Search NASASearch

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “near-earth objects”

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.

622 records · Page 35

High-Order Methods in NASA’s Next Generation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Tools

The missions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) routinely produce unique requirements and challenges for development and application of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) methods. NASA presently embodies four distinct Mission Directorates: Aeronautics Research, Exploration Systems, Science, and Space Operations. These missions generate requirements for systems that operate in a wide variety of environments. They range from the high-speed flight of aerodynamically optimized vehicles operating in the earth’s atmosphere to spacecraft designed for missions that don’t favor aerodynamic optimization, some operating in the atmosphere of planets and planetary moons such as Mars and Venus or Saturn’s moon Titan. Systems supporting these vehicles, such as rocket and jet propulsion, reaction control systems, fluid and thermal transfer systems, etc. can also generate their own unique set of flow phenomena that challenge today’s CFD methodology. Through the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC), NASA annually conducts state-of-the-discipline assessments in fifteen distinct engineering disciplines. These assessments are performed by the NASA Technical Fellows that lead Technical Discipline Teams (TDT) of recognized experts in these fifteen areas. In the Aerosciences discipline, three topics have been identified as the top challenges for the discipline: aero-plume interaction prediction, unsteady separated flows, and aerothermodynamic prediction. These challenge areas are defined by the Agency’s high-risk projects and problems on which the NESC is requested to perform independent testing, analysis, and assessments. When viewed as a whole, these tests, analyses, and assessments provide a clear view of the recurring technical challenges facing Agency engineers and researchers and can be used to guide future research and technology development. The present state-of-the-art in the application of CFD at NASA is the use of Reynolds-Averaged Navier- Stokes (RANS) solvers, primarily executed in a steady-state mode of operation. In isolated cases, Unsteady RANS (URANS) solvers have been employed when steady RANS solutions produce poorly converging or oscillating results or in cases, such as aeroelastic analysis, which require unsteady aerodynamic simulation. For most traditional external and internal aerodynamic flows, structured overset grids or unstructured grids are employed to minimize geometric modeling and grid generation times. Grid adaptation, primarily as a series of coarse-grain intermediate processing steps is also seeing use on particularly complex flow problems and configurations. In the case of aerothermodynamic flows, engineers have been forced to continue to employ structured grid techniques as the present unstructured grid methodology has proven inadequate in the prediction of surface heating. In the area of aero-plume interaction modeling, two-gas, frozen chemistry simulation is generally the state-of-the- art, with some production solvers capable of predicting flows with only a single gas component. Prediction of flows falling into the afore-mentioned top Aerosciences technical challenges have severely stressed the present state-of-the-art in CFD prediction and for some problems, such as unsteady separated flows and aero-plume interaction cases, engineers have begun employing Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Hybrid RANS/LES techniques. In some isolated aero-propulsion interaction cases, chemically reacting flow simulations have been applied. These methods are highly evolutionary and engineers have little experience in their application, so they cannot be heavily relied upon in today’s application environment. Therefore, this leads one to muse over which numerical technologies will be included in the CFD tools that will be employed 30 years in the future. This presentation will describe specific technical problems that have stressed NASA’s traditional CFD methods to their breaking point and will link these issues to the Agency’s top Aerosciences technical challenges. The discussion will then shift to the characteristics of future CFD solvers that will be required to attack these challenges and how these characteristics differ from the present state-of-the- art. High-order methods certainly appear to have a place in the development of future CFD tools and some of the physical characteristics of our most challenging problems suggest that high-order methods are the only way to effectively solve them. But there are some relatively severe implementation issues that face these methods, particularly in the area of general applicability and robust operation as an engineering tool. Desired characteristics of next-generation CFD solvers will be discussed and the author’s view of which emerging numerical technologies might be employed to address these attributes will also be presented

David M Schuster

Dark Energy Survey year 6 results: Magnification modeling and its impact on galaxy clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing cosmology

Gravitational lensing magnification alters the observed spatial distribution of galaxies and must be accounted for to prevent biases in cosmological probes of the large-scale structure. We investigate its effects on the Dark Energy Survey Year 6 galaxy clustering and galaxy-galaxy lensing analyses using the fiducial lens (position tracer) sample M ag L im++. Magnification bias is parameterized by a coefficient that describes the response of the number of selected objects per unlensed area element to a change in the lensing convergence. We quantify this coefficient using the BALROG synthetic source injection catalog to account for the complexity of the selection function, and compare these results with simplified estimates. The resulting values of the magnification coefficients for each redshift bin are [3.16 ± 0.08, 2.76 ± 0.21, 4.09 ± 0.15, 4.42 ± 0.16, 4.90 ± 0.29, 4.83 ± 0.25]. Relative to Year 3, this analysis provides more precise and accurate magnification bias estimates through a larger BALROG area and reweighting to better match the data properties. Here, the cosmological results are robust when tested against various magnification parameter prior choices and also when adding cross-clustering between lens redshift bins. Neglecting magnification, however, introduces significant systematic shifts: relative to the fiducial analysis with Gaussian priors centered on the BALROG -derived estimates, we observe shifts of 1.37σ in S 8 and -0.84σ in Ω m (with cosmic shear included: -0.61σ in S 8 and -0.71σ in Ω m ), in agreement with findings from simulated data, demonstrating that magnification must be modeled to avoid biases. Freeing the magnification bias in lens bin 2 leads to unphysical negative values, further justifying its exclusion from the fiducial Year 6 analysis.

Cosmological parameters

Low-energy calibration of SuperCDMS HVeV cryogenic silicon calorimeters using Compton steps

Cryogenic calorimeters for low-mass dark matter searches have achieved sub-eV energy resolutions, driving advances in both low-energy calibration techniques and our understanding of detector physics. The energy deposition spectrum of gamma rays scattering off target materials exhibits step-like features, known as Compton steps, near the binding energies of atomic electrons. Here, we demonstrate a successful use of Compton steps for sub-keV calibration of cryogenic silicon calorimeters, utilizing four SuperCDMS High-Voltage eV-resolution detectors operated with 0 V bias across the crystal. This new calibration at 0 V is compared with the established high-voltage calibration using optical photons. The comparison indicates that the detector response at 0 V is about 30% weaker than expected, highlighting challenges in detector response modeling for low-mass dark matter searches.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS

Reconstruction of cosmic-ray muon events with CUORE

We report the in-situ 3D reconstruction of through-going muons in the CUORE experiment, a cryogenic calorimeter array searching for neutrinoless double beta (0vββ) decay, leveraging the segmentation of the detector. Due to the slow time response of the detector, time-of-flight estimation is not feasible. Therefore, the track reconstruction is performed using a multi-objective optimization algorithm that relies on geometrical information from the detector as a whole. We measure the integral flux of cosmic-ray muons underground at the Laboratori Nazionali del Gran Sasso, and find our value to be in good agreement with other experiments that have performed a similar measurement. To our knowledge, this work represents the first demonstration of 3D particle tracking and reconstruction of through-going muons with per-event angular determination in a millikelvin cryogenic detector array. The analysis performed for this work will be critical for validating the muon-related background in CUPID, a next-generation 0vββ experiment, and for follow-up studies on detector response and on delayed products induced by cosmic-ray muons.

Adams, D. Q. [University of South Carolina]

Water Observations of Flow/No-Flow for the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado (June-July 2025 and 2026)

This dataset provides multi-year, ground-truth visual observations of surface water flow/no-flow conditions within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado, collected during June and July of 2025 and 2026. In June and July 2025, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function Scientific Focus Area (SFA) and Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL) Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) campaign (further details are provided within the CHESS Project Description). We obtained 377 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. These ground-truth observations were collected to validate classification maps from remote sensing data and model results within the East-Taylor Watershed. In 2025, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using a field-based app for the CHESS Campaign (Zerion iForm). Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included information about visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, and beaver activity. For 2025 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2025_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2025_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg and .jpeg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2025_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2025_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). In June and July 2026, on-the-ground visual observations of flow/no-flow were collected as part of the Watershed Function SFA project. We obtained 365 water observations of flow/no-flow within the East-Taylor Watershed, Colorado. The 2026 observations focused on collecting repeat measurements at the 2025 flow/no-flow observation locations conducted as part of the CHESS campaign. These ground-truth observations were collected to understand differences in flow/no-flow in 2026, given the unprecedented 2026 drought in Colorado. In 2026, flow/no-flow measurements were collected using ArcGIS (Geographic Information System) Survey123. Within the field app, a water observation form was created to collect coordinates and metadata about the observation. Information collected for the water observation points included repeat information from the 2025 water observation effort, including visually-assessed streamflow presence/absence (standard question obtained from Colorado State University’s StreamTracker project), flow estimate, stream or ponded area width, canopy cover, manganese films, iron seeps, beaver activity, and a new metadata component of estimated stream depth (for select locations). For 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a data file with the water observations and coordinates (2026_Water_Observations.csv); (2) a Keyhole Markup Language Zipped (KMZ) with the water observation locations and metadata (2026_Water_Observations_Locations.kmz); (3) photos (.jpg) of the water observation points, organized by location, contained within 2026_Water_Observations_FieldPhotographs.zip file; and (4) water observation protocols and figures (2026_Water_Observation_Protocols.pdf). For 2025 and 2026 water observations, this dataset contains: (1) a location metadata file (locations.csv); (6) a file-level metadata (flmd.csv) file that lists each file contained in the dataset with associated metadata; and (7) a data dictionary (dd.csv) file that contains column/row headers used throughout the files along with a definition, units, and data type. CHESS Project Description: The Colorado Headwaters Ecological Spectroscopy Study (CHESS) comprised a multi-week airborne remote sensing and field observation campaign in the Upper Gunnison Basin, Colorado, conducted in June and July of 2025. Airborne remote sensing was conducted by the National Ecological Observatory Network Airborne Observation Platform (NEON AOP), concurrent with a field campaign run by the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (RMBL), the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Watershed Function Science Focus Area (SFA), and NASA-JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT) program. Between June 10 and July 18, 2025, the NEON AOP flight team collected high-resolution aerial imaging spectroscopy and Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) data over three domains: the Upper East River (CRBU), Almont Triangle (ALMO), and the Upper Taylor Basin (UPTA). In coordination with the flights, a field campaign acquired ground-truth observations, including observations of vegetation composition, foliar traits, forest demography, and subsurface properties in 18 core sampling areas within the domains. Additional surface water observations were taken at over 380 point locations. All CHESS campaign datasets can be found within the CHESS ESS-DIVE data portal: https://data.ess-dive.lbl.gov/portals/chess. 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. 2026-09-02: This dataset was updated to include 2026 water observation measurements. The 2025 observation files were also updated to ensure a consistent file naming convention across water observation years.

2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns

Ares I-X Ground Diagnostic Prototype

Automating prelaunch diagnostics for launch vehicles offers three potential benefits. First, it potentially improves safety by detecting faults that might otherwise have been missed so that they can be corrected before launch. Second, it potentially reduces launch delays by more quickly diagnosing the cause of anomalies that occur during prelaunch processing. Reducing launch delays will be critical to the success of NASA's planned future missions that require in-orbit rendezvous. Third, it potentially reduces costs by reducing both launch delays and the number of people needed to monitor the prelaunch process. NASA is currently developing the Ares I launch vehicle to bring the Orion capsule and its crew of four astronauts to low-earth orbit on their way to the moon. Ares I-X will be the first unmanned test flight of Ares I. It is scheduled to launch on October 27, 2009. The Ares I-X Ground Diagnostic Prototype is a prototype ground diagnostic system that will provide anomaly detection, fault detection, fault isolation, and diagnostics for the Ares I-X first-stage thrust vector control (TVC) and for the associated ground hydraulics while it is in the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and on the launch pad. It will serve as a prototype for a future operational ground diagnostic system for Ares I. The prototype combines three existing diagnostic tools. The first tool, TEAMS (Testability Engineering and Maintenance System), is a model-based tool that is commercially produced by Qualtech Systems, Inc. It uses a qualitative model of failure propagation to perform fault isolation and diagnostics. We adapted an existing TEAMS model of the TVC to use for diagnostics and developed a TEAMS model of the ground hydraulics. The second tool, Spacecraft Health Inference Engine (SHINE), is a rule-based expert system developed at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We developed SHINE rules for fault detection and mode identification. The prototype uses the outputs of SHINE as inputs to TEAMS. The third tool, the Inductive Monitoring System (IMS), is an anomaly detection tool developed at NASA Ames Research Center and is currently used to monitor the International Space Station Control Moment Gyroscopes. IMS automatically "learns" a model of historical nominal data in the form of a set of clusters and signals an alarm when new data fails to match this model. IMS offers the potential to detect faults that have not been modeled. The three tools have been integrated and deployed to Hangar AE at KSC where they interface with live data from the Ares I-X vehicle and from the ground hydraulics. The outputs of the tools are displayed on a console in Hangar AE, one of the locations from which the Ares I-X launch will be monitored. In a previous publication, we discussed how we selected the three tools based primarily on their ability to be certified for human spaceflight and described our plans for the prototype. This abstract is due October 23, 2009, and the Ares I-X launch is currently scheduled for October 27, 2009. If this abstract is accepted, then the full paper will describe how the prototype performed before the launch. It will include an analysis of the prototype's accuracy, including false-positive rates, false-negative rates, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves. It will also include a description of the prototype's computational requirements, including CPU usage, main memory usage, and disk usage. If the prototype detects any faults during the prelaunch period then the paper will include a description of those faults. Similarly, if the prototype has any false alarms then the paper will describe them and will attempt to explain their causes. Also, the paper will describe the three tools and how they are used in the prototype. It will include a description of the TEAMS models of the Ares I-X first-stage TVC and associated ground hydraulics and how we adapted the TVC model for use in real-time diagnostics. It will describe the SHINE rules used for fault detection and mode identification and the software architecture that interfaces the various pieces of existing software that are part of the prototype to one another. It will describe how we selected the sensor values and commands that were used to train the IMS model and how we optimized the number of clusters in the IMS model. It will include screen shots of the graphical display that we developed in Java to display the outputs of the three tools. Because Ares I-X data was not yet available to us while we were developing the prototype, we used historical data from the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) TVCs and the associated ground hydraulics to train IMS and to test the entire prototype. Because most of the failure modes that we modeled have never occurred in the Shuttle we inserted simulated failures into the Shuttle data. The Ares I-X first-stage TVC is very similar to the SRB TVC and we expect the data will be very similar. After the launch, we will determine how similar the data actually is and report how any differences in the data affected the diagnostic accuracy of the prototype. Finally, although we did not get the prototype certified, we designed it in a way that it could be certified and wrote a preliminary certification plan. The paper will include a brief summary of how we considered the need for certification in the design of the prototype, how we tested the prototype before deploying it to Hangar AE, and how we would propose to get it certified if it were deployed as an operational system. The paper will conclude with a description of some of the challenges we faced and some of the lessons learned in developing and deploying the prototype.

International Space Station

Tokamak Energy’s pre-concept design for a fusion power plant: an overview of ST-E1

Climate change and rapidly rising energy demand, driven in part by artificial intelligence and data-centre growth, create an urgent need for stable, low-carbon, and abundant power. Fusion is a promising long-term solution, yet its commercialisation faces a fundamental paradox in today’s investment environment: pilot plants are essential to de-risk physics, engineering, and operations, but their limited lifetime energy output and high upfront costs make them difficult to finance. This paper presents Tokamak Energy’s response: ST-E1, a pre-concept design for a low-aspect-ratio tokamak power plant engineered specifically to overcome this challenge. ST-E1 is designed from the outset for phased operation—pilot and commercial phases, with an upgrade phase in between—with emphasis on commercial viability, maintainability, nuclear engineering, modularity, and upgradability. A key design principle is the deliberate separation of long-lived assets, such as the magnet cage and vacuum vessel, from replaceable in-vessel systems. This provides an attractive and credible investment approach to generate operational data and de-risk key technologies while preserving most capital-intensive assets for later commercial phases. The architecture supports continuous optimisation toward high net electric power (targeting 800–1000 MW net electric), a normalised capital expenditure of $\$$ 12–14k/kW of net electric power, and high availability (targeting > 80%). A tokamak core with a 5 m major radius, aspect ratio of 2.3, and on-plasma axis toroidal field of 5.25 T was selected to meet these objectives. This paper summarises the ST-E1 design philosophy, principal features, and development methodology. It introduces a Focus Collection of 11 papers detailing the pre-concept design of the entire tokamak and corresponding plant.

ST-E1

Field Validation of Thermoelectric Generation System at Holcim Cement Plant in Alpena, Michigan

Executive Summary Project Background The Industrial Technology Validation (ITV) program aims to identify and demonstrate the performance of new, emerging, and underutilized energy-saving technologies in the industrial sector to help inform decisions to help accelerate their commercialization and deployment, as well as to help make industries more competitive. This ITV demonstration evaluated a thermoelectric generation (TEG) technology at a cement plant, aiming to reduce energy demand in the cement industry. A median cement plant consumes 5.73 million British thermal units per ton of clinker production (resulting in 0.838 metric tons of carbon dioxide [CO₂] emissions per ton of clinker) (Boyd and Zhang 2011, EPA 2021), equivalent to approximately 6.9 trillion British thermal units (TBtu) per year in energy consumption at a cement plant producing 3,300 tons of clinker per day.¹ Collaborating with Holcim, Advanced Thermovoltaic Systems (ATS) developed and deployed a pilot-scale thermoelectric power system to efficiently capture and convert waste heat to electricity. The system leverages the Seebeck effect to convert temperature differences on two sides of semiconductor cartridges into electrical power (ScienceDirect, n.d.). This generation is realized with minimal moving parts compared to existing waste-heat-to-generation solutions and allows capture from heat sources with temperatures as low as 150°C. This project aimed to validate a scalable solution applicable for capturing medium-temperature waste heat, including ambient losses from other high-temperature processes, and high-temperature sources less suitable for other waste-heat-to-power solutions. By recovering this otherwise wasted heat, this project intends to validate improvements to overall process efficiency through reduction in purchased electricity, thereby reducing operational costs while enhancing resiliency and competitiveness. Description and Scope This study evaluated the performance of a TEG system from ATS as a solution to convert waste heat into useful power at a Holcim cement plant in Alpena, Michigan. This plant is a fully integrated cement plant that has been operating since 1907. The facility operates continuously (24/7/365) with approximately 250 employees and five long dry kilns, yielding a total production capacity of 7,852 tons of cement per day (EPA 2023). Currently, the Alpena plant uses waste heat boilers to convert waste heat from the exhaust of each kiln into steam, which drives steam turbine generators. The ATS TEG is being evaluated for its potential to supplement the steam turbines by capturing the remaining lower grade heat. This technology is also being considered for other Holcim plants where steam turbines are not a viable option. ATS installed a pilot-scale TEG unit with an array of 582 individual thermoelectric semiconductor cartridges, of which 573 were operational. The cartridges are sandwiched between 48 hot plates and 49 cold plates. Each cartridge is designed to generate 20 watts (W) of gross power at a hot-side temperature of 240°C and cold-side temperature of 20°C. As such, the total gross generation capacity of the installed system is 11.5 kilowatts (kW) at design conditions. The system configuration for the evaluation was designed to prioritize convenience of installation and minimize disruption to production at the site, while ensuring that the heat required can be obtained for evaluating the TEG system at various operational conditions. To accomplish this, a portion of the steam supplied to Alpena’s steam turbine generation system was diverted to be used as the heat source for the TEG system, while water was supplied to the cold side of the system from nearby Lake Huron. This configuration was designed for the evaluation of the pilot-scale system to assess the performance at different conditions. A commercial-scale system will likely vary from the pilot system depending on typical configurations, including both scale and application. Future commercial applications of the ATS system would involve integrating the system into the exhaust from kiln preheaters, clinker coolers, or radiant heat capture from kiln shells for the heat source. For the cold source, a range of cooling solutions can be considered, including a mechanical cooling system, depending on the location and the application. To increase the generation capacity for commercial applications, the technology provider is working toward developing a commercial-scale TEG system, which would combine multiple TEG units (each similar in design to the pilot system) together. The scope of this evaluation includes the pilot-scale TEG system and all impacted equipment including pumps, controllers, and power handling equipment. Study Objectives The evaluation's goal was to assess the potential of the ATS TEG system to generate useful electrical power by capturing waste heat from cement production kilns. The objectives of this study are to evaluate and verify the following claims made by ATS regarding the pilot-scale system installed at the Holcim Alpena plant. The following design parameters and claims are also outlined in Table ES- 1 and Table ES- 2: • Gross Power: The thermoelectric system converts heat into power to create gross power, the total measured power generated by the system. The 573 active cartridge pilot-scale system is expected to generate 11.5 kW of gross power at the designed hot-side temperature of 240°C and cold-side temperature of 20°C. Power production is dependent on the temperature difference between the heat source (ultimately from the waste heat) and cold temperature supply source. • Net Power: The net power is the total usable power provided to the site by the TEG system after deducting parasitic power loads from the gross generated power. Supplementary equipment is required to operate the TEG system including pumps, controllers, and, in certain anticipated applications, mechanical cooling, which introduce parasitic loads to system operation. After deducting the parasitic loads from the gross power generation, ATS anticipates achieving a net power generation of 7.5 kW from the pilot-scale system. • Thermal Efficiency: The thermal efficiency is the percent of the total heat transferred to the TEG system that is converted to gross power. Historically, TEGs have a thermal efficiency of 2%–5% (DOE 2008). Prior industrial-scale TEG systems, such as the E1 TEG offered by Alphabet Energy, operated at an efficiency of 2.5% (Lamonica, 2014). ATS anticipates achieving an average efficiency of 4.8% or higher in converting heat energy to usable electricity. • Cartridge Performance: The TEG system comprises 573 active individual semiconductor cartridges, each of which generates a portion of the total power. Cartridge optimization and selection is an important design consideration for potential future TEG system design performance. Therefore, understanding the distribution of gross power and efficiency within the pilot system is vital to understanding what is achievable. At a design hot-side temperature of 240°C and cold-side temperature of 20°C, ATS anticipates a cartridge performance of 20 W of gross power per cartridge at an efficiency of 4.8% per cartridge. In addition to evaluating the claimed performance of the TEG pilot-scale unit, the study estimated the potential annual impacts of a scaled-up commercial system used to capture kiln waste heat over annual operations. The evaluation estimated the gross and net annual electric generation achievable by capturing heat from the two proposed tap-in points: the kiln exhaust and the clinker cooler exhaust; see Section 2.1 for details. Two use cases were examined: • Holcim Alpena: The Holcim Alpena site consists of long dry kilns with superheater boilers, which differs from the rest of Holcim’s cement plant portfolio and results in lower waste heat temperatures. The study estimates gross and net annual generation using the superheater boiler exhaust and clinker cooler exhaust, based on 2023 operational data. • Typical Installation: Common cement plants have preheater kilns with higher exhaust temperatures than Holcim Alpena across a range of production rates. The study estimates gross and net annual generation using the preheater exhaust and clinker cooler exhaust, with a sensitivity analysis to account for the typical range of preheater exhaust temperatures, clinker cooler exhaust temperatures, and clinker production rates. Methodology The evaluation methodology followed a measurement and verification (M&V) strategy based on the International Performance Measurement and Verification Protocol Option B through comprehensive measurements and analyses of the affected systems. Evaluation data was collected from March 9 to March 11, 2024, the test period of the pilot TEG system. During the test period, in coordination with the ITV team, the ATS team adjusted system operations to capture the range of variability expected for each of the variables pertinent to performance of the system. The methodology consisted of two parts: evaluating the performance of the pilot unit's TEG system and estimating the annual TEG impact in terms of gross and net power based on a given waste heat profile. First, the evaluation of the thermoelectric generation performance of the pilot unit relative to the claims was performed by analyzing the collected test data. Gross power of the pilot TEG system was directly measured. Net power was determined by deducting the measured parasitic power from the gross power. The gross power generation was compared to heat transferred to the system by the working fluid (which was heated by steam generated from the kiln waste heat) to calculate the thermal efficiency achieved by the system. Performance of individual semiconductor cartridges within the pilot array was also assessed in terms of measured gross cartridge power and calculated cartridge thermal efficiency. The second part of the evaluation estimated the annual TEG impacts in terms of gross power and net power (calculated from the difference between gross power and parasitic power). This analysis comprised development of mathematical regression models for gross power and parasitic power, with assessment of each model’s goodness-of-fit characteristics to ensure satisfaction of statistical requirements. The models predicted the gross power generation, the parasitic load based on the temperature difference between the hot working fluid and the cold-side fluid (cold water from Lake Huron) entering the system, the volumetric flow rate of the cold-side fluid at the inlet, and the volumetric flow rate of the hot working fluid at the inlet. The annual impact analysis considered a theoretical commercial-scale system sized to capture the available waste heat at a cement plant, consisting of linked pilot-scale units that receive heat from a theoretical gas-to-working-fluid heat exchanger. To estimate annual impacts at the Alpena plant, the gross power and parasitic power regression models were applied to the arrays in the theoretical commercial-scale system. The heat supplied to the unit was calculated based on the kiln run time, annual production, kiln exhaust waste heat, and clinker cooler waste heat derived from 2023 Holcim Alpena kiln operational data. Net power impacts were calculated by deducting the resulting parasitic power from the estimated gross power. Inputs for the model were generated from a combination of hourly data, assumed design considerations for TEG system scale-up from the pilot-scale unit, and assumptions regarding TEG system operations. This analysis was then used as the basis for estimating annual impacts of typical TEG installation at cement plants, by applying sensitivity analyses to key kiln operational characteristics including kiln preheater exhaust temperatures, cooler clinker exhaust temperatures, and plant daily production rates across a range of expected values. Project Results/Findings Table ES- 2 and Table ES- 2 provide a summary of the operating conditions and evaluation results compared to the stated claims from the technology provider. Key takeaways include: • Gross Power: The peak gross power achieved during the testing period was 10.0 kW, compared to the 11.5 kW expected for 573 active cartridges. The claimed gross power was associated with a target hot side of 240°C; however, the system only received a maximum hot-side mean plate temperature of 212°C during the testing period. • Net Power: The pilot-scale unit exceeded the claims for net power, achieving a peak of 7.7 kW net compared to a claim of 7.5 kW. One factor contributing to the higher achieved net power is the relatively high water pressure available through Lake Huron. The pilot TEG system did not require cold-side pumps during the test, whereas most installations would. This reduced the parasitic loads on the system, ultimately contributing to higher net power relative to the gross power. • Thermal Efficiency: The pilot-scale unit outperformed the claimed efficiency, achieving a peak system efficiency of 5.0% thermal efficiency compared to the stated 4.8%. • Cartridge Performance: To compare cartridge performance against claims, the study focused on the third day of testing, which aimed for conditions closest to the design specifications, with a hot side of 240°C and cold-side exit temperature of 6.4°–30°C. On this day, the mean gross power observed in the cartridges within the TEG array was 18.1 W/cartridge, and the peak performance was 34.7 W/cartridge. The estimated mean cartridge efficiency was 5.2%, and the estimated efficiency at peak gross cartridge power was 10%. The regression models developed for gross power generation and parasitic loads were used to estimate the generation impact for given heat input to the TEG from the working fluid (captured from the waste heat) and from the cold loop (Lake Huron) on an hourly basis for a year of operation. Based on this analysis, installation of a commercial-scale TEG system at the Holcim cement plant in Alpena, Michigan, with a waste heat exchanger of 0.85 effectiveness, would generate up to 391 kW of net power, translating to between 920,000 and 1,800,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) in net electricity per year. Based on typical grid emissions for Alpena, this would avoid estimated net emissions by 752 metric tons of CO₂ annually.² The sensitivity analysis estimated that typical TEG system installations at cement plants could generate an average of 56–1,040 kW of net power, or between 488,000 and 9,110,000 kWh of net energy. This generation potential is most significantly affected by plant production rates and also influenced by preheater and clinker cooler exhaust temperatures. Applying the national average emission rate, typical commercial-scale installations at Holcim plants are projected to avoid between 182 and 3,401 metric tons of CO₂ annually per site. Table ES- 3 shows a summary of the estimated annual impacts.³ While parasitic loads are significant and vary by application, this analysis assumed the use of heating loop pumps and access to Lake Huron as a cold sink. This setup assumed no need for cooling loop pumps due to the available water pressure at the test site. Applications that require cooling towers or additional equipment are likely to experience higher parasitic loads. Therefore, the study’s estimates are most applicable to scenarios with similar parasitic load configurations—namely, access to a high-pressure cold sink. Applicability to other locations may be limited, as differing conditions could necessitate additional pumps and cooling systems, potentially impacting performance significantly.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI

Copacabana: a probabilistic membership assignment method for galaxy clusters

Cosmological analyses using galaxy clusters in optical/near-infrared photometric surveys require robust characterization of their galaxy content. Precisely determining which galaxies belong to a cluster is crucial. In this paper, we present the COlor Probabilistic Assignment of Clusters And BAyesiaN Analysis (Copacabana) algorithm. Copacabana computes membership probabilities for all galaxies within an aperture centred on the cluster using photometric redshifts, colours, and projected radial probability density functions. We use simulations to validate Copacabana and we show that it achieves up to 89 per cent membership accuracy with a mild dependence on photometric redshift uncertainties and choice of aperture size. We find that the precision of the photometric redshifts has the largest impact on the determination of the membership probabilities followed by the choice of the cluster aperture size. We also quantify how much these uncertainties in the membership probabilities affect the stellar mass–cluster mass scaling relation, a relation that directly impacts cosmology. Using the sum of the stellar masses weighted by membership probabilities (⁠μ * ⁠) as the observable, we find that Copacabana can reach an accuracy of 0.06 dex in the measurement of the scaling relation at low redshift for a Legacy Survey of Space and Time type survey. These results indicate the potential of Copacabana and μ * to be used in cosmological analyses of optically selected clusters in the future.

79 ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS

HydraGNN_Predictive_GFM_2026 - Ensemble of predictive graph foundation models for atomistic materials modeling

This release contains data and parameters of HydraGNN-based graph foundation models trained as a result of the work published in the pre-print "Exascale Multi-Task Graph Foundation Models for Imbalanced, Multi-Fidelity Atomistic Data" by M. Lupo Pasini et al. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2604.15380). We jointly train on 16 open first-principles datasets (544+ million structures covering 85+ elements) using a multi-task architecture with per-dataset heads and a scalable ADIOS2/DDStore data pipeline. On Frontier, we execute six large-scale DeepHyper hyperparameter optimization campaigns in FP64 and promote the top-performing message-passing models to sustained 2,048-node training, yielding a PaiNN-based lead model. The version of HydraGNN used to generate the outputs provided in this release is HydraGNN v5.0 (https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0) The list of datasets used for the training of the graph foundation model is the following: 1) Alexandria [1] 2) ANI1x [2] 3) MPTrj [3] 4) Open Catalyst 2020 (OC20) [4] 5) Open Catalyst 2022 (OC22) [5] 6) Open Catalyst 2025 (OC25) [6] 7) Open Direct ir Capture 2023 (ODAC23) [7] 8) Open Materials 2024 (OMat24) [8] 9) Open Molecules 2025 (OMol25) [9] 10) OMol25-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with zero total charge) 11) OMol25-non-neutral (subset of OMol25 that contains only molecules with non-zero total charge) 12) Open Polymers 2026 (OPoly2026) [10] 13) Nabla2DFT [11] 14) QCML [12] 15) QM7X [reference 13] 16) transition1x [14] Dataset references: [1] J. Schmidt et al., “A dataset of 175k stable and metastable materials calculated with the PBEsol and SCAN functionals,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 64, 2022. [2] J. S. Smith et al., “The ANI-1ccx and ANI-1x data sets, coupled-cluster and density functional theory properties for molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 7, p. 134, 2020. [Online]. Available: https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0473-z [3] A. Jain et al., “Commentary: The Materials Project: A materials genome approach to accelerating materials innovation,” APL Materials, vol. 1, no. 1, p. 011002, 07 2013. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4812323 [4] L. Chanussot et al., “Open catalyst 2020 (oc20) dataset and community challenges,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 11, no. 10, pp. 6059–6072, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.0c04525 [5] K. Tran et al., “Open catalyst 2022 (oc22) dataset and challenges for oxidation electrocatalysts,” ACS Catalysis, vol. 13, no. 5, pp. 3066–3084, 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1021/acscatal.2c05426 [6] S. J. Sahoo et al., “The open catalyst 2025 (oc25) dataset and models for solid-liquid interfaces,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2509.17862, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2509.17862 [7] A. Sriram et al., “The open DAC 2023 dataset and challenges for sorbent discovery in direct air capture,” ACS Central Science, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 923–941, 2024. [8] L. Barroso-Luque et al., “Open materials 2024 (omat24) inorganic materials dataset and models,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2410.12771 [9] D. S. Levine et al., “The open molecules 2025 (OMol25) dataset, evaluations, and models,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.08762 [10] D. S. Levine et al., The open polymers 2026 (OPoly26) dataset and evaluations,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.23117, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.23117 [11] K. Khrabrov et al., “Nabla2dft: A universal quantum chemistry dataset of drug-like molecules and a benchmark for neural network potentials,” in NeurIPS 2024 Datasets and Benchmarks Track, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=ElUrNM9U8c [12] S. Ganscha et al., “The QCML dataset, quantum chemistry reference data from 33.5M DFT and 14.7B semi-empirical calculations,” Scientific Data, vol. 12, p. 406, 2025. [13] J. Hoja et al., “QM7-X, a comprehensive dataset of quantum-mechanical properties spanning the chemical space of small organic molecules,” Scientific Data, vol. 8, p. 43, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-021-00812-2 [14] M. Schreiner et al., “Transition1x - a dataset for building generalizable reactive machine learning potentials,” Scientific Data, vol. 9, p. 779, 2022. The folder "datasets_ADIOS2_format" contains the set of pre-processed datasets in Adaptable I/O System (ADIOS) format (https://www.exascaleproject.org/research-project/adios/) that have been used for the development and training of GFMs in this work. The "datasets_ADIOS2_format" directory contains 2 sub-directories, one for the version "v1" of the datasets and one for the version "v2" of the datasets. The version "v1" of the datasets provides values of the total energy as they are extracted from the original data as it was released by the respective institutions. The version "v2" of the datasets provides values of the energy that have been realigned. The realignment was performed by training a linear regression model that predicts the total energy as a function of the chemical composition of the atomistic structure, and then subtract such prediction from the original value of the total energy. Both folders "v1" and "v2" contain 16 sub-directories, each corresponding to an ADIOS2-formatted dataset The folder "DeepHyper-results" contains the configurational files and model's parameters for all the 186 HPO trials that were successfully completed by the scalable hyperparameter optimization (HPO) runs on Frontier. The content of the folder "DeepHyper-results" I structured as follows: 1) task-list.txt: list of mpnn name, jobid, and deephyper task id 2) gfm_${MPNN}_${JOBID}_0.${TASKID}: run directory with checkpoint files 3) gfm_${MPNN}: deephyper summary directory (*.csv) for each specific MPNN type 4) deephyper-experiment-${JOBID}: output and error logs for each job The file "deephyper-sorted.csv" contains the details of each HydraGNN model built and tested by HPO, obtained by merging the (*.csv) filed from each HPO run executed. Out of all the HPO trials, we selected 10 to continue the training of the respective HydraGNN models. Due to limited computational budget available in the LRN070 allocation we could not complete the training till convergence for all these 10 selected models. The folder "models" contains multiple sub-folders, one per each HydraGNN model trained. Each model sub-folder contains the parameters of each HydraGNN model, with multiple checkpoint-restarts. The list of sub-folders are as follows: 1) multidataset_hpo-BEST1-fp64 2) multidataset_hpo-BEST2-fp64 3) multidataset_hpo-BEST3-fp64 4) multidataset_hpo-BEST4-fp64 5) multidataset_hpo-BEST5-fp64 6) multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64 7) multidataset_hpo-BEST7-fp64 8) multidataset_hpo-BEST8-fp64 9) multidataset_hpo-BEST9-fp64 10) multidataset_hpo-BEST10-fp64 Within each one of these folders, additional auxiliary log files are provided with descriptions about how the training proceeded. The lead PaiNN-model is contained inside "multidataset_hpo-BEST6-fp64". The file "mlp_branch_weights" contains the parameters of the multi-layer perceptron (MLP) used to reconcile the predictions of the 16 output decoding heads of the HydragNN architectures. The MLP takes in input the chemical composition of the atomistic structure and predicts averaging weights to linearly mix the predictions of each output decoding head toward consolidating them into a single one. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 1.1 billion atomistic structures randomly generated. Each structures is associated with energy and forces predicted with the lead-PaiNN model combined with the MLP model for reconciliation of the multi-branch predictions generated by the 16 output decoding heads. The folder "1.1billion-structure-inference" contains 9,300 (*.tar.gz) subdirectories, one per Frontier compute node used to execute the inference at exascale. Once uncompressed, each (*.tar.gz) subdirectory contains an ADIOS2 (*.bp) file container, where each atomistic structure is stored as a PyTorch-Geometric Data object. The file "export_dataset_environment_variables.sh" contains the environment variables that need to be set before running the HydraGNN code to reproduce the results provided in this dataset release. The code that can be used to load the ADIOS2 files, load HydraGNN models, and run inference is available at: https://github.com/ORNL/HydraGNN/releases/tag/v5.0

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE