CYBER SECURITY CONSEQUENCE PRIORITIZED DESIGN VIA SIMULATION
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Hahn, Andrew Stuart↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “prioritization”
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.
Capabilities for Water Sector Infrastructure Resilience - Prioritizing RD&D in a Target Rich, Resource Poor Sector
WSTB & Water Sector Security Program Expansion Objective: Incubate and shepherd a public-private consortium of joint seal US government sponsors and industry stakeholders to build out industrial control system (ICS) and operational technology (OT) architecture of the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Water Security Test Bed (WSTB) asset to enable research, testing, and cyber workforce training related to evolving cyber-physical and physical vulnerabilities and threats in the water sector.
99 - GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
Creating Portfolio Management Concepts for Highly Agile and Innovative Government Research Programs Using Design Thinking and Lean Startup Methodologies
Managing a research and development (R&D) portfolio presents numerous challenges, such as prioritizing research areas, remaining agile, strategic workforce planning, and measuring return on investment, impact, and innovation. One government R&D program is charged with producing a high degree of innovative, transformational breakthroughs in aviation technology. A practical, structured methodology for strategically prioritizing emerging aviation R&D in such an environment is lacking. The existing multi-criteria decision aid tools are primarily utilized at an enterprise level, take months to set up and collect data, require large teams of experts, are used on an infrequent basis, and are not conducive to a highly innovative, high-risk portfolio. Prior to audaciously creating a new portfolio prioritization process, the exact challenges with portfolio management for R&D projects were identified using the design thinking and lean start-up methods. A key part of this discovery process was interviewing stakeholders, as well as other managers of organizations charged with producing innovative portfolios. These interviews, as well as additional techniques, were used to develop a deeper understanding of the challenges and, subsequently, lay the foundation for development of an effective portfolio prioritization process. Four potential concepts that represent key findings emerged: carefully selected criteria for portfolio assessment and selection, targeted portfolio turnover rate, dynamic portfolio prioritization framework, and streamlined transition or commercialization of R&D. Acting on any one of the resulting portfolio management concepts will increase the transparency and confidence in portfolio decisions and, ideally, result in a greater degree of transformational breakthroughs in aviation technology.
project portfolio management↗
Uncertainty-informed selection of CMIP6 Earth System Model subsets for use in multisectoral and impact models
Earth system models (ESMs) and general circulation models (GCMs) are heavily used to provide inputs to sectoral impact and multisector dynamic models, which include representations of energy, water, land, economics, and their interactions. Therefore, representing the full range of model uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, and interannual variability that ensembles of these models capture is critical to the exploration of the future co-evolution of the integrated human–Earth system. The pre-eminent source of these ensembles has been the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP). With more modeling centers participating in each new CMIP phase, the size of the model archive is rapidly increasing, which can be intractable for impact modelers to effectively utilize due to computational constraints and the challenges of analyzing large datasets. In this work, we present a method to select a subset of the latest phase, CMIP6, featuring models for use as inputs to a sectoral impact or multisector dynamics models, while prioritizing preservation of the range of model uncertainty, scenario uncertainty, and interannual variability in the full CMIP6 ensemble results. This method is intended to help impact modelers select climate information from the CMIP archive efficiently for use in downstream models that require global coverage of climate information. This is particularly critical for large-ensemble experiments of multisector dynamic models that may be varying additional features beyond climate inputs in a factorial design, thus putting constraints on the number of climate simulations that can be used. We focus on temperature and precipitation outputs of CMIP6 models, as these are two of the most used variables among impact models, and many other key input variables for impacts are at least correlated with one or both of temperature and precipitation (e.g., relative humidity). Besides preserving the multi-model ensemble variance characteristics, we prioritize selecting CMIP6 models in the subset that preserve the very likely distribution of equilibrium climate sensitivity values as assessed by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. This approach could be applied to other output variables of climate models and, possibly when combined with emulators, offers a flexible framework for designing more efficient experiments on human-relevant climate impacts. It can also provide greater insight into the properties of existing CMIP6 models.
Snyder, Abigail C.↗
Chairmanship of the Neptune/Pluto outer planets science working group
The Outer Planets Science Working Group (OPSWG) is the NASA Solar System Exploration Division (SSED) scientific steering committee for the Outer Solar System missions. OPSWG consists of 19 members and is chaired by Dr. S. Alan Stern. This proposal summarizes the FY93 activities of OPSWG, describes a set of objectives for OPSWG in FY94, and outlines the SWG's activities for FY95. As chair of OPSWG, Dr. Stern will be responsible for: organizing priorities, setting agendas, conducting meetings of the Outer Planets SWG; reporting the results of OPSWG's work to SSED; supporting those activities relating to OPSWG work, such as briefings to the SSES, COMPLEX, and OSS; supporting the JPL/SAIC Pluto study team; and other tasks requested by SSED. As the Scientific Working Group (SWG) for Jupiter and the planets beyond, OPSWG is the SSED SWG chartered to study and develop mission plans for all missions to the giant planets, Pluto, and other distant objects in the remote outer solar system. In that role, OPSWG is responsible for: defining and prioritizing scientific objectives for missions to these bodies; defining and documenting the scientific goals and rationale behind such missions; defining and prioritizing the datasets to be obtained in these missions; defining and prioritizing measurement objectives for these missions; defining and documenting the scientific rationale for strawman instrument payloads; defining and prioritizing the scientific requirements for orbital tour and flyby encounter trajectories; defining cruise science opportunities plan; providing technical feedback to JPL and SSED on the scientific capabilities of engineering studies for these missions; providing documentation to SSED concerning the scientific goals, objectives, and rationale for the mission; interfacing with other SSED and OSS committees at the request of SSED's Director or those committee chairs; providing input to SSED concerning the structure and content of the Announcement of Opportunity for payload and scientific team selection for such missions; and providing other technical or programmatic inputs concerning outer solar system missions at the request of the Director of SSED.
Stern, S. Alan↗
Intensity-based rock detection for acquiring onboard rover science
Missions to Mars already under study call for very long autonomous traverses (on the order of hundreds of meters per sol) during which there will be limited contact with Earth. The onboard Autonomous Science Investigation System (OASIS) is a technology for increasing science return during rover traverses by prioritizing science opportunities. By prioritizing data for downlink onboard, it is expected that the set of images selected for downlink by OASIS will have a consistently higher scientific interest then any set of equal number of images of the same traverse obtained using random or periodic sampling. Thus, OASIS can be used to increase the science returned from a long traverse. OASIS prioritizes data and identifies science opportunities by extracting information from image data and then using this information to prioritize the data and identify potential new science opportunities. Currently, the information extracted from the images is the location of the rocks in the image and several properties of these rocks such as size, albedo, texture and shape, In this paper we give an overview of the role of rock detection in the OASIS system and describe the functionality of the rock detector. We then present results on representative images
Judd, Michele↗
Alignment of NASA’s Human System Risks with Technological Capability Gaps to Enable Integrated Research and Technology Development Strategic Planning
BACKGROUND: Radiation, reduced gravity, distance from earth, isolation and confinement, and habitation within artificially created and controlled life support environments are hazards that present risk to human space explorers. NASA’s Human System Risk Board (HSRB) maintains a set of twenty-nine different Human System Risks with subject matter experts from across the agency providing regular updates to the estimated likelihood and consequence associated with each risk. The Human Research Program (HRP) has historically used these risk classifications as a primary basis for identifying and prioritizing human research investments aimed at characterizing and/or mitigating the respective human system risks. In many cases, technology development is required to mature and validate risk mitigation strategies, however, NASA’s primary technology development programs have not typically used Human System Risks as a basis for strategic planning. A primary function of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) – Crew Health and Performance (CHP) System Capability Leadership Team (SCLT) is to continually identify, review, and update technological capability gaps and to establish and oversee multiyear strategic roadmaps aimed at guiding NASA’s technology development priorities in these areas. These roadmaps are intended to be agency-wide and independent of any program, directorate, or other organization within NASA. DESCRIPTION: The SCLT and HRP collaborated to establish a set of Human System Capability Gaps, which establish a formal linkage between the capability gaps used to prioritize investments across much of NASA, and the Human System Risks that are primarily used to inform and prioritize human research. This set of twenty-eight gaps was developed by subject matter experts, and each gap mapped to the primary associated Human System Risks. The gaps and risk mapping were then reviewed and approved via the HSRB, thereby formally aligning the research-focused Human System Risks with the technology-focused capability gaps. DISCUSSION: This effort has enabled development of integrated roadmaps and budget coordination with research and technology development activities that are formally linked to agency-recognized capability gaps and Human System Risks. Close and ongoing coordination between the SCLT, HRP, Mars Campaign Office, and the Health & Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) is essential to ensure alignment and prioritization of CHP-related research and technology development to enable NASA’s future exploration missions.
Andrew F J Abercromby↗
Coronado National Memorial Disasters: Investigating Geohazards & Slope Failure Susceptibility Utilizing NASA Earth Observations
The Coronado National Memorial (CORO), located in Hereford, Arizona, is situated along the United States' southern border, featuring recently established but still incomplete border barrier roads. This landscape is inherently prone to geohazards, and debris flow due to the steep mountainous topography, complex terrain, monsoonal rains, and freeze/thaw action - and the new infrastructure has exhibited these processes in the form of rockfall, embankment failure, and debris flow. NASA DEVELOP partnered with CORO to conduct a feasibility assessment of Earth observations for identification of geohazards and slope failure susceptibility. Leveraging Earth observations (United States Geological Survey 3D Elevation Program Digital Elevation Model and a locally obtained Light Detection And Ranging-derived Digital Elevation Model) from 2019 to 2023, and geospatial datasets starting from 2008, the study was able to provide tools to determine the focus for damage mitigation, identify areas most susceptible to slope failures, and prioritize at risk assets through three products: change detection maps, slope failure susceptibility maps, and a slope failure prioritization model. With an emphasis on monitoring high-risk areas and prioritizing mitigation efforts, the project addresses a critical gap in remediation strategies and aims to enhance preservation and safety of the region. Results of this study found that (i) the most identifiable areas of change were the road cuts and debris directly adjacent to the roads created for border construction, (ii) areas of highest slope failure susceptibility are located in mountainous areas with erosive geology, and (iii) roads resulting from border construction have approximately twice the risk of slope failure as roads created by the national park service.
Geohazard↗
Persistence and potential of soil organic carbon in nature‐based climate solutions: A review of managed disturbances
Societal Impact Statement Implementing nature-based climate solutions is important for mitigating climate change, which is a global issue, but requires local adjustments in management practices. Using the association between soil carbon and minerals as a proxy for carbon persistence, we evaluated the effect of different management regimes on soil carbon sequestration and loss. We identified areas where management practices that increase carbon inputs should be prioritized and areas where management should focus on avoiding severe disturbances. Using this storage-potential-and-persistence framework to identify how to increase or maintain soil organic carbon storage locally will increase the effectiveness of nature-based climate solutions globally. Summary Increasing soil organic carbon storage could reduce the pace of climate change, but the longevity of this nature-based climate solution depends on the persistence of carbon in soils, not just the input rates into soils. We apply a framework for considering how soil carbon persistence—namely, via the association with minerals—sheds light on soil carbon sequestration. We review how management of disturbances, such as prescribed burning, forestry, and grazing, can change soil carbon storage, persistence, and potential. Past work demonstrated that management of disturbances can sequester soil carbon, but it remains unclear how the potential stabilization of that accrual and vulnerability to loss varies across disturbance types and geographies. We found that there is substantial geographical heterogeneity in the overlap among estimates of carbon accrual, disturbance occurrence, and potential stabilization: Fire-prone grasslands and intensively grazed rangelands occur in areas estimated to have high potential to store mineral-associated organic carbon, and studies also find that adjusted fire and grazing can promote mineral-associated organic carbon. Plantation forestry and burned area span large regions where particulate organic matter is the dominant form, and studies find that particulate organic carbon is disproportionately lost following intense wildfires and forest harvests. Thus, areas with high mineral-associated organic carbon deficits should be prioritized for practices that increase carbon inputs; whereas areas with high proportions of particulate organic carbon should be prioritized for practices that help to avoid severe disturbances. Taken together, the distribution of and changes in persistence mechanisms shed light on the durability of nature-based climate solutions.
fire↗
Applying queueing theory to evaluate wait-time-savings of triage algorithms
Abstract In the past decade, artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have made promising impacts in many areas of healthcare. One application is AI-enabled prioritization software known as computer-aided triage and notification (CADt). This type of software as a medical device is intended to prioritize reviews of radiological images with time-sensitive findings, thus shortening the waiting time for patients with these findings. While many CADt devices have been deployed into clinical workflows and have been shown to improve patient treatment and clinical outcomes, quantitative methods to evaluate the wait-time-savings from their deployment are not yet available. In this paper, we apply queueing theory methods to evaluate the wait-time-savings of a CADt by calculating the average waiting time per patient image without and with a CADt device being deployed. We study two workflow models with one or multiple radiologists (servers) for a range of AI diagnostic performances, radiologist’s reading rates, and patient image (customer) arrival rates. To evaluate the time-saving performance of a CADt, we use the difference in the mean waiting time between the diseased patient images in the with-CADt scenario and that in the without-CADt scenario as our performance metric. As part of this effort, we have developed and also share a software tool to simulate the radiology workflow around medical image interpretation, to verify theoretical results, and to provide confidence intervals for the performance metric we defined. We show quantitatively that a CADt triage device is more effective in a busy, short-staffed reading setting, which is consistent with our clinical intuition and simulation results. Although this work is motivated by the need for evaluating CADt devices, the evaluation methodology presented in this paper can be applied to assess the time-saving performance of other types of algorithms that prioritize a subset of customers based on binary outputs.
Thompson, Yee Lam Elim (ORCID:0000000196537707)↗
Sustainable forest management for carbon, wood and biodiversity must consider natural disturbance regimes
Abstract Forests provide multiple benefits that include sequestering carbon, supporting biodiversity, and providing wood products. Managing temperate forests to achieve these benefits sustainably is challenging given the legacy of past human impacts, the complexity of forest development, and increasing but unpredictable disturbances. These intricacies prompted debate about the most effective management of temperate forests to achieve climate mitigation while sustaining forest productivity, regeneration, and diversity. Most research focused on management impacts under relatively stable environmental conditions, whereas forests are facing increasingly frequent and more severe climatic and biotic disturbances. Here, we used a regionally calibrated forest growth model to simulate the effects of forest management on carbon, biodiversity, and wood production under prevalent natural disturbances in the northeastern US. We developed scenarios combining forest management and disturbance regimes based on assumptions of species-specific tree regeneration and mortality rates. We compared passive management with no cutting that prioritizes maintaining existing forest trees with two common regional harvest practices: exploitative timber harvest that prioritizes short-term wood production and regenerative timber harvest that prioritizes regenerating biodiverse native forest tree seedlings. In the absence of natural disturbance, no cutting provides 41% higher forest carbon storage and 50% higher tree structural diversity after 100 years than exploitative or regenerative practices. The presence of drought, windstorm, pest, and disease disturbances altered these outcomes. Regenerative forest management provides 25% higher forest carbon storage and 26% higher tree structural diversity after 100 years than no cutting. Our results demonstrate that wood products and their carbon storage and fossil emission avoidance are important for determining the total climate benefits of forest management under natural disturbances. Our findings highlight that natural disturbance regimes should be considered when selecting management to promote multiple forest benefits, suggesting the need for tailored as opposed to one-size-fits-all policies to sustainably manage temperate forests worldwide.
Liu, Weier (ORCID:0000000265914239)↗
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↗
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↗
Packages of Distributed Energy Technologies Demonstrating Demand Flexibility at Community Scale
The combination of increased electric load growth across all sectors, deferred electrical infrastructure investment, and other factors resulting in variable electric power supply, has created technical challenges to maintaining a resilient and reliable grid. Many federal, regional, and local efforts are in play to modernize the electric grid, including advancing building technologies and distributed energy resources (DERs) that are utilizing smarter controls to become responsive to both occupant and grid needs. This report reviews ten pilot projects demonstrating how groups of buildings combined with behind-the-meter (BTM) DERs such as electric vehicle (EV) charging, battery storage, flexible HVAC and domestic hot water systems, and photovoltaic systems can reliably and cost effectively provide grid services. Each of the ten pilot projects aim to deliver both energy efficiency and demand flexibility (DF) while supporting load growth. The ten demonstration teams are piloting flexible DER packages across diverse communities of residential and commercial buildings to address a variety of regional grid needs. The outcomes of these pilot projects will be used to inform future scaling through utility program development. This paper characterizes the ten teams, showcasing the decision-making process used by each group to develop their packages (Section 2), the grid services they plan to deliver (Section 3), the types of DER packages selected for deployment within building sectors (Section 4) and trends between building sector, DER types, and grid services In order to achieve community scale benefits, the pilot projects must utilize aggregated control mechanisms for coordinating buildings and DERs together. Several types of coordinated control architectures have evolved amongst the teams, influenced by use type, existing market conditions, and integration type. Three coordinated controls architectures have been characterized, highlighting their use cases, benefits, challenges, and tradeoffs in their design. These insights can aid utilities, control vendors, and developers in scaling community-level energy systems (Paul, 2024). Ultimately, the technology packages selected by the ten teams will be coordinated to provide power system services, also known as grid services. Insights from these demonstrations will be useful for grid operators, regulators, aggregators and other stakeholders as they look to deploy demand flexible resources as grid services in the future. The grid services that each team is targeting for demonstration are described in Section 3 and Section 4. Methods for evaluating the grid services have been described in the paper Metrics for Evaluating Grid Service Provision from Communities of Grid-interactive and Efficient Buildings and other DER (MacDonald, 2023). To identify technology packages for demonstration, Section 2 shows that project teams used a range of analysis approaches, including building energy modeling, AMI data analysis, cost-benefit frameworks, and utility pilot data. Some teams emphasized technical modeling to quantify grid impacts and demand reduction potential, while others prioritized economic evaluations, stakeholder input, or exploratory pilots to inform deployment decisions. This diversity reflects the need to tailor selection methods to project goals, available data, and organizational context. Section 5 discusses trends between the DER technologies deployed and the grid service provisions from each team. Residential buildings (multifamily and single family) lean towards technologies that enhance energy efficiency (e.g. weatherization upgrades, smart thermostats) and onsite power generation integration (e.g. solar PV). Commercial building demonstrations prioritize technologies that ensure operational reliability (e.g. battery storage) and centralized energy management systems and optimization solutions. Teams that are deploying controllable storage-based technologies are more likely to provide grid services that require a near real-time response. Teams incorporating load shifting technologies like smart thermostats with HEMs are likely to include energy markets participation and customer bill management offerings. Campus demonstrations are adopting diverse sets of DERs to emphasize renewable generation, paired with centralized control. This section also describes technologies that were considered during project planning but ultimately excluded from final deployment. These demonstrations reveal that effective DER package design should be tailored to building type, customer segment, and construction vintage. Multifamily buildings benefit from centralized HVAC upgrades and supervisory controls, while single-family homes are well-suited for individualized technologies like solar, storage, and smart home energy monitors. Commercial and campus settings prioritize EMIS integration and load optimization. New construction enables cost-effective integration of DER-ready infrastructure, whereas retrofits require deployments aligned with owner and tenant value streams. For utility program planners, early coordination with developers and building owners, paired with segmented and modular program offerings, can improve adoption, scalability, and grid impact.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
Integration of equitable resilience metrics into climate-informed electric utility planning processes: phase one
Working together, Sandia National Laboratories, Southern California Edison (SCE) - an Investor-Owned Utility (IOU) - and the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) are studying how electric utilities can use equity and resilience metrics to help inform the prioritization and sequencing of resilience-driven infrastructure investments. To this end, this project evaluated “Social Burden,” an equitable resilience metric which measures the potential impact of disruptions in access to non-electric critical services on people and estimates community resilience to these disruptions. The Social Burden was expanded to incorporate SCE’s existing equity metric and applied to evaluate the potential impacts from a range of climate-informed hypothetical outage scenarios developed under SCE’s 2022 Climate Adaptation Vulnerability Assessment. One baseline (“blue-sky”) state and eight different outage scenarios were evaluated to measure the potential impacts of the outages on non-electric infrastructure, critical services, and people. Key findings include: 1) the Social Burden framework is flexible enough to adapt to and build upon existing utility equity and/or resilience metrics, 2) Social Burden results highlight the high degree of non-electric service redundancy within the SCE service area with most (6/8) hypothetical outage scenarios predicted to increase people’s Social Burden by less than 10%; however, 3) access to critical services and people’s ability to obtain them is unequal and spatially clustered, meaning that there are some hypothetical outage scenarios (2/8) that will exert a higher toll on communities directly experiencing the outage as well as some nearby communities with pre-existing vulnerabilities. The report concludes with recommendations for potential use cases of the expanded Social Burden metric and identifies priority follow-on work. Potential use cases may include incorporating equity into IOU’s prioritization of climate resilience investments. Additionally, Social Burden analysis may provide additional data and insights to augment grid planning, potentially by identifying additional needs and/or prioritizing previously identified needs.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
Bridging the Gap on Data, Metrics, and Analyses for Grid Resilience to Weather Events: Information that utilities can provide regulators, state energy offices, and other stakeholders
A growing number of states require regulated utilities to file resilience plans to improve the electric grid’s ability to anticipate, withstand, adapt to and recover from increasingly severe weather events. This report aims to help state regulators identify and request data, metrics, and analyses from utilities and use it in decisions on utility resilience plans and investments. The report reviews state requirements and utility plans focused on overall grid resilience, climate change resilience and vulnerabilities, infrastructure modernization, storm protection, and wildfire mitigation. It details types of data, metrics, and analyses across five categories--and provides examples of each from the utility plans. The first category is vulnerability assessments, or evaluations of the susceptibility of systems, communities, or assets to potential harm from identified hazards. The second is data on hazards and the exposure of utility assets and customers to these hazards. The third is attribute metrics, or system characteristics that contribute to or describe the resilience of a system. The fourth is performance metrics, which are impacts of resilience investments on system performance--typically a reduction of negative impacts from hazard events. Finally, evaluation and prioritization are analyses that utilities conduct to estimate impacts from resilience measures (evaluation) and prioritize measures based on costs and estimated impacts (prioritization). The report concludes with examples of key trends and emerging best practices for states and utilities, and identifies areas for further research.
24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
Blueprint: Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorization Guidance
Vulnerability management is a process of discovering, analyzing, and handling new or reported security vulnerabilities in systems to prevent the systems from being exploited, to reduce risk, and to protect assets. For vulnerability analysis, handling, and response, the prioritization of organizational and analyst resources must precede. The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) is a standard prioritization method that is used to rate the severity of security vulnerabilities in systems by assigning numerical severity scores, but it does not provide clear guidelines of how the numerical severity scores might inform decisions. The Stakeholder-Specific Vulnerability Categorization (SSVC) provides a method for prioritizing vulnerabilities based on the needs of the stakeholders involved in the vulnerability management process. Instead of the numerical scoring used in the CVSS, the SSVC focuses on contextual decision-making to determine how quickly and effectively an organization should respond to vulnerabilities. The main functionality of the SSVC accommodates the diversity of the stakeholders in the vulnerability management process, including finders, vendors, coordinators, deployers, and others. So, the SSVC should be designed to be used by any of these stakeholders, and it should be customizable to enable specific stakeholder decision models and risk appetites.
33 ADVANCED PROPULSION SYSTEMS↗
Applying Technology Ranking and Systems Engineering in Advanced Life Support
According to the Advanced Life Support (ALS) Program Plan, the Systems Modeling and Analysis Project (SMAP) has two important tasks: 1) prioritizing investments in ALS Research and Technology Development (R&TD), and 2) guiding the evolution of ALS systems. Investments could be prioritized simply by independently ranking different technologies, but we should also consider a technology's impact on system design. Guiding future ALS systems will require SMAP to consider many aspects of systems engineering. R&TD investments can be prioritized using familiar methods for ranking technology. The first step is gathering data on technology performance, safety, readiness level, and cost. Then the technologies are ranked using metrics or by decision analysis using net present economic value. The R&TD portfolio can be optimized to provide the maximum expected payoff in the face of uncertain future events. But more is needed. The optimum ALS system can not be designed simply by selecting the best technology for each predefined subsystem. Incorporating a new technology, such as food plants, can change the specifications of other subsystems, such as air regeneration. Systems must be designed top-down starting from system objectives, not bottom-up from selected technologies. The familiar top-down systems engineering process includes defining mission objectives, mission design, system specification, technology analysis, preliminary design, and detail design. Technology selection is only one part of systems analysis and engineering, and it is strongly related to the subsystem definitions. ALS systems should be designed using top-down systems engineering. R&TD technology selection should consider how the technology affects ALS system design. Technology ranking is useful but it is only a small part of systems engineering.
Jones, Harry↗