enable data analysis and interpretation leading to publishable scientific results. In addition, the proposed work includes all the required end-to-end components and interfaces to demonstrate the completed concept.

Handley, Thomas H., Jr.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Open Science for Life in Space: Data Sharing and Tools for Knowledge Discovery

The next era in human space exploration is rapidly approaching and will require the use of countermeasures to deep space health hazards. The development of countermeasures (or, the re-purposing of existing agents) will be highly dependent on our understanding of basic biological responses to space stressors (e.g. ionizing radiation, altered gravitational fields, altered day-night cycles, confinement, isolation, hostile-closed environments, distance-duration from Earth, exposure to celestial regolith, etc.). The fast-growing array of space biological data, which in the past was simply archived after minimal analysis, holds great potential if it can be reorganized and formatted for Open Science. Organizing the data for such analysis is a challenge because of its diverse nature (molecular, cellular, tissue, imaging, whole organism and behavior). We will discuss here several strategies that NASA’s Biological and Physical Science Division has put in place to maximize the return on investment for spaceflight bioscience data. Open Science, as a scientific philosophy, is the concept that the more people who have access to the data, the more knowledge will be gained from it. This guiding principle led NASA to develop GeneLab in 2015. GeneLab houses spaceflight and relevant ground-based multi-omics data, and has grown to ~400 transcriptomic, proteomic, metabolomic and epigenomic datasets from plant, rodent, small animal, and microbial space experiments. GeneLab provides users with various tools for data analysis and a visualization portal that allows users to interact with gene expression data from space-related ‘omics experiments. Open Science is also about building scientific communities, and with this spirit in mind, GeneLab has spawned several Analysis Working Groups (AWGs), comprised of more than 200 volunteer scientists. The AWGs initially provided feedback on the processing pipeline and metadata ‘omics standards for GeneLab. Over the last few years, they have become a community-driven science enterprise, engaging in large meta-analysis of GeneLab datasets, resulting in 10 publications (beyond the originally submitted research). Overall, the Open Science nature of GeneLab has resulted in a high degree of data re-use, resulting in 38 additional publications derived from the original 67 publication over the past four years. The enormous success and knowledge gained from GeneLab has led to a collection of sister NASA “Open Science Data Repositories (OSDR)” and research support groups. These include the NASA Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA), the NASA Biological Institutional Scientific Collection (NBISC), and the Biospecimen Sharing Program (BSP). All are adopting the GeneLab data architecture system to maximize open-access, find-ability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR). ALSDA collects and curates phenotypic-physiological bioimaging-behavioral data from space and space-relevant non-human experiments, oftentimes coming from the same omics-associated experimental datasets found in GeneLab. Since 2021, a community of ~100 researchers have rallied around ALSDA, to provide feedback in a new ALSDA AWG focused on phenotypic-physiological investigation-sample-assay metadata standards (e.g., Micro-Computed Tomography, Light/Fluorescence Microscopy, Western Blot, Flow Cytometry, Novel Object Recognition, Elevated Plus Maze, etc. of ~50 assays collected). These standards are part of a new single point-of-entry data submission portal for all non-human Space Biology and Human Research Program principal investigators, to submit, curate, and share their research data. With open-access space biological data now collected and curated together with rich metadata, and with the potential for linkage to “big data” from the international biological and medical communities (NIH, EBI, etc.), the artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) era has started for Space Biology. Several other talks will cover these topics in this conference.

life sciences↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Open Science for Life in Space: Data Sharing and Tools for Knowledge Discovery

The next era in human space exploration is rapidly approaching and will require the use of countermeasures to deep space health hazards. The development of countermeasures (or, there-purposing of existing agents) will be highly dependent on our understanding of basic biological responses to space stressors (e.g. ionizing radiation, altered gravitational fields, altered day-night cycles, confinement, isolation, hostile-closed environments, distance-duration from Earth, exposure to celestial regolith, etc.). The fast-growing array of space biological data, which in the past was simply archived after minimal analysis, holds great potential if it can be reorganized and formatted for Open Science. Organizing the data for such analysis is a challenge because of its diverse nature (molecular, cellular, tissue, imaging, whole organism and behavior). We will discuss here several strategies that NASA's Biological and Physical Science Division has put in place to maximize the return on investment for spaceflight bioscience data. Open Science, as a scientific philosophy, is the concept that the more people who have access to the data, the more knowledge will be gained from it. This guiding principle led NASA to develop GeneLab in 2015. GeneLab houses spaceflight and relevant ground-based multi-omics data, and has grown to ~400 transcriptomatic, proteomic, metabolomic and epigenomic datasets from plant, rodent, small animal, and microbial space experiments. GeneLab provides users with various tools for data analysis and a visualization portal that allows users to interact with gene expression data from space-related 'omics experiments. Open Science is also about building scientific communities, and with this spirit in mind, GeneLab has spawned several Analysis Working Groups (AWGs), comprised of more than 200 volunteer scientists. The AWGs initially provided feedback on the processing pipeline and metadata 'omics standards for GeneLab. Over the last few years, they have become a community-driven science enterprise, engaging in large meta-analysis of GeneLab datasets, resulting in 10 publications (beyond the originally submitted research). Overall, the Open Science nature of GeneLab has resulted in a high degree of data-use, resulting in 40 enabled publications by open data. The enormous success and knowledge gained from GeneLab has led to a collection of sister NASA "Open Science Data Repositories (OSDR)" and research support groups. These include the NASA Ames Life Sciences Data Archive (ALSDA), the NASA Biological Institutional Scientific Collection (NBISC), and the Biospecimen Sharing Program (BSP). All are adopting the GeneLab data architecture system to maximize open-access, find-ability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability (FAIR). ALSDA collects and curates phenotypic-physiological bioimaging-behavioral data from space and space-relevant non-human experiments, oftentimes coming from the same omics-associated experimental datasets found in GeneLab. Since 2021, a community of ~100 researchers have rallied around ALSDA, to provide feedback in a new ALSDA AWG focused on phenotypic-physiological investigation-sample-assay metadata standards (e.g., Micro-Computed Tomography, Light/Flourescence Microscopy, Western Blot, Flow Cytometry, Novel Object Recognition, Elevated Plus Maze, etc. of ~50 assays collected). These standards are part of a new single point-of-entry data submission portal for all non-human Space Biology and Human Research Program principal investigators, to submit, curate, and share their research data. With open-access space biological data now collected and curated together with rich metadata, and with the potential for linkage to "big data" from the international biological and medical communities (NIH, EBI, etc.), the artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) era has started for Space Biology.

omics↗

DOE OSTI2022

Results From Invoking Artificial Neural Networks to Measure Insider Threat Detection & Mitigation

Advances on differentiating between malicious intent and natural “organizational evolution” to explain observed anomalies in operational workplace patterns suggest benefit from evaluating collective behaviors observed in the facilities to improve insider threat detection and mitigation (ITDM). Advances in artificial neural networks (ANN) provide more robust pathways for capturing, analyzing, and collating disparate data signals into quantitative descriptions of operational workplace patterns. In response, a joint study by Sandia National Laboratories and the University of Texas at Austin explored the effectiveness of commercial artificial neural network (ANN) software to improve ITDM. Overall, this research demonstrates the benefit of learning patterns of organizational behaviors, detecting off-normal (or anomalous) deviations from these patterns, and alerting when certain types, frequencies, or quantities of deviations emerge for improving ITDM. Evaluating nearly 33,000 access control data points and over 1,600 intrusion sensor data points collected over a nearly twelve-month period, this study's results demonstrated the ANN could recognize operational patterns at the Nuclear Engineering Teaching Laboratory (NETL) and detect off-normal behaviors—suggesting that ANNs can be used to support a data-analytic approach to ITDM. Several representative experiments were conducted to further evaluate these conclusions, with the resultant insights supporting collective behavior-based analytical approaches to quantitatively describe insider threat detection and mitigation.

45 MILITARY TECHNOLOGY, WEAPONRY, AND NATIONAL DEF↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Improving “Domain-Relevant Metadata Requirements” for Supporting Open-Source Science Initiative

Implementation of the NASA Open-Source Science Initiative (OSSI) requires sharing of all relevant information to ensure “open reproducible science” [1]. However, there are several challenges in applying the OSSI to airborne field campaigns focused on atmospheric composition, which often involve a wide variety of in-situ measurements for trace gases, aerosol and cloud properties, meteorological parameters, and radiation fields. To ensure open reproducibility from airborne field campaigns, it is essential to obtain detailed measurement descriptions, which include the detection principle, sample procedure and treatment, and data processing and correction method. The challenge is that some information, e.g., sampling procedure and treatment, may be instrument-specific and campaign or platform-dependent. The data processing may also involve empirical corrections which may evolve over time. In addition, these details (especially operation- or campaign-specific ones) are often not given in journal publications. Given these issues, there is a need to leverage and improve the current “domain-relevant metadata requirements” to represent the measurement description in standardized metadata. These requirements can then facilitate systematic collection of measurement specific metadata and serve as a foundation to develop tools for making the information accessible and data more interoperable and usable or reusable. Here we show a review of existing metadata collections, use cases, and needs for new standards.

Sean Leavor↗

NASA NTRS2002

yourSky: rapid desktop access to custom astronomical image mosaics

The yourSky custom astronomical image mosaicking software has a web portal architecture that allows access via ordinary desktop computers with low bandwidth network connections to high performance and highly customizable mosaicking software deployed in a high performance computing and communications environment.

astronomical↗

NASA NTRS2016

Deploying a Route Optimization EFB Application for Commercial Airline Operational Trials

The Traffic Aware Planner (TAP), developed for NASA Langley Research Center to support the Traffic Aware Strategic Aircrew Requests (TASAR) project, is a flight-efficiency software application developed for an Electronic Flight Bag (EFB). Tested in two flight trials and planned for operational testing by two commercial airlines, TAP is a real-time trajectory optimization application that leverages connectivity with onboard avionics and broadband Internet sources to compute and recommend route modifications to flight crews to improve fuel and time performance. The application utilizes a wide range of data, including Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) traffic, Flight Management System (FMS) guidance and intent, on-board sensors, published winds and weather, and Special Use Airspace (SUA) schedules. This paper discusses the challenges of developing and deploying TAP to various EFB platforms, our solutions to some of these challenges, and lessons learned, to assist commercial software developers and hardware manufacturers in their efforts to implement and extend TAP functionality in their environments. EFB applications (such as TAP) typically access avionics data via an ARINC 834 Simple Text Avionics Protocol (STAP) server hosted by an Aircraft Interface Device (AID) or other installed hardware. While the protocol is standardized, the data sources, content, and transmission rates can vary from aircraft to aircraft. Additionally, the method of communicating with the AID may vary depending on EFB hardware and/or the availability of onboard networking services, such as Ethernet, WIFI, Bluetooth, or other mechanisms. EFBs with portable and installed components can be implemented using a variety of operating systems, and cockpits are increasingly incorporating tablet-based technologies, further expanding the number of platforms the application may need to support. Supporting multiple EFB platforms, AIDs, avionics datasets, and user interfaces presents a challenge for software developers and the management of their code baselines. Maintaining multiple baselines to support all deployment targets can be extremely cumbersome and expensive. Certification also needs to be considered when developing the application. Regardless of whether the software is itself destined to be certified, data requirements in support of the application and user interface elements may introduce certification requirements for EFB manufacturers and the airlines. The example of TAP, the challenges faced, solutions implemented, and lessons learned will give EFB application and hardware developers insight into future potential requirements in deploying TAP or similar flight-deck EFB applications.

Roscoe, David A.↗

NASA NTRS2023

Trades, Architecture, and Design of the Joint Augmented Reality Visual Informatics (Joint AR) Product

Future expeditions will enable exploration and study of the planetary surfaces of the Moon and Mars by performing extravehicular activity (EVA) operations. Present-day International Space Station (ISS) EVA operations require an intricate and tight choreography of crew, space suits, tools, systems, and flight teams to plan, train, and execute with limited advanced informatics. Additionally, EVA operations, aside from the Apollo Lunar surface missions, have predominately focused on maintenance and construction tasks where success criteria are clearly measurable. However, future exploration missions expect to enable crew to carry out scientific objectives in increasingly Earth-independent ways. In this paper, the Joint Augmented Reality Visual Informatics System (Joint AR) characterizes the design space for developing a modular augmented reality (AR) device for a spacesuit form factor that can support crew decision-making for EVA. This paper highlights the project’s experience with a product-focused management style and use-case centered systems engineering approach to iteratively design, build, and test. The Joint AR product features were defined via trade studies and market analysis of previous EVA display efforts, various AR components such as optics, commercial AR systems, light engines, data interfaces, graphics engine software and analog test beds. We outline the defining architectural design decisions, including safety criticality considerations, suit mounting interfaces, computer architectures, and partnership contracting mechanisms. The outcomes of these studies, architecture decisions, and management requirements result in a recommended design which is the Joint AR product. We discuss the evolution, development of these system components, and what work remains. We hope to share a unified understanding of various design decisions and how they impact the future of crew members’ access to data during Lunar and Martian EVAs. This ongoing effort can enable a community-wide discovery process toward realizing necessary AR features and capabilities for future missions.

Augmented Reality↗

NASA NTRS2017

Things That Scientists Don't Understand About NASA Spaceflight Research

So you want to conduct human spaceflight research aboard the International Space Station (ISS)? Once your spaceflight research aboard the ISS is proposal is funded.... the real work begins. Because resources are so limited for ISS research, it is necessary to maximize the work being done, while at the same time, minimizing the resources spent. Astronauts may be presented with over 30 human research experiments and select, on average approximately 15 in which to participate. In order to conduct this many studies, ISSMP uses the study requirements provided by the principle investigator to integrate all of this work into the astronauts' complement. The most important thing for investigators to convey to the ISSMP team is their RESEARCH REQUIREMENTS. Requirements are captured in the Experiment document. This document is the official record of how, what, where and when data will be collected. One common mistake that investigators make is not taking this document seriously, but when push comes to shove, if a research requirement is not in this document....it will not get done. The research requirements are then integrated to form a complement of research for each astronaut. What do we mean by integration? Many experiments have overlapping requirements; blood draws, behavioral surveys, heart rate measurement. Where possible, these measures are combined to reduce redundancy and save crew time. Investigators can access these data via data sharing agreements. More examples of how ISS research is integrated will be presented. There are additional limitations commonly associated with human spaceflight research that will also be discussed. Large/heavy hardware, invasive procedures, and toxic reagents are extremely difficult to implement on the ISS. There are strict limits placed on the amount of blood that can be drawn from crew members during (and immediately after) spaceflight. These limits are based on 30-day rolling accumulations. We have recently had to start restricting studies due to this limit. The NASA Human Research Program (HRP) provides extensive support, via ISSMP, to help investigators cope with all of the intricacies of conducting human spaceflight research. This presentation will help you take the best advantage of that support.

Platts, S. H.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Integrating Earth Observations and Socioeconomic Data to Address Health, Equity, and Environmental Justice

Access to reliable data about the characteristics of populations is a crucial component of decision making, policy development, and the assessment of progress towards strategic goals. Social determinants of health provide insight into the status of social and economic conditions within populations that have profound effects on public health, equity, and vulnerability. International frameworks such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) fundamentally focus on equality, but to efficiently address targets and indicators, socioeconomic data and Earth observations must be integrated to help identify populations most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, natural disasters, health disparities, and poor policy planning. The ability to identify vulnerable populations with data analysis has the potential to empower community stakeholders with spatial awareness needed to inform decision-making that addresses equity and environmental justice issues within their communities. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies.” NASA’s Earth Science Division (ESD) recognizes the benefits that Earth observations with NASA satellites create by equipping individuals with the knowledge to address community challenges. NASA’s Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) supports the integration of socioeconomic and Earth science data as an “informational gateway.” This integration of data is advancing health, equity, and environmental justice initiatives.

Natasha Johnson-Griffin↗

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↗