Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “water structure”

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 649 records · Page 36
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
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 OSTI2020

Patchy particle model of hydrated amorphous silica

Glasses corroded in static aqueous conditions typically reach a slow, residual rate of dissolution as a result of the complex interplay between multiple processes. While intrinsically suited to address this problem, Monte Carlo (MC) models developed to date have relied on lattices to describe the amorphous structure of glass and are thus unable to reproduce the residual rate of glass corrosion. A recently developed MC approach based on amorphous structures derived from molecular dynamics simulations offers a solution [Kerisit and Du J. Non-Cryst. Solids 522 (2019) 119601], but it requires a simple model that can rapidly relax the glass-water interface upon each dissolution/condensation event to retain the ability of MC simulations to reach large spatial and temporal scales. To this end, a patchy particle model of hydrated amorphous silica was developed and evaluated against atomistic simulations in this work. Models of water and amorphous silica were first developed separately, and cross terms were then defined to enable simulations of hydrated amorphous silica structures with varying water content. While the nature of its interaction potential prevents the patchy particle model from reproducing simultaneously the structure and dynamics of the systems of interest with a single set of parameters, it described well the connectivity of hydrated amorphous silica structures and the local coordination geometry of individual species. Therefore, this model opens the door to MC simulations of the residual rate of glass corrosion and offers an alternative to atomistic models to investigate the evolution of silica gels over large spatial and temporal scales.

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

Impacts of Degradation on Water, Energy, and Carbon Cycling of the Amazon Tropical Forests

Selective logging, fragmentation, and understory fires directly degrade forest structure and composition. However, studies addressing the effects of forest degradation on carbon, water, and energy cycles are scarce. Here, we integrate field observations and high-resolution remote sensing from airborne lidar to provide realistic initial conditions to the Ecosystem Demography Model (ED-2.2) and investigate how disturbances from forest degradation affect gross primary production (GPP), evapotranspiration (ET), and sensible heat flux (H). We used forest structural information retrieved from airborne lidar samples (13,500 ha) and calibrated with 817 inventory plots (0.25 ha) across precipitation and degradation gradients in the eastern Amazon as initial conditions to ED-2.2 model. Our results show that the magnitude and seasonality of fluxes were modulated by changes in forest structure caused by degradation. During the dry season and under typical conditions, severely degraded forests (biomass loss ≥66%) experienced water stress with declines in ET (up to 34%) and GPP (up to 35%) and increases of H (up to 43%) and daily mean ground temperatures (up to 6.5°C) relative to intact forests. In contrast, the relative impact of forest degradation on energy, water, and carbon cycles markedly diminishes under extreme, multiyear droughts, as a consequence of severe stress experienced by intact forests. Our results highlight that the water and energy cycles in the Amazon are driven by not only climate and deforestation but also the past disturbance and changes of forest structure from degradation, suggesting a much broader influence of human land use activities on the tropical ecosystems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2021

The three major axes of terrestrial ecosystem function

The leaf economics spectrum and the global spectrum of plant forms and functions revealed fundamental axes of variation in plant traits, which represent different ecological strategies that are shaped by the evolutionary development of plant species. Ecosystem functions depend on environmental conditions and the traits of species that comprise the ecological communities. However, the axes of variation of ecosystem functions are largely unknown, which limits our understanding of how ecosystems respond as a whole to anthropogenic drivers, climate and environmental variability. Here we derive a set of ecosystem functions from a dataset of surface gas exchange measurements across major terrestrial biomes. We find that most of the variability within ecosystem functions (71.8%) is captured by three key axes. The first axis reflects maximum ecosystem productivity and is mostly explained by vegetation structure. The second axis reflects ecosystem water-use strategies and is jointly explained by variation in vegetation height and climate. The third axis, which represents ecosystem carbon-use efficiency, features a gradient related to aridity, and is explained primarily by variation in vegetation structure. We show that two state-of-the-art land surface models reproduce the first and most important axis of ecosystem functions. However, the models tend to simulate more strongly correlated functions than those observed, which limits their ability to accurately predict the full range of responses to environmental changes in carbon, water and energy cycling in terrestrial ecosystems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

WaterTAP3 Model Results for NAWI's Baseline Analyses

Description: This folder contains the results for the WaterTAP3 model that was used for the eight NAWI (National Alliance for Water Innovation) baseline studies published in the Environmental Science and Technology special issue: Technology Baselines and Innovation Priorities for Water Treatment and Supply. The data structure and content are described in a README.txt file. For more details on how to use the data and interpret the results please refer to the model documentation and GitHub site linked in the submission.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗
DOE OSTI2021

First principles modeling of polymer encapsulant degradation in Si photovoltaic modules

An outstanding issue in the longevity of photovoltaic (PV) modules is the accelerated degradation caused by the presence of moisture. Moisture leads to interfacial instability, de-adhesion, encapsulant decomposition, and contact corrosion. However, experimental characterization of moisture in PV modules is not trivial and its impacts can take years or decades to establish in the field, presenting a major obstacle to designing high-reliability modules. First principles calculations provide an alternative way to study the ingress of water and its detrimental effect on the structure and decomposition of the polymer encapsulant and interfaces between the encapsulant and the semiconductor, the metal contacts, or the dielectric layer. Here, we use density functional theory (DFT) computations to model single chain, crystalline and cross-linked structures, infrared (IR) signatures, and degradation mechanisms of ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), the most common polymer encapsulant used in Si PV modules. IR-active modes computed for low energy EVA structures and possible decomposition products match well with reported experiments. The EVA decomposition energy barriers computed using the Nudged Elastic Band (NEB) method show a preference for acetic acid formation as compared to acetaldehyde, are lowered in the presence of a water solvent or hydroxyl ion catalyst, and match well with reported experimental activation energies. This systematic study leads to a clear picture of the hydrolysis-driven decomposition of EVA in terms of energetically favorable mechanisms, possible intermediate structures, and IR signatures of reactants and products.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
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 OSTI2020

Materials Data on H8N2O by Materials Project

(NH4)2(NH3)2H2O2 crystallizes in the orthorhombic Pna2_1 space group. The structure is zero-dimensional and consists of four ammonia molecules, four ammonium molecules, and four water molecules.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on SO6 by Materials Project

OSO5 is Iron carbide-like structured and crystallizes in the monoclinic C2/c space group. The structure is zero-dimensional and consists of twelve sulfuric acid molecules and twenty-four water molecules.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Effect of Water Concentration in LiPF 6 -Based Electrolytes on the Formation, Evolution, and Properties of the Solid Electrolyte Interphase on Si Anodes

A trace amount of water in an electrolyte is one of the factors detrimental to the electrochemical performance of silicon (Si)-based lithium-ion batteries that adversely affect the formation and evolution of the solid electrolyte interphase (SEI) on Si-based anodes and change its properties. Thus far, a lack of fundamental and mechanistic understanding of SEI formation, evolution, and properties in the presence of water has inhibited efforts to stabilize the SEI for improved electrochemical performance. As such, we investigated the SEI formed in a Gen2 electrolyte (1.2 M LiPF6 in ethylene carbonate/ethyl methyl carbonate, 3:7 wt %, water content: <10 ppm) with and without additional water (50 ppm) at varying potentials (1.0, 0.5, 0.2, and 0.01 V vs Li/Li + ). The impact of additional water on the morphological, (electro)chemical, and structural properties of SEI was studied using microscopic (atomic force microscopy and scanning spreading resistance microscopy) and spectroscopic (X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, attenuated total reflection Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy, and time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry) techniques. The SEI exhibits both potential- and water concentration-dependent trends in its morphology and chemical composition. The presence of additional water in the electrolyte causes parasitic reactions, which onset at ~1.0 V, resulting in a reduction of electrolyte components and result in the formation of an insulating, fluorophosphate-rich SEI. In addition, hydrolysis of LiPF 6 creates hydrofluoric acid, which reacts with the surface oxide layer on the Si electrode, leading to a pitted and inhomogeneous SEI structure.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2021

Chemistry and P-V-T equation of state of FeO 2 H x at the base of Earth’s lower mantle and their geophysical implications

The hydrogen-absorbing ability of a mantle mineral in its structure determines the capacity of the water reservoirs hosted by the mineral. Water reservoirs at the base of Earth’s mantle directly influence the fate of water brought down by slab subduction and the seismic heterogeneity such as ultralow-velocity zones (ULVZs) at the core-mantle boundary. Pyrite-FeO 2 H x (0 ≤ x ≤ 1) presents a possibility of such reservoirs in the deep mantle. Ever since the discovery of this mineral phase, however, its chemistry at the lower mantle conditions has been debated. We conducted kinetics experiments of pyrite-FeO 2 H x dehydrogenation at 110 GPa/2100 K, 110 GPa/2300 K, and 120 GPa/2300 K and P-V-T equation of state analysis using in situ synchrotron X-ray diffraction. We found that x approaches 0.80, 0.75, and 0.79, respectively, at the above conditions. The collective P-V-T data yield K 0 = 241(13) GPa, K' = 4.2(4), dK/dT = –0.028(1) GPa/K, α 0 = 4.32(13) × 10 –5 K –1 , and α 1 = 0.31(10) × 10 –8 K –2 for the composition of x = 0.75 ± 0.04. Our first-principles calculations indicate that FeO 2 H 0.75 with a slightly distorted pyrite structure is stable at 100 GPa. These results indicate that this mineral is likely present in the deep mantle with rather a partially dehydrogenated composition than FeO 2 or FeOOH. Furthermore, the results also clarify the difference between the ULVZs originated from pyrite-FeO 2 H x and those from partial melting in terms of shear and compressional wave seismic velocity reduction ratio δlnV S /δlnV P .

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2021

Interfacial X-Ray Scattering from Small Surfaces: Adapting Mineral-Fluid Structure Methods for Microcrystalline Materials

Crystal truncation rod (CTR) X-ray diffraction is an invaluable tool for measuring mineral surface and adsorbate structures, and has been applied to several environmentally and geochemically important systems. Traditionally, the method has been restricted to single crystals with lateral dimensions >3 mm. Minerals that meet this size criterion represent a minute fraction of those that are relevant to interfacial geochemistry questions, however. Crystal screening, data collection, and CTR measurement methods have been developed for crystals of <0.3 mm in lateral size using the manganese oxide mineral chalcophanite (ZnMn 3 O 7 •3H 2 O) as a case study. Furthermore, this work demonstrates the feasibility of applying the CTR technique to previously inaccessible surfaces, opening up a large suite of candidate substrates for future study.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on H2O by Materials Project

H2O is alpha Pu-like structured and crystallizes in the triclinic P1 space group. The structure is zero-dimensional and consists of twelve water molecules. there are two inequivalent H1+ sites. In the first H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 0.99 Å. In the second H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 1.00 Å. O2- is bonded in a water-like geometry to two H1+ atoms.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on H2O by Materials Project

H2O is alpha Pu-like structured and crystallizes in the triclinic P1 space group. The structure is zero-dimensional and consists of twelve water molecules. there are two inequivalent H1+ sites. In the first H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 1.00 Å. In the second H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 1.00 Å. O2- is bonded in a water-like geometry to two H1+ atoms.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗
DOE OSTI2020

Materials Data on NaH9O5 by Materials Project

Na2H12O7(H2O)3 crystallizes in the triclinic P1 space group. The structure is two-dimensional and consists of three water molecules and one Na2H12O7 sheet oriented in the (0, 0, 1) direction. In the Na2H12O7 sheet, there are two inequivalent Na1+ sites. In the first Na1+ site, Na1+ is bonded in a 7-coordinate geometry to three H1+ and four O2- atoms. There are a spread of Na–H bond distances ranging from 2.23–2.53 Å. There are a spread of Na–O bond distances ranging from 2.29–2.43 Å. In the second Na1+ site, Na1+ is bonded in a 5-coordinate geometry to one H1+ and five O2- atoms. The Na–H bond length is 2.26 Å. There are a spread of Na–O bond distances ranging from 2.36–2.55 Å. There are twelve inequivalent H1+ sites. In the first H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a distorted single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 1.00 Å. In the second H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a distorted single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 1.01 Å. In the third H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 0.97 Å. In the fourth H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a distorted linear geometry to two O2- atoms. There is one shorter (1.02 Å) and one longer (1.57 Å) H–O bond length. In the fifth H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 0.98 Å. In the sixth H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 0.99 Å. In the seventh H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a 2-coordinate geometry to two Na1+ and two O2- atoms. There is one shorter (1.04 Å) and one longer (1.54 Å) H–O bond length. In the eighth H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a single-bond geometry to two equivalent Na1+ and one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 0.98 Å. In the ninth H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 0.99 Å. In the tenth H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 1.00 Å. In the eleventh H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a linear geometry to two O2- atoms. There is one shorter (1.05 Å) and one longer (1.52 Å) H–O bond length. In the twelfth H1+ site, H1+ is bonded in a single-bond geometry to one O2- atom. The H–O bond length is 0.98 Å. There are seven inequivalent O2- sites. In the first O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted tetrahedral geometry to one Na1+ and three H1+ atoms. In the second O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted water-like geometry to one Na1+ and two H1+ atoms. In the third O2- site, O2- is bonded in a 2-coordinate geometry to two Na1+ and two H1+ atoms. In the fourth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a water-like geometry to one Na1+ and two H1+ atoms. In the fifth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a 1-coordinate geometry to two equivalent Na1+ and two H1+ atoms. In the sixth O2- site, O2- is bonded in a distorted water-like geometry to two equivalent Na1+ and two H1+ atoms. In the seventh O2- site, O2- is bonded in a water-like geometry to two H1+ atoms.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗