SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Site description”

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.

1,133 records · Page 63

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2026

Stable Water Isotope Data for the East River Watershed, Colorado (2014-2025)

The stable water isotope data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, consists of delta2H (hydrogen) and delta18O (oxygen) values from samples collected at multiple, long-term monitoring sites including streams, groundwater wells, springs, and a precipitation collector used to establish a local meteoric water line (LMWL) for the watershed. These locations represent important and/or unique end-member locations for which stable isotope values can be diagnostic of the connection between precipitation inputs as snow and rain and riverine export. Such locations include drainages underline entirely or largely by shale bedrock, land covered dominated by conifers, aspens, or meadows, and drainages impacted by historic mining activity and the presence of naturally mineralized rock. Developing a long-term record of water isotope values from a diversity of environments is a critical component of quantifying the impacts of both climate change and discrete climate perturbations, such as drought, forest mortality, and wildfire, on water export. Such data may be combined with stream gaging stations co-located at each surface water monitoring site to relate seasonal variations in water export to their stable isotopic signature. Data for liquid water delta2H and delta18O values are reported in units of parts per thousand (per-mil; ‰). This data package contains (1) a zip file (isotope_data_2014-2025.zip) containing a total of 95 files: 96 data files of isotope data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v6_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and (3) a data dictionary (v6_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 43 locations containing isotope data. Update on 2022-06-10: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated isotope data for all locations up to 2021-12-31 and (2) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-03-13. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2024-02-19. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available isotope data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available isotope data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Risk Considerations of Transitioning CO2-EOR Field to CO2 storage Field: Case Study

In the United States (U.S.), carbon dioxide (CO2) injection wells at EOR sites are currently regulated as Class II wells under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) program while dedicated geological CO2 storage (GCS) wells are considered Class VI wells. A CO2-EOR facility considering a transitioning from tertiary oil recovery to injecting CO2 for the primary purpose of long-term storage is required to obtain a Class VI permit where this transition poses an increased risk to underground sources of drinking water. This study considers how transitioning operations from CO2-EOR to storage can impact reservoir plume and pressure transient in the storage envelope, and how these changes could impact area of review and potential unwanted fluid migration. We developed a case study to assess subsurface response and leakage risks associated with a representative, hypothetical operation in a carbonate reservoir. This reservoir transitions from tertiary hydrocarbon recovery to dedicated GCS. Reservoir simulations were run for a set of credible CO2-EOR scenarios to estimate distributions of fluids phases and pressures throughout the model domain after CO2 flooding as well as forecasting the behavior of the reservoir after the transition to a dedicated storage phase. The evolutions from all simulated scenarios were used as the basis for leakage risk quantification using the National Risk Assessment Partnership’s Open-Source Integrated Assessment Model (NRAP-Open-IAM) with a novel reduced-order model to estimate time-dependent leakage of CO2, brine, and hydrocarbon fluids through potentially leaky wells. Results include a description of reservoir response, an estimate of the areal extent that could potentially be impacted by leakage to underground sources of drinking water, and estimates of the magnitude of potential leakage. Considerations for dedicated storage injection well selection, injectivity, and injection scheme performance and potential leakage risk are presented, with implications for risk assessment of well transition discussed. This study presents a risk-based workflow for the Class II to Class VI well transition. Integrating credible numerical simulation of viable CO2-EOR to dedicated CO2 storage with quantitative risk assessment tools, such as the NRAP-Open-IAM, will provide a valuable means to devise operational scenarios and inform decision-making related to storage benefit, leakage risk, and liability. Presented at the SPE/AAPG/SEG Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage Conference in Houston, TX, March 11-13, 2024.

Liu, Guoxiang↗

DOE OSTI2023

Model simulations of Plum Island Ecosystems LTER low marsh site using ELM-PFLOTRAN

Model simulations using the E3SM Land Model (ELM) coupled to the PFLOTRAN reactive transport model via the Alquimia interface. The simulations were conducted for a tidal salt marsh at the Plum Island Ecosystems LTER near Rowley, Massachusetts, USA. Model simulations were forced using site-specific tidal cycles and salinity, and the simulations used a biogeochemical reaction network including aerobic decomposition, sulfate reduction, iron reduction, and methanogenesis. Model outputs include simulated carbon stocks, carbon dioxide and methane fluxes, and porewater concentrations of key solutes related to sulfur, iron, and carbon cycling. The model simulations included a saline simulation (with tidal sulfate inputs), a fresh simulation (with low salinity and low sulfate inputs), and a saline simulation with lower vegetation productivity to represent the effect of salinity on vegetation. These simulations were conducted to demonstrate that a new model framework incorporating subsurface redox and biogeochemical interactions into a land surface model could reproduce measured surface greenhouse gas fluxes and biogeochemical dynamics in tidal marsh ecosystems, and to test whether including redox interactions in a land surface model would allow the model to resolve contrasts in biogeochemical cycling and greenhouse gas production between saline and freshwater wetlands.The data package includes gzipped tar archives (which can be expanded using standard tar and gzip utilities) of model outputs from three model configurations: saline subsurface and reduced vegetation productivity related to salinity; saline subsurface with vegetation productivity not reduced; and freshwater. Also included are code for the modified E3SM model, Alquimia interface, and PFLOTRAN reactive transport simulator in gzipped tar format; plain text parameter and configuration files; python code files for visualizing model output and defining model configurations; and model output, tide and salinity forcing, and configuration files in netCDF format. See the README.md file in the data package for a detailed description of all files contained in the package. All files are in netCDF (.nc), gzipped tar archive (.tar.gz or .tgz), or text (all other files).Updated: May 13, 2024. Model output, E3SM code, PFLOTRAN input files, and python codes for visualizing results were updated to reflect changes made for the manuscript revision. The updated archive reflects the code and model output from the final accepted manuscript. Changes included updated reaction parameters reflecting improved parameterization and additional comparisons with field measurements. E3SM code changes included better support for multiple grid cells and improved flow and transport parameterization.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

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

The anion data for the East River Watershed, Colorado, consist of fluoride, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and phosphate concentrations collected at multiple, long-term monitoring sites that include stream, groundwater, and spring sampling locations. These locations represent important and/or unique end-member locations for which solute concentrations can be diagnostic of the connection between terrestrial and aquatic systems. Such locations include drainages underlined entirely or largely by shale bedrock, land covered dominated by conifers, aspens, or meadows, and drainages impacted by historic mining activity and the presence of naturally mineralized rock. Developing a long-term record of solute concentrations from a diversity of environments is a critical component of quantifying the impacts of both climate change and discrete climate perturbations, such as drought, forest mortality, and wildfire, on the riverine export of multiple anionic species. Such data may be combined with stream gauging stations co-located at each monitoring site to directly quantify the seasonal and annual mass flux of these anionic species out of the watershed. This data package contains (1) a zip file (anion_data_2014_2025.zip) containing a total of 386 files: 387 data files of anion data from across the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) which is reported in .csv files per location and a locations.csv (1 file) with latitude and longitude for each location; (2) a file-level metadata (v7_20260901_flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; (3) a data dictionary (v7_20260901_dd.csv) file that contains terms/column_headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type; and (4) a anion MDL fact sheet (anion_MDLs_202608 in PDF and docx formats). Missing values within the anion data files are noted as either "-9999" or "0.0" for not detectable (N.D.) data. There are a total of 47 locations containing anion data. Update on 2022-06-10: versioned updates to this dataset was made along with these changes: (1) updated anion data for all locations up to 2021-12-31, (2) removal of units from column headers in datafiles, (3) added row underneath headers to contain units of variables, (4) restructure of units to comply with CSV reporting format requirements, and (5) the addition of the file-level metadata (flmd.csv) and data dictionary (dd.csv) were added to comply with the File-Level Metadata Reporting Format. Update on 2022-09-09: Updates were made to reporting format specific files (file-level metadata and data dictionary) to correct swapped file names, add additional details on metadata descriptions on both files, add a header_row column to enable parsing, and add version number and date to file names (v2_20220909_flmd.csv and v2_20220909_dd.csv). Update on 2022-12-20: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. Conversion issues affecting ER-PLM locations for anion data was resolved for the data files. Additionally, the flmd and dd files were updated to reflect the updated versions of these files. Available data was added up until 2022-03-14. Update on 2023-08-08: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-05-19. The file level metadata and data dictionary files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2024-03-11: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until 2023-09-11. Further, revisions to the data files were made to remove incorrect data points (from 1970 and 2001). The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2025-05-15: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until the end of WY2024 (September 30, 2024). International Generic Sample Numbers (IGSNs), when registered, were added to the data files. The reporting format specific files were updated to reflect the additional data added. Update on 2026-09-01: Updates were made to both the data files and reporting format specific files. New available anion data was added, up until the end of WY2025 (September 30, 2025). An anion MDL document was included in this update.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Conceptual Model Update of Mercury Sources and Flux at Y-12 and Upper East Fork Poplar Creek, Oak Ridge,Tennessee

The interactions between the key processes that control the fate and transport of mercury (Hg) in the sediments, groundwater, and stream water within the Y-12 National Security Complex (Y-12) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee are complex, and many aspects are not well understood. In contaminated environments such as Y-12, conceptual models are frequently developed to aid in visualizing and understanding the dynamic nature of the hydrologic, geochemical, and physical environment. These conceptual models integrate data in an internally consistent manner to understand processes that control the fate and transport of contaminants. Over the past few decades of environmental investigation at Y-12, a number of conceptual models have been developed to identify and define various technical processes at various scales. The main purpose of the activities described in this report is to update the 2011 conceptual model for Upper East Fork Poplar Creek using the most recent Hg concentration and flux data and informed scientific interpretation. Emphasis was placed on improving the previous model by implementing a more detailed spatial and temporal approach to visualize transport pathways in the watershed and trends in flux and concentration over time, and to compare baseflow and stormflow system dynamics. Detailed descriptions of historical and current Hg sources and transport pathways are also provided for the east and west ends of the facility. This conceptual model will allow the US Department of Energy to evaluate past and present remedial activities and provide a strong technical basis for prioritizing and optimizing remedial responses in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Twenty years ago, Hg flux from Outfall (OF) 200 at the headwaters of East Fork Poplar Creek represented approximately 20% of the overall flux leaving Y-12. By the time of the 2011 conceptual model report, that percentage had increased to 70%–80%. Flux estimates compiled for this report using data from 2009 to 2018 show that OF200 accounted for roughly 60% of the flux leaving Y-12. The relative role of the four storm drain conduits to OF200 appeared similar to 2011, with OF163 being the greatest contributor to downstream flux. An increase in Hg concentrations and flux occurred throughout and downstream of west end storm drains in 2011 in response to a storm drain cleanout. Leading up to the 2011 storm drain cleanout, annual baseflow flux was higher at OF200A6 than at Station 17. From 2011 to 2018, the trend reversed with concentrations and flux being higher at Station 17 than at OF200A6. A spike in concentrations occurred in July 2018, potentially due to a one-time influx of Hg that occurred during COLEX decontamination and decommissioning activities at Y-12. This report includes recommendations for improving our conceptual understanding of Hg sources, transport pathways, and flux at Y-12. Important recommendations include further evaluation of transport pathways, concurrent measurement of Hg concentration and flux under baseflow and stormflow conditions at multiple sites, and research to understand the connections among periphyton and methylmercury concentration, bioavailability, and bioaccumulation. Ongoing facility decontamination and decommissioning efforts, site characterization, remedial actions, and research are facilitating the collection of new Hg data at Y-12. The conceptual model update provided herein takes advantage of the extensive recent Hg sampling to provide an updated assessment of Hg mass balance and support a refined understanding of Hg behavior at or near Y-12. This assessment should assist in future environmental management decisions and in mitigating the impacts of Hg on the surrounding environment.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2023

Effects of Mineral Impurities and Heat on Uranium(VI) Sorption onto Bentonite (Final Report)

Most nuclear waste disposal options include compacted bentonite, consisting of montmorillonite clay, as part of a barrier system to minimize contaminant mobility. Uranium (U) is the primary element in spent nuclear fuel, and from an environmental perspective, a potential contaminant of water resources. Furthermore, uranium may control nuclear fuel degradation rates and the consequent release of other radioactive contaminants based on its diffusive transport away from waste canisters. Uranium sorption onto clay and other mineral surfaces is expected to limit U(VI) mobility in these systems. However, at this point a prediction of U(VI) sorption and transport behavior in performance assessment (PA) models is complicated by a series of factors, such as: (1) the presence of various U(VI) solution species with different charges and sorption characteristics; (2) the complex microstructure of montmorillonite clay resulting in two types of clay porosities and multiple sorption sites; (3) the largely unknown effects of bentonite mineral impurities on pore water chemistry, U(VI) sorption and diffusion behavior; and (4) the potential impacts of heat, generated by the decay of spent fuel, on mineralogical and microstructural transformations, and any subsequent effects on radionuclide sorption and mobility. In this project, we investigated the effects of calcite impurities on U(VI) sorption and diffusion onto montmorillonite before and after mineral exposure to heat. Overall, our main goals were to: 1. Gain a mechanistic understanding of the effects of calcite impurities on U(VI) sorption and diffusion in montmorillonite/bentonite at variable chemical conditions, and before and after mineral exposure to heat; and to 2. Work towards the development of new surface complexation and diffusion models to predict U(VI) sorption and mobility in montmorillonite/bentonite while accounting for the impacts of calcite impurities and heat. In order to achieve these goals, we pursued the following research objectives and tasks: 1. Characterize the effects of calcite impurities on U(VI) sorption onto Na-montmorillonite, and evaluate if and how these effects change due to solids’ exposure to heat (Task 1). 2. Characterize U(VI) surface speciation in solid samples from Task 1, with a particular focus on U(VI) precipitates and co-precipitates (Task 2). 3. Test the relevance of observed changes in U(VI) sorption characteristics for U(VI) diffusive transport behavior in bentonite barriers (Task 3). 4. Evaluate the exclusion of anionic U(VI) solution complexes from clay nanopores (Task 4). 5. Building on Tasks 1-4, start the development of new surface complexation and reactive transport models that can simulate and predict U(VI) sorption and diffusion in complex bentonite systems (Task 5). A detailed description of all tasks, and their specific results and conclusions is provided in this report.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2026

User’s Manual for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code Version 2: Vol. 2—User’s Guide for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code

Version 2.0 of the RESRAD-RDD&IND computer code is designed to support the implementation of protective action guides (PAGs) after a nuclear emergency incident including a radiological dispersal device (RDD) and/or an improvised nuclear device (IND) incident (EPA 2017). Eight different group types, addressing various decisions, are available for selection. The RESRAD-RDD&IND code calculates radiological doses, stay times, etc., for the selected group that the user wishes to focus on. (That is, the results for all the groups are not calculated simultaneously, and the input for those other groups do not matter, although some parameter values are shared between groups.) Version 2.0 has a user-friendly interface so that the RESRAD-RDD&IND code can be used with minimal training. For example, the user can select the major characteristics of the problem-event type, source term, and decision type from the left side of the interface and then calculate the results with the default assumptions for the exposure scenarios. More in-depth analysis would include specifying site-specific exposure scenario characteristics in the right side of the interface. The procedures for data entry and results viewing are self-explanatory. This is because common window maneuvering features and text instructions were incorporated in the interface design. General and context-specific help are available to aid users entering parameter values, as well. The RESRAD-RDD&IND computer code gives the user the option to select either an RDD or IND incident for analysis. For an RDD event analysis, 11 radionuclides (Am-241, Cf-252, Cm-244, Co-60, Cs-137, Ir-192, Po-210, Pu-238, Pu-239, Ra-226, and Sr-90) are included. These 11 radionuclides are the radionuclides most likely used for an RDD. More than 90 radionuclides can be selected for an IND event analysis. Initial default concentrations are provided for 44 radionuclides for a uranium-fueled IND event. These 44 radionuclides are those that would contribute significantly to the radiation dose associated with a uranium-fueled bomb detonation. The radionuclides generated from ingrowth of these 44 initial radionuclides are also automatically included in the analysis. Pu-239, Cs-134m, Ru-105, and Rb-89 and their progeny can be selected for analysis if they are detected and their concentrations are determined. This user’s guide, which is Volume 2 of the User’s Manual for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code Version 2, provides instructions to users on how to install the RESRAD-RDD&IND code, navigate the interface, and use the various features, including those discussed above, to set up an analysis and view/print the results in text outputs. Volume 1 of the User’s Manual for RESRAD-RDD&IND Code Version 2 (Yu et al. 2026), which contains descriptions of the methodology and theoretical basis for dose modeling and the mathematical equations implemented in the code, can be accessed and viewed through the Help menu in the code or can be downloaded from the RESRAD website (https://resrad.evs.anl.gov).

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Bioaerosol Properties using WIBS from SAIL on Mt. Crested Butte, CO

We deployed a Wideband Integrated Bioaerosol Sensor (WIBS-Neo, DMT) to measure different properties of fluorescent bioaerosol particles (FBAP) during SAIL. Our measurements were collected at the supplementary site on Crested Butte Mountain from inside the ARM Aerosol Observing System (AOS) sampling from the AOS inlet. We had two deployment periods at SAIL during biologically active seasons: summer 2022 (15 June 2022 - 13 September 2022) and spring 2023 (21 March 2023 - 19 June 2023). The WIBS is an online single-particle measurement that detects FBAPs (within a size range of 0.5 - 30 microns in diameter) based on the excitation and emission wavelengths of the individual particles. Using two xenon lamps, the WIBS excites FBAPs at 280 nm and 370 nm. Their emission is detected across two wavebands of 310-400 nm and 420-650 nm. We classified the FBAPs into seven different categories (A, B, C, AB, BC, AC, and ABC) using the classification scheme in Perring et. al. (2015) [1]. Here, we report one-minute averaged number concentration of FBAPs (total and by category) and NFBAPs. We also present one-minute-averaged size distributions and the asymmetry factor (AF, a surrogate for shape) of all FBAPs and NFBAPs. The logarithmic bin width of the size bins is the same as the average bin width of the AOS's optical particle counter (OPC, Grimm) for the range of sizes in which they overlap (26 bins from 0.5 - 30 microns). AF of the particles ranges from 0-100 and is divided into five bins with a linear spacing at increments of 20. The smallest AF bin represents more spherical particles while the largest bin represents more rod-shaped particles. We recommend referring to the readme file for more details of the variables present in the files. [1] Perring, A. E., et al. (2015), Airborne observations of regional variation in fluorescent aerosol across the United States, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 120, 1153-1170, doi:10.1002/2014JD022495. Abstract and description of the campaign can be found here: https://www.arm.gov/research/cam

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

TRACER-Coastal Urban Boundary-Layer Interactions with Convection (TRACER-CUBIC) Field Campaign Report

To better understand the complicated web of processes governing convective cloud life cycle and aerosol-convection interactions, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility supported deployment of a variety of advanced atmospheric measurement systems to the greater Houston, Texas, area from 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022 as part of the Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions Experiment (TRACER). Houston was selected as a study area because isolated convection and a variety of aerosol conditions are common in this region. This one-year ARM Mobile Facility (AMF) deployment featured a four-month intensive operational period (IOP) during summer 2022 (1 June–30 September). The ARM instrumentation was deployed at three sites along an east-west transect from La Porte, Texas to an ancillary site in a less-polluted rural region southwest of downtown Houston (Figure 1). At the La Porte Site, which is located near the Houston ship channel in an area that experiences significant pollution, the first ARM Mobile Facility (AMF1) was deployed. During the IOP, the ARM tethered balloon system (TBS) operated at the ancillary site. The second-generation C-Band Scanning ARM Precipitation Radar (CSAPR) operated near Pearland, Texas, roughly halfway between the Laporte and ancillary sites. As part of the TRACER- Coastal Urban Boundary-Layer Interactions with Convection (CUBIC) project, three boundary-layer profiling systems) were deployed along a north-south transect spanning from the University of Houston Coastal Center to the Aldine site north of downtown Houston (also blue dot in Figure 1) during the TRACER IOP. These systems included the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Severe Storms Laboratory CLAMPS2 (C2), which was deployed at the UHCC, the University of Wisconsin SPARC, which was deployed at the ARM CSAPR site near Pearland (orange diamond in middle of map in Figure 1), and the University of Oklahoma CLAMPS1 (C1), which was deployed at Aldine. These three systems have been successfully operated in various field campaigns, providing data sets that collectively offer new insights into atmospheric-boundary-layer (ABL) processes, sea-breeze (SB) circulations, and convection initiation (CI). For the TRACER IOP window, these systems ran continuously between 1 June and 26 September, 2022. Due to commitments to NOAA projects, the Doppler lidar at the UHCC site was not available until 24 June 2022. The CLAMPS and SPARC profiling systems are self-contained platforms that have benefited from several years of development and deployment. Instruments and data processing were maintained remotely, which made the 4-month deployment for the TRACER-CUBIC IOP period possible. The same basic instrument configuration comprises each system: a scanning Doppler wind lidar for flow characterization and passive profiler(s) for characterizing planetary-boundary-layer (PBL) thermodynamic properties. Each platform includes a Halo Streamline Doppler wind lidar, an Atmospheric Emitted Radiance Interferometer (AERI), and a surface meteorology station. CLAMPS1 and CLAMPS2 each also include a microwave radiometer (MWR, Figure 1d). The TRACER-CUBIC hypotheses included (i) Interactions of SB and urban circulations and how they affect the PBL structure in the Houston environment, causing spatially (horizontally and vertically) and temporally highly variable flow patterns, (ii) heat, moisture, and aerosol transport and mixing depend on these flow dynamics, and (iii) an improved understanding of the flow patterns and PBL structure are critical for investigating the processes leading to CI. To test these hypotheses, the project aimed at (i) characterizing SB circulations and their impacts on the diurnal evolution of the structure of the ABL, (ii) studying the evolution of Houston’s complex urban boundary layer, and (iii) identifying effects of urban-induced circulations on pre-convective environments. TRACER-CUBIC observations generally provide good coverage during the summer IOP. Initial screening of the data indicates a good number of cases with bay-breeze (BB) and/or SB signatures, local CI, and interesting boundary-layer features such as strong nocturnal low-level jets (LLJs, Table 1). The numbers listed in rows 3-5 in this table will be further updated as part of ongoing in-depth analyses and systematic identification of local circulations and CI events. More detailed information about the data availability and quality for each instrument is provided in the “readme” files that were submitted to the ARM Data Center along with each archived data sets. These “readme” files also provide instrument descriptions, information about the data collection and processing procedures, data formats, and any additional information relevant for further data analysis.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Time-dependent THMC properties and microstructural evolution of damaged rocks in excavation damage zone

Modeling coupled thermo-hydro-mechanical-chemical (THMC) processes in host rocks near high-level nuclear waste (HLW) repositories at various time scales is an extremely challenging task. The current study integrates experimental, theoretical, and numerical methods in assessing the evolution of excavation damage zone (EDZ) over time and its implication on the long-term migration of hazardous species. Argillite and rock salt and are the focus of this study. The first part of the report presents a novel time-dependent directional microcrack damage theory for generic brittle rocks. It features detailed statistical description of the microcracks within a damaged solid, permitting a direct upscaling of microscale processes such as crack growth kinetics, crack closure/opening, sliding friction to explain the macroscopic creep, nonlinear elasticity, shear dilation, and loading-unloading hysteresis. This provides a basic platform for describing the anisotropic mechanical and transport properties of damaged rocks during excavation and subsequent THMC loadings. The model is validated and numerically implemented to Finite Element (FE) package ABAQUS through the user-defined material (UMAT) interface and have demonstrated great potential in resolving the time-dependent and anisotropic evolution of damage in the EDZ. The second part of the report presents a multi-scale experimental effort in characterizing the thermal, hydraulic, and mechanical properties of Mancos shale and Avery Island salt. For the Mancos shale, triaxial compression tests are performed at different confining pressures and temperatures to probe its thermomechanical properties relevant to HLW repositories. The obtained stress-strain data are interpreted using the proposed directional damage theory. Post-test specimens are subjected to gas permeability tests to reveal the correlation between permeability and the degree of microcracking. At microscale, temperature-controlled nanoindentation tests are performed and found a linear correlation between fracture toughness and elastic modulus from 25°C to 300°C. For Avery Island salt, we have designed and manufactured a novel relative-humidity controlled uniaxial creep device. Long-term creep tests at low stresses (< 5 MPa) are performed at different levels of relative humidity (RH). Besides confirming the much higher creep rates as one would expect through extrapolating the high-stress creep data, the results reveal that the steady-state creep rate of rock salt is strongly dependent on the ambient RH, an aspect that is often neglected in the literature. Both behaviors can be attributed to the pressure-solution creep mechanism which dominates at low stress and high RH levels. The third part of the report explores a set of numerical strategies in modeling the THMC behavior of porous geomaterials. A fully implicit, monolithic FE solution that can flexibly interface with different material models and coupling mechanisms for THMC problems is developed and verified through the ABAQUS user-defined element (UEL) interface. The scheme is used to study the THM response of a hypothetical HLW storage site with reference to an existing in-situ heater test. Strategies for integrating the UEL and the microcrack UMAT are suggested. Another numerical endeavor of this study is to implement a higher-order asymptotic homogenization method to account for the heterogeneous porous structures. The same method is then extended to perform microstructure-informed thermo-mechanical modeling of generalized continua. The above outcomes of this project provide a strong thrust towards enhancing the fundamental understanding and modeling capability of the long-term evolution of host rocks in EDZ, thus helping achieve the design goal of 1-million-year isolation of high-level nuclear wastes.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2023

Multi-Unit Dwelling Plug-in EV Charging Innovation Pilots (Final Report)

Nearly one-third of residences in the U.S. are multi-unit dwellings (MUDs), e.g., apartments and condominiums, and MUDs with five or more units account for approximately 45% of rental households. While 80% of EV charging takes place at home, less than 5% of home charging takes place at MUDs. With public electric vehicle (EV) charging still underdeveloped, lack of access to reliable home charging is a major barrier to EV adoption for MUD residents. Challenges to siting electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) at MUDs include the high upfront cost of EVSE installation, physical and/or electrical infrastructure constraints, a lack of clear incentives for property managers to invest in installing EV charging for tenants, and a limited number of EV charging service providers that offer solutions adapted to the unique needs of MUDs. Through award DE-EE0008473 from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), Center for Sustainable Energy (CSE), Energetics, and Forth, along with a diverse team of partners, led a three-year project to address barriers to EV charging at MUDs by developing an online toolkit geared toward residents, homeowner associations (HOAs), and property managers. The project, referred to as Vehicle Charging Innovations – Multi-Unit Dwellings (VCI-MUD project), engaged stakeholders across the country to identify real and perceived barriers to EV charging at MUDs and explored innovative technologies that attempt to alleviate the identified barriers. Over the course of three and a half years, the project conducted 60 interviews with industry stakeholders, compiled findings in an easy-to-use toolkit, and disseminated the toolkit across national, regional, state, and local channels. Key findings and outcomes of the VCI-MUD project include: Identifying six primary barriers to the installation of EV charging at MUDs; Developing five fact sheets and eight case studies highlighting innovative charging solutions to address barriers, including real-world operational and financial data; Developing a user-friendly, online empowerment toolkit with five important points for “making your pitch” to support EV charging to assist residents, property managers, building managers, and HOAs explore options for MUD charging. The VCI-MUD online toolkit was designed with replicability in mind. It includes general tools and guides to evaluate EV charging demand, gauge readiness for EV charging installation, and develop actionable plans. The fact sheets and case studies highlight the diversity of emerging MUD EV charging solutions, featuring different geographic and structural installation scenarios and providing interested parties with a menu of options, rather than prescribing a one-size-fits-all solution. The following resources are included in the toolkit to provide MUD stakeholders with all the information needed to navigate EV charging installation at their MUD location: Empowerment Toolkit – Easy-to-read FAQ overview, stakeholder roles and responsibilities, and additional resources for MUD EV charging installations; Charging Basics – Glossary of terms and descriptions of charging features, installation and operating expenses; EV Charging Survey Templates – Resident-to-Resident, Property Manager-to-Resident and HOA-to-Resident template letters with pre-populated template questions; Technology Selection Tool – Charging barrier fact sheets and case study examples; Installation Checklist – Submittal document requirements for EVSE installations; MUD Building Self-Evaluation Survey – Self-guided evaluation of potential barriers to EV charging installation at MUD locations; Curbside Resources – Case studies and fact sheets for curbside charging options; Find a Certified Electrician – Approved list of certified EV charging installers; “Right-to-Charge” State Legal References – Legal requirements for charging equipment at MUD locations. The online toolkit was promoted extensively in the final six months of the project and will continue to be disseminated by the Clean Cities Coalitions and other partners after the end of the VCI-MUD project to encourage, support, and demonstrate viable solutions for vehicle charging infrastructure in MUDs.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

DOE OSTI2023

Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions Experiment (TRACER) Field Campaign Report

Convective clouds serve a critical role in the Earth’s energy and water cycles through their transport of heat, moisture, momentum, and chemical species through the troposphere driving the global circulation (e.g., Hartmann et al. 1984, Del Genio et al. 2012, Su et al. 2014). On more local scales, convective clouds impact the atmospheric heating profile through diabatic heating effects, removal of water from the atmospheric column through precipitation, and conditioning of the local environment impacting further development of clouds (e.g., Sullivan and Voigt 2021). These critical roles underscore the importance of realistic representation of convective processes across scales of models from large-eddy simulation (LES), to convection-permitting models (CPM; e.g., Kendon et al. 2020, Marinescu et al. 2021), to numerical weather prediction (NWP) models used for operational weather forecasting, to Earth system models used to predict climate sensitivity (Sanderson et al. 2011, Sherwood et al. 2014, Tomassini et al. 2014, Zhao et al. 2016, Cronin et al. 2017). A key component of improving model representation of convective clouds is better quantification and parameterization of updraft microphysics and dynamics, including their interactions with the surrounding environment and storm organization (Bony et al. 2015, Hagos and Houze 2016, Donner et al. 2016, Morrison et al. 2020). Aerosol is an important environmental factor that could affect convective clouds and precipitation since cloud droplet and ice formation processes are initiated by it. Andrae et al. (2004) hypothesized that aerosols associated with increased biomass burning particles acting as cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) result in smaller and more monodisperse cloud droplets leading to suppression of warm rain formation, ultimately leading to more cloud water being lofted above the freezing level based on observations in the Amazon region. The subsequent increase in latent heat release increases the buoyancy of rising convective parcels invigorating the deep convection. This work was followed by a description of the theoretical basis for this “cold-phase invigoration” by Rosenfeld et al. (2008), who argued that it could have a significant effect for deep convective clouds with warm cloud-bases. Several modeling studies (e.g., Khain et al. 2005, 2009, van den Heever et al. 2006, Fan et al. 2007, 2009, 2012, Lee et al. 2008, Storer et al. 2010, Lebo et al. 2012, Storer and van den Heever 2013, Chen et al. 2020, Dagan et al. 2022) have investigated these aerosol-convection interactions and the environmental factors that influence their relative importance and magnitude. More recently, several studies have indicated that “warm-phase invigoration”, the enhancement of convection through condensational heating, also appears to play a role in enhancing both shallow cumuli (Seiki and Nakajima 2014, Saleeby et al 2015) and deeper tropical convection (Lebo and Seinfeld 2011, Khain et al. 2012, Sheffield et al 2015, Fan et al. 2018, Igel and van den Heever 2021), as well as Houston thunderstorms (Fan et al. 2007, 2020). However, still other studies have provided additional evidence of systematic biases in simulated convective outflow ice size distribution properties, which are consistent with a lack of poorly understood secondary ice production within convective updrafts (e.g., Fridlind et al. 2017). To help address these critical gaps in our understanding of cloud processes, aerosol processes and aerosol-cloud interactions, the Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions Experiment was designed building upon efforts by the Aerosol, Cloud, Precipitation and Climate (ACPC) Initiative (http://acpcintiative.org/), a joint effort of the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the World Climate Research Program (WCRP) that focused on resolving uncertainties in the interactions between aerosol and clouds towards better understanding the role that these interactions play in the climate system. The TRACER campaign was motivated by recommendations from a number of pilot studies undertaken by ACPC (van den Heever et al. 2017, Fridlind et al. 2019, Hu et al. 2019, Fan et al. 2020, Marinescu et al. 2021, Hernandez-Deckers et al. 2022) that pointed towards the southeastern Texas region as a locale where aerosol-convection interactions could be studied owing to the copious occurrence of isolated convection during the summer months accompanied by diverse and significant sources of aerosols from both anthropogenic and natural sources. The TRACER campaign began on 01 October 2021 and extended through 30 September 2022 with an intensive operational period (IOP) during June-September 2022. Three main sites (Table 1) were managed by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Nuclear Criticality Safety Assessment of Criticality Control Containers without Moderation Control at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) provides for safe, permanent disposal of government-owned transuranic (TRU) and TRU mixed wastes. Receipt and disposal of waste at the WIPP site began in March 1999. The Sandia report, Consideration of Nuclear Criticality When Disposing of Transuranic Waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, addressed potential nuclear criticality safety issues based on the projected inventory characteristics known at the time [1]. As designs for inventory, waste forms, and disposal packages have changed, new analyses have been performed, and updates have been made to address any potential effects to the WIPP safety basis. New analyses performed include Saylor 2017 [2] and Brickner 2019 [3], which address certain waste containers with specified loadings under post-closure conditions. Both examined several hypothetical scenarios and included analyses to bound (from a criticality potential standpoint) credible configurations that could occur at WIPP during the repository regulatory post-closure disposal time period for feature, event, and process (FEP) considerations—10,000 years. During this post-closure period at WIPP, the screening of FEPs is governed by the risk-based standards and implementing regulations of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (i.e., 40 CFR 191 and 40 CFR 194, respectively) [4,5]. An FEP screening can be based on either a low-consequence or low-probability rationale. A low-probability rationale includes either (a) a qualitative rationale that the FEP is not credible or (b) a quantitative demonstration that the probability is less than 10-4 in 104 years. In this evaluation, a qualitative lowprobability rationale of not credible is used by demonstrating that bounding configurations of the waste are not critical. The demonstration of subcriticality is through quantitative calculations, but a probability of criticality is not evaluated. Rather, the rationale for this evaluation is that bounding configurations with an effective neutron multiplication factor (keff) well below the upper subcriticality limit (USL) make criticality incredible. Reference [2] documented a nuclear criticality assessment of the WIPP repository for disposal of dilute surplus plutonium materials using the Dilute and Dispose Approach and packaging in criticality control overpacks (CCOs). The CCO is the waste disposal container recently designed to allow for up to 380 fissile gram equivalent (FGE) 239 Pu per drum, which is a higher fissile loading than typical waste containers. The CCO consists of a criticality control container (CCC) positioned by upper and lower plywood spacers within a standard 55 gal drum. The CCC is used to establish a geometry control for fissile materials during transportation and WIPP emplacement operations. The current WIPP waste acceptance criteria for CCO payloads limit beryllium to less than or equal to 1% by weight of the waste contents and require the waste form to be non-machine compacted. Reference [2] considered two scenario progressions—room closure from salt creep, hereafter referred to as the reconfigured dry scenario, and flooding with brine, hereafter referred to as the reconfigured wet scenario. The subsequent drying out of the reconfigured wet scenarios was also considered. For all scenarios, subcriticality was maintained when 50 g of B 4 C (acting as a neutron absorber) per CCC was intermixed within the plutonium disposition waste form. The analysis used a waste form description that limits the amount of moderation that could be present within the waste form (i.e., it limits the amount of water and polyethylene that could be present based on planned processing conditions). This analysis to evaluate increased limits on the amount of moderation that could be present was performed as a companion to Reference [2] to address concerns associated with verifying moisture and/or plastic contents of waste materials following packaging of dilute surplus plutonium in the CCO. To that end, this analysis used the models and methods from Reference [2] to evaluate a more generic base waste form consisting of water and polyethylene that is more similar (and nearly identical) to the generic waste forms utilized in other models/analyses supporting the TRU Package Transporter Model II (TRUPACTII) safety analysis [6] (all are without moderation controls). The waste form in this analysis uses a base mixture of 75% water and 25% polyethylene, the total amount of which is varied to determine the optimum moderation to fissile material (H/Pu) ratio. The fissile loading is maintained at up to 380 FGE 239 Pu (modeled as PuO 2 ) per CCO with an additional 545 g of beryllium (to bound the 1% by weight contents restriction) and 50 g of B 4 C intermixed per CCO. The beryllium content (1% by weight) is based on the total allowed waste weight (this does not include packaging and container weights). Figures ES-1 and ES-2 display summary results, showing that with this model including 50 g of B 4 C per CCO, the system keff remains under 0.85 for all moderator amounts and provides a significant margin against post-closure criticality under postulated bounding conditions for compaction. Figure ES-1 compares an infinite model with a room model at the initial emplacement spacing and under full radial compaction. Full radial compaction places each CCC in direct contact and does not credit any anticipated spacing associated with current post-closure geomechanical modeling of the repository [7]. The effects of variations in the H/Pu ratio were evaluated by varying the amount of the water/polyethylene component of the waste model, with fissile loading maintained at 380 239 Pu FGE. Similarly, Figure ES-2 illustrates how various amounts of B 4 C per CCO influence k eff at different radial compactions, all at the H/Pu ratio of 200 (in the room array model). Therefore, while the results from Saylor 2017 [2] modeled more realistic process limits associated with packaging of dilute surplus plutonium, this analysis demonstrates that limits on moderation (plastic and water content) are not necessary to ensure subcriticality in the WIPP repository, provided the requisite B 4 C absorber is present.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE 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 OSTI2020

Enhancement of Optical Efficiency of CSP Mirrors for Reducing O&M Cost via Near-Continuous Operation of Self-Cleaning Electrodynamic Screens (EDS). Final Report

Over the past decade, techno-economical advancements in solar energy systems, particularly the improvement in the conversion efficiency of PV modules made with mono-crystalline silicon solar cells from 12% to 20%, as well as the cost reduction in manufacturing by a factor of about 10%, have made it possible to achieve a levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) in PV plants that is comparable to, or less than, the cost of deriving electricity from fossil fuels. Operating PV plants in mid-latitude sun-belt regions, where the solar irradiance level is highest, provides a high annual energy-yield (kWh/kWp) due to two factors: (1) the availability of predictable high solar irradiance throughout the year with the fewest interruptions in solar flux from clouds and rain, and (2) the increased conversion efficiency of crystalline solar cells, as recombination loss has decreased with increased intensity of the sunlight that illuminates the silicon solar cells. Semi-arid and desert regions, however, are plagued by high atmospheric dust concentrations and frequent sand storms. The deposition of a layer of dust on the optical surfaces of solar collectors such as PV modules and concentrating mirrors reduces the transmission efficiency of sunlight that actually reaches the solar cells or receivers, resulting in high energy-yield soiling loss. There are two major cost components to operating a solar plant: (1) installation costs, and (2) operation-and-maintenance (O&M) costs. There is no fuel cost; hence operating a solar plant in a semi-arid or desert region provides high returns on investment if soiling losses are mitigated via efficient cleaning methods and optimized cleaning frequency. If solar collectors are not cleaned, the accumulation of dust layers on solar collectors may cause the operation of such plants in arid regions to become economically unviable. Washing solar collectors with water and detergent, as is most commonly done now, is an efficient method for cleaning. The conventional approach in utility-scale solar plants is to use a large truck with a water tank and pump system for spraying deionized water on the surface of the solar collectors. Robotic cleaning with brushes, used for many solar plants, requires lesser water for cleaning. The water consumed using semi-automated cleaning of PV modules in utility-scale solar plants is approximately 2 liters/m 2 per cleaning cycle. The total optical surface area of the solar collectors in 1 TW-scale solar installation will be more than 3 × 109 m 2 ; hence an enormous amount of water be needed for cleaning. There simply is not enough fresh water in the sun-belt areas of the world for predicted cleaning needs. In solar power plants, the estimated cost of cleaning solar collectors includes expenses related to the equipment used, labor, cost of transportation of water, the energy required for cleaning, plus ancillary costs whereas the cost of water is not considered. The water used is obtained from sources located close to plant sites, unmindful of the environmental and societal impact as the power plants are oftentimes located in regions that face severe drought. This practice is very similar to the cost calculations in deriving the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) in conventional power plants based on burning fossil fuel such as coal and gas, while disregarding the cost of climate change and health effects. Unless a water-free or low-water cleaning method is established, the expansion of solar plants may lose public support in areas suffering long intervals of drought. The goal of this research project has been the development and application of the Electrodynamic Screen (EDS) as a means for a water-free, scalable cleaning process applicable to solar-power installations, including rooftop applications. We describe here the development of an EDS film-based cleaning process as an emerging method for use on PV modules, parabolic troughs, and heliostats. This report aims to show the feasibility of integrating or retrofitting EDS films onto the optical surfaces of solar collectors (both PV and CSP) while maintaining high transmission or reflection efficiency. The cleaning action provided by the EDS film is an active method to remove dust deposits by electrodynamic force. Current lab-scale prototype EDS films, retrofitted onto solar panels and mirrors, have shown to be capable of maintaining optical transmission or specular-reflection efficiencies higher than 90% of initial values under clean conditions. The optical surfaces of solar collectors laminated with EDS films can remove more than 90% of deposited dust when the EDS is activated for less than two minutes. As an electrodynamic dust removal process, the EDS film-based method is designed primarily for the removal of dust in solar installations located in semi-arid and desert areas, where the atmosphere is often dry and dusty and rainfall is infrequent. While EDS film application minimizes water consumption and facilitates cleaning as frequently as needed, it has limitations in removing contaminants such as soot, organic pollutants deposited as fine films on the surface, and bird droppings. The dust removal efficiency of the EDS is maximum at relative humidity RH is 40 to 50% and decreases at when RH > 65%. Many solar plant sites undergo diurnal and seasonal cycles of high ambient, early afternoon temperatures and an RH that reaches the dew point early in the morning. These variations in atmospheric conditions do not limit the operation of the EDS film. This report presents a brief review of the progress and the potential of EDS film technology for mitigating the impact of dust on solar collectors via water-free cleaning, as well as current technical challenges regarding efficiency and durability. Our experimental data on the performance of EDS films show that: (1) the dust-removal efficiency (DRE) can reach levels higher than 90%, (2) the specular reflectivity (SR) of EDS film-laminated second-surface mirrors reach levels in excess of 90%, (3) the specular reflectivity restoration (SRR) can exceed 90%, (4) the output-power restoration (OPR) of PV modules can exceed 95%, and (5) the optical transmission efficiency (TE) of the EDS films can be greater than 90%. Working with Sandia National Laboratories (NM), Corning Research and Development Corporation (NY), Eastman Kodak (NY), Tomark-Worthen Industries (NH), and EDS Chile SPA (Chile), we have produced EDS film-laminated PV modules and demonstrated their self-cleaning functions without requiring water. We have demonstrated that the operational range of EDS films will cover the expected ambient temperature of solar fields at RH cycling varying from 20 to 95% as long as the EDS films are activated in the RH range 20 to 50%. (Typical solar-field climates in deserts and semi-arid lands often reach near dew point in coastal areas.) Our experiments on the application of hydrophobic-fluorinated nanoparticle coatings on EDS film surfaces show that the EDS operational range can be extended to higher RH levels that approach the dew point. At Eastman Kodak, as one of our industrial partners, we were able to establish a process for manufacturing EDS films using flexographic printing of the electrodes onto transparent polymer films. This process utilizes an existing manufacturing line at Eastman Kodak that allows fabrication of medium-scale EDS films (26 cm × 30 cm). The manufacturing process has the capacity to produce EDS films at high production speeds. The medium-scale EDS films that have been printed at Kodak were evaluated in the lab at Boston University. The EDS films produced at Kodak were laminated at Tomark-Worthen using an industrial scale vacuum laminator to produce EDS film stacks, which can be affixed onto the optical surfaces of PV modules or concentrating mirrors. The EDS film stack consists of the EDS films that have Willow® Glass (WG) which has a thickness of 100 μm as the front surface. The WG sheets obtained from Corning Research and Development Corporation are customized in size and shape to cover the active area of the EDS films. The back surface of the EDS film stack is integrated onto the optical surface of the solar panel or mirror using optically clear adhesive (OCA) films or silicone adhesives. The OCA films (thickness 25 μm) are produced by 3M. The EDS film stacks have the architecture: WG/OCA/EDS Film/OCA/ over PV module or solar mirror. The power-supply units needed for activating the electrodes of the EDS film were designed and produced at Boston University. These power supply units provide three-phase, 1.2 kV voltage pulses at a very low current (micro-ampere) level and at a low frequency (≈ 5 Hz). The voltage pulses are applied to the electrodes in a sequence such that the train of pulses resembles a unidirectional traveling wave of electrical field on the surface of the EDS film. The dust particles on the surface become charged electrostatically and are levitated by the Coulomb force. The lateral sweeping action of the traveling electric field created by the three-phase voltages pulses then sweeps the dust off the surface. The energy consumed by the EDS electrodes is less than 0.2 Wh/m 2 /cleaning cycle, enabling energy-efficient restoration of output power (OPR) of PV module or specular reflectivity restoration (SRR) for solar mirrors. The EDS system consists of (1) an EDS film stack laminated onto the solar collectors, (2) connection of the EDS film to its power supply unit and (3) Interconnection of the power supply to PV modules or solar mirrors. Design, construction and assessment of field-testing units that have EDS stack laminated PV modules for evaluating the performance of the EDS films in solar fields is being carried out at BU. Our progress under this project, aimed at the advancement of EDS film technology, has reached DOE Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 6. Based on the extensive laboratory evaluations and limited field trials, as well as contacts with potential users, we believe that the technology has reached its commercial stage. We are conducting a cost analysis using the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) System Advisory Model (SAM) and are preparing for field trials of EDS films in different solar fields in the US, Chile, India and in the Middle East. A brief description of EDS film performance, construction and testing of the field-test unit, autonomous operation of the field-test unit for evaluating EDS performance in increasing energy yield, associated revenue savings, and water conservation is presented.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗