SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
These best practices provide technical information to select the appropriate water meters on buildings that have been identified and to understand how data can be used and analyzed to improve water management. The guidance focuses on the installation of advanced meters and includes a process that directs agencies on how to prioritize their buildings for water meters. The process centers on metering water-intensive building types.
The Federal Metering Guidance documents the metering provisions in EO 13834, Efficient Federal Operations and other metering related statutory requirements. This document provides the meter-related reporting requirements for Federal agencies, specifies a method to verify the existence of currently installed building-level meters, provides guidelines on prioritizing the implementation of advanced energy and water meters, sets the schedule for agencies to update their five-year metering plans, provides the minimum requirements that agencies must meet when updating their five-year metering plans along with recommend elements for an effective plan.
This Incubator project has defined and developed a representation of an active hybrid mooring (AHM) system in Simulink to assess whether the speed and accuracy of AHM is sufficient to warrant further investigation in a larger project. We first built a representative mooring system for the VolturnUS-S 15MW floating offshore wind turbine (FOWT) in 1,000-meter water depth to provide baseline loads and displacements needed in the AHM system, with the results showing off-the-shelf actuators would be practical. We then defined model configurations for the numerical and physical substructures, using standalone MoorDyn v2 with a novel input strategy and chained hydraulic actuators represented in Simulink Simscape, respectively. The remainder of the project has focused on verifying the existing models for speed and accuracy against OpenFAST simulations, increasing their complexity to enable six degree of freedom (6DOF) operation, and connecting the numerical and physical substructures into a single holistic model. The verification phase of the project has shown promising results, though further refinement is needed to resolve accuracy discrepancies and for robust performance across a wider range of metocean conditions. The numerical model we developed is computationally stable and operates faster than real time using a time step of 0.01 seconds or shorter, indicating the model is likely fast enough for our AHM design to operate successfully. Additionally, the Simscape model of a hydraulic actuator operates with less than 0.3% relative error when actuating mooring loads from an OpenFAST simulation of the VolturnUS-S 1,000-meter mooring system. The aforementined refinements will be performed in the next year as a Continuing Incubator, with key remaining tasks include programming the predictor-corrector loop to minimize movement error, testing against more complex nonlinear wave cases, and expanding to enable loads from connected shared mooring lines.
Ionizing radiation has been shown to reduce the performance of superconducting quantum circuits. In this report, we evaluate the expected contributions of different sources of ambient radioactivity for typical superconducting qubit experiment platforms. Our assessment of radioactivity inside a typical cryostat highlights the importance of selecting appropriate materials for the experiment components nearest to qubit devices, such as packaging and electrical interconnects. We present a shallow underground facility (30-meter water equivalent) to reduce the flux of cosmic rays and a lead shielded cryostat to abate the naturally occurring radiogenic gamma-ray flux in the laboratory environment. We predict that superconducting qubit devices operated in this facility could experience a reduced rate of correlated multi-qubit errors by a factor of approximately 20 relative to the rate in a typical above-ground, unshielded facility. Finally, we outline overall design improvements that would be required to further reduce the residual ionizing radiation rate, down to the limit of current generation direct detection dark matter experiments.
We report a search for a magnetic monopole component of the cosmic-ray flux in a 2743-live-day exposure of the NOvA experiment's Far Detector, a 14 kt segmented liquid scintillator detector designed primarily to observe GeV-scale electron neutrinos. No events consistent with monopoles were observed, setting an upper limit on the flux of $8\times 10^{-16}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}s^{-1}sr^{-1}}$ at 90% C.L. for monopole speed $6\times 10^{-4} < β< 5\times 10^{-3}$ and mass greater than $10^{9}$ GeV. Because of NOvA's small overburden of 3 meters-water equivalent, this constraint covers a previously unexplored low-mass region.
Devens Reserve Forces Training Area is a United States Army Reserve (USAR) Installation that struggles with severe water leaks, often causing significant damage to the facility and requiring major renovation. Traditional water use is highly dependent on occupancy, so it can be difficult to benchmark a facility’s water use. It can be exceptionally difficult when occupancy is transient and/or varies. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) collaborated with Devens to implement real-time monitoring of their water consumption by utilizing the smart meter data from their existing 23 water meters. PNNL created a simple algorithm to calculate hourly water consumption and trigger an alert to be instantly emailed to Devens’ personnel when there appears to be a water leak in any building with a smart water meter. Here, this approach is expected to save hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary water consumption costs and damages from leaks and was implemented with little-to-no costs or service disruptions. Next steps for this project include slow leak detection through nighttime monitoring and to extrapolate this water leak approach to the remainder 360 water meters on USAR’s Enterprise Building Control System so USAR sites across the country can be instantly notified of potential water leaks.
Symmetrical wave ripples identified with NASA’s Curiosity rover in ancient lake deposits at Gale crater provide a key paleoclimate constraint for early Mars: At the time of ripple formation, climate conditions must have supported ice-free liquid water on the surface of Mars. These features are the most definitive examples of wave ripples on another planet. The ripples occur in two stratigraphic intervals within the orbitally defined Layered Sulfate Unit: a thin but laterally extensive unit at the base of the Amapari member of the Mirador formation, and a sandstone lens within the Contigo member of the Mirador formation. In both locations, the ripples have an average wavelength of ~4.5 centimeters. Internal laminae and ripple morphology show an architecture common in wave-influenced environments where wind-generated surface gravity waves mobilize bottom sediment in oscillatory flows. Their presence suggests formation in a shallow-water (<2 meters) setting that was open to the atmosphere, which requires atmospheric conditions that allow stable surface water.
Soil hydraulic properties are often estimated based on laboratory data or pedotransfer functions dependent on soil physical properties, which often do not consider potential impacts of soil roots or fungal hyphae. Here, we first review current knowledge of how these soil biotic components affect hydraulic properties, then we conducted laboratory experiments to specifically test if the presence of roots and mycorrhizal fungi had a significant effect on the hydraulic properties of two soils with contrasting textures: Flint sand and Hamblen silt loam. Soil cores were seeded with (Panicum virgatum) and grown in a greenhouse over three separate growth periods. The endophytic fungus Serendipita indica was injected as liquid inoculant into designated mycorrhizal cores. Saturated hydraulic conductivity (K sat ) measurements were made with a constant head permeameter, and soil water retention curves were obtained by the evaporation method, supplemented at the dry end for Hamblen silt loam with water activity meter data. Retention curve parameters were obtained by fitting the van Genuchten equation to the resulting measurements. Mean root volume ratios were higher in the mycorrhizal inoculated treatment than in the uninoculated treatment for both soils. For Flint sand, analysis of variance revealed that K sat was reduced by the presence of roots as compared to bare soil. This was likely due to roots clogging soil pores. Results also indicated the presence of roots changed the shape of the water retention curve for Flint sand by increasing water content at saturation and by reducing the slope of the curve. These changes suggested roots created additional porosity and broadened the pore-size distribution. The presence of mycorrhizal fungi accentuated the root effects. The influence of roots and mycorrhizal fungi on hydraulic properties was less obvious for the Hamblen silt loam, as none of the treatments differed from each other at p < 0.05. The results highlight the necessity to consider the impact of root and fungal structures on models of soil hydraulic properties.
Abstract There are over 52,000 dams in the contiguous US ranging from 0.5 to 243 meters high that collectively hold 600,000 million cubic meters of water. These structures have dramatically affected the river dynamics of every major watershed in the country. While there are national datasets that document dam attributes, there is no national dataset of reservoir operations. Here we present a dataset of historical reservoir inflows, outflows and changes in storage for 679 major reservoirs across the US, called ResOpsUS. All of the data are provided at a daily temporal resolution. Temporal coverage varies by reservoir depending on construction date and digital data availability. Overall, the data spans from 1930 to 2020, although the best coverage is for the most recent years, particularly 1980 to 2020. The reservoirs included in our dataset cover more than half of the total storage of large reservoirs in the US (defined as reservoirs with storage greater 0.1 km 3 ). We document the assembly process of this dataset as well as its contents. Historical operations are also compared to static reservoir attribute datasets for validation.
We present constraints on low-mass dark matter electron scattering and absorption interactions using a SuperCDMS high-voltage eV-resolution (HVeV) detector. Data were taken underground in the NEXUS facility located at Fermilab with an overburden of 225 meters of water equivalent. The experiment benefits from the minimizing of luminescence from the printed circuit boards in the detector holder used in all previous HVeV studies. A blind analysis of 6.1 g · days of exposure produces exclusion limits for dark matter-electron scattering cross sections for masses as low as 1 MeV/𝑐 2 , as well as on the photon-dark photon mixing parameter and the coupling constant between axionlike particles and electrons for particles with masses >1.2 eV/𝑐 2 probed via absorption processes.
This article presents constraints on dark-matter-electron interactions obtained from the first underground data-taking campaign with multiple SuperCDMS HVeV detectors operated in the same housing. An exposure of 7.63 g−days is used to set upper limits on the dark-matter-electron scattering cross section for dark matter masses between 0.5 and 1000 MeV/𝑐 2 , as well as upper limits on dark photon kinetic mixing and axionlike particle axioelectric coupling for masses between 1.2 and 23.3 eV/𝑐 2 . Compared to an earlier HVeV search, sensitivity was improved as a result of an increased overburden of 225 meters of water equivalent, an anticoincidence event selection, and better pile-up rejection. In the case of dark-matter-electron scattering via a heavy mediator, an improvement by up to a factor of 25 in cross section sensitivity was achieved.
We present constraints on low mass dark matter-electron scattering and absorption interactions using a SuperCDMS high-voltage eV-resolution (HVeV) detector. Data were taken underground in the NEXUS facility located at Fermilab with an overburden of 225 meters of water equivalent. The experiment benefits from the minimizing of luminescence from the printed circuit boards in the detector holder used in all previous HVeV studies. A blind analysis of $6.1\,\mathrm{g\cdot days}$ of exposure produces exclusion limits for dark matter-electron scattering cross-sections for masses as low as $1\,\mathrm{MeV}/c^2$, as well as on the photon-dark photon mixing parameter and the coupling constant between axion-like particles and electrons for particles with masses $>1.2\,\mathrm{eV}/c^2$ probed via absorption processes.
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.
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.
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.
Whiting events—the episodic precipitation of fine-grained suspended calcium carbonates in the water column—have been documented across a variety of marine and lacustrine environments. Whitings likely are a major source of carbonate muds, a constituent of limestones, and important archives for geochemical proxies of Earth history. While several biological and physical mechanisms have been proposed to explain the onset of these precipitation events, no consensus has been reached thus far. Fayetteville Green Lake (New York, USA) is a meromictic lake that experiences annual whitings. Materials suspended in the water column collected through the whiting season were characterized using scanning electron microscopy and scanning transmission X-ray microscopy. Whitings in Fayetteville Green Lake are initiated in the spring within the top few meters of the water column, by precipitation of fine amorphous calcium carbonate (ACC) phases nucleating on microbial cells, as well as on abundant extracellular polymeric substances (EPS) frequently associated with centric diatoms. Whiting particles found in the summer consist of 5–7 μm calcite grains forming aggregates with diatoms and EPS. Simple calculations demonstrate that calcite particles continuously grow over several days, then sink quickly through the water column. In the late summer, partial calcium carbonate dissolution is observed deeper in the water column. Settling whiting particles, however, reach the bottom of the lake, where they form a major constituent of the sediment, along with diatom frustules. The role of diatoms and associated EPS acting as nucleation surfaces for calcium carbonates is described for the first time here as a potential mechanism participating in whitings at Fayetteville Green Lake. This mechanism may have been largely overlooked in other whiting events in modern and ancient environments.
Former operations in the 100-KE Area at the Hanford Site resulted in vadose zone hexavalent chromium that provides a source of groundwater contamination. Previous efforts to remediate vadose zone chromium involved excavation and offsite treatment of contaminated soils. Although much of the chromium was removed, contamination still exists in native soil between the water table and the bottom of the pit, which has since been backfilled. In-situ soil flushing was tested at the 100-KE Area to accelerate the removal of the remaining hexavalent chromium in the vadose zone. Soil flushing works by applying clean flush water at the surface, which mobilizes and transports chromium as it migrates downward to the water table. Once the chromium reaches the water table, it is hydraulically contained, extracted, and treated through pump and treat operations. The efficacy of soil flushing is directly related to the volume of clean water that infiltrates through contaminated soils. Therefore, performance monitoring requires and understanding of flush water migration through the vadose zone. It is challenging to comprehensively assess soil flushing performance via borehole access due to the limited volume of investigation afforded by a given wellbore. As an alternative, 3D time-lapse electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) was tested as a method of monitoring the distribution of flush water over time within the vadose zone. ERT is a method of imaging the bulk electrical conductivity of the subsurface, which is highly dependent on water saturation levels in unconsolidated and unsaturated sediments. Thus, the timing and location of changes in bulk conductivity caused by soil flushing can be used to infer flush water migration pathways. In this report we present results of 3D time-lapse ERT imaging during two separate soil flushing campaigns conducted during the spring and summer months of 2022 and 2023. Results show generally that: 1) Pit backfill materials appear to nominally have larger permeability than native soils. Consequently, the boundary between pit backfill and native soil had a significant impact on flush water migration, causing some flush water to migrate along the pit boundary to the bottom of the pit. 2) Non-uniform flows, likely caused by variations in hydrogeologic properties, developed in the pit backfill materials, resulting in uneven flush water distribution on the southern margin of the soil flushing zone. 3) Redistribution of water at the interface between backfill materials and Hanford formation materials likely facilitated elevated and uniform distribution of flush water within native soils beneath the deeper parts of the pit boundary beneath the center of the flush zone, which presumably overlie soils with elevated chromium contamination. These areas appear to have been infiltrated by higher volumes of flush water than the northern and southern margins of the flush zone. 4) In comparison to 2022, high flush water application rates significantly improved flush water distribution throughout the target flushing zone. 5) Imaging resolution was limited to a depth of approximate 20 meters below the land surface, due primarily to limitations on the lateral extent of the surface ERT array. The ~10 m region of the vadose zone between approximately 130 meters elevation and the water table at approximately 120 meters elevation was unresolved.
Submersible multistage centrifugal pumps are ideal for pumping in narrow confined spaces and achieving necessary head pressures and flow rates. Once a diameter is determined then manipulation of the number of stages and motor speed are all that are required to meet desired flow conditions. The Versatile Test Reactor (VTR) closed loop cartridge systems will need forced convection cooling independent of the main reactor. A multistage centrifugal pump can meet the necessary flow rates and pumping pressures while minimizing space taken. The pump considered for this work was based off a deep well submersible pump, a variation of a multistage centrifugal pump. We experimented with two pump sizes, 5 cm (2 inch) and 7.5 cm (3 inch) diameters. These diameters were chosen to fit into the inner diameter of standard 5 and 7.5 (2 and 3 inch) Schedule 40 pipe, respectively. This made the design for the test loop both simpler and less expensive as the need for an engineered pump housing was eliminated. Initial test cartridge planning indicated space for only a 5 cm (2 inch) diameter pump, though early testing of this size showed the need for an abnormally high-speed and high-power motor. Fine tuning of the cartridge design allowed a pump size increase to 7.5 cm (3 inches), which was the pump size most extensively tested in this work. The test loop is composed of various sizes of PVC and aluminum piping components in a loop configuration. The pump is driven by a Pittman 250 W (1/3 horsepower) electric motor with maximum speed of 3,450 RPM. Testing consisted of running the pump at a constant motor speed while varying a control valve to restrict flow through the loop, with differential pressure and flow rate recorded. This was done for one and two stage configurations for the 5 cm (2 inch) diameter impeller design and one, two, and three stage configurations for the 7.5 cm (3 inch diameter) impeller design, respectively. Due to pumping power requirements, two and three stage 7.5 cm (3 inch) diameter impeller testing at higher flowrates lowered the motor speed substantially. In regions where motor speed could not be maintained constant, the data were discarded. The test loop was also reconfigured to allow for the pump to be tested for pressure drop in a stalled or inoperable (0 RPM) flow condition. Demonstration of adequate natural convection cooling of the test cartridge fuel type is necessary under accident conditions, and this will depend upon the flow resistance through the impeller assembly when the pump is not operating. Thus, accurate knowledge of the effective impeller assembly loss coefficient is important for safety evaluations. The test loop was modified to provide water inlet and outlets on either side of the pump impeller stack, and a metered flow of lab water was provided in order to measure the pressure drop across the cartridges as a function of flowrate. Data from the pump head curve testing developed as part of this work and supported by analysis using pump head affinity laws indicates that a three stage 7.5 cm (3 inch) pump impeller design will meet target requirements for coolant flow within the VTR cartridge sodium cartridge at full power conditions [1] with margin; this corresponds to a flowrate of 45 l/min (12 gpm) at a pressure drop of 6.1 m (20 feet) of water head. The results of the pressure loss measurements across the impeller assembly when the pump is stationary (i.e., at 0 RPM) indicate that the pressure loss coefficient is 0.921 for a two impeller stack configuration; this value is calculated based on the flow velocity through the minimum available flow area within a single stage of the impeller which corresponds to 1.4 cm2.