Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “model data”

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.

At least 145 records · Page 8
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Northern Hemisphere Snow Drought in Earth System Model Simulations and ERA5‐Land Data in 1980–2014

Abstract Low snow levels over the past few decades and predictions of a low‐to‐no snow future have spurred research into snow droughts, which pose a threat to water security and management. Systematic data‐model comparisons of snow drought have been lacking, hindering our understanding of the drivers of snow drought in the past. To address this gap, we analyzed snow drought events using standardized snow water equivalent index derived from monthly results of four numerical experiments using the E3SM Land Model (ELM) and ERA5‐Land data during the period of 1980–2014. Additionally, we compared snow drought duration calculated from models with those from the ERA5‐Land data during selected El Niño‐Southern Oscillation (ENSO) years. The numerical experiments were conducted with ELM driven by two prescribed atmospheric forcings, and with the coupled land‐atmosphere configuration of E3SM with and without plant hydraulics scheme feedback. Analysis reveals that 20%–30% of snow droughts occur due to factors other than above‐normal temperature and low snowfall, such as low soil moisture, warm soil temperature, and low relative humidity, etc., especially in high latitudes (50° North). Furthermore, our study highlights the exacerbating effect of ENSO events on snow drought conditions in various regions, despite some discrepancies between model and ERA5‐Land results. We also identified limitations of the coupled land‐atmosphere models in our current configuration in capturing the spatial patterns of snow droughts. This study underscores the challenge of predicting and mitigating snow drought and the need for a comprehensive understanding of the factors contributing to snow drought.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

A model-independent data assimilation (MIDA) module and its applications in ecology

Abstract. Models are an important tool to predict Earth system dynamics. An accurate prediction of future states of ecosystems depends on not only model structures but also parameterizations. Model parameters can be constrained by data assimilation. However, applications of data assimilation to ecology are restricted by highly technical requirements such as model-dependent coding. To alleviate this technical burden, we developed a model-independent data assimilation (MIDA) module. MIDA works in three steps including data preparation, execution of data assimilation, and visualization. The first step prepares prior ranges of parameter values, a defined number of iterations, and directory paths to access files of observations and models. The execution step calibrates parameter values to best fit the observations and estimates the parameter posterior distributions. The final step automatically visualizes the calibration performance and posterior distributions. MIDA is model independent, and modelers can use MIDA for an accurate and efficient data assimilation in a simple and interactive way without modification of their original models. We applied MIDA to four types of ecological models: the data assimilation linked ecosystem carbon (DALEC) model, a surrogate-based energy exascale earth system model: the land component (ELM), nine phenological models and a stand-alone biome ecological strategy simulator (BiomeE). The applications indicate that MIDA can effectively solve data assimilation problems for different ecological models. Additionally, the easy implementation and model-independent feature of MIDA breaks the technical barrier of applications of data–model fusion in ecology. MIDA facilitates the assimilation of various observations into models for uncertainty reduction in ecological modeling and forecasting.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Data-driven model for divertor plasma detachment prediction

We present a fast and accurate data-driven surrogate model for divertor plasma detachment prediction leveraging the latent feature space concept in machine learning research. Our approach involves constructing and training two neural networks: an autoencoder that finds a proper latent space representation (LSR) of plasma state by compressing the multi-modal diagnostic measurements and a forward model using multi-layer perception (MLP) that projects a set of plasma control parameters to its corresponding LSR. By combining the forward model and the decoder network from autoencoder, this new data-driven surrogate model is able to predict a consistent set of diagnostic measurements based on a few plasma control parameters. In order to ensure that the crucial detachment physics is correctly captured, highly efficient 1D UEDGE model is used to generate training and validation data in this study. The benchmark between the data-driven surrogate model and UEDGE simulations shows that our surrogate model is capable of providing accurate detachment prediction (usually within a few per cent relative error margin) but with at least four orders of magnitude speed-up, indicating that performance-wise, it has the potential to facilitate integrated tokamak design and plasma control. Comparing with the widely used two-point model and/or two-point model formatting, the new data-driven model features additional detachment front prediction and can be easily extended to incorporate richer physics. This study demonstrates that the complicated divertor and scrape-off-layer plasma state has a low-dimensional representation in latent space. Understanding plasma dynamics in latent space and utilising this knowledge could open a new path for plasma control in magnetic fusion energy research.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2020

An open source fast fluid dynamics model for data center thermal management

Although computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has been widely adopted to improve data center thermal management, the high computational demand limits its applications, such as multivariate optimal design and operation. Fast fluid dynamics (FFD), which has been applied for fast airflow simulation, shows great potential. However, few research applied FFD for optimal design and operation of data center thermal management. This research improves the FFD model for data centers and conducts a comprehensive evaluation and demonstration. First, the FFD model is improved by solving the advection and diffusion equations together using an upwind scheme instead of a semi-Lagrangian advection solver in the conventional FFD model. Second, new features for data centers are added, such as a pressure correction method to simulate plenum airflow and dynamic boundary conditions for IT racks. The new FFD model is first validated with two indoor environment cases and the results show that the new FFD model has slightly better overall prediction accuracy and faster speed compared to the conventional FFD model. It is also observed that both FFD models achieve acceptable accuracy, except for a few localized disparities with experimental data, which might be due to simplified handling of turbulence viscosity near the boundaries. Furthermore, validation with a real data center shows that the FFD model achieves a similar level of accuracy as CFD when compared to the experimental measurements with some level of uncertainties. It is then demonstrated for data center optimal design and operation, which saves 53.4–58.8% of annual energy while still meeting the thermal requirements. In conclusion, with a much faster speed and comparable accuracy compared to CFD, the FFD model parallelized on a graphics processing unit is promising for practical model-based data center early design and operation.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2022

Perspectives on the integration between first-principles and data-driven modeling

Efficiently embedding and/or integrating mechanistic information with data-driven models is essential if it is desired to simultaneously take advantage of both engineering principles and data-science. Further the opportunity for hybridization occurs in many scenarios, such as the development of a faster model of an accurate high-fidelity computer model; the correction of a mechanistic model that does not fully-capture the physical phenomena of the system; or the integration of a data-driven component approximating an unknown correlation within a mechanistic model. At the same time, different techniques have been proposed and applied in different literatures to achieve this hybridization, such as hybrid modeling, physics-informed Machine Learning (ML) and model calibration. In this paper we review the methods, challenges, applications and algorithms of these three research areas and discuss them in the context of the different hybridization scenarios. Moreover, we provide a comprehensive comparison of the hybridization techniques with respect to their differences and similarities, as well as advantages and limitations and future perspectives. Finally, we apply and illustrate hybrid modeling, physics-informed ML and model calibration via a chemical reactor case study.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
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 OSTI2021

In Situ Inference for Earth System Predictability

An understanding of future evolution in precipitation extremes is critical to numerous DOE mission questions. Extreme events are by nature short time-scale events that are difficult to diagnose in available model data. Accurate modeling of extreme events necessarily requires high spatial resolution at the storm scale locally. However, the environment in which storms grow is dependent on global, remote, processes. These complex spatiotemporal relationships are impossible to diagnose at resolutions required to accurately model storms responsible for extreme precipitation. At exascale, climate simulations will produce results at fine enough resolution to investigate these relationships. However, the resulting data from these simulations will be far too large to save for post-simulation analysis. We advocate for fitting statistical models inside the simulations as they run, a context known as in situ, which will facilitate scientific investigations using the full fine-scale data stream. Figure 1 shows an example of the type of model we could consider, a Bayesian hierarchical spatial regression model. Precipitation extremes at each grid cell are modeled using extreme value distributions. Since extremes are rare, fitting models to individual grid cells can result in high variance and poor estimates. Instead, the model can be made more robust by smoothing the parameters of the extreme value model across space. Additionally, the parameters themselves can be functionally linked to other variables elsewhere in the simulation. Thus, we can use the fine-scale data to build more robust models for extremes that link extreme behavior to other climate patterns.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Electromagnetic Transient Modeling of Large Data Centers for Grid-Level Studies

The magnitude and complexity of electricity usage patterns from large data centers are having significant impacts on the operation and dynamics of the power grid; grid operators and planners require a range of specialized data center models to properly evaluate these impacts and specify technical solutions as needed. Towards addressing this need, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has developed a library of electromagnetic transient (EMT) models for grid-level studies of data centers called the data center model library (DML). This report describes how the DML was created and how it may properly be used. The models present in the DML are generic models; subject matter expertise and additional technical data are needed to modify these models before they can represent any real data center. However, they will significantly reduce the level of effort required to develop site-specific models and can serve as a common starting point to guide industry towards a more refined consensus. Most of the models within DML are dedicated to representing the power electronics interfaces commonly used in modern data centers, such as double-conversion uninterruptible power supplies and single-phase power factor correction converters. These models are intended for use in grid-level studies and are a simplified aggregation of many small components. That said, background material on the physical and electrical design of large data centers is provided as companion material so that users can be aware of many of the details which have been omitted or streamlined as a matter of practical necessity. Additionally, guidance on the application of EMT analysis for data center interconnection studies is provided, which aids users in identifying when the DML is necessary and what sort of additional model development may be necessary for conducting real-world studies.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Electromagnetic Transient Modeling of Large Data Centers for Grid-Level Studies: Beta Release

The magnitude and complexity of electricity usage patterns from large data centers are having significant impacts on the operation and dynamics of the power grid; grid operators and planners require a range of specialized data center models to properly evaluate these impacts and specify technical solutions as needed. Towards addressing this need, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) has developed a library of electromagnetic transient (EMT) models for grid-level studies of data centers called the data center model library (DML). This report describes how the DML was created and how it may properly be used. This report details the DML’s beta release, completed in July 2026. This is a revision and expansion of the alpha release, which was made available in January 2026 The models present in the DML are generic models; subject matter expertise and additional technical data are needed to modify these models before they can represent any real data center. However, they will significantly reduce the level of effort required to develop site-specific models and can serve as a common starting point to guide industry towards a more refined consensus. Most of the models within DML are dedicated to representing the power electronics interfaces commonly used in modern data centers, such as double-conversion uninterruptible power supplies and single-phase power factor correction converters. These models are intended for use in grid-level studies and are a simplified aggregation of many small components. That said, background material on the physical and electrical design of large data centers is provided as companion material so that users can be aware of many of the details which have been omitted or streamlined as a matter of practical necessity. Additionally, guidance on the application of EMT analysis for data center interconnection studies is provided, which aids users in identifying when the DML is necessary and what sort of additional model development may be necessary for conducting real-world studies.

electromagnetic transients↗
DOE OSTI2022

CalWave - Open Water Demonstration - LCOE Content Model

Data for the CalWave - Open Water Demonstration, a submerged pressure differential Wave Energy Converter (WEC) Device. Device is moored to the seabed, and the motion of the waves causes the sea level to rise and fall above the device, inducing a pressure differential in the device. The alternating pressure pumps fluid through a system to generate electricity, which is transmitted to shore via bidirectional cables. Documentation and data here includes: Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) Content Model

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2021

Comparison of simulated neutrino emission models with data on Supernova 1987A

Here we compare models of supernova (SN) neutrino emission with the Kamiokande II data on SN 1987A using the Bayesian approach. These models are taken from simulations and are representative of current one-dimensional SN models. We find that models with a brief accretion phase of neutrino emission are the most favored. This result is not affected by varying the overall flux normalization or considering neutrino oscillations. We also check the compatibility of the best-fit models with the data.

71 CLASSICAL AND QUANTUM MECHANICS, GENERAL PHYSIC↗
DOE OSTI2026

Electromagnetic Transient Modeling of Data Centers

This report serves as a user manual for the accompanying EMT model library developed by the National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) for various equipment in large data centers. The EMT model library enables detailed modeling of large data center loads for conducting grid stability studies. The EMT model library for data centers include detailed models of a 5.5 kW power supply unit (PSU), a 2.5 uninterruptible power supply (UPS), a 260 MW gas turbine-generator, a 500 kW motor load, and a 33 kW IT rack. These components represent all major equipment in data centers that need to be modeled for performing grid stability studies for data centers.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Congruity of genomic and epidemiological data in modelling of local cholera outbreaks

Cholera continues to be a global health threat. Understanding how cholera spreads between locations is fundamental to the rational, evidence-based design of intervention and control efforts. Traditionally, cholera transmission models have used cholera case-count data. More recently, whole-genome sequence data have qualitatively described cholera transmission. Integrating these data streams may provide much more accurate models of cholera spread; however, no systematic analyses have been performed so far to compare traditional case-count models to the phylodynamic models from genomic data for cholera transmission. Here, we use high-fidelity case-count and whole-genome sequencing data from the 1991 to 1998 cholera epidemic in Argentina to directly compare the epidemiological model parameters estimated from these two data sources. We find that phylodynamic methods applied to cholera genomics data provide comparable estimates that are in line with established methods. Our methodology represents a critical step in building a framework for integrating case-count and genomic data sources for cholera epidemiology and other bacterial pathogens.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Probabilistic neural networks for fluid flow surrogate modeling and data recovery

We consider the use of probabilistic neural networks for fluid flow surrogate modeling and data recovery. This framework is constructed by assuming that the target variables are sampled from a Gaussian distribution conditioned on the inputs. Consequently, the overall formulation sets up a procedure to predict the hyperparameters of this distribution which are then used to compute an objective function given training data. We demonstrate that this framework has the ability to provide for prediction confidence intervals based on the assumption of a probabilistic posterior, given an appropriate model architecture and adequate training data. The applicability of the present framework to cases with noisy measurements and limited observations is also assessed. To demonstrate the capabilities of this framework, we consider canonical regression problems of fluid dynamics from the viewpoint of reduced-order modeling and spatial data recovery for four canonical data sets. The examples considered in this study arise from (i) the shallow-water equations, (ii) a two-dimensional cylinder flow, (iii) the wake of a NACA0012 airfoil with a Gurney flap, and (iv) the NOAA sea surface temperature data set. Furthermore, the present results indicate that the probabilistic neural network not only produces a machine-learning-based fluid flow surrogate model but also systematically quantifies the uncertainty therein to assist with model interpretability.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2020

Deep Generative Models that Solve PDEs: Distributed Computing for Training Large Data-Free Models

Recent progress in scientific machine learning (SciML) has opened up the possibility of training novel neural network architectures that solve complex partial differential equations (PDEs). Several (nearly data free) approaches have been recently reported that successfully solve PDEs, with examples including deep feed forward networks, generative networks, and deep encoder-decoder networks. However, practical adoption of these approaches is limited by the difficulty in training these models, especially to make predictions at large output resolutions (≥1024×1024). Here we report on a software framework for data parallel distributed deep learning that resolves the twin challenges of training these large SciML models - training in reasonable time as well as distributing the storage requirements. Our framework provides several out of the box functionality including (a) loss integrity independent of number of processes, (b) synchronized batch normalization, and (c) distributed higher-order optimization methods. We show excellent scalability of this framework on both cloud as well as HPC clusters, and report on the interplay between bandwidth, network topology and bare metal vs cloud. We deploy this approach to train generative models of sizes hitherto not possible, showing that neural PDE solvers can be viably trained for practical applications. We also demonstrate that distributed higher-order optimization methods are 2-3× faster than stochastic gradient-based methods and provide minimal convergence drift with higher batch-size.

PDEs↗
DOE OSTI2020

AGGREGATE: dAta-driven modelinG preservinG contRollable dEr for outaGe mAnagemenT and rEsiliency (Report for Task 9: Viability of Data-Driven Approach for Outage Management (Deliverable D6))

This technical report is provided to US Department of Energy for progress made on the AGGERGATE project led by the Washington State University. This report is specifically related to the deliverable: ’D6: Technical report discussing the viability of the developed data-driven models and co-simulation architecture for models for operation in a real-world operational setting and the results of Tasks 1 to 8, summarizing the project findings and accomplishments to date’.

42 ENGINEERING↗