Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Specifiation”

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 OSTI2024

A Comparative Metagenomic Analysis of Specified Microorganisms in Groundwater for Non-Sterilized Pharmaceutical Products

In pharmaceutical manufacturing, ensuring product safety involves the detection and identification of microorganisms with human pathogenic potential, including Burkholderia cepacia complex (BCC), Escherichia coli, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Salmonella enterica, Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium sporogenes, Candida albicans, and Mycoplasma spp., some of which may be missed or not identified by traditional culture-dependent methods. In this study, we employed a metagenomic approach to detect these taxa, avoiding the limitations of conventional cultivation methods. We assessed the groundwater microbiome’s taxonomic and functional features from samples collected at two locations in the spring and summer. All datasets comprised 436–557 genera with Proteobacteria, Bacteroidota, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Cyanobacteria accounting for > 95% of microbial DNA sequences. The aforementioned species constituted less than 18.3% of relative abundance. Escherichia and Salmonella were mainly detected in Hot Springs, relative to Jefferson, while Clostridium and Pseudomonas were mainly found in Jefferson relative to Hot Springs. Multidrug resistance efflux pumps and BlaR1 family regulatory sensor-transducer disambiguation dominated in Hot Springs and in Jefferson. These initial results provide insight into the detection of specified microorganisms and could constitute a framework for the establishment of comprehensive metagenomic analysis for the microbiological evaluation of pharmaceutical-grade water and other non-sterile pharmaceutical products, ensuring public safety.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

On the minimum number of radiation field parameters to specify gas cooling and heating functions

Fast and accurate approximations of gas cooling and heating functions are needed for hydrodynamic galaxy simulations. We use machine learning to analyze atomic gas cooling and heating functions in the presence of a generalized incident local radiation field computed by Cloudy. We characterize the radiation field through binned radiation field intensities instead of the photoionization rates used in our previous work. We find a set of 6 energy bins whose intensities exhibit relatively low correlation. We use these bins as features to train machine learning models to predict Cloudy cooling and heating functions at fixed metallicity. We compare the relative SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) value importance of the features. From the SHAP analysis, we identify a feature subset of 3 energy bins (0.5-1, 1-4, and 13-16Ry) with the largest importance and train additional models on this subset. We compare the mean squared errors and distribution of errors on both the entire training data table and a randomly selected 20% test set withheld from model training. The machine learning models trained with 3 and 6 bins, as well as 3 and 4 photoionization rates, have comparable accuracy everywhere, with errors ≳10 times smaller than for the interpolation table of Gnedin and Hollon (2012). We conclude that 3 energy bins (or 3 analogous photoionization rates: molecular hydrogen photodissociation, neutral hydrogen HI, and fully ionized carbon CVI) are sufficient to characterize the dependence of the gas cooling and heating functions on our assumed incident radiation field model.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
DOE OSTI2025

On the minimum number of radiation field parameters to specify gas cooling and heating functions

Fast and accurate approximations of gas cooling and heating functions are needed for hydrodynamic galaxy simulations. We use machine learning to analyze atomic gas cooling and heating functions computed by Cloudy in the presence of a generalized incident local radiation field. We characterize the radiation field through binned radiation field intensities instead of the photoionization rates used in our previous work. We find a set of 6 energy bins whose intensities exhibit relatively low correlation. We use these bins as features to train machine learning models to predict Cloudy cooling and heating functions at fixed metallicity. We compare the relative SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) value importance of the features. From the SHAP analysis, we identify a feature subset of 3 energy bins ($0.5-1, 1-4$, and $13-16 \, \mathrm{Ry}$) with the largest importance and train additional models on this subset. We compare the mean squared errors and distribution of errors on both the entire training data table and a randomly selected 20% test set withheld from model training. The machine learning models trained with 3 and 6 bins, as well as 3 and 4 photoionization rates, have comparable accuracy everywhere, with errors $\gtrsim 10$ times smaller than for the interpolation table of Gnedin and Hollon (2012). We conclude that 3 energy bins (or 3 analogous photoionization rates: molecular hydrogen photodissociation, neutral hydrogen HI, and fully ionized carbon CVI) are sufficient to characterize the dependence of the gas cooling and heating functions on our assumed incident radiation field model.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS↗
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 OSTI2025

Test Report for the Regulatory Testing of the Welded Isotek-SFC-W-3 Special Form Capsule

Two prototypes the welded ISOTEK-SFC-W-3 special form capsules (SFCs) of the same design were evaluated to determine if the requirements of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 173.469, Tests for Special Form Class 7 (Radioactive) Materials, were met. The results of the special form tests are documented in this test report. This report describes the special form testing activities performed on the two welded ISOTEK-SFC-W-3 capsules. The test units were designated as TU-1 and TU-2. TU-1 was subjected to leak testing, percussion testing, and impact testing. TU-1 was leak tested using the leak rate test specified in 49 CFR 173.469(a)(4)(i). The impact test on TU-1 was conducted according to the requirements in 49 CFR 173.469 (b)(1). The percussion test that was carried out on TU-1 was conducted in accordance with 49 CFR 173.469 (b)(2). TU-2 was subjected to a leak rate test as specified in 173.469(a)(4)(i) and a heat test as specified in 49 CFR 173.469(b)(4). Each test unit was leak tested before and after these respective tests. The leak rate tests performed were helium back-pressure tests and bubble tests, as specified in American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N14.5-2014. The measured leak rates were converted to standard condition leak rates as specified in American Society for Testing and Measurement (ASTM) E 493. The determined standardized leak rates obtained from the test and the calculations for all the test units met the requirements for special form certification. The testing was performed under the direction of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Package Testing Program (PTP).

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
DOE OSTI2025

SSAPy - Space Situational Awareness for Python

SSAPy is a fast and flexible orbit modeling and analysis tool for orbits spanning from low-Earth into the cislunar regime. Orbits can be flexibly specified from common input formats such as Keplerian elements or two-line element (TLE) data files. SSAPy allows users to model satellites and specify parameters such as satellite area, mass, and drag coefficients. SSAPy includes a customizable force-propagation with a range of Earth, Lunar, radiation, atmospheric, and maneuvering models. SSAPy makes use of various community integration methods and can calculate time-evolved orbital quantities, including satellite magnitudes and state vectors. Users can specify various space- and ground-based observation models with support for multiple coordinate and reference frames. SSAPy also supports orbit analysis and propagation methods such as multiple hypothesis tracking and has built-in uncertainty quantification. The majority of SSAPy’s methods are vectorized and parallelizable, allowing for effective use of high-performance computer (HPC) systems. Finally, SSAPy has plotting functionality, allowing users to visualize orbits and trajectories. Examples are shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
DOE OSTI2024

Test Stand Functional Requirements for Testing MQXFA Magnets and Q1/Q3 Cryostat Assemblies (Rev.3)

This document specifies test stand requirements for testing the High Luminosity LHC (HL-LHC, or HiLumi LHC) MQXFA magnets and LQXFA/B cryostat assemblies. Total of 12 (3 pre-series, 7 series production and 2 re-work) of these cryostat assemblies are expected to be fabricated and delivered to CERN by the U.S. HL-LHC Accelerator Upgrade Project (US HL-LHC AUP) as part of the U.S. contributions to the LHC High Luminosity Upgrade. These cryostat assemblies are the quadrupole magnetic components of the HL-LHC Q1 (LQXFA) and Q3 (LQXFB) inner triplet optical elements in front of the interactions points 1 (ATLAS) and 5 (CMS). One LMQXFA cold mass is installed in each cryostat assembly and each cold mass consists of two MQXFA quadrupole magnets. MQXFA, LMQXFA and LQXFA/B functional requirements are specified in [1,2,3].MQXFA magnets will be tested at BNL Vertical Magnet Test Facility (VMTF) and 12 cryostat assembly tests planned at Fermilab’s Horizontal Magnet Test Facility (HMTF). This document specifies the test stand functional requirements for testing MQXFA magnets and LQXFA/B cryostat assemblies.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

LAMP Emittance Budget, Rev. 1

This report summarizes the performance limits of the LANSCE Coupled-Cavity Linac (CCL). These results are captured or summarized directly from the references cited. This report was written in support of the LANSCE Modernization Project (LAMP). This brief report summarizes the emittance budget for the LANSCE Modernization Project (LAMP). While the project Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) specify threshold and objective requirements for charge delivered to each experimental area, no upper limits on beam emittances are specified. To maintain low losses in the high-energy section of the LANSCE linac and hands-on maintenance, some upper limits on beam emittance need to be specified for the new LAMP front-end performance. The scope of the LAMP project replaces the injector section and drift-tube linac (DTL) up to 100 MeV of the existing LANSCE linac. This new design replacement will be integrated with the remaining coupled cavity linac (CCL) which makes up most of the accelerator at LANSCE and accelerates the beam to a final energy of 800 MeV. The initial approach that has been used to define an emittance budget for the new LAMP front end is based on recent and historical measured beam emittances at 100 MeV for the three beam types accelerated at LANSCE: H+ (protons for isotope production), LBEG (H- beam for delivery to proton radiography and to the Lujan neutron spallation target, and MPEG (H- beam for delivery to the Weapons Neutron Research facility). The emittance budget (upper limit) for each beam type has been selected to maintain the losses in the CCL to a level approximately equivalent to those observed in present operations to first order. However, the goal of the LAMP project is to improve the quality of the beams injected into the CCL, if possible, thus allowing for higher average current operation while also lowering beam losses and activation at high beam energies. The table below summarizes the beam measurements evaluated and used to establish a conservative emittance budget for LAMP based on known historical beam losses and activation. However, based on estimates of the CCL admittance and the Isotope Production Facility (IPF) beamline acceptance, a more relaxed transverse emittance upper limit of 0.095 π-cm-mrad, rms, normalized may be acceptable at 100 MeV while still meeting the LAMP performance requirements for charge delivery to each LANSCE experimental area and maintaining hands-on maintenance. This upper limit is supported by a recent analysis of operational data. Additionally, the present conceptual LAMP front-end design meets this requirement.

43 PARTICLE ACCELERATORS↗
DOE OSTI2025

Blending Pipeline Analysis Tool for Hydrogen (BlendPATH) Documentation and User Manual

The Blending Pipeline Analysis Tool for Hydrogen (BlendPATH) is a flexible, open-source Python tool designed to provide users with case-by-case analysis capabilities to identify the necessary modifications to repurpose existing natural gas transmission pipeline networks to transport hydrogen as a blend of a user-specified volume fraction of hydrogen or as a pure stream and to estimate the associated capital and operating expenditures resulting from those modifications. This tool is intended to be applied during the initial screening stage of a prospective project when pipeline developers compile transmission pipeline technical documentation and history but prior to performing detailed pipeline inspections. Performing analysis with BlendPATH during this initial screening stage can provide the user with an understanding of promising opportunities and probable economic outcomes of repurposing their pipeline network for hydrogen before proceeding with detailed pipeline materials testing and pipeline inspections. BlendPATH consists of multiple modules to simulate, assess, and modify existing natural gas transmission pipeline network designs to be compatible with hydrogen as a blend or pure stream. The tool employs an open-source gas network hydraulic model to simulate existing, user-specified transmission pipeline networks, and it applies ASME B31.12 to assess the pipe segments within these networks for compatibility with hydrogen and to modify the networks to achieve compatibility where the existing infrastructure is inadequate. Users can specify ASME B31.12 design options for pipeline assessment and can select from multiple methods for pipeline modification. This report details the functionalities of BlendPATH Version 2.0.2 and demonstrates an example of applying BlendPATH to a case study. Potential and intended users of this framework include natural gas pipeline developers and operators and researchers at both public and private institutions. BlendPATH is publicly available at https://github.com/NREL/BlendPATH.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2025

Automated shaker placement and regularized input estimation for MIMO testing.

Multi-input, multi-output (MIMO) testing is used in component qualification to reproduce operational responses in the laboratory. It is often preferred to single-input and base-shake testing because of the potential for equivalent or better tests using smaller actuators and shorter test suites. Given a target response, two key steps in MIMO test design are selecting actuator locations and solving for input loads. Actuator locations are often manually selected using expert judgment. If an automatic method is used, locations are usually determined by simulating the vibration control problem and minimizing a combination of the input energy and control residuals. To select a configuration, the relative importance of input energy and residuals must be specified. Specifying relative weights is, in general, a manual and subjective process. This paper develops an objective function that compares actuator configurations based on control accuracy and required input energy without any manual parameter tuning. The objective function uses an optimally selected tradeoff parameter for each candidate configuration. To choose actuator locations using the new objective function, a pivoting algorithm for integer programming problems is developed. Starting with an initial configuration (such as the one generated by a greedy algorithm), the pivoting algorithm guarantees an objective function decrease in each iteration until convergence is reached. In a simulation featuring a structure excited by a diffuse acoustic field, electrodynamic shaker locations and regularized inputs are solved for without any analyst-specified parameters. Simulations are performed in MIMO configurations where the number of target responses is less than, equal to, and greater than the number of actuators.

Multi-input multi-output↗
DOE OSTI2024

The atmospheric effect of aerosols on future tropical cyclone frequency and precipitation in the Energy Exascale Earth System Model

This study uses experiments from the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM) to compare the influence on tropical cyclone (TC) activity of: (i) the atmospheric effect of aerosols under specified sea-surface temperatures (SSTs); and (ii) the net effect of greenhouse gases (GhGs) (including changes in SSTs). The experiments were performed using the CMIP6 Shared Socioeconomic Pathway SSP5-8.5 emissions scenario with GhG-induced SST warming specified and atmospheric aerosol effects simulated but without explicit ocean coupling. Insignificant changes in global TC frequency are found in response to the atmospheric effect of future aerosols and GhGs, as significant regional responses in TC frequency counteract each other. Future GhGs contribute to more frequent TCs in the North Atlantic, and reductions over the Northwestern Pacific and Southern Indian Ocean. The atmospheric effect of future aerosols drives more frequent TCs over the Northwestern Pacific and reductions over the Northeast Pacific and North Atlantic. Along with increases in TC intensity, global TC precipitation (TCP) is projected to increase by 52.8% (14.1%/K) due to the combined effect of future aerosols and GhGs. Although both forcings contribute to TCP increases (14.7–19.3% from reduced aerosols alone and 28.1–33.3% from increased GhGs alone), they lead to different responses in the spatial structure of TCP. TCP increases preferentially in the inner-core due to increased GhGs, whereas TCP decreases in the inner-core and increases in the outer-bands in response to the atmospheric effects of decreased aerosols. These changes are distinct from those caused by aerosol-induced SST changes, which have been considered in other studies.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

The Surface-Topography Challenge: A Multi-Laboratory Benchmark Study to Advance the Characterization of Topography

Surface performance is critically influenced by topography in virtually all real-world applications. The current standard practice is to describe topography using one of a few industry-standard parameters. The most commonly reported number is Ra, the average absolute deviation of the height from the mean line (at some, not necessarily known or specified, lateral length scale). However, other parameters, particularly those that are scale-dependent, influence surface and interfacial properties; for example the local surface slope is critical for visual appearance, friction, and wear. The present Surface-Topography Challenge was launched to raise awareness for the need of a multi-scale description, but also to assess the reliability of different metrology techniques. In the resulting international collaborative effort, 153 scientists and engineers from 64 research groups and companies across 20 countries characterized statistically equivalent samples from two different surfaces: a “rough” and a “smooth” surface. The results of the 2088 measurements constitute the most comprehensive surface description ever compiled. We find wide disagreement across measurements and techniques when the lateral scale of the measurement is ignored. Consensus is established through scale-dependent parameters while removing data that violates an established resolution criterion and deviates from the majority measurements at each length scale. Our findings suggest best practices for characterizing and specifying topography. The public release of the accumulated data and presented analyses enables global reuse for further scientific investigation and benchmarking.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2026

Dataset describing two reference models for full-spectral lighting and daylight simulations together with implementations for two software systems

A dataset of two spectral lighting simulation reference models - one office and one factory hall - is presented. It aims to demonstrate and support full-spectral daylight and electric lighting simulations and facilitate evaluation of non-visual effects of light. The dataset includes Rhino CAD geometry, comprehensive spectral material and light source data and window system BSDF data. Example implementations in the two software tools, Radiance and OWL, enable reproducible workflows and support adoption in other software. The dataset is openly available on Zenodo. The office model reproduces Room 518 at the University of Innsbruck, including a west-facing façade and interior furnishings. The factory hall model follows the proposed geometry in the European standard 15193 for building energy performance. Interior reflectances in the office were measured in-situ using a handheld spectrometer. Exterior spectra and factory hall materials matching specified reflectances were obtained from an online spectral materials database. Glazing transmittance was derived from IGDB data using LBNL Optics/WINDOW. BSDFs for venetian blinds at various tilt angles, and for a diffusing pane adapted from the Complex Glazing Database, were generated in WINDOW. Luminaires in both models are specified with photometric files (Eulumdat/IES) and lamp spectra (Fluorescent 840, 4000 K LED). The provided example implementations (Radiance, OWL) include prepared input data and scripts to run first spectral simulations; example results are also included. The dataset is prepared to support reuse by researchers, designers and software developers for method validation, software engineering and comparison, and development of spectral metrics and controls.

Geisler-Moroder, David↗
DOE OSTI2026

Multi-Objective design of interlocking metasurfaces using conditional diffusion models

Unit cell design remains a major challenge for interlocking metasurfaces, a promising joining technology for dissimilar materials, due to the complex, competing, multivariate design space and the need for rapid adaptation to varying performance requirements. This study explores Conditional Diffusion Models as a design optimization tool for interlocking metasurfaces. Given the complex, competing, multivariate design space for interlocking metasurfaces, unit cell design remains a major challenge for this joining technology. We trained a conditional diffusion model on 25,000 finite element analysis-simulated interlocking metasurface unit cells to generate designs with tailored thermo-mechanical properties (tensile strength, shear strength, and thermal conductivity) based on specified performance criteria. The model demonstrated a success rate of approximately 72 % in producing designs that met specified property bounds. The conditional diffusion model generated both thermally resistive and conductive designs, revealing clear trends in design characteristics: taller, dendritic structures were advantageous for tensile loads, while shorter, robust designs excelled in shear applications. Our findings indicate that the model's performance is more influenced by the breadth of the design space than by the quantity of training data, highlighting the importance of expansive design domains for generating innovative solutions. This work establishes conditional diffusion models as a highly efficient and adaptable tool for rapid interlocking metasurface unit cell design, paving the way for advancements in multi-material joining technologies, as well as highlighting the justification to leverage conditional diffusion models as design tools across complex design domains.

Conditional diffusion models↗
DOE OSTI2024

Aerial drone fleet deployment optimization with endogenous battery replacements for direct delivery of time-sensitive products

Aerial drones offer a distinct potential to reduce the delivery time and energy consumption for the delivery of time-sensitive and small products. However, there is still a need in the relevant industry to understand the performance of drone-based delivery under different business needs and drone operating conditions. We studied a drone deployment optimization problem for direct delivery of time-sensitive products with release dates to customers maintaining a specified time window. This paper presents a new mixed-integer programming model, new valid inequalities, a new greedy heuristic algorithm, and a Genetic algorithm to help business owners optimally schedule and route their drone fleet minimizing the required fleet size, the required number of additional batteries, and total energy consumption. A realistic feature of the optimization method is that instead of replacing the drone battery after each return to the depot, it keeps track of the remaining energy in the drone battery and decides on battery replacements accounting for the drone routing and the user-specified minimum required battery energy. Numerical results based on real data from drone flight tests and prepared food delivery industry provide insights into the effect of different practical drone operating parameters on the required fleet size, the required number of battery replacements, and energy consumption. Here, results demonstrate that the proposed heuristic algorithm substantially outperforms the accelerated CPLEX in runtime while sacrificing the solution quality by a small amount. Additionally, results show that using a mixed fleet of hexacopter and quadcopter drones reduces the total energy consumption by 48.52% compared to using a homogeneous fleet of only hexacopters.

Drone energy consumption↗
DOE OSTI2024

Constrained Turret Defense with Fixed Final Time

In this paper, we extend existing turret defense differential game formulations involving a turn-constrained turret and mobile agent to include specified final time and a constraint. For the purposes of this analysis, the specified final time may represent some exogenous input, perhaps representing the time at which some other event will take place. As for the constraint, it represents a no-fly zone for the mobile agent. The scenario is formulated as a two-player, zero-sum differential game and solved via the method of characteristics (i.e., back-propagation of equilibrium trajectories). Three different trajectory types make up the solution: trajectories that end with the turret aligned with the mobile agent, trajectories that end with the mobile agent on the constraint boundary, and regular trajectories.

differential game, game theory↗