Strong low-energy rattling modes enabled liquid-like ultralow thermal conductivity in a well-ordered solid

Liu, P.-F.*; Li, X.*; Li, J.*; Zhu, J.*; Tong, Z.*; Kofu, Maiko*; Nirei, Masami; Xu, J.*; Yin, W.*; Wang, F.*; et al.

National Science Review, 11(12), p.nwae216_1 - nwae216_10, 2024/12

https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwae216

Anomalous dislocation response to deformation strain in CrFeCoNiPd high-entropy alloys with nanoscale chemical fluctuations

Ying, H.*; Yang, X.*; He, H.*; Yan, A.*; An, K.*; Ke, Y.*; Wu, Z.*; Tang, S.*; Zhang, Z.*; Dong, H.*; et al.

Scripta Materialia, 250, p.116181_1 - 116181_7, 2024/09

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scriptamat.2024.116181

Chiral Dirac fermion in a collinear antiferromagnet

Zhang, A.*; Deng, K.*; Sheng, J.*; Liu, P.*; Kumar, S.*; Shimada, Kenya*; Jiang, Z.*; Liu, Z.*; Shen, D.*; Li, J.*; et al.

Chinese Physics Letters, 40(12), p.126101_1 - 126101_8, 2023/12

https://doi.org/10.1088/0256-307X/40/12/126101

A One-third magnetization plateau phase as evidence for the Kitaev interaction in a honeycomb-lattice antiferromagnet

Shangguan, Y.*; Bao, S.*; Dong, Z.-Y.*; Xi, N.*; Gao, Y.-P.*; Ma, Z.*; Wang, W.*; Qi, Z.*; Zhang, S.*; Huang, Z.*; et al.

Nature Physics, 19(12), p.1883 - 1889, 2023/09

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02212-2

First observation of the decay of the 13/2 isomer in Hg and (2) systematics of neutron transitions across the nuclear chart

Huang, H.*; Zhang, W. Q.*; Andreyev, A. N.; Liu, Z.*; Seweryniak, D.*; Li, Z. H.*; Guo, C. Y.*; Barzakh, A. E.*; Van Duppen, P.*; Andel, B.*; et al.

Physics Letters B, 833, p.137345_1 - 137345_8, 2022/10

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137345

Micro- to nano-scale areal heterogeneity in pore structure and mineral compositions of a sub-decimeter-sized Eagle Ford Shale

Wang, Q.*; Hu, Q.*; Zhao, C.*; Yang, X.*; Zhang, T.*; Ilavsky, J.*; Kuzmenko, I.*; Ma, B.*; Tachi, Yukio

International Journal of Coal Geology, 261, p.104093_1 - 104093_15, 2022/09

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2022.104093

Transport model comparison studies of intermediate-energy heavy-ion collisions

Walter, H.*; Colonna, M.*; Cozma, D.*; Danielewicz, P.*; Ko, C. M.*; Kumar, R.*; Ono, Akira*; Tsang, M. Y. B*; Xu, J.*; Zhang, Y.-X.*; et al.

Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 125, p.103962_1 - 103962_90, 2022/07

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ppnp.2022.103962

Transport models are the main method to obtain physics information on the nuclear equation of state and in-medium properties of particles from low to relativistic-energy heavy-ion collisions. The Transport Model Evaluation Project (TMEP) has been pursued to test the robustness of transport model predictions to reach consistent conclusions from the same type of physical model. To this end, calculations under controlled conditions of physical input and set-up were performed by the various participating codes. These included both calculations of nuclear matter in a periodic box, which test individual ingredients of a transport code, and calculations of complete collisions of heavy ions. Over the years, five studies were performed within this project. They show, on one hand, that in box calculations the differences between the codes can be well understood and a convergence of the results can be reached. These studies also highlight the systematic differences between the two families of transport codes, known under the names of Boltzmann-Uehling-Uhlenbeck (BUU) and Quantum Molecular Dynamics (QMD) type codes. On the other hand, there still exist substantial differences when these codes are applied to real heavy-ion collisions. The results of transport simulations of heavy-ion collisions will have more significance if codes demonstrate that they can verify benchmark calculations such as the ones studied in these evaluations.

Structure of an aqueous RbCl solution in the gigapascal pressure range by neutron diffraction combined with empirical potential structure refinement modeling

Zhang, W. Q.*; Yamaguchi, Toshio*; Fang, C. H.*; Yoshida, Koji*; Zhou, Y. Q.*; Zhu, F. Y.*; Machida, Shinichi*; Hattori, Takanori; Li, W.*

Journal of Molecular Liquids, 348, p.118080_1 - 118080_11, 2022/02

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molliq.2021.118080

The ion hydration and association and hydrogen-bonded water structure in an aqueous 3 mol/kg RbCl solution were investigated at 298 K/0.1 MPa, 298 K/1 GPa, 523 K/1 GPa, and 523 K/4 GPa by neutron diffraction combined with EPSR methods. The second hydration layer of Rb and Cl becomes evident under elevated pressure and temperature conditions. The average oxygen coordination number of Rb (Cl) in the first hydration layer increases from 6.3 (5.9) ambient pressure to 8.9 (9.1) at 4 GPa, while decreasing coordination distance from 0.290 nm (0.322 nm) to 0.288 nm (0.314 nm). The orientation of the water dipole in the first solvation shell of Rb and a central water molecule is sensitive to pressure, but that in the first solvation shell of Cl does not change very much. The number of contact-ion pairs Rb-Cl decreases with elevated temperature and increases with elevated pressure. Water molecules are closely packed, and the tetrahedral hydrogen-bonded network of water molecules no longer exists in extreme conditions.

Coordination number regulation of molybdenum single-atom nanozyme peroxidase-like specificity

Wang, Y.*; Jia, G.*; Cui, X.*; Zhao, X.*; Zhang, Q.*; Gu, L.*; Zheng, L.*; Li, L. H.*; Wu, Q.*; Singh, D. J.*; et al.

Chem, 7(2), p.436 - 449, 2021/02

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chempr.2020.10.023

Comparison of heavy-ion transport simulations; Collision integral with pions and resonances in a box

Ono, Akira*; Xu, J.*; Colonna, M.*; Danielewicz, P.*; Ko, C. M.*; Tsang, M. B.*; Wang, Y,-J.*; Wolter, H.*; Zhang, Y.-X.*; Chen, L.-W.*; et al.

Physical Review C, 100(4), p.044617_1 - 044617_35, 2019/10

AA2019-0025.pdf:2.76MB

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevC.100.044617

International comparison of heavy-ion induced reaction models were discussed in the international conference "Transport2017" held in April 2017. Owing to their importance for safety assessment of heavy-ion accelerators and dosimetry of astronauts, various models to simulate heavy-ion induced reaction models are developed. This study is intended to clarify the difference among them to pinpoint their problems. In the comparison study, 320 protons and neutrons were packed in a 20-fm-large cube to calculate the number and energies of collisions during the time evolution. The author contributed to this study by running calculation using JQMD (JAERI Quantum Molecular Dynamics). This study showed that time step in the calculation is one of the biggest causes of the discrepancies. For example, the calculation by JQMD comprises 1-fm/c time steps, each of which is composed of transport, scattering and decay phases. Therefore a sequence of scattering, and decay followed by another scattering in 1 fm/c cannot be considered. Moreover, in JQMD particles are labeled by sequential numbers and scattering reactions are simulated by the order. Therefore scattering between low ID numbers, that between high ID numbers and that between the first (low ID) pair is overlooked in JQMD. Above indications obtained in this study must be kept in our mind for future JQMD upgrades.