Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Product”

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 289 records · Page 16
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2020

Satellite Beach Energy - Restructuring the Energy Balance in Satellite Beach, Florida, by Quantifying Solar Energy Production Potential using NASA POWER Data Products and LiDAR

The City of Satellite Beach, Florida, has committed to supplying 100% of its energy use from renewable energy, primarily solar, by the year 2050. The team created a methodology for estimating rooftop solar power potential using a high-resolution Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset and the NASA Prediction of Worldwide Energy Resources (POWER) dataset to assist Satellite Beach in reaching their solar renewable energy goals. The POWER dataset provides information on direct and diffuse solar irradiation on horizontal surfaces, surface albedo, and effects of local meteorology, such as clouds. The team integrated the solar irradiance data with the LiDAR data to model slope, aspect, and shadowing in the 7 km2 study area to find suitable roof segments for solar panel installation and estimate the solar potential of each segment. This process was supplemented by an analysis of land surface temperature and urban greenness measured through the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) from Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager and Thermal Infrared Sensor (OLI/TIRS) observations. These metrics serve to target areas for cooling initiatives aimed at reducing Satellite Beach’s overall energy consumption. The team found the total rooftop solar potential throughout the city to be 221,919,330KWh per year with an average annual rooftop photovoltaic, or PV, potential of 55,647KWh per building. As such, the average building could generate over five times the annual energy needs for an average household if PV panels were installed on all viable areas of its roof.

Spencer Nelson↗
DOE OSTI2022

Engineered microorganisms for the production of intermediates and final products

The present disclosure relates to a non-naturally occurring microorganism that includes an endogenous genetic deletion that eliminates the expression of at least a pyruvate kinase, where the genetically modified prokaryotic microorganism is capable of producing 3-deoxy-D-arabino-heptulosonate-7-phosphate.

Johnson, Christopher W.↗
NASA NTRS2021

Validation Assessment for the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) Level 4 Carbon (L4_C) Data Product Version 5

The post-launch Cal/Val phase of the SMAP mission is guided by two primary objectives for each science product team: 1) to calibrate, verify, and improve the performance of the science algorithms, and 2) validate accuracies of the science data products as specified in the SMAP Level-1 mission science requirements. Algorithm science and product maintenance activities during the SMAP extended mission phase have also involved periodic algorithm calibration and product refinements to maintain or enhance product consistency and performance as well as science utility. This report provides an assessment of the latest (Version 5) SMAP Level 4 Carbon (L4_C) product. The L4_C Version 5 (v5) global record now spans more than six years (March 2015 – present) of SMAP operations and has benefited from five major reprocessing updates to the operational product. These reprocessing events and L4_C product release updates have incorporated various algorithm refinements and calibration adjustments to account for similar refinements to the upstream GEOS land model assimilation system, SMAP brightness temperatures, and MODIS vegetation inputs used for L4_C processing. The SMAP L4_C algorithms utilize a terrestrial carbon flux model informed by daily surface and root zone soil moisture information contributed from the SMAP Level 4 Soil Moisture (L4_SM) product along with optical remote sensing-based (e.g. MODIS-based) land cover and canopy fractional photosynthetic active radiation (fPAR), and other ancillary biophysical data. The carbon flux model estimates global daily net ecosystem CO2 exchange (NEE) and the component carbon fluxes, namely, vegetation gross primary production (GPP) and soil heterotrophic respiration (Rh). Other L4_C product elements include surface (~0-5 cm depth) soil organic carbon (SOC) stocks and associated environmental constraints to these processes, including soil moisture-related controls on GPP and ecosystem respiration (Kimball et al. 2014, Jones et al. 2017). The L4_C product addresses SMAP carbon cycle science objectives by: 1) providing a direct link between terrestrial carbon fluxes and underlying freeze/thaw and soil moisture-related constraints to these processes, 2) documenting primary connections between terrestrial water, energy and carbon cycles, and 3) improving understanding of terrestrial carbon sink activity. The SMAP L4_C algorithms and operational product are mature and at a CEOS Validation Stage 4 level (Jackson et al. 2012) based on extensive validation of the multi-year record against a diverse array of independent benchmarks, well characterized global performance, and systematic refinements gained from five major reprocessing events. There are no Level-1 mission science requirements for the L4_C product; however, self-imposed requirements have been established focusing on NEE as the primary product field for validation, and on demonstrating L4_C accuracy and success in meeting product science requirements (Jackson et al. 2012). The other L4_C product fields also have strong utility for carbon science applications (e.g., Liu et al. 2019, Endsley et al. 2020); however, analysis of these other fields is considered secondary relative to primary validation activities focusing on NEE. The L4_C targeted accuracy requirements are to meet or exceed a mean unbiased root-mean-square error (ubRMSE, or standard deviation of the error) for NEE of 1.6 g C m-2 d-1 and 30 g C m-2 yr-1, emphasizing northern (≥45°N) boreal and arctic ecosystems; this accuracy is similar to that of tower eddy covariance measurement-based observations (Baldocchi 2008). Methods used for the latest v5 L4_C product performance and validation assessment have been established from the SMAP Cal/Val plan and previous studies (Jackson et al. 2012, Jones et al. 2017) and include: 1) consistency evaluations of the product fields against earlier product releases (version 4 or earlier); 2) comparisons of daily carbon flux estimates with independent tower eddy 4covariance measurement-based daily carbon (CO2) flux observations from core tower validation sites (CVS); and 3) consistency checks against other global carbon products, including soil carbon inventory records, global GPP records derived from tower observation upscaling methods, and satellite-based observations of canopy solar induced chlorophyll fluorescence (SIF) as a surrogate for GPP. Metrics used to evaluate relative agreement between L4_C product fields and observational benchmarks include correlation (r-value), RMSE differences, bias and model sensitivity diagnostics. Following these validation criteria, the present report provides a validation assessment of the latest L4_C product release (v5). Detailed descriptions of the L4_C algorithm and additional global product accuracy and performance results are given elsewhere (Jones et al. 2017, Endsley et al. 2020). The v5 L4_C product replaces earlier product versions and continues to show: (i) accuracy and performance levels meeting or exceeding SMAP L4_C science requirements; (ii) improvement over the previous product version (version 4); and (iii) suitability for a diversity of science applications. Example L4_C applications from the recent literature include clarifying environmental trends and controls on the northern terrestrial carbon sink (Liu et al. 2019), diagnosing drought-related impacts on ecosystem productivity (Li et al. 2020), and regional monitoring of cropland conditions for projecting annual yields (Wurster et al. 2020). 2EXPECTED L4_C ALGORITHM AND PRODUCTPERFORMANCE The L4_C algorithm performance, including variance and uncertainty estimates of model outputs, was determined during the mission pre-launch phase through spatially explicit model sensitivity studies using available model inputs similar to those currently being used for operational production and evaluating the resulting model simulations over the observed range of northern (≥45 °N) and global conditions (Kimball et al. 2012, Entekhabi et al. 2014). The L4_C algorithm options were also evaluated during the mission prelaunch phase, including deriving canopy fPAR from lower order NDVI (Normalized Difference Vegetation Index) inputs in lieu of using MODIS (MOD15) fPAR; and including an explicit model representation of boreal fire disturbance recovery impacts. These results indicated that the L4_C accuracy requirements (i.e., NEE ubRMSE ≤ 30 g C m-2 yr-1or ≤ 1.6 g C m-2 d-1) could be met from the baseline algorithms over more than 82% and 89% of global and northern vegetated land areas, respectively (Yi et al. 2013, Kimball et al. 2014). The global L4_C algorithm error budget for NEE derived during the mission prelaunch phase indicated that the estimated NEE ubRMSE uncertainty is proportional to GPP and is therefore larger in higher biomass productivity areas, including forests and croplands (Kimball et al. 2014). Likewise, NEE ubRMSE uncertainty is expected to be lower in less-productive areas, including grasslands and shrublands. Expected model NEE ubRMSE levels were also generally within targeted accuracy levels for characteristically less-productive boreal and Arctic biomes, even though relative model error as a proportion of total productivity (NEE RMSE / GPP) may be large in these areas. The estimated NEE uncertainty was lower than expected in some warmer tropical high biomass productivity areas (e.g. Amazon rainforest) because of reduced low temperature and moisture constraints to the L4_C respiration calculations so that the bulk of model uncertainty is contributed by GPP in these areas. Model NEE uncertainty in the African Congo was estimated to

SMAP↗
DOE OSTI2023

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 1: UV-C Towers and Whole-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Summary Report)

This summary report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. A companion full report (DOE 2023) provides additional information and discussion of the tested products, test methods, and results. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products had low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product had LED sources. • Five GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five had LPM sources. Product testing covered radiometric and electrical performance for all 13 products as well as photobiological safety evaluation if product documentation included testable claims. Measurement results enable comparison between products and against manufacturer or vendor claims. Testing identified numerous issues related to the accuracy of claimed GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. When claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three LED products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. Product claim issues were more common among consumer-oriented tower products, but all product types exhibited problems with accurate performance claims. The UV-C radiant efficiency (calculated as UV-C output power divided by electrical input power) of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. This study also identified several testing challenges and limitations. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Whereas integrating spheres are used to quickly measure total radiant flux (i.e., output power) and spectral distribution, goniometers are used to measure radiant intensity distribution (from which radiant flux can be calculated). Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. The integrating sphere accommodated just 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field reflect little to no UV. As a result, the study evaluated only 6 of 13 products in the far field. Electronic files of UV-C intensity data for the other 7 products, which would typically be imported into design software for designing GUV applications, may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances (IES 2022a; CIE 2020). Specifiers and buyers of GUV products need accurate performance claims and data to deploy GUV technology safely and effectively. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training manufacturers and vendors still require to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further industry standards and guidelines may address testing limitations and improve test methods, product performance, and the accuracy of performance claims.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2023

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 1: UV-C Towers and Whole-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Summary Report)

This summary report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. A companion full report provides additional information and discussion of the tested products, test methods, and results. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products used low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One non-portable GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product used an LED source. • Five non-portable GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five used LPM sources. Radiometric and electrical performance was evaluated for all 13 products. Photobiological safety was also assessed for two of the products because their documentation included testable claims. The test results were compared across products and to manufacturer or vendor claims. The testing identified many issues related to the accuracy of reported GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. And when claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. These product claim issues were more numerous with consumer-oriented tower products, but problems with accurate performance claims were found across all products. The UV-C radiant efficiency of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. Several testing challenges and limitations were identified. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. Only 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products could be tested in this sphere. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field are not reflective of UV and therefore could not be used to increase test distance. As a result, 7 of 13 products could not be tested far field. The implication is that electronic files of UV-C intensity data typically imported into design software for designing GUV applications may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances. It is currently unclear if these are industry-wide testing laboratory limitations, and what solutions may exist to address them. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products will need accurate performance claims and data to safely and effectively deploy GUV technology to reduce the transmission of diseases in buildings. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training that is needed for manufacturers and vendors to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further standards and guidelines are needed to improve test methods, address testing limitations, and improve reporting of product performance. Additionally, the wide range in UV-C radiant efficiency of GUV products means there is a large energy-savings opportunity for more energy efficient GUV products.

37 INORGANIC, ORGANIC, PHYSICAL, AND ANALYTICAL CH↗
DOE OSTI2023

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 1: UV-C Towers and Whole-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Full Report)

This report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products had low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product had LED sources. • Five GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five had LPM sources. Product testing covered radiometric and electrical performance for all 13 products as well as photobiological safety evaluation if product documentation included testable claims. Measurement results enable comparison between products and against manufacturer or vendor claims. Testing identified numerous issues related to the accuracy of claimed GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. When claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three LED products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. Product claim issues were more common among consumer-oriented tower products, but all product types exhibited problems with accurate performance claims. The UV-C radiant efficiency (calculated as UV-C output power divided by electrical input power) of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. This study also identified several testing challenges and limitations. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Whereas integrating spheres are used to quickly measure total radiant flux (i.e., output power) and spectral distribution, goniometers are used to measure radiant intensity distribution (from which radiant flux can be calculated). Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. The integrating sphere accommodated just 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field reflect little to no UV. As a result, the study evaluated only 6 of 13 products in the far field. Electronic files of UV-C intensity data for the other 7 products, which would typically be imported into design software for designing GUV applications, may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances (IES 2022a; CIE 2020). Specifiers and buyers of GUV products need accurate performance claims and data to deploy GUV technology safely and effectively. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training manufacturers and vendors still require to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further industry standards and guidelines may address testing limitations and improve test methods, product performance, and the accuracy of performance claims.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗
DOE OSTI2023

Radiometric Testing of Germicidal UV Products, Round 1: UV-C Towers and Whole-Room Luminaires (CALiPER Full Report)

This report analyzes the independently tested performance of 13 germicidal ultraviolet (GUV) products purchased between February and July 2022. The products were of three different types: • Seven portable, consumer-oriented GUV towers designed to be placed on the floor or a desk of an unoccupied room to disinfect air and surfaces. Five of these products used LED sources and two products used low-pressure mercury (LPM) sources. • One non-portable GUV whole-room luminaire designed to be installed on a ceiling to disinfect air when a room is occupied. This product used an LED source. • Five non-portable GUV troffer or high-bay style whole-room luminaires designed to be installed in or suspended from a ceiling to disinfect air and surfaces when a room is unoccupied. All five used LPM sources. Radiometric and electrical performance was evaluated for all 13 products. Photobiological safety was also assessed for two of the products because their documentation included testable claims. The test results were compared across products and to manufacturer or vendor claims. The testing identified many issues related to the accuracy of reported GUV product performance. Claims were often untestable, contradictory, ambiguous, or used incorrect units and/or terminology. And when claims were testable, they often did not match test results. For example, three products that claimed to emit UV-C emitted only UV-A. These product claim issues were more numerous with consumer-oriented tower products, but problems with accurate performance claims were found across all products. The UV-C radiant efficiency of the products varied widely, even among similar products using the same source technologies. For example, the UV-C radiant efficiency of LPM products varied by greater than a factor of three for the same product type, indicating a large potential energy savings opportunity for products that are better designed for efficiency. LED products had orders-of-magnitude lower UV-C radiant efficiency than LPM products. Several testing challenges and limitations were identified. Most significant among these is the capability to accurately test and report the performance of larger GUV products. Integrating spheres require a specialized and costly coating to test UV, and the testing laboratory for this round of products had only a 20-inch diameter hemisphere with this capability. Only 2 of the 10 UV-C emitting products could be tested in this sphere. Goniometer testing had a different size limitation in that mirrors typically used to increase goniometer test distance to the far field are not reflective of UV and therefore could not be used to increase test distance. As a result, 7 of 13 products could not be tested far field. The implication is that electronic files of UV-C intensity data typically imported into design software for designing GUV applications may not be reliable for predicting irradiance at arbitrary far-field distances. It is currently unclear if these are industry-wide testing laboratory limitations, and what solutions may exist to address them. Specifiers and buyers of GUV products will need accurate performance claims and data to safely and effectively deploy GUV technology to reduce the transmission of diseases in buildings. This CALiPER GUV Round 1 report demonstrates the significant education and training that is needed for manufacturers and vendors to accurately test and report the performance of their GUV products. Further standards and guidelines are needed to improve test methods, address testing limitations, and improve reporting of product performance. Additionally, the wide range in UV-C radiant efficiency of GUV products means there is a large energy-savings opportunity for more energy efficient GUV products.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗