Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “DOCUMENT TYPES”

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 307 records · Page 17

Building Stock Segmentation Cluster Development: Technical Reference Document

The building stock in the United States (U.S.) varies significantly as a function of several macro variables such as: climate, building type, vintage, and density. These variables change across the U.S. and can also significantly impact energy usage of the individual buildings and overall stock. For example, the square foot density and building type varies by several orders of magnitude from Manhattan to the eastern plains of Colorado. The diversity in energy use of the building stock of different areas of the U.S. is significant, and as a result, analyses that require localized results need to consider the relevant geography and the current makeup of the building stock. This document discusses the development and implementation of a stock clustering algorithm that produces a technically rigorous, consistent, and repeatable collection of geographies which are used as the basis for localized analysis. This framework considers the impact of built environment density, diversity, and climate in creating groupings of counties that create a far more nuanced analysis framework than national averages. Clustering of counties together represents a similarity of building characteristics and climate zone.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

Directed Acyclic Graph Guidance Documentation

For over a decade, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has tracked and configuration-managed approximately 30 risks to astronaut health and performance that occur before, during and after spaceflight. The Human System Risk Board (HSRB), a Health and Medical Technical Authority (HMTA) Board at NASA Johnson Space Center, is the entity responsible for identifying, assessing, analyzing, and monitoring the official understanding of the risk or risk posture for each of the Human System Risks and determining – based on evaluation of the available evidence – when that risk posture changes. The ultimate purpose of tracking and researching these risks is to find ways to reduce the risk that astronaut crews face during spaceflight. Historically, research, development and operations relevant to one risk have been conducted in isolation from other risks; these individual risk ‘silos’ enabled initial characterization of each specific risk. In spaceflight however, the impact of exposure to risk for astronaut crews is cumulative, and not independent of exposures or other risks, as all the adverse effects of the spaceflight environment begin at launch, continue throughout the duration of the mission and in some cases across the lifetime of the crews. In January of 2020, the HSRB at NASA embarked on a pilot project designed to assess the potential value of causal diagramming as a tool to facilitate understanding these cumulative and interdependent effects as applied within Human System Risk management. This process uses directed acyclic graphs as a means of formalizing a shared mental model of the causal flow of risk among Risk Board stakeholders. Initially this model was to improve communication among those stakeholders, but the potential value exceeds communication alone. Formalization of the process for creating these causal diagrams will enable the creation of a composite risk network that is vetted by members of the NASA community and configuration managed. The causal diagrams are formulated as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) to function as a type of knowledge graph for reference for the board and its stakeholders. This document outlines the pilot process, the standardized approaches, and guidance for risk custodian teams when creating and updating DAGs as a part of the NASA Human System Risk Management process.

Risk↗

Fragility Functions Resource Report: Documented Sources for Electricity and Water Resilience Valuation

Fragility curves provide the vulnerability between hazard intensity and an asset. Federal installations may include many different electricity and water infrastructure types (or assets) such as generators, wind turbines, solar PV, switch yards, substations and power lines as well as water distribution systems that could be affected by different hazards. The vulnerability of each asset is a function of its age, type of materials and maintenance. In addition, the vulnerability changes with the hazards intensity and has a probability distribution function associated with it. The fragility functions are used in conjunction with hazard probability and consequence valuations to determine the values at risk for examination of investment grade analyses of alternative mitigation strategies. This document provides examples of fragility functions and links to their sources for different electricity and water infrastructure assets by hazard type.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

Development, manufacturing, and test of graphite-epoxy composite spoilers for flight service on 737 transport aircraft

A total of 114 spoiler units were fabricated in a production shop environment, utilizing three graphite epoxy material systems. Production planning paper was generated for each spoiler unit to completely document each production step of each spoiler unit. The graphite epoxy skins were laid up on production tooling using both mechanical and hand layup techniques. Inspection techniques utilized MRB type assessment in the abscence of quality requirements. Each completed spoiler was subjected to ultrasonic inspection utilizing a multicolor recording system that documented each inspection result. In addition, one static test spoiler was sectioned after the test to examine the adhesive filleting to the honeycomb core. Visual examination of the cured adhesives showed excellent results.

Stoecklin, R. L.↗

Hall Effect Thruster Interactions Data from the Russian Express-A2 and Express-A3 Satellites: Acquire TM-Data for Type A and Type B Sensors for "Express-A" Number 3 Satellite, Task 27A - Part 4

This 12-part report documents the data obtained from various sensor measurements taken aboard the Russian Express-A2 and Express-A3 spacecraft in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO). These GEO communications satellites, which were designed and built by NPO Prikladnoy Mekhaniki (NPO PM) of Zheleznogorsk, Russia, utilize Hall thruster propulsion systems for north-south and east-west stationkeeping and as of June 2002, were still operating at 80deg E., and 11deg W., respectively. Express-A2 was launched on March 12, 2000, while Express-A3 was launched on June 24, 2000. The diagnostic equipment from which these data were taken includes electric field strength sensors, ion current and energy sensors, and pressure sensors. The diagnostics and the Hall thruster propulsion systems are described in detail along with lists of tabular data from those diagnostics and propulsion system and other satellite systems. Space Power, Inc., now part of Pratt & Whitney's Chemical Systems Division, under contract NAS3-99151 to the NASA Glenn Research Center, obtained these data over several periods from March 12, 2000, through September 30, 2001. Each of the 12 individual reports describe, in detail, the propulsion systems as well as the diagnostic sensors utilized. Finally, parts 11 and 12 include the requirements to which NPO PM prepared and delivered these data.

Sitnikova, N.↗

Genesis Solar Wind Sample Curation Documentation

Introduction: A scientist with experience as a sample science analyst, provider of flight hardware for multiple missions, and senior engineer in an ISO 2000-rated manufacturing plant has described the timeline of key participants in any PI-led sample return mission, the breadth of the organizations involved [1,2], and, of interest to this meeting, choosing the types of data to preserve and issues of future data accessibility. This work broadens that perspective by giving similar lessons from Genesis sample curation point-of-view. Curation participation regarding data gathering was part of the mission review process from the beginning. Genesis’ story illustrates outcome of several choices about types of data to record and preserve. Precision analysis of solar wind atoms captured in pure, ultraclean substrates is the driving science goal; therefore, detailed documentation was captured from all mission and curation phases and from investigator laboratories because these processes affect the final analytical results [3]. Pre-flight: Design and fabrication of the spacecraft. Like many modern small sample return missions, Genesis was a tightly managed team integrated across science, engineering and curation. Communication across the team was excellent, and, for the most part, the hands-on engineering technicians understood the impacts of “small choices” they routinely make, and the eyes-on oversight of manufacturing processes by scientists was mindful of details. The payload was designed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the spacecraft by Lockheed Martin. Solar wind collectors and instruments were fabricated by multiple vendors and laboratories. The main portion of the payload was assembled at JSC. Fabrication procedures and contamination-control data (with witness coupons) were stored primarily at JSC. The original composition, dimensions and configuration of components, results of thermal testing, etc. are still needed for interpretation of analytical data. At times, these must be estimated from secondary information acquired pre-flight. Moreover, some files (e.g., original 3-D models and early Powerpoint) cannot be opened using software. Archived curation data includes 2-D drawings, material usage lists, QA documentation and analyses of consumables used during fabrication. Important chemical information still resides in archived hardware, paints and lubricants, material coupons, cleaning coupons, environmental witness plates and reference materials from manufacturing facilities. Purity and cleanliness of collector substrates. Semi-conductor vendors provided surface cleanliness data and some purity data. Purity for specific elements of interest was verified by science team members in their laboratories [4]. Curation archived procurement and shipping records, analysis reports, and non-proprietary fabrication data. A physical archive of flight collector reference materials is maintained for future use so additional data can be collected as analytical techniques improve. These are of increased value due to the hard landing upon re-entry. Cleaning and cleanliness assessments of flight hardware. Cleaning of the science canister payload was performed at JSC in a dedicated ISO 4 cleanroom using ultrapure water (UPW). The cleanliness of this UPW was monitored throughout processing. The archive for the clean lab also includes airborne particle counts, airborne molecular and inorganic contamination measurements as well as cleanroom construction material coupons and witness coupons. Hardware cleanliness was assessed by particle counts in rinse water batches. This information is recorded in batch cleaning forms and logbooks, and are, perhaps, of decreased value due to the hard landing. Post-flight: Curation-generated data. The curation handling history of each Genesis sample is documented in a typical astromaterials sample database which captures sample location, physical description and characterization data. Samples have a “shelf life”. Crucial to the preservation of samples is ongoing documentation of the sample environment, initially under curatorial control but is now a separate facility function with requires coordination. PI-generated data. Data on sample characterization and cleaning techniques continues to be generated by sample users [5]. These are often captured in LPSC abstracts, but these “engineering” results often are not publishable as stand-alone papers. We are actively looking for ways to make this information more accessible to users. Ion implants into samples have aided science return and can be shared among investigators. These (and similar) materials should be added to the curatorial collection with appropriate process and characterization data generated externally. Summary: Complete data archives for returned astromaterial samples must be broad in types and formats, and inclusive of environmental monitoring.

Genesis↗

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the polynomial order used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative.

21 SPECIFIC NUCLEAR REACTORS AND ASSOCIATED PLANTS↗

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

Verification of the DIF3D Software to Support Fast Reactor Analysis (Rev. 3)

Ongoing design activities at Argonne National Laboratory are requiring a thorough verification of the Argonne Reactor Computation codes be performed. DIF3D is central to this system. The driver for this effort requires the 3D Cartesian, triangular-Z, and hexagonal-Z core geometry options of DIF3D be verified. Previous work identified the DIF3D features required to be verified to support current design activities, features of which are generally applicable to hexagonal-Z fast reactor designs. The scope of this verification effort includes verifying DIF3D’s ability to correctly translate the user’s model in to DIF3D’s preferred format, verifying that options planned for use have the desired effect, and verifying the correctness of the eigenvalue, fixed-source, forward, and adjoint solvers in DIF3D-FD and DIF3D-VARIANT. This manuscript provides the verification tasks and their results with respect to the features needed for current design activities. Since analytic solutions of the neutron diffusion and transport equations are either limited in scope or not possible, multiple tiers of problems unique to each solver and geometry type were implemented. Each of these tiers tests features independent and complementary arguments for why the separate testing of functionalities is acceptable. Finally, this separate testing was also supplemented with a high-level integral check of each the diffusion and transport capabilities and applicable geometries. To accommodate cases which an analytic solution is not feasible, MCNP6.2 was relied upon to provide a higher-order reference solution. This therefore required that the capabilities within MCNP6.2 which were relied upon for this work are also verified in this work. No MCNP discrepancies were noted in this effort. Note that the MCNP6.2 verification included in this work does not stand as a full verification of MCNP6.2, but merely verifies the features used in verifying DIF3D. The verification effort identified no issues that are debilitating or otherwise impactful to design usage of DIF3D, and thus DIF3D version 11.0, release 3012 is considered verified. As some additional changes have been made to the ARC software since this point all versions between release 3012 and 3266 can be considered verified as version 3253 was used for all updates in this revision. The types of issues that were identified were predominantly in the areas of: unclear documentation, software bugs which were inconsequential to final results, editing options which were ignored in favor of printing more information than requested, bugs in the outputs of intermediate results, or secondary output binary file information which was not present. While not a bug, this verification report also identified that the algorithm used to evaluate the peak fast flux in a nodal transport solution can be quite unreliable due to the methodology used and the location of the peak within the mesh. The authors of the report therefore recommend the usage of the EvaluateFlux software (distributed with ARC) as a more robust alternative noting that DIF3D will properly notify the user when the peaking values it is providing are potentially incorrect.

22 GENERAL STUDIES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS↗

Assessment of North Slope of Alaska (NSA) Snow Monitoring Arrays

Arrays of instruments for monitoring winter precipitation (snowfall) and snow cover on the ground installed in 2017 at the U.S. Department of Energy Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility’s North Slope of Alaska (NSA) C1 and at Oliktok Point sites became operational in 2018. In 2022, the instruments from Oliktok Point were moved to NSA E12, about 5.4 km south of NSA C1, where two arrays now operate. The instrument arrays monitor wind speed and direction, snow depth at multiple locations, the horizontal flux of blowing snow, and the number and fall speed of hydrometeors. The arrays are monitored using digital cameras. Collectively, the instruments produce a wealth of data on falling and accumulated snow, but, as with any instrument array, some data are more reliable and accurate than others. In this document, we present our findings on the efficacy, accuracy, and reliability of each type of instrument. Overall, a key finding is that no single instrument provides sufficient information to determine the source of falling snow particles nor the cause of changes in snow depth. However, if used in concert, the instruments produce a reliable understanding of the processes affecting the snow cover depth distribution and the true winter precipitation.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗

Variations of temporal, spectral and angular radar backscattering coefficient of vegetation

Results of an experimental program is reviewed which over the past five years has succeeded in documenting the variations of the radar backscattering coefficient of a variety of crop types as a function of time, signal frequency (1-18 GHz), angular range (nadir to 80 deg) and polarization (HH, VV and HV). The systems were the microwave active spectrometers (MAS); one MAS system covers the 1-8 GHz band and the other system covers the 8-18 GHz band. Each MAS system was mounted on a mobile truck-mounted boom and was operated by a computer controller. To date, these two systems have acquired over 3 million data points from agricultural crops, bare ground and trees.

Ulaby, F. T.↗

DSN radio science system, Mark III-78

Mark III-78, is one of eight DSN Data Systems which provide major data types and functional capabilities to flight projects. It includes the equipment, software, personnel, documentation, procedures, and resources necessary to deliver the required data to flight projects. A system definition is given along with key characteristics, functional description, system configuration, testing, implementation status, and system schedule.

Berman, A. L.↗

New morphometric data for fresh lunar craters

Morphometric relations have been determined for 2598 fresh craters on the lunar nearside using data given in the catalog of Wood and Andersson (1978). For each of five principal morphological types, typified by Albategnius C, Biot, Sosigenes, Triesnecker, and Tycho, statistical relations are documented for the following: crater diameter and depth; floor diameter and crater diameter; central peak height and crater diameter; average wall slope and crater depth; central peak occurrence and crater diameter; occurrence of scallops or terraces and crater diameter. The first four relations generally confirm the conclusions of Pike (1977), but the last two differ from results reported by Smith and Sanchez (1973). Small (diameter less than 20 km) flat-floored craters formed in mare terrains are as much as 10% deeper than those formed in the highlands, and the depths of small bowl-shaped craters reflect even greater dependence on terrain. Larger, scalloped-walled craters are deeper in highland terrain than on the maria. Although wall failure does not occur until the crater diameter reaches 13 km, central peaks are found in flat floor craters as small as 2 km.

Wood, C. A.↗

Downwind rotor horizontal axis wind turbine noise prediction

NASA and industry are currently cooperating in the conduct of extensive experimental and analytical studies to understand and predict the noise of large, horizontal axis wind turbines. This effort consists of (1) obtaining high quality noise data under well controlled and documented test conditions, (2) establishing the annoyance criteria for impulse noise of the type generated by horizontal axis wind turbines with rotors downwind of the support tower, (3) defining the wake characteristics downwind of the axial location of the plane of rotation, (4) comparing predictions with measurements made by use of wake data, and (5) comparing predictions with annoyance criteria. The status of work by Hamilton Standard in the above areas which was done in support of the cooperative NASA and industry studies is briefly summarized.

Metzger, F. B.↗

Integrated verification and testing system (IVTS) for HAL/S programs

The IVTS is a large software system designed to support user-controlled verification analysis and testing activities for programs written in the HAL/S language. The system is composed of a user interface and user command language, analysis tools and an organized data base of host system files. The analysis tools are of four major types: (1) static analysis, (2) symbolic execution, (3) dynamic analysis (testing), and (4) documentation enhancement. The IVTS requires a split HAL/S compiler, divided at the natural separation point between the parser/lexical analyzer phase and the target machine code generator phase. The IVTS uses the internal program form (HALMAT) between these two phases as primary input for the analysis tools. The dynamic analysis component requires some way to 'execute' the object HAL/S program. The execution medium may be an interpretive simulation or an actual host or target machine.

Senn, E. H.↗

Determination of design and operation parameters for upper atmospheric research instrumentation to yield optimum resolution with deconvolution. Appendix 7

Because of the interesting science which can be performed using a satellite attached by a very long tether to a mother vehicle in orbit, such as the Space Shuttle, NASA will deploy TSS-1 (Tethered Satellite System) in 1992. A very long tether (20 km in this case) has the possibility of undergoing oscillations of several different types, or modes, and higher harmonics of these modes. The purpose of this document is to describe a method for detecting the amplitude, frequency, and phase (and predicting future motion in the steady state) of these modes, in particular, the skiprope mode, using tethered satellite dynamics measurements. Specifically the rotation rate data about two orthogonal axes, calculated from output from satellite gyroscopes, are used. The data of interest are the satellite pitch and roll rate measurements. NASA has determined to use two methods to diagnose skiprope properties and predict future values. One of these, a Fourier transform domain approach, is the subject of this notebook. The main program and all subroutines are described along with the test plan for evaluating the Frequency Domain Skiprope Observer.

Ioup, George E.↗

Definitions in use by the visible and near-infrared, and thermal working groups

The Calibration Advisory Panel (CAP) is composed of calibration experts from each of the Earth Observing System (EOS) instruments, science investigation, and cross-calibration teams. These members come from a variety of institutions and backgrounds. In order to facilitate an exchange of ideas, and assure a common basis for communication, it was desirable to assemble this list of definitions. These definitions were developed for use by the visible and near-infrared working group, and the thermal infrared working group. Where necessary or appropriate, deviations from these for specific instruments or other sensor types are given in the individual calibration plans. The definitions contained in this document are derived, wherever possible, from definitions accepted by international and national metrological commissions including the United States National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), and the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML).

Bruegge, Carol J.↗