Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “conduction”

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

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

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Snow thermal conductivity and conductive flux in the Central Arctic: Estimates from observations and implications for models

During the Arctic winter, the conductive heat flux through the sea ice and snow balances the radiative and turbulent heat fluxes at the surface. Snow on sea ice is a thermal insulator that reduces the magnitude of the conductive flux. The thermal conductivity of snow, that is, how readily energy is conducted, is known to vary significantly in time and space from observations, but most forecast and climate models use a constant value. This work begins with a demonstration of the importance of snow thermal conductivity in a regional coupled forecast model. Varying snow thermal conductivity impacts the magnitudes of all surface fluxes, not just conduction, and their responses to atmospheric forcing. Given the importance of snow thermal conductivity in models, we use observations from sea ice mass balance buoys installed during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate expedition to derive the profiles of thermal conductivity, density, and conductive flux. From 13 sites, median snow thermal conductivity ranges from 0.33 W m −1 K −1 to 0.47 W m −1 K −1 with a median from all data of 0.39 W m −1 K −1 from October to February. In terms of surface energy budget closure, estimated conductive fluxes are generally smaller than the net atmospheric flux by as much as 20 W m −2 , but the average residual during winter is −6 W m −2 , which is within the uncertainties. The spatial variability of conductive heat flux is highest during clear and cold time periods. Higher surface temperature, which often occurs during cloudy conditions, and thicker snowpacks reduce temporal and spatial variability. These relationships are compared between observations and the coupled forecast model, emphasizing both the importance and challenge of describing thermodynamic parameters of snow cover for modeling the Arctic as a coupled system.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2024

Impact of Sr-Containing Secondary Phases on Oxide Conductivity in Solid-Oxide Electrolyzer Cells

Solid-oxide electrolyzer cells (SOECs) based on a yttria-stabilized zirconia (YSZ) oxide electrolyte produce hydrogen from water with the assistance of excess thermal energy; however, Sr diffusion within the Gd-doped CeO 2 (GDC) barrier layer during processing or operation can lead to the formation of unwanted secondary phases such as SrO and SrZrO 3 . Here, to establish and compare the degree of impact of these phases on SOEC performance, we conduct first-principles calculations to study their bulk oxide conductivities and compare them to that of the YSZ electrolyte. We find that SrO has a low conductivity arising from the poor mobility and low concentration of mobile oxygen vacancies, and its presence in SOECs should therefore be avoided. SrZrO 3 also has a lower oxide conductivity than YSZ; however, this discrepancy is primarily due to lower vacancy concentrations rather than low mobility. We find that sufficient levels of Y-doping on the Zr site can increase oxygen vacancy concentrations in SrZrO 3 to achieve an oxide ionic conductivity on par with that of YSZ, thereby mitigating any potential deleterious effect on transport performance. Energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy confirms that Y is the most common minority element present in SrZrO 3 forming near the GDC–YSZ interface, alleviating concerns regarding the impact of SrZrO 3 on device performance. These results from our combined computational–experimental analysis can inform future engineering strategies designed to limit the detrimental effects of Sr-induced secondary phase formation on SOEC performance.

08 HYDROGEN↗
DOE OSTI2026

Development of in-situ polymerized intrinsically conductive resin and low-cost carbon pigments offering high conductivity for sensing, EMI shielding and lighting protection

Electrically conductive composites are emerging across diverse industries such as electronic, automotive, aerospace, advanced air mobility, biomedical, infrastructure, defense and security offering static charge dissipation, electromagnetic interference shielding, lighting protection, sensing, dicing, corrosion monitoring, etc. Conductivity enhanced composites provide several advantages compared to conventional metals including weight reduction, corrosion resistance, energy efficient processability, tunable properties and multifunctionality. Polymers are typically insulating in nature and require conducting filler for electron transport. However, dispersion and polymer-filler interphases are critical and often disrupt conducting pathways. Besides, conductive fillers such as graphene, carbon nanotube, MXene, silver nanowire, etc. are expensive, limiting their wide adoption in composite industry. On the other hand, a limited number of intrinsically conductive polymers are available among which polyaniline (PANI) has been widely studied due to its high conductivity, thermal and chemical stability. However, PANI is difficult to process and exhibits weak mechanical properties. In brief, there is a significant demand for electrically conductive polymer formulation with cost-effective conducting fillers that offer processability in scale to expand the market of conductivity enhanced materials.

Kumar, Vipin [Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)↗
DOE OSTI2024

Evaluating Heat Extraction Performance of Closed-Loop Geothermal Systems with Thermally Conductive Enhancements in Conduction-Only Reservoirs: Preprint

We investigated the impact of disc-shaped and linear thermal enhancements on performance of closed-loop geothermal systems using steady-state and transient COMSOL numerical simulations. Thermal enhancements refer to thermally conductive material introduced in the rocks surrounding a wellbore to compensate for the relatively low rock thermal conductivity and increase heat extraction. Materials proposed include composite cements with thermally conductive additives such as metals or graphite to obtain overall cement thermal conductivities of 10 to 100x the rock thermal conductivity. Our simulation approach was modeling a subsegment (e.g., 100 m long) of a wellbore with idealized (e.g., perfect disc-shaped) thermal enhancements, and we report results as relative increase in heat extraction with respect to systems without thermal enhancements. We did not evaluate technical feasibility or cost of installing thermal enhancements. Simulations indicate that for 5-mm thick disc-shaped thermal enhancements with 5-m radius, repeated every 1 m along the wellbore and with thermal conductivity of 100x the rock thermal conductivity, the thermal output increases roughly 20% with respect to a closed-loop system without thermal enhancements. For fishbone structure thermal enhancements, we estimate a roughly 7% increase in thermal output for 5-m long radially outward pipes with half the radius of the main wellbore, repeated every 2.5 m, with thermal conductivity of 100x the rock thermal conductivity.

advanced geothermal systems↗
DOE OSTI2024

Analysis of radially resolved thermal conductivity in high burnup mixed oxide fuel and comparison to thermal conductivity correlations implemented in fuel performance codes

The thermal diffusivity and thermal conductivity of high burnup (19 % FIMA) mixed oxide (U, Pu)O 2 nuclear fuel has been measured along the radial direction using a thermoreflectance-based method. Measured thermal conductivity exhibits a notable radial variation consistent with the expectations that a large temperature gradient across the annular fuel pellet leads to a heterogeneous microstructure. A common fuel performance model of thermal conductivity, the Lucuta-Inoue model, is used to analyze the measured thermal conductivity profile. Further, this model adequately captures the radial dependence of thermal conductivity except in the periphery. The analysis suggests that the characteristic radial shape of the thermal conductivity profile follows the burnup profile within the fuel pin. In the periphery, the high burnup structure is formed and the conductivity model, not capturing this effect, likely overestimates the thermal conductivity.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2024

Solid-State, Single-Ion Conducting, Polymer Blend Electrolytes with Enhanced Li + Conduction, Electrochemical Stability, and Limiting Current Density

The development of solid-state polymer electrolytes with high lithium conductivity is crucial to improve lithium-ion battery performance and ameliorate the safety challenges associated with current solvent-based electrolytes. Unfortunately, sluggish polymer segmental dynamics are known to constrain conductivity enhancements in solid-state polymer electrolyte systems, limiting overall performance. In this work, a glassy single-ion-conducting polymer, poly[lithium sulfonyl(trifluoromethane sulfonyl)imide methacrylate] (PLiMTFSI), was blended with a flexible polymer, poly(oligo-oxyethylene methyl ether methacrylate) (POEM), and the impact of PLiMTFSI molecular weight and ion concentration on the thermal and ion-conducting behavior of blend electrolytes was investigated. High ionic conductivities approaching 1 × 10 -2 S/cm at 150 °C were realized in this polymer blend electrolyte system as a result of decoupling Li + transport from polymer segmental dynamics. The decoupled ion transport was attributed to the packing frustration of the glassy PLiMTFSI – sufficient percolating free volume was generated to produce effective ion diffusion pathways. This decoupling was tunable as the ion transport could be altered from being closely coupled to the polymer segmental dynamics (Vogel–Tammann–Fulcher-like) to hopping (Arrhenius-like) by increasing the PLiMTFSI molecular weight and ion concentration. Moreover, the immobilized TFSI anion resulted in high Li + selectivity (Li + transference number = 0.9), high electrochemical stability (up to 4.7 V against Li + / Li), and limiting current density of 1.8 mA/cm 2 (electrolyte thickness = 0.05 cm). These features suggest that this single-ion-conducting, polymer blend electrolyte might be a promising alternative to a benchmark system – salt-doped polyethylene oxide. Moreover, the above characteristics can support the battery operation at higher voltages using energy-dense Li metal anodes, with faster charging rates and enhanced energy/power densities. Altogether, the results suggest that polymer chain packing frustration can be exploited to overcome the constraints of slow polymer segmental relaxations to achieve rapid and highly selective ion transport and enhanced performance in solid-state polymer electrolytes.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

Circularly Polarized Light-Induced Microwave Conductivity Measurement: Rapid Screening Technique of Electronic Conductivity in Chiral Molecular Materials

Here, we developed circularly polarized light-time-resolved microwave conductivity (CPL-TRMC) for investigation of the CPL-dependent photoinduced charge carrier dynamics in chiral materials with chiroptical properties. Chiral R- or S-perylenediimide (PDI) molecular thin films were paired with handedness-sorted (6,5) and (11,-5) single-walled carbon nanotube (SWCNT) films to compose a donor (D)-acceptor (A) system for the spin-dependent charge separation process, and the D-A system was examined through linear and circular polarization-dependent steady-state and time-resolved measurements. The R-PDI-(6,5) film exhibited strong enhancement in circular dichroism (CD) and revealed a reversed transient conductivity signal, relative to the polarity of CD in CPL-TRMC measurement upon excitation of the E 11 state, which is interpreted as arising from a spin-dependent initial charge separation process. Through linear polarization-dependent flash photolysis TRMC and circular polarization-resolved femtosecond transient absorption, we could deduce that sub-picosecond intertubular charge separation upon E 11 excitation in SWCNT was responsible for the spin-dependent photoconductivity transients observed in CPL-TRMC measurements.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2024

Enhancing the Conductivity and Thermoelectric Performance of Semicrystalline Conducting Polymers through Controlled Tie Chain Incorporation

Abstract Conjugated polymers are promising materials for thermoelectric applications, however, at present few effective and well‐understood strategies exist to further advance their thermoelectric performance. Here a new model system is reported for a better understanding of the key factors governing their thermoelectric properties: aligned, ribbon‐phase poly[2,5‐bis(3‐dodecylthiophen‐2‐yl)thieno[3,2‐b]thiophene] (PBTTT) doped by ion‐exchange doping. Using a range of microstructural and spectroscopic methods, the effect of controlled incorporation of tie‐chains between the crystalline domains is studied through blending of high and low molecular weight chains. The tie chains provide efficient transport pathways between crystalline domains and lead to significantly enhanced electrical conductivity of 4810 S cm −1 , which is not accompanied by a reduction in Seebeck coefficient or a large increase in thermal conductivity. Respectable power factors of 173 µW m −1 K −2 are demonstrated in this model system. The approach is generally applicable to a wide range of semicrystalline conjugated polymers and could provide an effective pathway for further enhancing their thermoelectric properties and overcome traditional trade‐offs in optimization of thermoelectric performance.

Chemistry↗
DOE OSTI2025

Modified Data Collection And Analysis Codes Of Using Tcm (thermal Conductivity Microscope) To Measure Thermal Conductivity And Diffusivity

The "data collection" basically involves setting up the thermal wave frequency, laser scan distance, and other parameters related to the experimental setup. The modification of this code is minor and the details of this code can be found in the earlier patent ("thermal conductivity microscope"). The "data analysis" instead, replaces the simplified analytical model by a more complete analytical model, and used a "thermoquadruple" method to solve the analytical model. The efficiency is orders of magnitude improved and the accuracy is also better. Meanwhile, the previous model can only handle a two-layer sample structure. The new, complete model can handle materials with multiple layers (any given number), which is necessary to handle post ion irradiated materials.

Hua, Zilong [Idaho National Laboratory (INL), Idah↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗
DOE OSTI2024

Coal-derived electrically conductive asphalt pavements for snow/ice melting: From laboratory to field

Timely removal of ice and snow from roads is critical to safe, fast, and uninterrupted transportation networks in cold regions. Constructing electrically conductive asphalt pavements to melt the ice and snow on the roads through resistive eating is an emerging alternative technology to traditional snow/ice removal approaches such as utilizing snowplow machines and deicing chemicals. Carbon-based fibers and fillers including carbon fiber and graphite have been widely reported to make electrically conductive hot mix asphalt mixtures for pavement snow/ice-melting applications. This study aimed to develop and demonstrate a novel type of electrically conductive asphalt pavements for snow/ice-melting, which utilizes electrically conductive cold mix asphalt (CMA) mixtures incorporating coal-derived carbon-based coke aggregate as resistive heating elements. Both laboratory experiments and field tests were conducted to investigate the electrical, mechanical, and thermal properties of such electrically conductive asphalt mixtures and pavements. The laboratory experiment results indicated that the electrically conductive CMA mixtures incorporating coke aggregate had sufficiently high electrical conductivity and satisfactory mechanical performance and the pavement prototype slab utilizing a thin layer of such CMA mixtures could successfully raise the pavement surface temperatures to 8.3–11.7 °C rom a low temperature of –5 °C with an input power density of 473 W/m 2 . The field test results showed that the full-scale coal-derived electrically conductive asphalt pavements were able to increase the pavement surface temperatures when electricity was applied, but the magnitude of temperature increase was highly dependent on the power density. Furthermore, it is promising to use coke aggregate to construct coal-derived electrically conductive asphalt pavements for snow/ice melting.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2025

An Optothermal Raman Model Accounting for Convection, Radiation, and Substrate Effects for Evaluation of the Thermal Conductivity of Two‐Dimensional Coatings

Thermal conductivity of two‐dimensional (2D) materials is important to characterize as this will govern thermal transport physics in the various thermal and energy applications benefitting from the unique properties of these materials. Here, analytical and numerical techniques are presented to determine the thermal conductivity and interfacial conductance of a 2D material coating using confocal micro‐Raman spectroscopy as a noncontact diagnostic. While several methods have been proposed for calculating the values of thermal conductivity, interfacial conductance, and spatial temperature profile, these models often do not consider effects of radiation, convection, and substrate resistance on the temperature and heat flux profiles. We present a model to calculate the thermal conductivity and interfacial conductance which accounts for convection, radiation, and substrate effects to characterize a variety of 2D material coatings, which is demonstrated using large area graphene transferred onto copper and nickel substrates. Convection and radiation effects are found to have a negligible effect on the temperature profile of supported coatings, while the substrate effects have a considerable effect and therefore impact the quantification of thermal conductivity and interfacial conductance in addition to limiting the spatial resolution of the technique. These findings will allow for more accurate and reproducible extraction of the thermal conductivity of graphene and other 2D material coatings when employing noncontact optothermal Raman spectroscopy methods.

2D coatings↗
DOE OSTI2024

Experimental and numerical investigation of fracture conductivity between non-smooth rock surfaces with and without proppant

The enhancement of fracture conductivity is vital for the efficient recovery of subsurface resources, such as geothermal energy and petroleum hydrocarbons. Proppants, granular materials injected into hydraulic fractures to maintain their conductivity, have been studied primarily in the context of smooth fractures (i.e., fractures between smooth rock surfaces). However, non-smooth fractures (i.e., fractures between rough rock surfaces) are common in geoenergy reservoirs and thus require further investigations. In this study, we conducted laboratory measurements of fracture conductivity on shale slabs with non-smooth surfaces and carried out numerical simulation using the lattice Boltzmann (LB) method, which aimed to investigate the conductivity of non-smooth fractures with and without proppants placement. When ceramic proppant with an areal concentration of 2 lb/ft 2 was placed in the fracture, the conductivity was enhanced by roughly 3-8 times compared to fractures without proppant. In fractures with proppant, gas-measured conductivity was higher than that measured with water due to proppant embedment caused by water. The experiments demonstrate the advantages of using proppant in fractures, even if the rock surface roughness can provide certain fracture conductivity via the self-propping mechanism. For fractures without proppants, high rock surface roughness is not necessarily favorable for enhancing fracture conductivity because the self-propping mechanism requires shear slip along the fracture surface. If there is no shear slip, high rock surface roughness can cause a detrimental effect on the fracture conductivity due to the interlocking effect. Utilizing advanced experimental equipment and LB modeling, this research explores the interplays between proppant placement, fracture geometry, and stress conditions to develop a comprehensive understanding of the productivity in non-smooth fractures. Further, the outcomes of this investigation indicate the importance of creating fractures with surface roughness during hydraulic fracturing and will contribute to the development of more efficient stimulation techniques for subsurface energy extraction.

15 GEOTHERMAL ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

A simple centrifuge cell method for ex situ quantification of electrical conductivity of slurry electrode materials

We present the design, experimental procedure, and experimental evaluation of a system for fast, simple, and ex situ characterization of electrical conductivity of slurry electrode materials. The system uses a custom-designed electrochemical cell compatible with centrifugation in a swing-bucket centrifuge. The cell features cylindrical graphite electrodes that are partially sheathed so as to expose only 2 mm of the electrode surface to the bottom region of the packed particulate pellet. Also presented is a conduction model that provides a shape factor for estimating effective conductivity. We tested aqueous solutions of carbon black (CB), activated carbon (AC), and mixtures thereof. These particles were dispersed in 0.0 and 0.5 M NaCl solutions. Measurements show that the effective conductivity initially increases linearly with pellet mass and then saturates at higher masses. Notably, CB exhibited a fivefold increase in conductivity than AC at equal pellet masses. CB/AC mixtures at a fixed pellet mass were tested with CB mass fractions of 0 to 100%. Interestingly, the mixture conductivity was found to be a non-monotonic function of CB mass fraction, with a maximum conductivity at about 60 % CB mass fraction. At this maximum, the mixture conductivity is approximately 30 % higher than pure CB. NaCl concentration in the slurry solution had no effects on conductivity. These results highlight the interactions between slurry electrode composition and compaction, offering insights for optimizing slurry electrodes. Furthermore, the system and results may also be applicable to evaluation of particulate materials (including slurries) used for Li-ion batteries, capacitive deionization, fuel cells, and flow electrodes.

Capacitive deionization↗
DOE OSTI2024

Conducting polymer-based electrochemical sensors: Progress, challenges, and future perspectives

Conducting polymers are promising due to their unique properties, such as excellent electrical and optical properties, physical and chemical stability, high conductivity, and effective redox properties with high-temperature stability and biocompatibility. Due to these properties, conducting polymers are useful in diverse applications like sensors, batteries, oil industries, biosensors, biomedicines, catalysis, cancer treatment, etc. This review article aims to discuss the recent trends and analysis of conducting polymer-based electrochemical sensors in diverse areas with all required sensor characteristics, such as the derived limit of detection, utilized techniques for the sensing analysis and derived linear dynamic range with the stability of the sensors. Conducting polymers and their nanocomposites-based electrochemical sensors have demonstrated exceptional capabilities towards detecting various biomolecules, heavy metals, pesticides, and viruses like SARS-COV-2. Incorporation of redox mediators, use of conducting hydrogels, and molecular imprinting are promising strategies for better performance of the derived sensor. The article has demonstrated the existing challenges and limitations and provided solutions in the field. In the future, conducting polymers-based electrochemical sensors can be utilized in wearable sensors and integrated with IoT devices for better reach in real-time applications. They can also be made more accessible with precise control and data output by following specific methodologies. Utilizing green and sustainable conducting polymers can be crucial in advancing eco-friendly practices in the future. Conducting polymer-based electrochemical sensors has affectivity in neurochemical and pathogen sensing, which is essential for brain function and mental health.

42 ENGINEERING↗