Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Measurement_method”

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 OSTI2025

The dual-electron cyclotron emission based measurement of 3D structures on DIII-D tokamak

The measurements of the locked mode and other 3D magnetohydrodynamic modes are essential for real-time control of plasma stability in future fusion reactors. Current magnetic measurements present non-negligible challenges for the application on fusion pilot plants (FPPs) due to neutron radiation and pose challenging design issues. In this paper, we discuss an alternative solution with microwave-based measurements. The dual-electron cyclotron emission (ECE) method has been developed and applied on DIII-D. The dual-ECE measurement method demonstrates clear identification of magnetic islands compared to single ECE, which is highly beneficial for locked mode feedback control on the FPPs. Toroidally separated ECE measurements provide accurate three-dimensional structure of magnetic islands and tearing modes. This technique also offers deeper physical insights into the penetration of resonant magnetic perturbations. Numerical calculations indicate that small locked modes (magnetic island width > 2 cm) can be detected using the dual-ECE measurement method in ITER plasma. This will enhance measurement capabilities for the safe operation of FPP plasmas.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2026

Near-infrared noise in intense electron bunches

This article investigates electron bunch density fluctuations in the 1 −10 μ⁢m wavelength range, focusing on their impact on coherent electron cooling (CEC) in hadron storage rings. In this study, we compare the shot-noise model with experimental observations using bandwidth-filtered near-infrared optical transition radiation (OTR) photodiode signals, where the transverse bunch size is much larger than the OTR wavelength of interest. The relativistic electron bunch (𝛾 ≈ 50) parameters are close to those proposed for the coherent electron cooler in the electron-ion collider (EIC) project. Preliminary feasibility experiments were conducted, and the noise factors are presented, supported by particle tracking. No major density fluctuations or effective cooling rate decrease were revealed for EIC CEC design parameters. Additionally, longitudinal-space-charge-induced microbunching for the chicane-compressed bunch was observed with coherent OTR enhancements up to 100 times, providing further calibration of the measurement method.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗
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 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

Advancing Building Air Leakage Measurement and Modeling: Measurement of Interior Air Leaks, Experimental Comparison to Conventional Methods, and Building Modeling Characteristics

This report, Advancing Building Air Leakage Measurement and Modeling: Measurement of Interior Air Leaks, Experimental Comparison to Conventional Methods, and Building Modeling Characteristics, developed two new building air leakage measurement methods, experimentally evaluated the performance in comparison to conventional methods, experimentally evaluated the behavior of leaks for specific crack structures, and identified testing constraints and model implications.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2026

Summertime methane and carbon dioxide emission rates and associated variables from a national‐scale survey of 146 reservoirs in the United States

Reservoirs are globally important sources of greenhouse gases, but the magnitude of their emissions is highly uncertain. Here, we present data for 146 reservoirs from two surveys of reservoir methane and carbon dioxide emissions, one at the regional scale in the midwestern United States and one at the national scale in the United States, plus data from two hand‐picked sites in Washington and Puerto Rico. At all reservoirs, ebullitive and diffusive emissions and basic physicochemistry were measured at 15–55 locations during one 22 to 64‐h period during the summers of 2016–2023, with four reservoirs revisited a second time. Contemporaneous water chemistry measurements were made at one or two locations in each reservoir. The dataset consists of two geospatial files and seven CSV files containing greenhouse gas emissions, water chemistry, morphology, and other relevant data. To date, these data comprise the largest multi‐reservoir emissions dataset assembled using consistent measurement methods.

Beaulieu, Jake J. [US Environmental Protection Age↗
DOE OSTI2026

Measurement of low energy characteristic X-rays emitted present in U-10Mo HALEU alloy fuel

Advance high density monolithic alloy HALEU fuels have been scanned with a silicon drift detector scanning system to measure low-energy characteristic X-rays emitted by uranium daughters, as well as zirconium present as a foil diffusion barrier. Four peaks were measured across the surfaces of three plates, and are consistent with other thorium and protactinium peaks present in depleted uranium samples that are induced by the decay of 235 U and 238 U. Of the four peaks detected, three are dominated by the decay of 235 U, and one peak at 15.70 keV covers two characteristic X-rays from the zirconium diffusion barrier (Kα 1 ) and from a 231 Th 15.62 keV X-ray induced by 235 U α-decay. The low energies of these lines suggest that they are mostly emitted from the fuel meat surface, and the poor counting statistics caused by strong self-attenuation make these data a poor candidate for 235 U/ 238 U ratio analysis. We suggest, then, that these X-rays could be used for passive measurement of variations in the cladding thickness of these fuels to complement manual thickness measurement methods.

HALEU↗
DOE OSTI2025

Results of an interlaboratory study on the working curve in vat photopolymerization II: Towards a standardized method

The working curve measurement in photopolymer additive manufacturing is a ubiquitous measure of the cure depth of a printing resin as a function of radiant exposure of light. The fit parameters from this measurement (the depth of light penetration D p and the critical exposure E c ) are used to evaluate and report a resin’s printability, optimize processing parameters, and inform print and resin quality control. Despite its widespread use, the working curve lacks a standard measurement method. Here, following up on our paper “Results of an Interlaboratory Study on the Working Curve in Vat Photopolymerization” from last year, an interlaboratory study on the working curve was performed using calibrated, reproducible, bandpass filtered light sources. With these light sources, the variability between labs in measured working curves was dramatically reduced from the initial interlaboratory study. Aggregate data from this experiment produced reliable D p and E c measurements at 385 nm of 39.2 ± 3.7 µm and 12.3 ± 3.0 mJ cm −2 , respectively. At 405 nm the values of D p and E c are 69.3 ± 3.8 µm and 17.9 ± 2.3 mJ cm −2 , respectively. The results are agnostic to the thickness measurement tool utilized by participants, ensuring broad applicability across laboratories. We also tested the generalizability of the proposed method of using a filtered light source by filtering a commercial 405 nm light source and obtaining a working curve in agreement with the aggregate data from the interlaboratory study. This interlaboratory study provides a basis for a documentary standard for the working curve, so that the entire photopolymer additive manufacturing industry can share reproducible and interoperable working curve data.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Segmentation method comparison for residual fiber length measurement across tiled microscopy images

Fiber length distribution (FLD), in part, governs mechanical properties in discontinuous fiber composites, yet manual measurement methods limit the high-throughput characterization needed for materials design optimization. This study compares deep learning segmentation approaches for automated FLD measurement in large-field microscopy, evaluating how method choice affects the microstructural descriptors used in structure-property-processing relationships. A critical challenge is that high-resolution microscopy images (10,000×10,000 pixels) must be tiled for deep learning analysis, fragmenting fibers at boundaries. We demonstrate that segmentation method proves crucial for measurement accuracy. For example, instance segmentation with Slicing Aided Hyper Inference (SAHI) preserves individual fiber integrity across tiles while semantic segmentation prioritizes speed. Comparing against manual measurement of extracted carbon fibers, YOLOv11-SAHI matched manual ground truth (238 μm weighted mean) with 40x speedup (4.5 vs 167 minutes per image). U-Net provides rapid quantification although it is at the cost of reduced accuracy due only reliably measuring stand-alone fibers. Our comparative analysis reveals that instance segmentation with SAHI better preserves length measurements while semantic segmentation prioritizes speed, providing empirical guidance for method selection. The characterization provides essential inputs for mechanical property prediction models and inverse design workflows, accelerating composite materials development cycles.

Additive manufacturing↗
DOE OSTI2026

Performance measurement of emerging 3- and 4-terminal tandem solar cells

Tandem solar cells are not limited to the conventional two-terminal (2-T) configuration. Multi-terminal designs like three-terminal (3-T) and four-terminal (4-T) devices have gained increasing attention in the PV community due to their relaxed current-matching requirement between subcells and their potential for enhanced energy yield. However, reliable and standardized methods for evaluating the performance of multi-terminal tandems remain underdeveloped. This work addresses this gap by providing comprehensive measurement guidelines tailored to these advanced configurations. We examine key coupling mechanisms between subcells, including the shared electrical load in 3-T devices and optical luminescent coupling in both 3-T and 4-T devices, to enable accurate and consistent performance evaluation. Furthermore, we propose two stabilized measurement methods for emerging 3-T tandem cells incorporating perovskite subcells: (1) a two-dimensional maximum-power-point tracking (MPPT) approach that continuously tracks both subcells' maximum power points (P MAX ) until convergence to stabilized outputs, and (2) a hybrid approach that combines MPPT for one subcell with stabilized current recording under fixed voltage biases near the P MAX of the other, allowing robust extraction of the overall stabilized P MAX (termed “MPPT + asymptotic P MA X scan” method). These methods directly address the dynamic current responses inherent to perovskite-containing tandems, providing a foundation for meaningful and reproducible performance comparisons.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

First on-line commissioning experiments at the St. Benedict facility

Nuclear beta decays provide an excellent probe of fundamental symmetries due to their mediation by the weak interaction. In particular, precise measurements of these decays provide constraints on the unitarity of the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa (CKM) quark-mixing matrix. While superallowed pure Fermi decays currently set the most precise limits, the alternative suite of superallowed mixed mirror decays has been ill-studied. These nuclei can provide an important consistency check of calculation and measurement methods employed for the pure Fermi decays, more critically needed now in the wake of a 2.4σ deviation from unitarity of the CKM matrix. In order to remedy the gap in data for mirror decays, the Superallowed Transition Beta-Neutrino Decay Ion Coincidence Trap (St. Benedict) facility is being commissioned at the University of Notre Dame’s Nuclear Science Laboratory (NSL). In this paper, we present first results of the commissioning of the St. Benedict facility on-line at the TwinSol radioactive beam facility. The results of initial commissioning experiments involving the St. Benedict gas catcher, RF carpet, RFQ ion guide and RFQ cooler-buncher will be presented.

beta decay↗
DOE OSTI2026

Quantum utility-scale error mitigation for quantum quench dynamics in Heisenberg spin chains

Here, we implement a quantum error mitigation method termed self-mitigation, which is comparable to zero-noise extrapolation, at large scales to achieve quantum utility on near-term, noisy quantum computers. We investigate the effectiveness of several quantum error mitigation strategies, including self-mitigation, by simulating quantum quench dynamics for Heisenberg spin chains with system sizes up to 104 qubits using IBM quantum processors. In particular, we discuss the limitations of zero-noise extrapolation and the advantages offered by self-mitigation at large scales. The self-mitigation method demonstrates stable accuracy with large systems of 104 qubits comprising more than 3,000 CNOT gates. Also, we combine the discussed quantum error mitigation methods with practical entanglement entropy measuring methods, and it shows a good agreement with the theoretical estimation. Our study illustrates the usefulness of near-term noisy quantum hardware in examining the quantum quench dynamics of many-body systems at large scales and lays the groundwork for surpassing classical simulations with quantum methods prior to the development of fault-tolerant quantum computers.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Deep-field analytical calibration

The next generation of imaging surveys, including the Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST), Euclid, and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, will provide unprecedented constraints on cosmology using weak gravitational lensing. To fully exploit this statistical power, shear measurement methods must achieve sub- per cent accuracy while mitigating systematic biases from noise, the point-spread function (PSF), blending, and shear-dependent detection. The analytical calibration framework (AnaCal) has demonstrated such accuracy but requires adding noise to images, reducing effective depth. We introduce Deep-Field Analytical Calibration (DEEP-FIELD AnaCal), an extension of AnaCal that uses deep-field images to compute shear responses while preserving the statistical power of wide-field data. We validate DEEP-FIELD AnaCal on isolated and blended galaxy image simulations with LSST-like conditions, finding it meets the stringent requirement of multiplicative bias $|m| < 3\times 10^{-3}$ at 99.7 per cent confidence. Compared to standard AnaCal applied to wide-field images, DEEP-FIELD AnaCal increases the effective galaxy number density from 17 to 30 arcmin$^{-2}$ for simulated 10-yr LSST data. With deep fields $10\times$ longer than the wide field, we find pixel noise variance in shear estimation is reduced by 30 per cent and overall uncertainty by $\sim 25~{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$. Finally, using the LSST Deep Drilling Fields strategy, we assess sample variance and find an equivalent calibration uncertainty of $\lesssim 0.3~{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$. These results demonstrate that DEEP-FIELD AnaCal offers a promising path to achieve the required shear calibration for upcoming weak lensing surveys.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2026

Variation in surface properties as error sources in dynamic temperature measurements

Most temperature measurement methods rely upon the assumption of a single uniform source as part of the analysis in inferring an observed temperature T from the surface of a material. This is true for the radiometric and spectroscopic methods we rely upon in shock physics. However, there are obvious cases where this is a poor assumption that can cause large errors in analysis, such as the measurement of emission from a surface composed of more than one material, such as a rusted surface of Fe and Fe 2 O 3 , or a multi-material surface that could be produced through alloying methods (e.g., mokume gane) or 3D printing. Here we perform an initial examination of the effects of varied surface properties upon the analysis using idealized test data to constrain when we may have better confidence in the resulting calculations. We also examine the structures of the fits to test whether, in principle, comparing the fit with ideal gray bodies would reveal such a structure and enable the researcher to identify when a two-temperature fitting model should be used instead of a single- T model or a wavelength-dependent emissivity model.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

Mechanical Characterization of the NIF Ignition Target TMPSA Bonding Flexure

The Thermo-Mechanical Package Sub-Assembly (TMPSA) provides a critical mechanical, thermal, and electrical interface between a silicon arm and a TMP aluminum can in a NIF ignition target. During assembly, sixteen silicon pads are bonded to the aluminum using a fixture that positions the components and applies a repeatable prescribed displacement through a compliant flexure. The flexure converts fixture interference into displacement and reaction force. Because bondline thickness variation must be maintained within +/-4 µm, consistent flexure behavior is important to the assembly process. With a recent string of TMPSAs exhibiting low bond strength, the flexures were inspected. Despite being manufactured to the same specifications, flexures were found to exhibit variation in measured stiffness. Additionally, the measured stiffness values did not always follow the presumed beam mechanics model. This work addresses two questions: whether the bonding fixture is working as intended, and whether the previously made stiffness measurements are accurate representations of the use case. The flexures are analyzed using Euler-Bernoulli beam theory, measured beam dimensions, finite element analysis, and tolerance stack-up calculations. The analysis shows that the fixed-guided beam mechanics model appropriately represents the flexure during TMPSA bonding, but the chisel-tip stiffness measurement method introduces a deformation to the inner ring of the flexure that is not represented during use. The measured stiffness values should therefore be interpreted as test-condition stiffness values rather than direct measurements of operational flexure stiffness. The discrepancy is therefore attributed primarily to the measurement boundary condition rather than to failure of the fixed-guided beam model. Recommendations are provided for GD&T, dimensional inspection, and a representative stiffness testing method to better control bondline variation.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Summertime methane and carbon dioxide emission rates and associated variables from a national-scale survey of 146 reservoirs in the United States, 2016-2023

Reservoirs are globally important sources of greenhouse gases, but the magnitude of their emissions is highly uncertain. Here we present data for 146 reservoirs from two surveys of reservoir methane and carbon dioxide emissions, one at the regional scale in the midwestern United States and one at the national scale in the conterminous United States, plus data from one reservoir in Washington and another in Puerto Rico. At all reservoirs, ebullitive and diffusive emissions and basic physiochemistry were measured at 15-70 locations during one 22 to 64-hour period during the summers of 2016-2023, with four reservoirs revisited a second time. Concomitant water chemistry measurements were also made at an index site. The dataset is comprised of two geospatial files and seven .csv files containing greenhouse gas emissions, water chemistry, morphology, and other relevant data. These data comprise the largest multi-reservoir emissions dataset ever assembled using consistent measurement methods.

Beaulieu, Jake [University of Notre Dame, IN]↗
DOE OSTI2026

Location Identifiers, Metadata, and Map for Field Measurements at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory, Colorado, USA (Version 3.3)

This dataset contains identifiers, metadata, and a map of the locations where field measurements have been conducted at the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory located in the Upper Colorado River Basin, United States. This is version 3.3 of the dataset and replaces the prior version 3.2 (see below for details on changes between the versions). Dataset description: The East River-Taylor Watershed is the primary field site of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (WFSFA) and the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory. Researchers from several institutions generate highly diverse hydrological, biogeochemical, climate, vegetation, geological, remote sensing, and model data at the East-Taylor Watershed in collaboration with the WFSFA. Thus, the purpose of this dataset is to maintain an inventory of the field locations and instrumentation to provide information on the field activities in the East-Taylor Watershed and coordinate data collected across different locations, researchers, and institutions. The dataset contains (1) a README file with information on the various files, (2) three csv files describing the metadata collected for each surface point location, plot and region registered with the WFSFA, (3) csv files with metadata and contact information for each surface point location registered with the WFSFA, (4) a csv file with with metadata and contact information for plots, (5) a csv file with metadata for geographic regions and sub-regions within the watershed, (6) a compiled xlsx file with all the data and metadata which can be opened in Microsoft Excel, (7) a kml map of the locations plotted in the watershed which can be opened in Google Earth, (8) a jpg image of the kml map which can be viewed in any photo viewer, and (9) a zipped file with the registration templates used by the SFA team to collect location metadata. The zipped template file contains two csv files with the blank templates (point and plot), two csv files with instructions for filling out the location templates, and one compiled xlsx file with the instructions and blank templates together. Additionally, the templates in the xlsx include drop down validation for any controlled metadata fields. Persistent location identifiers (Location_ID) are determined by the WFSFA data management team and are used to track data and samples across locations. Dataset uses: This location metadata is used to update the Watershed SFA’s publicly accessible Field Information Portal (an interactive field sampling metadata exploration tool; https://wfsfa-data.lbl.gov/watershed/), the kml map file included in this dataset, and other data management tools internal to the Watershed SFA team. Version Information: The latest version of this dataset publication is version 3.3. This version contains 167 new point locations, 1 new plot, and 2 new geographic regions. Overall, there are a total of 1439 point locations, 75 plots, and 54 geographic regions. Additionally, the kml map of locations and image now includes two boundaries (Upper Ohio Creek (UO) and Carbon Creek (CA)) outside of the East River watershed (USGS HUC-10) and accompanying stream network that represents areas of focus. Refer to methods for further details on the version history. This dataset will be updated on a periodic basis with new measurement location information. Researchers interested in having their East-Taylor Watershed measurement locations added to this list should reach out to the WFSFA data management team at wfsfa-data@googlegroups.com. Acknowledgments: Please cite this dataset if using any of the location metadata in other publications or derived products. If using the location metadata for the 2018 NEON hyperspectral campaign, additionally cite Chadwick et al. (2020). doi:10.15485/1618130. 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. Part of this work was performed at SLAC Accelerator Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-76SF00515.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗