SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “in-situ sample analysis”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2026

Opportunities and Limitations of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy in Astrobiology

For decades, Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectroscopy has been utilized as a powerful tool in various scientific disciplines, most prominently in chemistry, to determine molecular structures or monitor reactions. While well established in various fields, NMR applications in astrobiology are still unclear. This work aims to explore the potential of NMR in astrobiology, highlighting strengths but also weaknesses. We illustrate capabilities of NMR with two applications: (1) recently developed methods for position-specific carbon isotope analysis of complex organics; and (2) well-established tools for performing quantitative compositional analysis of complex organic mixtures. By utilizing samples relevant to astrobiology, specifically the amino acid valine and analogue mixtures of organics, we showcase that molecules retain a source dependent and distinct intramolecular carbon isotope fingerprint. We demonstrate that compositional sample analysis provides an independent and complementary line of evidence pointing towards the origin of a molecule or mixture. Together, these NMR tools have the potential to support life detection efforts, and aid in distinguishing between biotic and abiotic samples. Finally, we discuss sensitivity, detection limits, the portability of NMR, and propose how integration with mass-spectrometry techniques will be imperative to enable more targeted and comprehensive analyses relevant to astrobiology, including in-situ analysis but also sample return missions.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗

DOE OSTI2025

Expedition UT-GOM2-2 Site H

Pressure and conventional cores were collected at Site H of the Walker Ridge Protracted Area Block 313 in the Terrebonne Basin, deepwater Gulf of America (Gulf of Mexico) during the University of Texas (UT) Deepwater Hydrate Coring Expedition (UT-GOM2-2). Pressure and conventional cores were collected continuously to a depth of 155.1 meters below the seafloor (mbsf). At deeper depths, cores were taken periodically from hydrate-bearing sands and their bounding muds to a total depth of 861.3 mbsf. 162.6 m of conventional core and 54.8 m of pressure core were recovered. Twelve temperature measurements were made between 27.1 and 144.5 mbsf to determine the geothermal gradient. At the seafloor, more than 4 m of sandy silt of unknown origin was encountered. Beneath this sand, to a depth of about 200 mbsf, the section was composed of interbedded mud and biogenic carbonate ooze. The ooze correlated to low density and high porosity intervals observed in the previously acquired logging while drilling (LWD) data and as measured. These ooze intervals also correspond to lighter sediment color, increased Ca content based on X-ray florescence (XRF) core scanning, and increased calcareous nannofossil abundance. Calcareous nannofossil biostratigraphy constrains the entire record to the Pleistocene (< 0.91 million years), with a pronounced increase in sedimentation rate with depth. Below 200 mbsf, the section was predominantly composed of mud with two thicker, hydrate-bearing coarse-grained intervals, which are commonly known as the Blue and Orange sands. The dissolved gas concentration was quantified from pressure cores. In the shallow section, dissolved methane concentration increased below the sulfate-methane transition zone (SMTZ) and reaches saturation (the limit of solubility for methane) at 147 mbsf. Gas expansion was very common in conventional and depressurized pressure (conventionalized) cores below the SMTZ. At deeper depths, the methane concentration within muds bounding the Blue and Orange reservoirs was generally found to be less than saturation. The dissolved and hydrate gas composition is consistent with a microbial source, containing greater than 99.99% methane and only trace concentrations of ethane, propane, and butane. The methane to ethane ratio (C1 /C2 ) and the methane to ethane plus propane (C1 /(C2 +C3 )) decrease with depth down to at least 678 mbsf, mainly driven by the increase in ethane with depth. It is unclear if this trend continues through the Orange sand interval. The δ13C isotopic signature of methane ranges between -69.9 and -78.5 ‰ relative to the Vienna Pee Dee Belemnite (VPDB) standard. Pressure core recovery in sandy intervals was poor. However, pressure core logs of the Orange sand show intervals of low density and high velocity, which are indicative of high hydrate saturation. One pressure core was degassed and the average hydrate saturation in the core was determined to be 24%. One core from within the Orange sand was composed of interbedded graded sandy silt and mud. The sandy silts from this core are composed of mainly quartz and feldspar with some lithics. Most of the recovered pressure core samples are maintained at near in-situ pressure and temperature (within the hydrate stability field) at the University of Texas Pressure Core Center awaiting analysis. In the shallow section, samples will be used to determine the flux of organic carbon through the basin system, find the rate at which that carbon was consumed, and understand the microbial population responsible for these processes. In the deeper section, samples from in and around the hydrate reservoirs will be used to determine the petrophysical properties of the reservoir and bounding seals in these systems.

03 NATURAL GAS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Single-particle chemical analysis reveals organic-rich detonation soot products

The detonation of high explosives produces a wide variety of particulate matter (PM) with distinct properties, not all of which are traditionally studied for chemical composition, formation processes, and forensic applications. We report particle-resolved measurements of Composition B detonation soot using soot particle aerosol mass spectrometry (SP-AMS), identifying carbonaceous species and metals not previously characterized on a single-particle basis. Results are combined with scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) to enhance source-dependent signatures. Black carbon, including graphitic carbon and detonation nanodiamonds, contributed 50.5-71.4% of PM 2.5 mass, while 22.5-43.4% was non-refractory organic carbon, a previously overlooked component that exhibited a complex and varying composition. Detonations were performed with and without PMMA confinement and under steady and overdriven conditions. Distinct particles enriched with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were observed in experiments utilizing confinement, with quantities dependent on manufacturing method. SEM-EDS validated SP-AMS findings of metals internally mixed with carbonaceous species and extended the particle size range to 100 µm. This work makes detecting non-refractory organics using single-particle techniques more feasible for detonation forensics and understanding high-energy soot formation. While this analysis uses offline sample collection, SP-AMS could be deployed for in-situ measurements of detonation PM 2.5 transported in the atmosphere.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2025

Radial burnup characteristics of spent fuel pellets by zirconium analysis

Resonance ionization mass spectrometry is a powerful tool for in-situ measurements of elemental ratios in micrometer-sized spent fuel samples. By measuring the concentration of the fission product Zr we provide a framework for determining fuel burnup while simultaneously considering the 239 Pu fission fraction. Here, the analyzed spent fuel samples were taken from different fuels and distances from the fuel pellets’ edge. Results show a burnup enhancement at the edge of a fuel pellet of 180–220% compared to the center of the pellet. By comparing the concentration of the anthropogenic 93 Zr to the naturally occurring Zr isotopes, any influence of non-fissiogenic Zr or disturbing neutron capture reactions can be ruled out. This established 93 Zr as a new tool to measure fuel burnup.

Burnup↗

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 OSTI2025

Impacts of PV Module Connector Failures on Cost and Performance of Utility Scale Photovoltaic Systems

The reliability, cost and performance of electrical connectors are a concern in all types of electrical systems, and demands on connectors used on photovoltaic (PV) systems include that connectors maintain electrical conductivity and physical strength, endure ultraviolet sunlight and high ambient temperature, and resist moisture and chemical intrusion over a very long (>25 year) performance period. Connector failures increase operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and reduce plant production, but connector failure can also cause safety and liability problems, which are of greater concern. This work results from a three-year collaboration between Sandia National Laboratories (SNL), the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Solar Energy Technology Office (SETO) under Agreements #39035 and #38531 "Connector Reliability Across the US Solar Sector." a multi-pronged investigation of PV connector health across the US (see https://energy.sandia.gov/pvconnectors/). This report presents derivation of a Techno-Economic Analysis (TEA) that models failure modes and frequencies (how often failure occurs), estimates O&M costs and lost production associated with connector failures, and then calculates the effect that PV module connectors can have on Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE). The model is informed with initial data from quantitative assessment of failure rates, root causes and mechanisms, in-situ diagnostics and data collection, lab-based forensics, and interviews with PV connector manufacturers and plant operators. SNL conducted site inspections at multiple utility-scale sites in different climates and subjected field samples of new, used, and degraded connectors to visual and electrical characterization. EPRI conducted metallurgical analysis of the pin and sleeve conductors to study failure-induced morphological and compositional changes. There is in general a shortage of statistically valid data, but data from PVROM database maintained by SNL was sufficient to ascertain failure rates and lost production as well as provide qualitative insight in its curated maintenance records. This report details the structure of the mathematical model but the sources of data to inform the model will continue to evolve. Analysis of a 100 MW PV plant is provided as an example of the use of the model, with results indicating that connectors are responsible for Annualized O&M Costs of $\$$71,933/year; Annualized Unit O&M Costs of $\$$0.72/kW/year; that a Reserve Account of $\$$187,220 should be available to fund repairs related to connectors; that connectors add $\$$1,494,004 to the Net Present Value of the O&M Costs (project life); and that O&M related to connectors adds about $\$$0.00088/kWh to the Levelized Cost of Energy. The impact of this model is to provide a tool to make the US solar sector more robust by quantifying and monetizing the reliability risks to utility-scale PV systems posed by poorly installed, mismatched and/or poorly designed and manufactured connectors. The TEA provides a model incorporating failure statistics, O&M cost data, and lost production into a single figure of merit, informing decisions and enabling practitioners to optimize cost and performance trade-offs. Stakeholders include connector manufacturers, system designers and equipment specifiers, standards bodies, installers and O&M providers, investors and insurance underwriters. This report supports continued growth of PV predicated on assurances that properly installed and maintained PV system connectors are safe and reliable. The project team is proposing future work including accelerated testing of connectors and expanding the approach taken here to other PV system components, such as TEA for rapid shut-down devices.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Bosch Carbon Catalyst Regeneration in Water II: Analysis of Bosch Catalyst Beads Throughout the Initial Regeneration Process

Catalyst integrity is an important factor in reactor longevity since it changes the effectiveness of a reaction. A Carbon Formation Reactor (CFR), used within Series Bosch (S-Bosch), utilizes an iron alloy catalyst to convert carbon monoxide and hydrogen into water and solid carbon. The catalyst promotes the formation of carbon to such an extent that pressure-causing clogs form within the reactor and reaction sites on the catalyst become limited. To remove carbon from both the reactor and the surface of the iron alloy catalyst, a technique was developed that utilizes water, an In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Resource, and agitation to regenerate the reactor. To ascertain catalyst integrity throughout this regenerative process, sample catalyst beads were taken before and after the carbon formation reaction, and then after the regeneration process. Additionally, wastewater from the regeneration process was sampled. The sampled beads and wastewater were observed under a Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) microscope and the beads were chemically etched to determine if the catalyst had degraded at any point during this process, and if catalyst was lost. Minimal catalyst degradation was observed after carbon formation in the CFR.

regeneration↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Bosch Carbon Catalyst Regeneration in Water II: Analysis of Bosch Catalyst Beads Throughout the Initial Regeneration Process

Series Bosch↗

DOE OSTI2026

Advanced Test Reactor Safety Basis Update for Gas-Cooled Experiments

The Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) supports neutron irradiation of several types of experiments. One such experiment type is referred to as a gas leadout. Gas leadout experiments actively flow gas through the experiment which allows for active temperature control. It also allows for in-situ data of the experiment. For example, fission gas migration through a fuel sample can be monitored via activity of the sweep gas. Historically, ex-pile equipment and fission product monitors were housed in shielded ATR cubicles. Due to other facility updates, cubicle space is no longer available for gas leadout experiment equipment. To support continued operation of gas leadout experiments, ATR completed a safety basis update that supports a new housing for leadout equipment that may process potentially contaminated gas. In addition to the structure and associated equipment, technical safety requirements regarding handling and storage of experiments needed to be revised to support fueled gas leadout experiments and associated outage configurations. The safety basis update addressed the full lifecycle of these experiments, including experiment movement and interim storage, and credible abnormal events such as failures or leaks in contaminated gas tubing in occupied areas. This paper discusses the completed analyses performed to support the safety basis update associated with gas leadout experiments, including thermal-hydraulic evaluation, probabilistic analysis, and dose consequence analyses.

11 - NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗

DOE OSTI2026

Determining Optimal Magnetometer Configuration on MAGIS-100

Long-baseline atom interferometers such as the Matter-wave Atomic Gradiometer Interferometric Sensor (MAGIS-100) require stringent control and continuous characterization of background magnetic fields and spatial gradients to prevent systemic phase shifts that mimic ultralight dark matter or gravitational wave signatures. Because direct sensor placement within the ultra-high vacuum beam pipe is infeasible, in-situ magnetic field monitoring relies on external sensor arrays situated in the surrounding annular region. This work demonstrates a field reconstruction framework for a 5.3-meter MAGIS-100 modular section using finite-element Opera simulations. Transverse magnetic fields are expanded using a cylindrical multipole framework as informed by Fermilab’s Muon g-2 experiment, with magnetometer array configurations optimized via Fisher information matrix D-optimality. Inverting external sensor readings through a Gauss-Newton scheme recovers interior tube fields across distinct axial positions. In the discontinuity-averse uniform region (slice pair P4), the model achieves sub-noise-floor performance with a cross-validated root-mean-square error (RMSE) of $6.7227 \times 10^{-4}\text{ A/m}$ ($0.845\times$ sensor noise floor) and an interior field coefficient of variation of $1.71\%$. An elbow criterion in the Fisher bounds establishes $n_{\text{max}} = 2$ as the optimal multipole truncation order to prevent noise amplification from over-parameterization, with $n_{\text{max}} = 3$ (sextupole) order chosen for analysis to demonstrate further complexity and cross-pair comparison. Furthermore, analytical differentiation of the fitted multipole coefficients yields dense spatial maps of the transverse Jacobian gradient matrix $\nabla \mathbf{H}$ along with propagated $1\sigma$ uncertainty bounds across the beam region ($r \le 2.75\text{ in}$). This operational framework confirms that external magnetometer arrays can reliably monitor magnetic field uniformity and spatial gradients along the 100-meter flight path given appropriate sampling for any complexity order.

Appleby, Darwin [William Rainey Harper Coll.] (ORC↗

DOE OSTI2026

Determining Optimal Magnetometer Configuration on MAGIS-100

Appleby, Darwin [William Rainey Harper Coll.] (ORC↗

DOE OSTI2026

In-Situ Magnetic Field Reconstruction in the MAGIS-100 Experiment

Appleby, Darwin [William Rainey Harper Coll.; Ferm↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Investigation of Lunar-Inspired Geopolymer Concrete Formulations Mixed and Cured in Microgravity on the International Space Station (ISS)

The research outlined in this presentation investigates the use of various lunar regolith simulants in geopolymer lunar concrete mixes mixed and cured on the International Space Station (ISS). The motivation for this work is to study the effects of gravity on the microstructure of alkali-activated materials cured with heat, and to develop materials for the construction of long-term infrastructure on the lunar surface with in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). ISRU for construction materials reduces the cost and mass of payloads related to lunar construction. The advantage of geopolymer concrete as opposed to traditional portland cement concrete is that water acts as a medium for the polymerization reaction and leaves the system throughout the process, reducing its demand. Twelve samples of lunar regolith simulant and a solution composed of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate were sent to the ISS. The three simulants were OPRH2N, OPRL2N, and JSC-1AF, using only particles less than 53 µm in diameter to increase reactivity of the simulant. Simulant to solution ratios were determined by workability while mixing. The simulant and solution were sealed Burst Pouches® along with 2 other sealed bags to prevent material from leaking. Crew member F-14 conducted testing on the ISS by introducing the solution to the simulant in the Burst Pouch®, mixing the sample with a spatula, and then clamping the specimen in the fresh state to prevent flow inside the Burst Pouch®. These specimens were then put in a thermos heated to 80C via sealed drinking water bags to cure for 24 hours with a temperature logger. The cured specimens remained in microgravity for at least 28 days and were returned from the ISS in February 2025. The specimens were then brought to the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) to analyze. Material characterization consisted of conducting Micro-CT tests of entire samples in their sealed apparatus to a resolution of 25µm. 2D image slices were saved in each orthogonal direction of each specimen at a 0.03 mm step size from the 3D model to conduct analytical porosity calculations. Representative samples from each specimen were sampled to perform helium gas pycnometery and were then mounted in resin for SEM imaging, EDS, and nanoindentation. Porosity was analyzed analytically using micromechanics modelling with the assistance of the NASA Multiscale Analysis Tool (NASMAT), as well as the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) servers (V. Saseendran & N. Yamamoto, 2024). Density was measured using helium gas pycnometery and was then compared to the theoretical density for experimental porosity calculation. Due to the samples’ non-uniform shape being cured in a pouch, traditional compression and tensile strength testing could not be performed. Nanoindentation was conducted at Clarkson University to determine the microhardness and reduced modulus of elasticity. Results from flight samples can be compared to ground samples currently in DLR’s possession to determine the effect on microstructure from being mixed and cured in microgravity. This study gives further insight and understanding of geopolymer lunar concrete and its viability as a lunar construction material with ISRU.

Adam Johnson↗

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 OSTI2027

A multi-region approach for the analysis of porous materials and gas-solid reactions using USAXS-SAXS-WAXS: application to CaO carbonation

The reaction rate of gas-solid non-catalytic reactions is typically investigated using reactant conversion data over time and ex-situ measurements of the porous solid reactant textural properties; these data enable the experimental estimation of the initial intrinsic reaction rate, whereas the evolution of the textural properties and the reaction rate over time are evaluated theoretically using reaction models. In this work, a different methodology is presented, based on: a) in-situ time-resolved USAXS-SAXS-WAXS measurements of the solid sample, and b) a multi-region modeling approach; this methodology allows for the estimation of the textural properties and the intrinsic reaction rate at any time during the reaction. Referring to a reaction in which a solid product is obtained from a solid reactant and a gaseous reactant, the porous particle is described as consisting of several distinct regions with different microstructural properties, and both a gas-solid reaction model and a SAXS model are derived and applied to the carbonation of porous CaO. The proposed reaction model highlights the role of the inaccessible reactant and accurately predicts the solid reactant conversion versus time profile. The SAXS model accurately predicts the measured linear trends of the Porod invariant and of the pre-factor of the power law scattering profile versus CaO mass fraction; in the absence of chemical reactions, the proposed equations extend classical SAXS theory to porous materials containing macropores and nonporous solid phases in addition to standard nanoscale inhomogeneous regions.

CO2 solid sorbents↗

DOE OSTI2025

In situ multi-tier auto-ignition detection applied to dual-fuel combustion simulations

Here we use an anomaly detection methodology that is centered on analyzing fourth-order joint moments (co-kurtosis), particularly focusing on its application in auto-ignition of combustion problems with large numbers of species. Unsupervised anomaly detection is challenging to generalize across problem types and domains. A recent technique, centered on analyzing information in the fourth-order joint moment co-kurtosis, has shown promise, especially for high-dimensional scientific data. In this work we present developments to the co-kurtosis based anomaly detection method needed to make it effective and scalable for large-scale distributed scientific data, such as those generated by massively parallel simulations. An in situ co-kurtosis algorithm is employed as the anomaly detection method for identifying ignition kernels in simulations of turbulent combustion. Here, we extend an existing methodology which identifies regions of the domain where anomalies are present, and add another tier of anomaly detection where the individual samples contributing to the anomaly are identified. We apply this algorithm on-the-fly to a variety of turbulent reacting flow problems and compare it to the widely used (but significantly more expensive) chemical explosive mode analysis (CEMA). We demonstrate the ability of the method to detect and identify the onset of low and high temperature ignition which can be used for computational steering, as chemical and combustion anomalies occur intermittently at spatio-temporal locations unknown a priori. Finally, we apply our lightweight in situ algorithm to an exascale high-fidelity simulation with a total of 2.4 Trillion degrees of freedom, performed using an adaptive mesh refinement solver. Furthermore, through a scalability analysis, we show that the relative computational cost of this in-situ anomaly detection algorithm compared to an iteration of the reacting flow solver is negligible.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2025

Effect of threshold parameters on infrared segmentation methods for porosity detection in electron beam powder bed fusion

In-situ process monitoring has seen significant interest in additive manufacturing to address qualification and certification goals. This is especially prevalent in metal powder bed fusion processes such as electron beam powder bed fusion (PBF-EB), with layer-wise infrared imaging being commonly used to detect defects. Here, this work compares two different segmentation methods (static thresholding and statistical thresholding) used for detecting porosity from in-situ infrared imaging data for PBF-EB. Samples were manufactured at a variety of focus offset values to induce porosity. Then, the segmented infrared images were compared to ex-situ X-ray computed tomography scans, which served as a ground-truth reference for objective evaluation. Through this analysis framework, the influential parameters, static threshold and N-value (number of standard deviations above the mean pixel value), respectively, for both image segmentation methods were analyzed and compared for their effects on porosity detection. With optimal parameter settings, the two methods had similar porosity detection performance, but the statistical method performed better under a larger variety of parameter settings.

Infrared imaging↗