Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Hydraulic Conductivity”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Pump House in East River Watershed, Colorado 2019-2024

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Pump House at Mount Crested Butte in the East River Watershed. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format ER-X-Y, where ER refers to East River, X is the location identifier, and Y is the depth identifier at the same X (shallow Y=1). Specifically, ER-PHS, ER-LMC, ER-LMF, and ER-SMN are associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and ER-RBTn (upslope n=1) are sampling transects during the 2019 Rootball Campaign. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the three sampling methods – (1) intact cores, (2) repacked samples, or (3) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. Both intact cores and repacked samples were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores and in-situ soil sensors could be prioritized because these sampling methods are less destructive. While the repacked samples were packed to the target bulk density (estimated post-sampling, when sample volume was known), these samples had altered pore structures. Nevertheless, intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method also has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE 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 OSTI2025

Hydraulic Conductivity Measurements, Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska, 2014

Six individual ice cores were collected from the Barrow Environmental Observatory in Barrow, Alaska, in May of 2013 as part of the Next Generation Ecosystem Experiment (NGEE). Each core was drilled at a different location to varying depths. After drilling, the cores were stored in coolers packed with dry ice and flown to Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) in Berkeley, CA. 3-dimensional images of the cores were constructed using medical X-ray computed tomography (CT) scanner at 120kV. Hydraulic conductivity samples were extracted from these cores at LBNL Richmond Field Station in Richmond, CA, in February 2014 by cutting 5 to 8 inch segments using a chop saw. Samples were packed individually and stored at -20C freezing temperatures to minimize any changes in structure or loss of ice content prior to analysis. Hydraulic conductivity was determined through falling head tests using a permeameter [ELE International, Model #: K-770B] (Appendix A). Samples were placed in a latex membrane via a membrane stretcher while frozen. Use of a membrane stretcher made the membranes easier to secure and minimized contact with the sample. A clear polycarbonate sleeve, fabricated with a stainless steel ring at the bottom to keep the sleeve from floating, was placed around the sample inside the permeameter to minimize deformation during analysis. The permeameter was filled with water and 1.0 PSI of air was applied for confining pressure during sample defrost. Outflow valves were left open to allow for incremental thawing and samples were left to thaw for approximately 12 hours. After approximately 12 hours of thaw, initial falling head tests were performed. When the flow was significantly too fast or too slow, the analysis was stopped and the burette size was adjusted accordingly (i.e. a larger diameter burette was used for flows that were faster than desired or a smaller diameter burette was used for flows that were slower than desired). Two to four measurements were collected on each sample and collection stopped when the applied head load exceeded 25% change from the original load. Analyses were performed between 2 to 3 times for each sample. The final hydraulic conductivity calculations were computed using methodology of Das et al., 1985.The Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments: Arctic (NGEE Arctic), was a 15-year research effort (2012-2027) to reduce uncertainty in Earth System Models by developing a predictive understanding of carbon-rich Arctic ecosystems and feedbacks to climate. NGEE Arctic was supported by the Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental Research. The NGEE Arctic project had two field research sites: 1) located within the Arctic polygonal tundra coastal region on the Barrow Environmental Observatory (BEO) and the North Slope near Utqiagvik (Barrow), Alaska and 2) multiple areas on the discontinuous permafrost region of the Seward Peninsula north of Nome, Alaska. Through observations, experiments, and synthesis with existing datasets, NGEE Arctic provided an enhanced knowledge base for multi-scale modeling and contributed to improved process representation at global pan-Arctic scales within the Department of Energy's Earth system Model (the Energy Exascale Earth System Model, or E3SM), and specifically within the E3SM Land Model component (ELM).

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

CMP Pits and D-Area Watershed Infiltrometer Testing

Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) conducted saturated hydraulic conductivity field testing at the Chemical, Metals, and Pesticide Pits (CMP Pits) and the D-Area watershed to develop infiltration rates for use in future updates to the CMP Pits groundwater flow model. Approximately 18 testing locations were selected at each site based on the soil series that were identified in the Soil Survey of Savannah River Plant Area, Parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties, South Carolina.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

CMP Pits and D-Area Watershed Infiltrometer Testing

Savannah River National Laboratory (SRNL) conducted saturated hydraulic conductivity field testing at the Chemical, Metals, and Pesticide Pits (CMP Pits) and the D-Area watershed to develop infiltration rates for use in future updates to the CMP Pits groundwater flow model. Approximately 18 testing locations were selected at each site based on the soil series that were identified in the Soil Survey of Savannah River Plant Area, Parts of Aiken, Barnwell, and Allendale Counties, South Carolina.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Physical and Hydraulic Properties of RCRA Borehole Samples from the Hanford Site : Final Report, Fiscal Years 2023-2024

Sediment from 44 core samples collected from Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) boreholes drilled in the 200 East and 200 West areas of the Hanford Site were characterized for physical and hydraulic properties (Table S.1). Characterization data included gravimetric water contents and matric potentials, grain-size distributions, saturated hydraulic conductivity, water retention characteristics, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity. These properties provide site-specific data and parameters that can be used in subsurface flow and contaminant transport models to assess the transport and fate of contaminants in the vadose zone and underlying aquifer systems. The analyzed core samples come from specific areas and depth intervals at the Hanford Site that were targeted for sampling to address data gaps identified by site contractors (Khaleel 2020). X-ray computed tomography (XCT) was used to evaluate the general textural characteristics of the samples and to determine which samples to use for further physical and hydraulic property characterization. Subsequent sample selection was determined by consensus after review of the XCT images by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Central Plateau Cleanup Company, and INTERA staff.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Initial Uncertainty Analysis of Carbon Tetrachloride Contamination and Remediation in the Ringold A and Lower Mud Units at the Central Plateau

The long-term effectiveness of groundwater cleanup at the Hanford Site Central Plateau depends on predictive models that can capture key uncertainties in contaminant fate and transport. Carbon tetrachloride (CCl 4 ), a persistent and toxic compound, presents particular challenges due to variability in degradation rates, uncertainty in initial plume distribution, and subsurface heterogeneity. These uncertainties directly influence plume persistence, migration pathways, and remedy performance, and thus must be systematically evaluated to support long-term remediation planning. To address these gaps, a large-scale Monte Carlo analysis was conducted using the Plateau to River (P2R) model framework. The modeling approach parameterized three primary uncertainty factors: (1) degradation rate, (2) initial plume distribution, and (3) hydraulic conductivity. Degradation was represented as a first-order process, with half-lives ranging from 70 to 700 years. Initial plume distributions were created using a geostatistical simulation method (sgsim), which generates many equally plausible versions of how contaminants might be distributed underground. From this, 100 different scenarios were mapped onto the P2R grid. Variability in hydraulic conductivity was represented in a similar way, with 100 scenarios each for the Ringold Lower Mud and Ringold A units (layers 6 and 7), based on fitted exponential variograms and conditioned to well data. In total, more than 1000 realizations were simulated to assess plume behavior under uncertainty. Results demonstrate that degradation kinetics exert the strongest control over plume persistence: Shorter half-lives produced rapid mass reduction, while longer half-lives yielded persistent plumes with limited attenuation. A nonlinear response was observed, with steep mass reductions at half-lives greater than 200 years and near-linear declines beyond this threshold, reflecting interactions between degradation and pumping. The initial plume distribution strongly influenced early transport patterns, with broader sources generating larger plume footprints, although pump-and-treat operations constrained plume migration to managed areas. By comparison, hydraulic conductivity variability in the Ringold units had only a secondary influence, modifying spreading behavior without altering the dominant migration pathways governed by source configuration and hydraulic controls. Overall, the analysis highlights that uncertainty in degradation rate and initial plume configuration are the primary drivers of variability in plume predictions, while conductivity heterogeneity plays a limited role. These findings underscore the need for improved site-specific data on degradation processes and source characterization to enhance the reliability of long-term performance assessments and to better inform remedial decision-making at the Central Plateau.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2025

Water reactive polyurethane grouting for deep vadose zone contaminant immobilization

Contaminants in the deep vadose zone (DVZ) pose a long-term threat to groundwater, human health, and the environment. Polyurethane grouting is a type of chemical grouting that is potentially advantageous in immobilizing contaminants in DVZs. Polyurethane resin has low viscosity that makes it feasible to penetrate and fill the pore space between fine particles. Here, in this study a series of laboratory pressure grouting and leaching tests were conducted to simulate and assess the effectiveness of polyurethane grouting for immobilizing contaminants in DVZs. Soil with fine particles was prepared with 127 I (as iodide) that served as a non-radioactive surrogate for radioactive 129 I. After grouting and curing, leaching tests were used to measure and compare contaminant diffusivity and leachability index values. Additionally, changes in porosity and saturated hydraulic conductivity of grouted soil were measured. X-Ray Computer Tomography (XCT) results showed that the cured polyurethane was distributed nearly homogeneously and approximately half of the voids were filled with cured polyurethane. Grouting reduced the saturated hydraulic conductivity of soil by 37 %. The effective diffusivity decreased by more than 80 % as compared with the ungrouted soil. The leachability index of the grouted soil was 6.5; meeting the criteria established by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) standard. The results obtained in this study provide a valuable assessment of polyurethane grouting for iodide immobilization in the DVZ and indicate this approach may be a viable method for contaminant remediation in DVZ soils.

Contaminant Diffusion↗
DOE OSTI2025

Quantifying Groundwater Response and Uncertainty in Beaver‐Influenced Mountainous Floodplains Using Machine Learning‐Based Model Calibration

Abstract Beavers ( Castor canadensis ) alter river corridor hydrology by creating ponds and inundating floodplains, and thereby improving surface water storage. However, the impact of inundation on groundwater, particularly in mountainous alluvial floodplains with permeable gravel/cobble layers overlain by a soil layer, remains uncertain. Numerical modeling across various floodplain structures considers topographic and sediment complexity and multidirectional flow, linking inundation to groundwater response. This study develops a model‐data integration workflow to address uncertainty in groundwater response to beaver‐induced inundations in a mountainous alluvial floodplain in the Upper Colorado River Basin. Uncertain factors include seasonal hydrologic dynamics, hydraulic conductivities, floodplain structures, and meteorological forcings. We employed an ensemble of groundwater models, based on geophysical and hydrologic data, with machine learning‐based calibration using a neural density estimator. This allowed us to quantify the vertical flux from the soil layer to the permeable gravel bed, the down‐valley underflow within the gravel bed, and their ratios. Results show a significant increase in the vertical flux relative to down‐valley underflow, from 2 during dry pond periods to 20 during wet periods, serving as an analogy for conditions without and with beaver ponds. The study highlights the influence of floodplain structure on groundwater storage, water balance, and water quality impacted by beaver ponds. A thick gravel bed layer, with a large down‐valley underflow, minimizes the effect of beaver‐induced inundation on water quality. We emphasize the need for field‐scale measurements of floodplain structure and improved characterization of evapotranspiration changes to reduce uncertainty in groundwater response. Plain Language Summary Beavers change the flow of water in river corridors by creating ponds, expanding wetlands, and flooding floodplains. This increases surface water area, promotes plant growth, and enhances biodiversity. However, the impact of this flooding on groundwater flow is not well understood, especially in mountainous areas with gravel layers where water moves easily beneath soil. In this study, we used numerical modeling to investigate how beaver ponds influence groundwater in a mountainous floodplain of the Upper Colorado River Basin. We adapted a machine learning method to validate our numerical models using multiple field data sets. Our findings show that beaver ponds significantly increase vertical water flow from the soil to the gravel during wet periods, compared to when the ponds are fully drained. The study also highlights the importance of floodplain structure in controlling both water flow in gravel layers along the river direction and vertical flow from the soil to the gravel with the presence of beavers. To reduce uncertainty in groundwater response, we emphasize the need for more field‐scale measurements of floodplain structure, hydraulic properties, and evapotranspiration changes. Key Points Floodplain structures and hydraulic conductivities are important for groundwater response with beaver ponds in mountainous floodplains Large down‐valley underflow in permeability‐stratified floodplains reduces beaver‐induced impacts on groundwater storage and water quality Machine learning‐based model calibration methods are effective for estimating posterior distributions of groundwater model parameters

Wang, Lijing↗
DOE OSTI2025

Temporal persistence of postfire flood hazards under present and future climate conditions in southern Arizona, USA

Changes to soil hydraulic properties that reduce infiltration capacity following fire can increase flash flood risks. These risks are exacerbated by rainfall intensification associated with a warming climate. However, the potential effects of climate-change-driven rainfall intensification on postfire floods remain largely unexplored. Using rainfall and runoff observations from a 49.4 km 2 watershed in southern Arizona, USA, and a hydrologic model (KINEROS2), we examined the temporal evolution following a historic fire of three crucial hydrologic parameters: soil saturated hydraulic conductivity (K sp ), net capillary drive (G p ), and hydraulic roughness (n c ). We explored how the effect of fire on these parameters may influence peak flow under future climate scenarios derived from CMIP6, specifically the medium emissions scenario (SSP2-4.5) and high emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5). Results demonstrate an increase in K sp from 11 mm h −1 in the first postfire year to 60 mm h −1 in postfire year 3. G p similarly increased from 19 mm in the first postfire year to 30 mm in the third, while nc was relatively constant. The highest simulated Q p occurred in the first postfire year. Under the SSP2-4.5 scenario, the likelihood of a 100-year flood is projected to be twice as large by the middle of the century relative to its historical magnitude. Simulations further indicate that the maximum expected discharge associated with a postfire flood, as derived from historical data, could be triggered by a 10-year rainstorm under the SSP5-8.5 scenario by the late century. Simulations also demonstrate that rainfall intensification will lead to greater persistence of elevated flood hazards following fire by the late century under both the SSP2-4.5 and the SSP5-8.5 scenarios.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Hydraulic constraints to stomatal conductance in flooded trees

Stomatal closure is a pervasive response among trees exposed to flooded soil. We tested whether this response is caused by reduced hydraulic conductance in the soil-to-leaf hydraulic continuum (k total ), and particularly by reduced root hydraulic conductance (k root ), which has been widely hypothesized. We tracked stomatal conductance at the leaf level (g s ) and canopy scale (G s ) along with physiological conditions in two temperate tree species, Magnolia grandiflora and Quercus virginiana, that were subjected to flood and control conditions in a greenhouse experiment. Flooding reduced g s , G s , k root and k total . Path analysis showed strong support for direct effects of k total on g s and for flood duration on k total , but not k root on k total . A process-based model that accounted for the k total reduction predicted the timeseries of G s in flood and control treatment trees reasonably well (predicted versus observed G s R 2 = 0.80 and 0.51 for M. grandiflora and Q. virginiana, respectively). However, accounting only for k root reduction in flooded trees was insufficient for predicting observed G s reduction. Together, these results suggest that hydraulic constraints were not limited to roots and highlight the need to account for flooding effects on k total when projecting forest ecosystem function using process-based models.

Plant stress↗
DOE OSTI2026

Field and Model Data Associated with the Manuscript “Drivers of Streamflow Intermittency in Humid Regions: 1. Evaluating Above- and Below-ground Controls of Flow Persistence in a Forested Catchment”

This package contains field data, modeling files, and scripts supporting the investigation of the drivers of streamflow intermittency in a forested catchment. It includes the field data collected from electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) surveys, ground penetrating radar (GPR), continuous self-potential (SP) monitoring, electromagnetic (EM) imaging, groundwater and stilling well. In addition, it contains the data and results of the coupled water- and electrical-flow model developed using the COMSOL Multiphysics and Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), as well as software files and Jupyter notebooks used to process the data and generate figures in the manuscript submitted for peer review. The data archive is organized in the following directories: 1) Climate Includes hourly precipitation and daily evapotranspiration time series (2024 – 2025) provided as CSV files, alongside a text file detailing dataset units. 2) Coupled_model Contains two subfolders: Synthetic and Field_Application subfolder. Synthetic subfolder contains the ATS XML input script (can be opened using any code editor) for the four synthetic hydrological cases tested (Connected and gaining, Connected and losing, Disconnected and losing, and dry stream). It also includes other experimental cases to test the influence of precipitation and concentration gradient. For each synthetic case, the flow model simulation is executed using the ATS XML scripts and the included Python script (generate_data_set.py) to convert ATS output to COMSOL-ready input. COMSOL Multiphysics template (.mph can be opened with the commercial software COMSOL and requires a license) is executed using the ATS output data to simulate the potential field. It also includes the Synthetic_model_plot.ipynb (can be opened using any code editor) to visualize the SP result and generate manuscript figures. The data subfolder contains mesh files to run both the ATS (.exo and .stl files can be viewed using Paraview; .h5 files can be opened using HDFView software and h5py Python package) and COMSOL models. Field_Application subfolder contains two subfolders: ES_MDA_inversion and Final_Model. ES_MDA_inversion contains the Python script (.py can be opened using any code editor) and SP observation data used to run the Ensemble Smoother with Multiple Data Assimilation (ES-MDA) inversion sequence to get the optimal model parameters. The Final_model subfolder contains the ATS XML input scripts, data files, output data for the two SP sites. The same workflow steps outlined for the Synthetic subfolder apply here. It also contains the Jupyter notebook (Plot_final_calib.ipynb) to visualize the results of the modeled SP, stream-groundwater exchange and moisture content. 3) Discharge Includes the electrical conductivity (EC) time series (provided as CSV files) from salt slug injections. It also includes the Jupyter notebook (Discharge_process.ipynyb) used to estimate discharge. All discharge measurements collated into rating_curve_processed.csv 4) EM Contains the CSV file of the EM data from the DUALEM-42, including spatial coordinates (x, y, z), apparent conductivity, and in-phase measurements at 2 m coil separations for horizontal coplanar (HCP) and perpendicular (PRP) geometries. 5) ERT Contains raw resistivity data (provided as CSV files), spatial location of each of the electrodes (provided as CSV files), and files used for the resistivity inversion (.resipy can be opened with the open-source ResIPy software). 6) GPR Includes GPR field datasets collected at 100 MHz and 250 MHz antenna frequencies, along with the processing/interpretation project file (GPR_process.gpz can be viewed using EKKO_Project 6, a commercial software by Sensors & Software that requires a license). 7) Slug_test Includes the slug test data at all the groundwater wells provided as CSV files, as well as the Jupyter notebook (Slug_test.ipynb) for calculating hydraulic conductivity. 8) SP Contains the SP data collected in field at the two SP sites (one in the perennial reach and the other in the intermittent reach), provided as DAT files. 9) Well_data Contains two subfolders: 1) Raw, which provides unprocessed pressure, electrical conductivity and temperature timeseries downloaded from the loggers in all the groundwater and stilling wells, and 2) Processed, which contains sorted, QA/QC timeseries data for each well. The data archive also contains data_process.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook used for field data analysis and generating figures (plotting well, SP, climate, and discharge data, as well as calculating head gradient at sites with nested groundwater wells). It also includes DTW.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook containing the code for the dynamic time warping (DTW) with sliding window to evaluate SP signal synchronicity.

ATS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Field and Model Data Associated with the Manuscript “Drivers of Streamflow Intermittency in Humid Regions: 2. Evaluating Controls on Flow Persistence in an Urbanized Catchment”

This package contains field data, modeling files, and scripts supporting the investigation of the drivers of streamflow intermittency in an urbanized catchment. It includes the field data collected from electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) surveys, distributed temperature sensing (DTS), continuous self-potential (SP) monitoring, groundwater and stilling well. In addition, it contains the data and results of the coupled water- and electrical-flow model developed using the COMSOL Multiphysics and Advanced Terrestrial Simulator (ATS), as well as software files and Jupyter notebooks used to process the data and generate figures in the manuscript submitted for peer review. The data archive is organized in the following directories: 1) Climate Includes hourly precipitation and daily evapotranspiration time series (2024 – 2025) provided as CSV files, alongside a text file detailing dataset units. 2) Coupled_model Field_Application subfolder contains the ATS XML input scripts, data files, output data for the SP site. It also contains the Jupyter notebook (Plot_final_calib.ipynb) to visualize the results of the modeled SP, stream-groundwater exchange and moisture content. The flow model simulation is executed using the ATS XML scripts and the included Python script (generate_data_set.py) to convert ATS output to COMSOL-ready input. COMSOL Multiphysics template (.m can only be used with COMSOL with MATLAB) is executed using the ATS output data to simulate the potential field. 3) Discharge Includes the electrical conductivity (EC) time series (provided as CSV files) from salt slug injections. It also includes the Jupyter notebook (Discharge_process.ipynyb) used to estimate discharge. All discharge measurements collated into rating_curve_processed.csv 4) DTS Contains collated DTS data including raw Stokes and anti-Stokes measurement (provided as .h5 file). It also includes DTS processing.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook for calibrating the DTS data using dts_calibration Python package. cooler_calibration.csv is the DTS calibration CSV used in the calibration sequence. 5) ERT Contains raw resistivity data (provided as CSV files), spatial location of each of the electrodes (provided as CSV files), and files used for the resistivity inversion. 6) Slug_test Includes the slug test data at all the groundwater wells provided as CSV files, as well as the Jupyter notebook (Slug_test.ipynb) for calculating hydraulic conductivity. 7) SP Contains the SP data collected in field at the SP sites (provided as CSV files). 8) Well_data Contains two subfolders: 1) Raw, which provides unprocessed pressure, electrical conductivity and temperature timeseries downloaded from the loggers in all the groundwater and stilling wells, and 2) Processed, which contains sorted, QA/QC timeseries data for each well. The data archive also contains data_process.ipynb, a Jupyter notebook used for field data analysis and generating figures (plotting well, SP, climate, and discharge data, as well as calculating head gradient at sites with nested groundwater wells). Note: Code files (.ipynb, .py, .xml) can be opened in any standard code editor, .exo file can be viewed using Paraview, .h5 files can be opened using HDFView software and h5py Python package, and .resipy file can be opened with the open-source ResIPy software.

ATS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Assessment of the hydromechanical higher-order MPM for the simulation of geotechnical problems

The Material Point Method (MPM) has been increasingly used to simulate large strain deformations. Linear interpolation functions are commonly used to perform the spatial integration. It is well-known that the discontinuities in the interpolation function derivatives induce shock-like artifacts known as ‘cell-crossing’ error. These errors compound with volumetric locking errors when used with hydromechanical formulations for porous media, where different velocity fields are used for each phase. The capabilities of higher-order MPM frameworks have not been explored for real-scale geotechnical problems. As such, this paper aims to assess, validate, and further discuss a higher-order B-spline MPM (BS-MPM) framework. First, the BS-MPM framework is verified against the large-strain oedometer consolidation problem. Second, the framework is validated against a real-scale slope failure experiment triggered by pore water pressure recharge. Landslide features that are captured using the higher-order framework are specifically highlighted, and results (e.g., pore water pressure and deformation) are validated with field measurements. A generally convergent numerical solution is observed when using cubic interpolation functions. Third, a footing penetration problem is simulated using the multi-patch BS-MPM. Trends are examined with respect to penetration velocity and variation in hydraulic conductivity. The BS-MPM framework ultimately presents a stabilized numerical solution that captures plausible hydromechanical interaction trends important in geotechnical engineering applications.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

The Role of Bedrock Circulation Depth and Porosity in Mountain Streamflow Response to Prolonged Drought

Quantitative understanding is lacking on how the depth of active groundwater circulation in bedrock affects mountain streamflow response to a multi-year drought. We use an integrated hydrological model to explore the sensitivity of a variety of streamflow metrics to bedrock circulation depth and porosity under a plausible extreme drought scenario lasting up to 5 years. Endmember depth versus hydraulic conductivity relationships and porosity values for fractured crystalline rock are simulated. With drought, a deeper circulation system with higher drainable porosity more effectively buffers minimum flow and significantly limits perennial stream loss in comparison to a shallow circulation system. Streamflow buffering is accomplished through extensive groundwater storage loss. However, deeper circulation systems experience prolonged recovery from drought in comparison to storage-limited shallow systems. Research highlights the importance of characterizing the deeper bedrock hydrogeology in mountainous watersheds to better understand and predict drought impacts on stream ecosystem health and water resource sustainability.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Development of an ERT‐Based Framework for Bentonite Buffers Monitoring From Laboratory Tests: 2. Quantitative Moisture Dynamics Estimation Model

Abstract The long‐term containment of high‐level radioactive waste in geological disposal repositories relies on Engineered Barrier Systems (EBS), with bentonite clay emerging as a candidate material due to its unique properties. Understanding moisture dynamics within bentonite buffers is crucial for EBS performance, as it directly influences the material's swelling capacity, thermal and hydraulic conductivity, mechanical properties, and long‐term evolution under complex thermal‐hydrological‐mechanical (THM) processes. This study develops an advanced Electrical Resistivity Tomography (ERT)‐based framework to quantitatively monitor moisture dynamics under THM conditions. Our framework extends the Waxman‐Smits model to incorporate the coupled effects of temperature, water content, fluid chemistry, and mechanical changes on bentonite's electrical properties. Utilizing HotBENT‐Lab data from our companion paper, which includes electrical conductivity, CT density, and thermocouple measurements, this study offers a novel methodological framework bridging different scales of the model. Our results show that the extended model can estimate water content from ERT data, capturing spatial and temporal variations in moisture distribution within bentonite columns. However, the model tends to overestimate water content compared to CT density‐derived measurements. We address this discrepancy by incorporating a simplified swelling effect model, which improves agreement between ERT and CT density‐based water content estimates. We also discuss model limitations, including simplified treatment of swelling and micropore effects, and propose a conceptual framework for transitioning from laboratory to field applications, addressing challenges such as parameter scalability, field validation methods, and integration of diverse data sources. This ERT‐based framework can potentially advance real‐world moisture monitoring of bentonite‐based EBS in nuclear waste repositories. Plain Language Summary Safely containing high‐level radioactive waste depends on barriers made from materials like bentonite clay, which is effective because it swells and seals in the waste. To ensure these barriers work well over time, it's important to understand how moisture moves through the clay. Our study developed a new method using ERT to monitor moisture levels in bentonite under conditions that mimic those in actual storage sites, including changes in temperature, water content, and mechanical stress. This study improved an existing model to better account for how these factors affect the clay, allowing us to create more accurate moisture maps. Initially, the proposed model overestimated the amount of water in the clay, but its accuracy was improved by factoring in how the clay swells when wet. This study also identified some limitations of the model and suggested ways to adapt it for use in real‐world waste storage sites. This new approach could lead to better monitoring and safety checks for nuclear waste storage systems, helping to ensure long‐term containment. Key Points This work develops an ERT‐based framework extending the Waxman‐Smits model to monitor bentonite moisture dynamics during coupled THM processes The extended model accurately estimates water content from Electrical Resistivity Tomography data, incorporating swelling effects to improve precision This work proposes a conceptual framework for transitioning from laboratory to field applications, advancing EBS monitoring in nuclear waste repositories

Chen, Hang↗
DOE OSTI2025

Integrated GW Farm ABM

This Data Repository includes data used for the integrated groundwater- farm ABM model, raw model output from scenario ensemble, and processed outputs that isolate the groundwater storage depletion outcomes for the 35,000 farm cells. Model Inputs: Farm ABM Inputs: This folder contains the input data used by the integrated groundwater - farm ABM modelling script (Python file) used for the high performance computing (HPC) experiments. The sub-folder "data inputs" contains all of the farm attribute data, while the three files in the folder have the hydrogeological data lookup table (NLDAS Cost Curve Attributes.csv), a lookup table (Theis well function table.csv) for the groundwater cost curve function, and the farm indexes and corresponding NLDAS ids for all of the cells run in this experiment (nldas farms subset final.csv). NLDAS Cost curve hydrogeological data: Hydrogeological data aggregated to 1/8 degree resolution and aligned with the NLDAS grid. Parameters include: water depth below ground surface [meters], subsurface porosity [unitless], aquifer depth from ground surface to aquifer bottom [meters], annual average recharge (USGS: mm, Doll: meters), and three different hydraulic conductivity (K) values (meters/day). The three K values represent the mean value from Gleeson et al. (2018), one standard deviation above the mean from Gleeson et al. (2018), and the de Graaf et al. 2020 modifications to certain lithologies. Additional information about these datasets and their processing are documented in the supplement to Yoon et al. 2025 (in review). Output: Raw outputs: This folder contains a .zip file that has model outputs for the entire scenario ensemble. There is one csv for each farm id, using the format "farm farmid cases.csv". The relationship between the farm id and NLDAS id is defined by the "nldas farms subset final.csv" located in the Farm ABM Inputs folder. Each csv has 625 rows, corresponding to 625 combinations of different scenario parameter values. Each row (scenario) represents the outcome of a 100 year simulation. Columns define scenario settings and summary statistics for each scenario. The first four columns define the scenario settings: "hydro ratio," "econ ratio," "K scenario," and "gamma scenario." The hydro and econ ratios are values passed to the modeling script that influence multipliers for other model parameters, as documented in the supplement to Yoon et al. 2025 (in review). The gamma multiplier is a coefficient multiplier applied to the baseline gamma values (values below 1 represent lower unobserved costs compared to baseline, values above 1 represent higher costs). The K scenario names represent K values of: "low": 0.5 m/d, "int 1": 2.5 m/d, "int 2": 10 m/d, "high": 50 m/d, and "gleeson": mean Gleeson K value. "Perc vol depleted" is the fraction of groundwater depleted at the end of the 100 simulation. Processed Output: Derived depletion outcomes from raw outputs: All of the individual csv files from the Raw outputs were aggregated into a single file that has the scenario settings and fraction depletion "Perc vol depleted" for every farm cell, for every scenario. The other two files define relationships between the farm id, NLDAS id, and local and major aquifer units, used for aquifer-level depletion analysis.

Agent based modeling↗