SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “sampled value”

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 811 records · Page 45

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2025

Upland tidal brackish marsh specific conductivity and salinity measurements, PIE LTER, Plum Island Sound, MA, May-December 2022

This dataset includes raw and corrected specific conductivity, temperature, and calculated salinity measurements collected at 10 cm depth in a Typha angustifolia-dominated tidal brackish wetland at the upper estuary of Plum Island Sound in Newbury, Massachusetts (MA) within the Plum Island Ecosystems Long Term Ecological Research (PIE LTER) site. Measurements were taken to evaluate temporal variation in porewater salinity (a proxy for porewater sulfate concentration) in high frequency to assess soil and plant responses to changes in salinity. Measurements were collected using an Onset HOBO U24-002 Saltwater Conductivity/Salinity data logger deployed in a well. Specific conductivity was corrected using non-linear temperature compensation, and salinity was calculated using the Practical Salinity Scale 1978 via Onset's HOBOware software. Reference conductivity measurements to correct for sensor drift were taken at the start and end of each deployment using a HACH HQ14D Portable Conductivity Meter. Data were then filtered in MATLAB to remove values logged while the sensor was out of the well or during post-deployment equilibration. Detailed metadata, including variable descriptions, sampling methods, QA/QC procedures, and site information, are provided in the files: Typha_ctd_salinity_dd.csv and Typha_MI_ctd_salinity_2023_flmd.csv.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Production of Carbon Nanomaterials and Sorbents from Domestic U.S. Coal (Final Report)

The main goal of this project was to produce high-value carbon nanomaterials and carbon sorbents from domestic coal resources in a cost-effective manner. Four types of domestic coal samples were processed through a combination of deashing, devolatilization, oxidation, reduction, and activation treatments to produce graphene oxide (GO), reduced graphene oxide (RGO), and activated carbon (AC). The precursors and developed materials were extensively characterized by various methods to investigate the impact of the coal feedstock type on the yield and quality of each product. A commercial graphite-based GO sample was included in the experimental work as the baseline material for comparison with the coal-based materials developed in this work. The performed work also included a technoeconomic analysis and cost estimation for a plant processing 20 tons/day coal, a market evaluation for the graphene materials, and a technology gap analysis. A simple process by concentrated nitric acid oxidation is used to oxidize coal precursors for the production of GO. Fine oxidized coal particles that were separated from larger oxidized coal particles had significantly higher oxygen contents and were identified as coal-based GO samples. Coarse oxidized coal particles were used as precursors for production of AC. Based on the Raman spectroscopy results, coal-based GO samples exhibited G and D bands similar to those of graphite-based GO samples. X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy revealed that coal-based GO samples had surface oxygen contents of ~26-35% that were higher than the oxygen contents of graphite-based GO samples. Larger particles of oxidized coal samples were activated under different conditions to produce high surface area functionalized AC. Prepared materials had surface areas exceeding 1,500 m 2 /g and pore volumes more than 1 cm 3 /g with different pore size distributions. Reduced graphene oxide samples were prepared by thermal reduction of both coal-based and graphite-based GO samples at 170-2800 ºC. Coal-based and graphite-based RGO samples exhibited similar carbon contents, Raman spectra, and XRD profiles. Heat treatment above 1500 ºC shifted RGO to synthetic graphite. Among anthracite, bituminous, subbituminous, and lignite coals tested, anthracite was the best precursor to produce carbon nanomaterials exhibiting properties similar to those of graphite-based materials. Anthracite-based carbon nanomaterials also had the highest production yields. Technoeconomic analysis estimated the production cost of GO and RGO for anthracite-based samples at about 2,600 and 4,200 $/ton, respectively, which is about two orders of magnitude lower than the current estimated price of graphite-based materials. Several gaps to further develop the proposed technology were identified and discussed that include process and equipment optimization, process integration, need for additional bench- and pilot-scale experiments, and other items to reduce the scale up risk. Market analysis reports suggested a compound annual growth rate of 40% for graphene and related materials. Short-term applications include composites, inks, and coatings. However, energy storage applications appear to be the dominant potential long-term applications. Different applications of coal-based GO and RGO need to be explored and clear metrics and standards for each application need to be developed.

01 COAL, LIGNITE, AND PEAT↗

DOE OSTI2023

Genomic selection in algae with biphasic lifecycles: A Saccharina latissima (sugar kelp) case study

Introduction Sugar kelp ( Saccharina latissima ) has a biphasic life cycle, allowing selection on both thediploid sporophytes (SPs) and haploid gametophytes (GPs). Methods We trained a genomic selection (GS) model from farm-tested SP phenotypic data and used a mixed-ploidy additive relationship matrix to predict GP breeding values. Topranked GPs were used to make crosses for further farm evaluation. The relationship matrix included 866 individuals: a) founder SPs sampled from the wild; b) progeny GPs from founders; c) Farm-tested SPs crossed from b); and d) progeny GPs from farm-tested SPs. The complete pedigree-based relationship matrix was estimated for all individuals. A subset of founder SPs ( n = 58) and GPs ( n = 276) were genotyped with Diversity Array Technology and whole genome sequencing, respectively. We evaluated GS prediction accuracy via cross validation for SPs tested on farm in 2019 and 2020 using a basic GBLUP model. We also estimated the general combining ability (GCA) and specific combining ability (SCA) variances of parental GPs. A total of 11 yield-related and morphology traits were evaluated. Results The cross validation accuracies for dry weight per meter ( r ranged from 0.16 to 0.35) and wet weight per meter ( r ranged 0.19 to 0.35) were comparable to GS accuracy for yield traits in terrestrial crops. For morphology traits, cross validation accuracy exceeded 0.18 in all scenarios except for blade thickness in the second year. Accuracy in a third validation year (2021) was 0.31 for dry weight per meter over a confirmation set of 87 individuals. Discussion Our findings indicate that progress can be made in sugar kelp breeding by using genomic selection.

59 BASIC BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Tunable Work Functions in Plasmonic Metals

We have studied the effect of BITh molecules on the work functions of Ag and Au, with and without quartz lamp illumination. Silver and gold films coated with BITh molecules were fabricated and studied in reflection and Kelvin Probe experiments. The deposition of BITh films on Ag and Au reduced their work functions (in agreement with our recent study, wherein a similar reduction was caused by the deposition of a PMMA polymer). Illumination of the BITh-coated samples with a quartz lamp caused reductions in work functions by several tens of meV, which (almost) returned to their original values when the light was turned off. The characteristic time of this process (~15 min) was much shorter than that of photopolymerization (~180 min), suggesting that these two phenomena are nearly independent of each other. The effects of the Au substrates were qualitatively similar to those of the Ag substrates. Our findings pave the way to fundamental studies and applications of light–matter interactions.

BITh↗

DOE OSTI2022

Towards a neutron multiplicity measurement with the Accelerator Neutrino Neutron Interaction Experiment

The Accelerator Neutrino Neutron Interaction Experiment (ANNIE) is a 26 ton Gadolinium (Gd)-loaded water Cherenkov detector located on the Booster Neutrino Beam line at Fermilab. Its main goals are the measurement of the neutron multiplicity in neutrino-nucleus interactions as well as the cross-section of Charged Current Quasi-Elastic (CCQE) neutrino interactions on water. Besides the physics goals, the experiment also aims to be a testbed for new technologies such as Large Area Picosecond Photodetectors (LAPPDs) and Water-based Liquid Scintillators (WbLS). This thesis presents a preliminary measurement of the neutron multiplicity with {ANNIE}, using an analysis conducted on a fraction of the 2021 beam year. As preparatory measures, the efficiency of ANNIE's Front Muon Veto (FMV) was determined to be {$\bar{\varepsilon}_{\mathrm{FMV}} = (95.6 \pm 1.6)\%$} while the average efficiency for active scintillator paddles in the Muon Range Detector (MRD) was found to be {$\bar{\varepsilon}_ {\mathrm{MRD}} = (92.1 \pm 7.9)\%$}. Furthermore, the simulation framework used for ANNIE was validated and adapted to reproduce the experimental data by comparing the detector response for samples of Michel electrons, Americium Beryllium neutrons, and through-going muons. The analysis finds average neutron yields of {$\bar{n}_{\mathrm{data}} (\mathrm{beam}) = (0.272 \pm 0.010_{\mathrm{stat}})$} for an inclusive set of all identified muon neutrino candidates and {$\bar{n}_{\mathrm{data}} (\mathrm{beam,FV}) = (0.287 \pm 0.044_{\mathrm{stat}})$ for interactions which happened inside of the Fiducial Volume of ANNIE, which was optimized to increase the neutron detection acceptance. The presented neutron multiplicity values represent the number of detected neutrons after all event selection cuts and are not yet corrected for the neutron detection efficiency. An equivalent analysis on a simulated beam sample predicts neutron yields of $\bar{n}_{\mathrm{MC}}(\mathrm{beam}) = (0.515 \pm 0.0 07_{\mathrm{stat}})$ and $\bar{n}_{\mathrm{MC}}(\mathrm{beam,FV}) = (0.627 \pm 0.031_{\mathrm{stat}})$, indicating that the models tend to overpredict the number of neutrons produced in such interactions. Systematic errors have been briefly considered to contribute {$\sigma_{\mathrm{sys,FMV}} \sim 0.01\,$neutrons/$\nu$-interaction} due to the slight FMV inefficiency and {$\sigma_{\mathrm{sys,n}} \sim 0.05\,$neutrons/$\nu$-interaction} due to the neutron detection efficiency. Simulation studies further highlighted the importance of neutron detection in Diffuse Supernova Background (DSNB) searches. A combination of neutron tagging and Convolutional Neural Networks was found to reduce the most relevant Neutral Current Quasi-Elastic (NCQE) interaction background below the signal level, achieving a Signal-to-Background ratio of 4:1. In a further study, we investigated the positive impact of a deployment of a WbLS target on the energy reconstruction in ANNIE. WbLS provides a scintillation signal from hadronic recoils in addition to the charged lepton that can be included in neutrino energy reconstruction. It was found that a deployed WbLS volume in ANNIE improves the neutrino energy reconstruction from 14\% to 12\%, with the potential of going beyond this if more sophisticated reconstruction algorithms are developed in the future.

72 PHYSICS OF ELEMENTARY PARTICLES AND FIELDS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Using Separation-Enhanced Isotope Ratio Mass Spectrometry to Enable Increased Renewable Carbon Content in Transportation Fuels (CRADA 525)

Stable isotope ratio measurements of carbon atoms using isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) can be an effective tool for quantifying biogenic carbon in co-processed fuels, with results approaching the precision and accuracy of accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS). The lower cost of an IRMS may enable deployment to refineries, improving access and analysis turnaround times (≤2 hours), and, by extension, provide data that can allow process optimization to maximize renewable carbon in desired refinery products. This project explored the integration of chemical separation with IRMS analyses to enable highly detailed tracking of biogenic carbon into fuel product streams separated by boiling point range, chemical class, or specific compound. Forty-nine fuels and fuel components of fossil and biogenic origin, spanning gasoline and diesel boiling point ranges, were received from three refiners and were analyzed for their δ 13 C values via IRMS. Results spanned a 13 C range from ca. 10‰ to 44‰ and reflect materials derived from sustainable sources (e.g., C4 or C3 plants, animal-based pathways, syngas) or from fossil-derived fuels. Common ranges are approximately 18‰ to 9‰ and approximately 30‰ to 20‰ for C4 and C3 plants, respectively, and approximately 34‰ to 24‰ and approximately 70‰ to 33‰ for petroleum-derived fuels and methane, respectively. Fuel-like standards were developed and tested using direct-injection elemental analyzer (EA) IRMS for liquid fuels. This method was compared with the published methods, yielding statistically similar results. Four blend curve sets were produced ranging from 0% to 100% of a fuel containing biogenic carbon, focusing on 0% to 10% biogenic carbon. Linear fits were the most applicable for two of the four blend curve sets; however, two sets were found to exhibit slightly quadratic behavior, which was more pronounced in low biogenic blend samples, necessitating second-order fits. The origin of the slight quadratic behavior remains unclear; however, the discussion points to possible interpretations. CanmetENERGY thoroughly characterized a majority of the samples using one- and two-dimensional gas chromatography (GC and GC×GC, respectively) and other analyses. Selected samples were subjected to solid phase extraction (SPE) for saturate, olefin, aromatic, and polar (SOAP) analysis, and the resulting solvent-diluted fractions containing saturates and aromatics were returned to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), where the solvent was removed via evaporation or physical separation using GC techniques. Characterization and separations provided an understanding of saturate and aromatic content, as well as boiling point ranges for each sample and sample fraction. Samples resulting from SPE were examined using EA-IRMS and gas chromatography combustion IRMS (GC-C-IRMS) analyses. Both approaches suggest that the range in values between end-members can be increased by selecting the paraffinic or aromatic fraction of the end-member or by selecting among individual compounds resulting from GC separation of the paraffinic fractions. Considerable work remains to put these approaches into practice and statistically validate the benefit for using a fraction or individual compound over bulk analysis of a sample. However, initial results suggest that separations provide advantages for samples having blend ratios of less than 10% biogenic blendstocks. 13 C results showed statistically similar biofuel blend results to those obtained at PNNL, although additional work is needed to obtain better reproducibility. Select samples were sent to Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for IRMS measurements and Beta Analytics for AMS measurements. This work suggests that IRMS and AMS yield closely comparable results and in some circumstances, IRMS could serve as a surrogate for AMS. While additional work is needed to better resolve statistical advantages for separations and better show the comparable nature of IRMS and AMS in both the biogenic carbon analysis of bulk chemical classes, initial results from this study suggest that these should be pursued in order to proliferate this approach for quantifying biogenic carbon in transportation fuels to the refinery level, thereby potentially enabling process optimization in co-processing scenarios.

09 BIOMASS FUELS↗

DOE OSTI2024

Stream water sourcing from high-elevation snowpack inferred from stable isotopes of water: a novel application of d-excess values

About 80 % of the precipitation at the Colorado River's headwaters is snow, and the resulting snowmelt-driven hydrograph is a crucial water source for about 40 million people. Snowmelt from alpine and subalpine snowpack contributes substantially to groundwater recharge and river flow. However, the dynamics of snowmelt progression are not well understood because observations of the high-elevation snowpack are difficult due to challenging access in complex mountainous terrain as well as the cost and labor intensity of currently available methods. We present a novel approach to infer the processes and dynamics of high-elevation snowmelt contributions predicated upon stable hydrogen and oxygen isotope ratios observed in streamflow. We show that deuterium-excess (d-excess) values of stream water could serve as a comparatively cost-effective proxy for a catchment-integrated signal of high-elevation snowmelt contributions to catchment runoff. We sampled stable hydrogen and oxygen isotope ratios of the precipitation, snowpack, and stream water in the East River, a headwater catchment of the Colorado River, and the stream water of larger catchments at sites on the Gunnison River and Colorado River. The d-excess of snowpack increased with elevation; the upper subalpine and alpine snowpack (> 3200 m) had substantially higher d-excess compared to lower elevations (< 3200 m) in the study area. The d-excess values of stream water reflected this because d-excess values increased as the higher-elevation snowpack contributed more to stream water generation later in the snowmelt/runoff season. End-member mixing analyses based on the d-excess data showed that the share of high-elevation snowmelt contributions within the snowmelt hydrograph was on average 44 % and generally increased during melt period progression, up to 70 %. The observed pattern was consistent during 6 years for the East River, and a similar relation was found for the larger catchments on the Gunnison and Colorado rivers. High-elevation snowpack contributions were found to be higher for years with lower snowpack and warmer spring temperatures. Thus, we conclude that the d-excess of stream water is a viable proxy to observe changes in high-elevation snowmelt contributions in catchments at various scales. Inter-catchment comparisons and temporal trends of the d-excess of stream water could therefore serve as a catchment-integrated measure to monitor if mountain systems rely on high-elevation water inputs more during snow drought compared to years of average snowpack depths.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Asteroseismic modelling of solar-type stars: a deeper look at the treatment of initial helium abundance

ABSTRACT Detailed understanding of stellar physics is essential towards a robust determination of stellar properties (e.g. radius, mass, and age). Among the vital input physics used in the modelling of solar-type stars which remain poorly constrained, is the initial helium abundance. To this end, when constructing stellar model grids, the initial helium abundance is estimated either (i) by using the semi-empirical helium-to-heavy element enrichment ratio, (ΔY/ΔZ), anchored to the standard big bang nucleosynthesis value, or (ii) by setting the initial helium abundance as a free variable. Adopting 35 low-mass, solar-type stars with multiyear Kepler photometry from the asteroseismic ‘LEGACY’ sample, we explore the systematic uncertainties on the inferred stellar parameters (i.e. radius, mass, and age) arising from the treatment of the initial helium abundance in stellar model grids. The stellar masses and radii derived from grids with free initial helium abundance are lower compared to those from grids based on a fixed ΔY/ΔZ ratio. We find the systematic uncertainties on mean density, radius, mass, and age arising from grids which employ a fixed value of ΔY/ΔZ and those with free initial helium abundance to be ∼ 0.9 per cent, ∼ 2 per cent, ∼ 5 per cent, and ∼ 29 per cent, respectively. We report that the systematic uncertainties on the inferred masses and radii arising from the treatment of initial helium abundance in stellar grids lie within the expected accuracy limits of ESA’s PLATO, although this is not the case for the age.

Nsamba, Benard↗

DOE OSTI2024

Evidence of gas phase nucleation of nanodiamond in microwave plasma assisted chemical vapor deposition

The mechanism of ballas-like nanodiamond formation still remains elusive, and this work attempts to analyze its formation in the framework of activation energy (Ea) of nanodiamond films grown from a H2/CH4 plasma in a 2.45 GHz chemical vapor deposition system. The Ea was calculated from the Arrhenius equation corresponding to the thickness growth rate using substrate temperature (∼1000−1300 K) in all the calculations. While the calculated values matched with the Ea for nanodiamond formation throughout the literature, these values of ∼10 kcal/mol were lower compared to ∼15–25 kcal/mol for standard single crystal diamond (SCD) formation, concluding thus far that the energetics and processes involved were different. Further, the substrate preparation and sample collection method were modified while keeping the growth parameters constant. Unseeded Si substrate was physically separated from the plasma discharge by a molybdenum disk with a pinhole drilled in it. Small quantity of a sample substance was collected on the substrate. The sample was characterized by electron microscopy and Raman spectroscopy, confirming it to be nanodiamond, thus suggesting that nanodiamond self-nucleated in the plasma and flowed to the substrate that acted as a mere collection plate. It is hypothesized then, if nanodiamond nucleates in gas phase, gas temperature has to be used in the Arrhenius analysis. The Ea values for all the nanodiamond films were re-calculated using the simulated gas temperature (∼1500−2000 K) obtained from a simple H2/CH4 plasma model, giving new values within the range characteristic to SCD formation. Based on these findings, a unified growth mechanism for nanodiamond and SCD is proposed, concluding that the rate-limiting reactions for nanodiamond and SCD formation are the same.

Materials Science↗

DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2026

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

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

EARTH SCIENCE > LAND SURFACE > SOILS↗

DOE OSTI2025

Denoising Autoencoder for Reconstructing Sensor Observation Data and Predicting Evapotranspiration: Noisy and Missing Values Repair and Uncertainty Quantification

Abstract Machine learning (ML) methods applied in scientific research often deal with interrelated features in high‐dimensional data. Reducing data noise and redundancy is needed to increase prediction accuracy and efficiency especially when dealing with data from field sensors. We explored an unsupervised learning method, the denoising autoencoder (DAE), to extract the underlying data structure from noisy raw data in the context of predicting hydrologic quantities from multiple field sensors. These sensors have intrinsic instrumental noise and occasional malfunctions that cause missing values. Our DAE neural network reconstructed meteorological sensor data containing noise and missing values to predict evapotranspiration in a mountainous watershed. The DAE reconstructed the sensor variables with a mean coefficient of determination value of 0.77 across 15 dimensions representing individual sensors. It reduced variance and bias uncertainties compared to a classical autoencoder model. The reconstruction quality varied across dimensions depending on their cross‐correlation and alignment with the underlying data structure. Uncertainties arising from the model structure were overall higher than those resulting from data corruption. We attached the DAE structure to a downstream ET‐prediction neural network in three formats and achieved reasonably accurate ET predictions . The use of the DAE notably reduced variance uncertainty in ET prediction. However, excessive variance reduction may be accompanied by an increase in bias due to the intrinsic bias‐variance tradeoff. Our method of evaluating and reducing uncertainties in aggregated data from different sources can be used to improve predictive models, process understanding, and uncertainty quantification for better water resource management. Plain Language Summary We present a machine learning method, namely the denoising autoencoder, which reduces the effects of data noise and missing values typically present in scientific data sets collected through sensor measurements. This method selects the most relevant information from noisy raw data collected by the instruments and fills in missing values. To demonstrate the effectiveness of our method, we applied it to predict evapotranspiration, a hydrologic variable that represents the water moved from the land surface to the atmosphere through a combination of evaporation and plant water use (transpiration). We also used a random sampling technique (the Monte Carlo method) to compare the uncertainty in the predictions when using the raw and noisy data versus the reconstructed data. The denoising process produced more accurate predictions of evapotranspiration with less uncertainty. Improved predictions of evapotranspiration can lead to a better understanding and accounting of water budgets. This ML approach is broadly suitable for a wide variety of applications that involve noisy sensor data with missing values. Key Points We used a denoising autoencoder (DAE) neural network to reduce noise in meteorological and soil sensor observations by on average We used Monte Carlo sampling to estimate the bias and variance of all model outputs, including uncertainty sources from data and the model We attached the DAE component to a downstream neural network to predict ET with the variance reduced by , compared to that without the DAE

denoising autoencoder↗

DOE OSTI2020

Low Level Calibration of Liquid Scintillation Counting

Liquid Scintillation Counting (LSC) is an analytical laboratory method that quantifies the concentrations of alpha and beta emitting isotopes. The LSC method can be utilized for the detection of tritium, both environmentally and at nuclear facilities. Most LSC samples are aqueous-based and prepared as a radioactive sample dissolved or suspended in a high efficiency scintillation cocktail that converts radioactive energy into light pulses. When placed in counting vials, the liquid scintillation cocktail allows for optical coupling in which energy is released from the samples radioactive decay, and transferred to the scintillator. That energy is then absorbed to produce excited electrons that fall back to their ground-state and emit a pulse of light that is detected by the liquid scintillation analyzers photomultiplier tubes. Quench is a signal attenuation due to physical, chemical, or color interferences. To compensate for quench, quench standards of a known concentration are implemented at increasing increments of quench per vial to create a quench curve. Quench standards can be purchased pre-made or customized from the manufacturer, however, there are several issues that arise from purchasing the pre-made quench standards. The main issues with ordering pre-made quench standards is that they use higher count values, between 30,000 and 250,000 disintegrations per minute (dpm) of tritium per vial and only come in glass vials. Using higher counting standards in glass vials makes it hard to see lower concentrations in plastic vials. Additionally, when using higher energy standards the accuracy of the calibration readings tend to be lower. On the other hand, making a set of quench standards in-house allows for the customization of the dpm concentration to roughly 1,500-3,000 and preparation in plastic vials. This allows for lower activity readings that results in closer precision of the samples' true concentration. Technical Objectives: Create a quench curve and calibrate the LSA for tritium. Verify the calibration of the quench curve prior to cross sample runs. Check calibration against Quality Control (QC) reference value. Conclusion: a tritium quench curve calibration was performed using a scintillation cocktail with ultima gold (AB and AB/F), acetone (only with AB), and water (only with AB/F). By performing the tritium quench curve calibration, the counting efficiency was correlated to various levels of quench. Calibration checks with quality control standards were also performed to verify that the calibration was correct. The observed results provided acceptable values that matched the quality control standard reference values with an acceptable uncertainty. The next step will be fine tuning and cross comparison checks with legacy instrumentation.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗

DOE OSTI2021

Measurement of 227 Ac impurity in 225 Ac using decay energy spectroscopy

225 Ac is a valuable medical radionuclide for targeted $\alpha$ therapy, but 227 Ac is an undesirable byproduct of an accelerator-based synthesis method under investigation. Sufficient detector sensitivity is critical for quantifying the trace impurity of 227 Ac, with the 227 Ac/ 225 Ac activity ratio predicted to be approximately 0.15% by end-of-bombardment (EOB). Superconducting transition edge sensor (TES) microcalorimeters offer high resolution energy spectroscopy using the normal-to-superconducting phase transition to measure small changes in temperature. By embedding 225 Ac production samples in a gold foil thermally coupled to a TES microcalorimeter we can measure the decay energies of the radionuclides embedded with high resolution and 100% detection efficiency. This technique, known as decay energy spectroscopy (DES), collapses several peaks from $\alpha$ decays into single Q-value peaks. In practice there are more complex factors in the interpretation of data using DES, which we will discuss in this paper. Using this technique we measured the EOB 227 Ac impurity to be (0.142 ± 0.005)% for a single production sample. This demonstration has shown that DES is a useful tool for quantitative measurements of complicated spectra.

07 ISOTOPE AND RADIATION SOURCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Hanford Waste Treatment Plant Effluent Management Facility Stack Effluent Monitoring: Sampling Probe Location Qualification Evaluation

The Hanford Tank Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant Effluent Management facility (EMF) stack monitor location was qualified using the LV-S1 scale model stack as a baseline, augmented by the LB-S1 and LV-S2 scale model stacks to address the Direct Feed Low Activity Waste Effluent Management Facility Vessel Vent Process (DVP) injection into the main Active Confinement Ventilation (ACV) system duct. As required by the American National Standards Institute/Health Physics Society (ANSI/HPS) N13.1-1999 standard, the scale models and its sampling locations were geometrically similar to the actual stack and the Reynolds numbers for both the actual and model stacks were >10,000. An additional criterion is that the product of the hydraulic diameter and mean velocity (DV) of the full-scale stack must be between 1/6 DV and 6 DV of the scale model stack tests. Verification tests of the EMF stack was performed at normal operating conditions. The minimum 1/6 DV value, along with the maximum 6 DV value from the scale model testing determines the range of stack flow rates for which the full-scale stack may be operated and remain in compliance with the stack verification criterion. Based on the LV-S1 scale model test DV values, the corresponding stack flow rates for the EMF stack are as listed in Table S1. Table S1. Effluent Management Facility Stack Qualified Flow Range. Stack Parameter EM-1 Minimum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 781 Maximum Qualified Stack Flow (scfm) 53,432 The remaining criteria for the stack verification to be considered valid involve the flow angle and velocity uniformity results. First, the flow angle at the full-scale stack must be =20°. Second, the velocity uniformity at the full-scale stack must be =20% coefficient of variance (COV). Finally, the velocity uniformity results for the actual and scale model stack tests must agree within 5% COV. These criteria were met through the full-scale stack test at the EMF. Flow angle results were less than 5°; all flow angle results were within the =20° criterion. The velocity uniformity results for each test condition ranged between 2.2% COV and 4.3% COV, which were all within the range of the target % COV values from the scale model tests on the LV-S1, LB-S1, and LV S2 scale models. Based on these stack verification test results, the EMF filtered exhaust stack sampling location meets the qualification criteria provided in the ANSI/HPS N13.1-1999 standard for all fan operating configurations. This includes each combination of ACV fan with the DVP exhausters. Further changes to the system configuration or operating conditions that are outside the qualified flow rates described in this report may require additional tests or analyses to determine compliance with the standard.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗

DOE OSTI2021

Crystal Structure of an Anisotropic Pyrope Garnet That Contains Two Cubic Phases

The crystal structure of two different samples of pyrope garnet, ideally Mg 3 Al 2 Si 3 O 12 , from South Africa was refined using the Rietveld method, space group Ia3¯d, and monochromatic synchrotron high-resolution powder X-ray diffraction (HRPXRD) data. Sample 1 from Wesselton Mine is a single cubic phase and is optically isotropic. Electron-probe microanalysis (EPMA) provided an average composition {Mg 2.30 Fe 2+ 0.26 Ca 0.42 Mn 2+ 0.02 } Σ3 [Al 1.53 Fe 3+ 0.06 Cr 3+ 0.40 Ti 4+ 0.01 Fe 2+ 0.01 ] Σ2 Si 3 O 12 , which contains a significant amount of Cr cations. The unit-cell parameter (Å) and bond distances (Å) are a = 11.56197(1) Å, average = 2.2985, Al-O = 1.9101(4), and Si-O = 1.6343(3) Å. Sample 2 from De Beers Diamond Mine has an average composition {Mg 2.33 Fe 2+ 0.33 Ca 0.33 Mn 2+ 0.01 } Σ3 [Al 1.73 Fe 3+ 0.12 Cr 3+ 0.06 Ti 4+ 0.05 Fe 2+ 0.05 ] Σ2 Si 3 O 12 and is a fine-scale intergrowth of two cubic phases. The weight percentage, unit-cell parameter (Å), and bond distances (Å) for phase 2a are 62.2(1)%, a = 11.56185(1) Å, average = 2.3006, Al-O = 1.9080(4), Si-O = 1.6334(4) Å. The corresponding values for phase 2b are 37.8(1)%, a = 11.53896(1) Å, average = 2.2954, Al-O = 1.9020(6), Si-O = 1.6334(6) Å. The two cubic phases in sample 2 cause the crystal to be optically anisotropic because of strain induce birefringence. The unit-cell parameter and bond distances for sample 1 are similar to those in phase 2a.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2022

Nanostructure refinement and phase formation of flash annealed FeNi-based soft magnetic alloys

In this work, the resulting nanocomposite microstructures of FeNi nanocrystallites under different heating and cooling rates (5 °C/min vs 400-500 °C/s) is investigated. Conventional furnace annealing under low heating rates and slow cooling resulted in both BCC α-FeNi and FCC γ-FeNi nanocrystallites with an average grain size on the order of 25-27 nm whereas high heating rates achieved via flash annealing techniques have enabled a dramatically refined microstructure consisting of 5-7 nm grains with FCC γ-FeNi phase and found to be the dominant phase following primary crystallization. Grain size refinement and phase identity optimization yielded low values of coercivities-17 A/m and high permeability similar to 11 x 10 3 measured at 400 Hz/1 kA/m in flash annealed samples at 450 °C for 5 s. The magnetic behavior and the underlying mechanism of optimal soft magnetic properties are discussed in terms of the critical role of the grain size in domain wall pinning and coercivity.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗