Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “column densities”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

CHARACTERIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALL–AQUEOUS COPPER THERMALLY REGENERATIVE AMMONIA BATTERY

Low temperature thermal energy is an abundant and untapped energy source for large scale electrical power and energy production around the world. Many different stationary sources such as industrial and thermal power plants produce significant amounts of low temperature heat that goes unused. The primary reason for the energy loss is because the temperature of the heat is often too low for traditional systems to economically generate power from this waste heat. Many different technologies are being researched to produce grid–scale power from low temperature heat to increase grid efficiency, advance decarbonization efforts, and progress electrical power production to a more distributed system. A thermally regenerative battery (TRB) is one promising technology in this space, as it has large power and energy densities relative to competitive technologies and therefore has the potential to disrupt the current power generation mix. TRBs combine two unit operations (a redox flow battery and a distillation column) which are easily scalable and mature, meaning that if a viable TRB chemistry can be identified, its development to pilot and commercial scale can be streamlined. The all–aqueous, copper thermally regenerative ammonia battery (Cuaq–TRAB) was the first TRB that did not use an electrodeposition/dissolution reaction by stabilizing Cu(I) and Cu(II) in the electrolyte, allowing all electroactive species to be stable in an aqueous phase. Through these electrolyte modifications, coulombic efficiency, open circuit potential, and copper solubility all increased, resulting in large gains to power density, energy density, and energy efficiency.

Cross, Nicholas↗
DOE OSTI2021

Simulated Dust Transport in the Convective Boundary Layer

Soil dusts are an important source of aerosol in agricultural regions and can affect the Earth's radiation budget through the modification of cloud properties, and in particular, through their ability to act as ice nucleating particles. In order to impact cloud properties, agricultural soil dusts need to be transported from the point of emission to cloud–relevant altitudes. Vertical transport within the planetary boundary layer is strongly controlled by turbulence and is challenging to represent accurately in regional and global models. Large–eddy simulations (LES) are run at resolutions capable of resolving most of the turbulent energy directly and can thus better simulate vertical transport. In this study, we leverage the LES ARM Symbiotic Simulation and Observation (LASSO) large–eddy simulations to simulate vertical transport of agricultural dust within the turbulent boundary layer using a modified version of the stochastic dispersion model FLEXPART–WRF. We find that the modified model is better capable of simulating particle transport due to turbulence, and that particle size was the greatest factor in determining particle lifetime. Individual meteorology and particle density had intermediate effects upon particle transport, while release height had little effect upon simulation results. Finally, we utilize a quasi–single column model (QSCM) approach to determine how our results compare to a parameterized treatment of turbulence. The QSCM simulations led to greater tracer transport out of the boundary layer, with ramifications for any studies utilizing a Lagrangian stochastic model to understand tracer dispersion. Furthermore, these results highlight the importance of accurately simulating turbulence for understanding particle transport.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

MBARI-WEC September and October 2022 Field Data

This data is needed to simulate a model of the MBARI-WEC (Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Wave Energy Converter device) in a simulation environment (e.g. Gazebo) for 56 observation dates in the time between September and October 2022, and to compare the simulation outputs to the corresponding field data of the physical MBARI-WEC. There were 50 observations chosen in Sept and 6 observations in Oct. To help understand terms below, a summary of the system can be found at the github link in the downloads section below. The Gazebo MBARI-WEC model is also provided, should users wish to simulate using this platform. There are 4 *mat files included. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Spectrum and Simulation Inputs: September2022_spectrum_siminputs.mat and October2022_spectrum_siminputs.mat has data needed for simulation inputs in table format. These include the ocean spectrum for an observation and operating parameters of the MBARI-WEC during that observation. They are organized as rows representing an observation and columns representing data. For example, for the September *mat there are 50 rows. The first 7 columns are Datetime, sig_waveheight, peak_period, mean_period, heaveconedoor_status, pistonpos_mean, and scale_factor: - Datetime is the date and time the observation occurred in PST - sig_waveheight is the significant wave height of the ocean spectrum during that observation in meters - peak_period is the peak period of the ocean spectrum during that observation in seconds - mean_period is the mean period of the ocean spectrum during that observation in seconds - heaveconedoor_status is the status of the heave cone doors where 0 represents the doors are open and 1 represents they are closed - pistonpos_mean is the mean position of the PTO ram (piston) in meters - scale_factor is an additional factor of 0.5 --1.4 applied to a default damping relationship The next columns are data needed to represent the ocean spectrum. First are the frequencies [Hz] labeled as "f0-f38", then the variance density [m2/Hz] labeled as "vardens0-vardens38". October2022_spectrum_siminputs.mat follows as a similar format as above, but includes a larger amount of ocean spectrum frequencies and variance density elements. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Field data: The field data is found in MBARIWEC_septdata.mat and MBARIWEC_octdata.mat for the observations of September and October, respectively. These contain data in a struct format. The struct contains the following fields for each observation: PC_BattCurr, PC_LoadCurr, PC_RPM, PC_Voltage, SC_Range, SC_Velocity, DateTime, where: - PC_BattCurr is the current flowing to or from the onboard batteries in Amps - PC_LoadCurr is the current flowing to the load dump in Amps - PC_RPM is the electric/hydraulic motor shaft speed (directly coupled) in RPM - PC_Voltage is the bus voltage at the power converter in Volts - SC_Range is the PTO ram (piston) position in meters where 0 is fully retracted and 2.03 is fully extended - SC_Velocity is the PTO ram (piston) velocity in meters/sec - DateTime is the date and time of the sampled field data in each observation in PST - Electric Power is equal to: PC_Voltage*(PC_BattCurr + PC_LoadCurr) in Watts For example, upon loading MBARIWEC_octdata.mat, the aforementioned fields would be loaded, each with {6x1} cells for the 6 observations chosen in October. Within the first cell of e.g. SC_Range would be sampled data representing the field data of the MBARIWEC PTO piston position for say, one hour, of the first October observation. The corresponding field DateTime would...

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗
DOE OSTI2023

System efficiency and power assessment of the all-aqueous copper thermally regenerative ammonia battery

Thermally regenerative ammonia batteries (TRABs) use low-temperature (T < 100 °C) heat to provide stationary energy and power with higher power densities and efficiency relative to other waste heat devices. TRABs are an active area of research in waste heat devices, but currently there is little consensus on what aspect of the system is limiting TRAB performance and what maximum efficiencies are possible. Experiments and numerical models were used here to examine the sensitivity of the battery and distillation column in a TRAB system to key operating variables, thereby establishing practical limits and identifying focus areas for improving performance. Battery power was eight times more sensitive to ohmic losses than kinetic and mass transfer losses, regardless of the operating temperature, and the peak power density was simulated to be 18.8 mW cm –2 at 75 °C. Theoretical energy efficiency limits were defined for a series of ammonia concentrations and operating pressures, ranging from 5 – 12%, which is 2–3 times higher than previous experimental estimations. Atmospheric pressure column operation used a larger amount of waste heat compared to sub-atmospheric pressure. It is estimated that the volume of the battery would take up 9.2m 3 for every 1% of the power output of a natural gas turbine, but with realistic improvements to cell conductivity, the size would reduce to 2.5 m 3 . Finally, the results presented in this work will help streamline future development by focusing on minimizing ohmic losses and provide specific data for full system evaluation of future TRABs.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Cesium Ion Exchange Testing Using Crystalline Silicotitanate with Hanford Tank Waste 241-AP-107

At the time of this testing, the Low-Activity Waste Pretreatment System (LAWPS) was to provide for the initial production of immobilized low-activity waste by feeding Hanford tank supernate from tank farms to the Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) Low-Activity Waste (LAW) Facility for immobilization. Washington River Protection Solutions requested that Hanford tank waste collected from tank 241-AP-107 (hereafter called AP-107) be processed using conceived pretreatment steps (suspended solids removal by filtration, Cs removal by ion exchange) then vitrified. A small-scale test platform to demonstrate the solids filtration, Cs removal, and LAW vitrification was constructed and installed at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Bench-scale ion exchange testing with approximately 9 L of AP-107 supernate was conducted using crystalline silicotitanate (CST) ion exchange media. The IONSIV R9140-B CST was provided by Honeywell UOP, LLC in 2018 (Batch 2081000057). The ion exchange media was first tested with simulant and was previously described. This report describes the Cs ion exchange batch contact and column test results with the AP-107 tank waste. Batch contact testing helps to evaluate CST performance on tank waste supernate prior to processing it in the ion exchange columns. Batch contacts were performed with the waste at four Cs concentrations at a phase ratio of 200 (liquid volume to exchanger mass) with AP-107. The distribution coefficient (K d ) at the equilibrium condition of 8.57 µg Cs/mL (AP-107 feed condition) was determined to be 669 mL AP-107/g CST. With a CST bed density of 1.00 g/mL, this K d corresponded to a predicted 50% Cs breakthrough of 669 bed volumes (BVs). The Cs load capacity at the equilibrium feed condition was determined to be 7.5 mg Cs/g dry CST. The column testing was prototypic to the intended LAWPS operations in a lead-lag column format, although on a small-scale basis with 10-mL CST beds. The feed was processed downflow through the lead column and then through the lag column at ~2.2 BV/h. Loading continued until the lag column reached the WTP waste acceptance criteria (WAC) for receiving supernatant waste for vitrification (a function of the Na and 137 Cs concentrations). For AP-107, the WAC is 0.114% of the influent 137 Cs concentration; this required a Cs decontamination factor of 876. The Cs effluent from the lag column reached the WAC after processing ~410 BVs. To keep the subsequent product effluent below the WAC, a replacement lag column was prepared, the lead column was removed from service (after processing a total of 471 BVs), the lag column was put into the lead column position, and the replacement lag column was installed. Feed processing continued and after another ~290 BVs the Cs effluent from the lag column again exceeded the WAC. In both cases, the lead columns only reached 25% Cs breakthrough before removal. Although 50% Cs breakthrough was not reached, this value was estimated and averaged based on extrapolation of the loading curves (640 BVs) and agreed within 4% of the predicted 50% Cs breakthrough from batch contact test results (669 BVs). Table ES.1 summarizes the observed column performance and relevant Cs loading characteristics.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
DOE OSTI2020

Dataset for "FLEXPART-WRF simulations to assess dust transport in the convective boundary layer at the Southern Great Plains site"

Soil dusts are an important source of aerosol in agricultural regions and can affect the Earth’s radiation budget through the modification of cloud properties, and in particular, through their ability to act as ice nucleating particles. In order to impact cloud properties, agricultural soil dusts need to be transported from the point of emission to cloud-relevant altitudes. Vertical transport within the planetary boundary layer is strongly controlled by turbulence and is challenging to represent accurately in regional and global models. Large-eddy simulations (LES) are run at resolutions capable of resolving most of the turbulent energy directly and can thus better simulate vertical transport. In this study, we leverage the LES ARM Symbiotic Simulation and Observation (LASSO) large-eddy simulations to simulate vertical transport of agricultural dust within the turbulent boundary layer using a modified version of the stochastic dispersion model FLEXPART-WRF. We find that the modified model is better capable of simulating particle transport due to turbulence, and that particle size was the greatest factor in determining particle lifetime. Individual meteorology and particle density had intermediate effects upon particle transport, while release height had little effect upon simulation results. Finally, we utilize a quasi-single column model (QSCM) approach to determine how our results compare to a parameterized treatment of turbulence. The QSCM simulations led to greater tracer transport out of the boundary layer, with ramifications for any studies utilizing a Lagrangian stochastic model to understand tracer dispersion. These results highlight the importance of accurately simulating turbulence for understanding particle transport.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Soil Water Retention and Hydraulic Conductivity Data and Model at Trail Creek in Taylor River Watershed, Colorado 2024-2025

This data package includes soil water retention and hydraulic conductivity data and model fitting results from measurements of ex-situ soil samples and in-situ soil sensors near Trail Creek. Soil water retention curves (SWRC) characterize soil water content as a function of soil water potential. SWRC depends on soil texture and pore structure and can be used to describe the constraints on biogeochemical processes in terms of soil water availability. In this data package, the sample identification follows the format TR-X-Y, where TR refers to Trail Creek, X is the treatment block identifier, and Y is the location identifier. Specifically, TR-ASCC1 is the control treatment block under the Adaptive Silviculture for Climate Change (ASCC) project, and TR-ASCC2 is the clear-cut treatment block. TR-ASCC-EHSn is associated with ecohydrology sites under the East-Taylor Watershed Community Observatory Sites directory, and TR-ASCC-ERTn (upslope n=1) are ecohydrology sites along the electrical resistivity tomography transects. The sample and location information can be found in metadata.csv, and the data from the soil sensors will be included in a future data version when the observation period becomes sufficiently long for data analysis. Sampling and Measurements Each sample falls into one of the two sampling methods – (1) intact cores or (2) soil sensors – and one of the two measurement methods – (a) laboratory or (b) in-situ. The intact cores were measured using the laboratory methods, which include measurements of soil water potential (HYPROP & WP4C, METER), saturated (KSAT, METER) and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP). The in-situ method uses a pair of co-located soil sensors to measure volumetric water content (TEROS12, METER) and soil water potential (TEROS21, METER), and the hydraulic conductivity was not measured. In comparison, the laboratory methods progress from full saturation to dry conditions, and the in-situ method includes both dry-to-wet and wet-to-dry cycles. The sampling and measurement methods for each sample can be found in metadata.csv, and more information about the measurements is detailed in the Methods section below. Models Retention and hydraulic conductivity data were fitted with four van-Genuchten-type models (specified by “model_name” column in the files): (1) traditional constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained”), (2) traditional unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained”), (3) PDI-variant of the constrained van Genuchten model (“vG_constrained_PDI”), and (4) PDI-variant of the unconstrained van Genuchten model (“vG_unconstrained_PDI”). The difference between the constrained (1: n) and the unconstrained (2: n, m) van Genuchten models is the number of pore-size distribution parameters in the model equations, giving the unconstrained model more degrees of freedom when fitting the data. Between the traditional and the PDI-variant models, model fitting differs the most at the dry end of the measurements. The traditional models allow infinite suction at the residual water content (water content does not drop below residual water content), and the PDI-variant models enforce a soil water potential value of pF=6.8 (~ -630 MPa) at oven-dryness (water content reaches 0). The inclusion of the van-Genuchten-type models is due to their common application. If other retention models are required, users can access the data in data.csv for further data fitting. More information about the models can be found in the Methods section below. Fitting Tasks The model fitting can be categorized into three levels of tasks (specified by “fitting_task” column in the files). Level 1 (“fit_retention”) only includes retention data fitting (the only level available for the in-situ method). Level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, and the saturated hydraulic conductivity (Ks, a parameter of the hydraulic conductivity functions) is fixed by the measurements from KSAT. Level 3 (“fit_retention_conductivity_Ks”) also includes both retention and hydraulic conductivity data fitting, but Ks is a fitted parameter without the constraints from KSAT measurements. Among the same retention models (e.g. vG_constrained models of the same sample), level 1 should produce the best retention data fitting. Level 2 should have the highest misfit of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data, because the retention and hydraulic conductivity functions share common model parameters, and the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (HYPROP) data fitting is subject to Ks measured independently by KSAT. Level 3 should have mid-level misfits of the retention and hydraulic conductivity data. While level 3 fits the hydraulic conductivity data better than level 2, the fitted Ks value might be unreasonable due to the lack of constraints at the wet end of the measurements. General recommendation when using this data package: (1) Choice of sampling methods: Intact cores might suffer from sample gaps that would lead to overestimation of Ks (sample gaps can be inferred from the “soil_sample_volume” column in metadata.csv when the value is < 249). In-situ method has higher uncertainty in characterizing the wet end of the SWRC because of sensor limitations and the difficulty in reaching full saturation under natural conditions. (2) Choice of fitting tasks: When only retention data is needed, level 1 (“fit_retention”) should be prioritized. When both retention and hydraulic conductivity data are needed, level 2 (“fit_retention_conductivity”) could be prioritized. (3) Choice of models: This could depend on what the downstream models call for. If no specific model is required, model misfit could be used as a ranking criterion. Model misfit values in terms of RMSE can be found in model_parameters.csv. The following files are included in this data package: (1) metadata.csv – This file includes the general information of each sample, including location (description, geocoordinates, elevation), sampling and measurements details (method, depth, time or period, volume, instruments), and soil physical properties (bulk density, saturated hydraulic conductivity, only applicable to physical soil samples). (2) data.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity data of each sample. Column “instrument” specifies the instrument (HYPROP, WP4C, or TEROS) used to perform the measurements. (3) model_fit.csv – This file includes soil water potential, volumetric water content, and unsaturated hydraulic conductivity fitted from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the variable does not apply to that fitting task. (4) model_parameters.csv – This file includes the fitted model parameters, model misfits, and conventional water content thresholds (field capacity and wilting point) from the four models and three fitting tasks. Column “model_name” specifies the retention model used, and “fitting_task” specifies the level of data fitting. Missing values indicate that the parameter does not apply to that model and/or that fitting task. (5) data_Ks.csv – This file includes the saturated hydraulic conductivity measurements from KSAT. (6) /figure/*.png – This folder includes three quick visualizations of the data, retention model fitting results and misfits, and hydraulic conductivity model fitting results, misfits, and parameters. The model fitting results are separated by samples and fitting tasks and colored by models. Zoom-in required. (7) /hyprop/*.bdhx – This folder includes proprietary hyprop files that require the free Labros SoilView-Analysis (METER) to open. Users can explore data fitting using other retention models (i.e. Brooks-Corey, Fredlund-Xing, Kosugi, bimodal models). Be aware that Ks value is pre-entered under “Fitting tab, Conductivity functions parameters” for level 2 fitting. If the value is lost, please refer to metadata.csv under “Ks” column. (8) Six file-level metadata that summarize file, header, column, and variable information of all files. This work was supported by the Watershed Function Science Focus Area at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Biological and Environmental Research under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231.

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2023

Using Homogenized Models to Explore the Effect of Fracture Densities on Weathering

Despite its importance, only a few researchers have incorporated the effects of fracturing into models of reactive transport for rock weathering. Here we explore 2D simulations that describe weathering under conditions of diffusive and advective transport within heterogeneous media consisting of rocky blocks and fractures. In our simulations, the Darcy velocities vary in space and time and depend on weathering processes within the rock matrix. We explore simulations with saturated and unsaturated flow for weathering bedrock that consists of blocks separated by inert or weathered material. The simulations show that a simplified homogenized model can approximate exact solutions for some of the simulated columns and hills and can allow exploration of coupling between flow and reaction in fractured rock. These hillslope simulations document that, even in the presence of 2D water flow, i) an increase in fracture density results in faster weathering advance rates; and ii) the water table locates deeper for a rock system that is weathered and fractured rather than weathered and unfractured. Some of these patterns have also been observed for natural systems. But these simulations also highlight how simplified models that do not use appropriate averaging of heterogeneities can be inaccurate in predicting weathering rate for natural systems. For example, if water flows both vertically and laterally through the vadose zone of a hill, then a prediction of the depth of regolith that is based on modeling strictly unidirectional downward infiltration will be unrealistically large. Likewise, if the fracture density observed near the land surface is used in a model to predict depth of weathering for a system where the fracture density decreases downward, the model will overestimate regolith depth. Learning how to develop accurately homogenized models could thus enable better conceptual models and predictions of weathering advance in natural systems.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Implementation of a portable diagnostic system for Thomson scattering measurements on an electrothermal arc source

To fulfill the increasing needs of diagnostic support for researchers in plasma technology, a portable diagnostic package (PDP) equipped for both laser Thomson scattering (TS) and optical emission spectroscopy has been designed and constructed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), aiming to measure the temperature and number density of electrons and temperatures of ions in plasma devices. The PDP has been initially implemented on a high density and low temperature electrothermal arc source (ET-arc) at ORNL to test its TS capability. TS from the plasmas in the ET-arc has been obtained using the PDP. The electron temperature and number density were determined from TS spectra. These results were then compared to measurements from previous studies on the ET-arc. The TS diagnostic measured 0.8 ± 0.1, 1.3 ± 0.2, and 0.7 ± 0.1 eV and (4.4 ± 0.5) × 1021, (5.9 ± 0.7) × 1021, and (4.3 ± 0.5) x 1021 m-3, respectively, from three lines of sight that transect the plasma column.

He, Z. (ORCID:0000000183159882)↗
DOE OSTI2024

Simulations of vertical displacement oscillatory modes and global Alfvén Eigenmodes in JET geometry

Vertical Displacement Oscillatory Modes (VDOM), with frequency in the Alfvén range, are natural modes of oscillation of magnetically confined laboratory plasmas with elongated cross-section. These axisymmetric modes arise from the interaction between the plasma current, which is in equilibrium with currents flowing in external coils, and perturbed currents induced on a nearby conducting wall. The restoring force exerted by these perturbed currents on the vertical motion of the plasma column leads to its oscillatory behavior. An analytic model for VDOM was proposed based on an idealized 'straight tokamak' equilibrium with uniform equilibrium current density. This article introduces the first numerical simulations of VDOM in a realistic JET tokamak configuration, using the extended-MHD code NIMROD and drawing comparisons with Global Alfvén Eigenmodes (GAE). The results show qualitative agreement with analytic predictions regarding mode frequency and radial structure, supporting the identification of VDOM as a fundamental oscillation mode in tokamak plasmas. VDOM and GAE are modeled in a representative JET discharge, where axisymmetric perturbations with toroidal mode number n = 0 driven unstable by fast ions were observed. The two modes are examined separately using a forced oscillator within the NIMROD code, which enables a comparison of their characteristics and helps identify the experimentally observed mode possibly as a GAE.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Bispectral analysis of broadband turbulence and geodesic acoustic modes in the T-10 tokamak

Local fluctuations of electrostatic potential, poloidal electric field, magnetic potential and electron density are simultaneously measured in the T-10 tokamak by a heavy ion beam probe (HIBP) having a five-slit energy analyser, which allows an estimate of the turbulent particle flux and $\boldsymbol {E}\times \boldsymbol {B}$ rotation velocity in the off-minor-axis gradient zone of the toroidal plasma column. The high spatial and temporal resolution of the modern multichannel HIBP makes it an effective tool to study plasma oscillations. Motivated by previous work that has documented time-resolved interactions between measured plasma parameters using correlation analysis (coherence of $E_{\textrm {pol}}$ and density $n_e$ , and cross-phase), a new result from bicorrelation analysis (bicoherence of magnetic potential $A_\zeta$ and density $n_e$ , and biphase) is reported for documenting the evidence of wave–wave coupling and energy transfer associated with the interaction between geodesic acoustic modes (GAM) and broadband, quasi-coherent modes.

Physics↗
DOE OSTI2023

Observation of Fast Current Redistribution in an Imploding Plasma Column

Spectroscopic measurements of the magnetic field evolution in a Z-pinch throughout stagnation and with particularly high spatial resolution reveal a sudden current redistribution from the stagnating plasma (SP) to a low-density plasma (LDP) at larger radii, while the SP continues to implode. Based on the plasma parameters it is shown that the current is transferred to an increasing-conductance LDP outside the stagnation, a process likely to be induced by the large impedance of the SP. In conclusion, since an LDP often exists around imploding plasmas and in various pulsed-power systems, such a fast current redistribution may dramatically affect the behavior and achievable parameters in these systems.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
DOE OSTI2022

Characterization of Tank 11H Samples from Tank Closure Cesium Removal 1A (TCCR 1A) Batch 1

Savannah River Mission Completion (SRMC) is currently operating the Tank Closure Cesium Removal 1A (TCCR 1A) process to remove 137 Cs from tank waste supernate using an ion exchange process. The TCCR 1A unit processes dissolved salt fed from Tank 10H through a series of ion exchange columns containing crystalline silicotitanate (CST, IONSIV TM R9120-B, 30x60) and the effluent is then discharged to Tank 11H. In support of the TCCR 1A program, SRNL analyzed samples taken from Tank 11H (without tank mixing) before, during, and at the completion of TCCR 1A Batch 1 processing. Tank 11H serves as the receipt tank for the filtered and cesium removed product from the TCCR 1A system. Processing of Batch 1 commenced on January 13, 2022 and completed on February 17, 2022, after processing approximately 70,100 gallons. A pre-production sample was collected from the heel remaining in Tank 11H just before Batch 1 processing began. In addition, five interim surface samples were collected from Tank 11H during processing, and both a surface and a variable depth sample (VDS, ~7” from tank bottom) were collected just after processing completed. Analysis of all samples included density and gamma spectroscopy, in addition to a more comprehensive suite of analytes for the pre- and post-production samples. The density of the pre-production sample was the highest of all samples measured and was then observed to decrease for the first two interim samples, followed by becoming fairly consistent for the remainder of the samples (~1.3 g/mL). The density of 1.3 g/mL is similar to the density measured for one of the three Tank 10H qualification samples (HTF-10-21-126). The 137 Cs activity was found to decrease as additional decontaminated effluent from the TCCR columns was added to Tank 11H during processing; however, an increase in activity was observed during periods of no processing which can be attributed to leaching of 137 Cs from the known solids in Tank 11H. The Cs isotope concentrations in the Tank 11H postproduction surface sample were determined to be 99.7-99.8% lower than the concentrations measured in the Tank 10H feed as measured by mass spectrometry.

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

Valence Electron Distributions from Sub-Angstrom Convergent Beam Electron Diffraction

Modern aberration-corrected scanning transmission electron microscopes can acquire four-dimensional data sets (“4D STEM”) by recording convergent beam electron diffraction (CBED) patterns, using precisely positioned, sub-angstrom probes. Here, we demonstrate that these patterns can probe the site symmetry, atomic displacements, and valence electron distributions at individual atomic columns. To this end, 4D STEM CBED patterns were acquired from SrTiO 3 single crystals and compared with patterns calculated using scattering potentials derived from density functional theory. Here, we show that an aspherical valence electron charge build-up at the oxygen sites causes intensity asymmetries in the low-angle scattering portion of the patterns. Using strained SrTiO 3 films containing subtle polar displacements within nanometer-sized domains, it is shown that the high-angle scattering portion in each pattern is sensitive to atomic displacements.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2021

Quasi-One-Dimensional Structure and Possible Helical Antiferromagnetism of RbMn 6 Bi 5

Quasi-one-dimensional materials exhibit not only unique crystal structure but also abundant physical properties such as charge density wave, Luttinger liquid, and superconductivity. In this study, we report the discovery, structure, and physical properties of a new manganese-based quasi-one-dimensional material RbMn 6 Bi 5 , which crystallizes in a monoclinic space group C 2/ m (No. 12) with lattice parameters a = 23.286(5) Å, b = 4.6215(9) Å, c = 13.631(3) Å, and β = 125.00(3)°. The structure features [Mn 6 Bi 5 ] –1 double-walled column extending along the [010] direction, together with Bi–Bi homoatomic bonds linking the columns and the countercation Rb + . The temperature-dependent resistivity clearly indicates a significant resistivity anisotropy for RbMn 6 Bi 5 , whereas the magnetic susceptibility and specific heat measurements show that RbMn 6 Bi 5 is antiferromagnetic below 82 K. The density functional theory calculations indicate that RbMn 6 Bi 5 is a quasi-one-dimensional metal with possible helical antiferromagnetic configuration. The discovery of RbMn 6 Bi 5 confirms the viability of discovering new quasi-one-dimensional materials in manganese-based compounds.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2026

A Low Loss, Fast Ramp HTS Solenoid Prototype for Compact Spherical Tokamaks

To explore AC loss characteristics of commercial Bi-2212 conductors made in the USA, a small ohmic heating (OH) prototype coil is being developed for compact tokamaks using high performance Bi-2212 wires newly manufactured by Bruker EST. Here, the goal is to build and test Bi-2212 prototype coils for fast ramp central solenoid (CS) operation of spherical tokamaks (ST). For a ST pilot plant, one of the key challenges is the tight space available for CS in a center column where in-board legs of the toroidal field (TF) and OH coils are assembled into a cryostat with a few millimeters clearance. A high current density Rutherford cable consisting of 17 legacy Bi-2212 wires, a contribution of the US Magnet Development Program (MDP), was fabricated at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) for the development of fast ramp CS magnets in the ST Advanced Reactor (STAR) designed by PPPL. Characterization of the new and legacy HTS wires is presented, along with the coil design wound directly with new wire, and a Rutherford cable-wound solenoid using the legacy wire. A comparison of AC losses is made based on expected performance for a fast ramp ST operation. The HTS cable and cabled coil fabrication issues such as the heat treatment, coil mandrel design, assembly and 2212 quench characteristics are discussed, along with a test plan for CS design validation.

Zhai, Yuhu [Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (P↗