Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “in situ analysis and visualization”

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

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

118 records · Page 7
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

Toward Intelligent Multimodal Holography for Real-Time Chemical Imaging of Dynamic Ion Separation

Molecular-level visualization of ion transport and separation dynamics in complex environments is crucial for advancing energy systems, water purification, and critical materials recovery. Achieving this requires imaging platforms that combine structural sensitivity, chemical specificity, and real-time operation. Digital off-axis holography (DOAH) provides high-throughput, label-free quantitative phase imaging but inherently lacks chemical selectivity. Integrating DOAH with complementary spectroscopic channels such as fluorescence or hyperspectral imaging introduces the needed molecular specificity, while also creating challenges in multimodal data fusion, synchronization, and computational throughput. Artificial intelligence offers a powerful route to address these limitations by uniting physics-based reconstruction with data-driven interpretation. In this Perspective, we outline a framework for intelligent multimodal holography and demonstrate its potential using a preliminary AI-driven test case. Raw DOAH holograms of lanthanide solutions subjected to magnetic field gradients were analyzed using multi-agent AI workflows that autonomously selected reconstruction tools, extracted NMF components, and generated scientific claims consistent with true paramagnetic and diamagnetic behavior. This demonstration shows how AI-enabled reasoning can deliver real-time chemical–structural interpretation directly from raw holograms. Together, these advances define a path toward adaptive, intelligent holography platforms capable of supporting in situ chemical separations, dynamic ion transport analysis, and next-generation interfacial science.

Ricchiuti, Giovanna↗
DOE OSTI2022

Real-time X-ray phase-contrast imaging using SPINNet—a speckle-based phase-contrast imaging neural network

X-ray phase-contrast imaging has become indispensable for visualizing samples with low absorption contrast. In this regard, speckle-based techniques have shown significant advantages in spatial resolution, phase sensitivity, and implementation flexibility compared with traditional methods. However, the computational cost associated with data inversion has hindered their wider adoption. By exploiting the power of deep learning, we developed a speckle-based phase-contrast imaging neural network (SPINNet) that significantly improves the imaging quality and boosts the phase retrieval speed by at least 2 orders of magnitude compared to existing methods. To achieve this performance, we combined SPINNet with a coded-mask-based technique, an enhanced version of the speckle-based method. Using this scheme, we demonstrate the simultaneous reconstruction of absorption and phase images on the order of 100 ms, where a traditional correlation-based analysis would take several minutes even with a cluster. In addition to significant improvement in speed, our experimental results show that the imaging and phase retrieval quality of SPINNet outperform existing single-shot speckle-based methods. Furthermore, we successfully demonstrate SPINNet application in x-ray optics metrology and 3D x-ray phase-contrast tomography. Our result shows that SPINNet could enable many applications requiring high-resolution and fast data acquisition and processing, such as in situ and in operando 2D and 3D phase-contrast imaging and real-time at-wavelength metrology and wavefront sensing.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2022

Induced microearthquakes predict permeability creation in the brittle crust

Predicting the evolution of permeability accurately during stimulation at the reservoir scale and at the resolution of individual fractures is essential to characterize the fluid transport and the reactive/heat-transfer characteristics of reservoirs where stress exerts significant control. Here, we develop a hybrid machine learning (ML) model to visualize in situ permeability evolution for an intermediate-scale (~10 m) hydraulic stimulation experiment. This model includes an ML model that was trained using the well history of flow rate and wellhead pressure and MEQ data from the first three stimulation episodes to predict average permeability from the statistical features of the MEQs alone for later episodes. Moreover, a physics-inspired model is integrated to estimate in situ fracture permeability spatially. This method relates fracture permeability to fracture dilation and scales dilation to the equivalent MEQ magnitude, according to laboratory observations. The seismic data are then applied to define incremental changes in permeability in both space and time. Our results confirm the excellent agreement between the ground truth and model-predicted permeability evolution. The resulting permeability map defines and quantifies flow paths in the reservoir with the averaged permeability comparing favorably with the ground truth of permeability.

induced seismicity↗
DOE OSTI2023

MILK : a Python scripting interface to MAUD for automation of Rietveld analysis

Modern diffraction experiments ( e.g. in situ parametric studies) present scientists with many diffraction patterns to analyze. Interactive analyses via graphical user interfaces tend to slow down obtaining quantitative results such as lattice parameters and phase fractions. Furthermore, Rietveld refinement strategies ( i.e. the parameter turn-on-off sequences) tend to be instrument specific or even specific to a given dataset, such that selection of strategies can become a bottleneck for efficient data analysis. Managing multi-histogram datasets such as from multi-bank neutron diffractometers or caked 2D synchrotron data presents additional challenges due to the large number of histogram-specific parameters. To overcome these challenges in the Rietveld software Material Analysis Using Diffraction ( MAUD ), the MAUD Interface Language Kit ( MILK ) is developed along with an updated text batch interface for MAUD . The open-source software MILK is computer-platform independent and is packaged as a Python library that interfaces with MAUD . Using MILK , model selection ( e.g. various texture or peak-broadening models), Rietveld parameter manipulation and distributed parallel batch computing can be performed through a high-level Python interface. A high-level interface enables analysis workflows to be easily programmed, shared and applied to large datasets, and external tools to be integrated with MAUD . Through modification to the MAUD batch interface, plot and data exports have been improved. The resulting hierarchical folders from Rietveld refinements with MILK are compatible with Cinema: Debye–Scherrer , a tool for visualizing and inspecting the results of multi-parameter analyses of large quantities of diffraction data. In this manuscript, the combined Python scripting and visualization capability of MILK is demonstrated with a quantitative texture and phase analysis of data collected at the HIPPO neutron diffractometer.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
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 OSTI2022

The edges of galaxies: Tracing the limits of star formation

The outskirts of galaxies have been studied from multiple perspectives for the past few decades. However, it is still unknown if all galaxies have clear-cut edges similar to everyday objects. We address this question by developing physically motivated criteria to define the edges of galaxies. Based on the gas density threshold required for star formation, we define the edge of a galaxy as the outermost radial location associated with a significant drop in either past or ongoing in situ star formation. We explore ~1000 low-inclination galaxies with a wide range in morphology (dwarfs to ellipticals) and stellar mass (10 7 M ⊙ < M * < 10 12 M ⊙ ). The location of the edges of these galaxies (R edge ) were visually identified as the outermost cutoff or truncation in their radial profiles using deep multi-band optical imaging from the IAC Stripe82 Legacy Project. We find this characteristic feature at the following mean stellar mass density, which varies with galaxy morphology: 2.9 ± 0.10 M ⊙ pc -2 for ellipticals, 1.1 ± 0.04 M ⊙ pc -2 for spirals, and 0.6 ± 0.03 M ⊙ pc -2 for present-day star-forming dwarfs. Additionally, we find that R edge depends on its age (colour) where bluer galaxies have larger R edge at a fixed stellar mass. The resulting stellar mass–size plane using R edge as a physically motivated galaxy size measure has a very narrow intrinsic scatter (≲0.06 dex). These results highlight the importance of new deep imaging surveys to explore the growth of galaxies and trace the limits of star formation in their outskirts.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Removable, Sequestration Coatings for Mitigating Hazardous Contaminants Related to Deactivation and Decommissioning Activities

This project is a collaborative effort between InnoSense LLC (ISL) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) aimed at mitigating the mercury (Hg) contamination problem at the Y-12 National Security Complex (NSC). The report summarizes the research and technology development work of the Phase IIB Project, led by Dr. Uma Sampathkumaran at ISL for the period of July 31, 2017–October 31, 2021. The Y-12 site cleanup includes technologies for safe and cost-effective facility demolition, soil remediation, and on-site treatment and disposal of mercury bearing wastes. One of the technology demonstration goals was a reactive strippable coating for targeted pre-demolition and de-contamination to limit Hg mobilization and the volume of debris requiring treatment for disposal. Toward this, ISL has developed a water-based reactive strippable coating (Trap & See-Hg™) to sequester elemental Hg(0) and mercuric Hg(II) species in the coating. The coating provides multiple benefits including (1) Hg vapor suppression, (2) sealing in the hazardous contaminants, (3) visually locating the contaminant through color changes, and (4) remediating the contaminated surfaces upon coating removal. Through collaboration between ORNL and ISL in Phase II work, the team successfully demonstrated the Trap & See-Hg technology to (1) visually locate the presence of Hg on concrete, soil and drywall surfaces, (2) effectively sequester all mercury species (elemental, soluble and insoluble Hg) from lab-generated and ex-situ soil and brick/rubble samples collected from the Y 12 site with 80 to 95% efficiency to capture/reduce Hg vapor concentration, (3) be applied by manual and robotic spray applicators and cure at room ambient, (4) remain a cohesive and peelable coating upon drying, and (5) sequester Hg0 from walls in the alpha-2 building basement at Y-12 during a small scale in-situ field trial. In Phase IIB, ISL’s effort was focused on refining the coating formulations with additives containing passive and reactive sorbents, colorimetric indicator, and thixotropic agents to achieve the desired performance. The paints were then evaluated at ORNL for applicability to metal and concrete surfaces of different sizes and shapes, and soil rubble, Hg-sorption capacity and achieving sag-free coating on surfaces when applied by a manual spray applicator. Ambient cure of the coating resulted in a dry thickness of 16–20 mil. The coatings were removed from smooth or rough surfaces with low to moderate force. Both lab-generated Hg-contaminated samples and soil and brick/rubble samples containing a range of Hg concentrations (collected from the Y-12 site by UCOR) were used in this project. Optimized formulations were applied to these samples and evaluated for ability to suppress Hg vapors, sequester Hg 0 and Hg(II) species and color mapping of mercury species on the test surface. The ORNL team initially identified three to four potential sites at Y-12 and ORNL for potential demonstration. However, the pandemic closed any possible avenues for on-site demonstration of the robotic spray applicator. The metal and concrete samples with low to high Hg content provided by UCOR from an ongoing demolition were subsequently used for ex-situ sample characterization and analysis at ORNL over a period of 25 days. The coatings suppressed Hg vapors with an efficiency of 95–99% from heavily contaminated metal and 60% from concrete substrate. Analysis of total Hg in the peeled paints indicates sorption capacities ranging from 12 µg Hg/g of paint from concrete to 1.2 mg Hg/g of paint from the metal substrates while peeled paints from soil samples could capture a total Hg from 2.3 mg Hg/g to 66 mg/g paint. Toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP) tests recovered total mercury leached at 0.15±0.0008 µg/L for concrete to 126.81±0.67 µg/L and 377.25±5.67 µg/L for the two metal substrates, to allow for informed decisions on downstream disposal considerations. Together, this Phase IIB demonstrated the potential value of the Trap & See-Hg for Hg uptake, vapor suppression, and color mapping, and may thus be used to enhance worker safety during site cleanup, facility demolition, and downstream waste disposal at Y-12 NSC.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2023

Enzymatically hydrolyzed fluorescence-based chemical probe enables in situ mapping of chitinase activity in the rhizosphere

Rhizosphere microbiomes and root exudates play a pivotal biochemical role in helping to catalyze chitin catabolism. Chitin is a recalcitrant and ubiquitous soil biopolymer, estimated to be the second most abundant organic soil biopolymer on Earth. Despite its abundance, role as a source of C and N in soil, and importance to ecosystem function, the biochemical mechanisms controlling chitin fate in the rhizosphere are elusive and poorly understood. To enable spatial mapping of chitinase activity in the rhizosphere, we designed and synthesized an enzymatically activated fluorogenic substrate, chitotriose-TokyoGreen (chitotriose-TG), by incorporating a fluorescein derivative (TG) onto the trimeric unit of chitin. This non-fluorescent substrate is selectively hydrolyzed by chitinase to release TG and yield a high fluorescence signal, which can be used to spatially image and measure chitinase activity in the rhizosphere. To demonstrate the application of this technique, we grew switchgrass (Panicum virgatum) in rhizoboxes amended with a horizontal layer of chitin. We extracted mobile proteins from the rhizobox using a nitrocellulose membrane blotting technique which offer non-destructive enzyme extraction while preserving the 2D spatial position of the enzymes. We then subjected these membranes to the synthesized chitotriose-TG stain to spatially visualize the distribution of chitinase activity within the rhizosphere. Furthermore, we observed increased chitinase activity near plant roots and higher activity within the soil zone enriched in chitin, showing an adaptive response of chitinase activity with spatial focusing in areas of higher chitin abundance. Thus, the enzyme extraction and visualization strategy we describe here can help enlighten efforts to better understand spatial controls on chitin breakdown in rhizosphere, further elucidating the role of chitin as a C and N source in these systems.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
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 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↗