SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “High Altitude Aircraft”

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.

23 records · Page 2

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Fast response High Altitude Laser Optical Sensor (HALOS) for atmospheric water and temperature measurements

Advanced instrumentation and sensing methods are the key factor in the determination of many climate science research problems. In this Phase I STTR a laser-based diagnostic system for atmospheric temperature and water concentrations measurements was developed, this system, HALOS – High Altitude Laser Optical Sensor, employs a mid-infrared (MIR) quantum cascade laser (QCL) of the distributed feedback variety (DFB) powered by a 100 kHz rep rate ramp modulated current profile which enables spectral profiling. Measurements made during Phase I showed that HALOS can surpass the available hygrometers refresh rates while offering superior accuracy (<4%) from the low Frost Point (Tfrost) of -110°C to dew points (Tdew) at 35°C while being able to encompass sub ppm concentration at altitude and supersaturated conditions at ground level. Readings from HALOS include temperature sensitivity on the order of 0.2°C and absolute humidity sensitivity (AH) on the order of 0.010 μmol/m 3 (0.18 mg/m 3 ) at a data output rate exceeding 1 kHz. HALOS can be easily integrable in existing Department of Energy (DOE) or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) conventional or remote operated aircraft having either a fixed or rotary wing.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Stratospheric temperature measurements from nanosatellite stellar occultation observations of refractive bending

Abstract. Stellar occultation observations from space can probe the stratosphere and mesosphere at a fine vertical scale around the globe. Unlike other measurement techniques like radiosondes and aircraft, stellar occultation has the potential to observe the atmosphere above 30 km, and unlike radio occultation, stellar occultation probes fine-scale phenomena with potential to observe atmospheric turbulence. We imaged the refractive bending angle of a star centroid for a series of occultations by the atmosphere. Atmospheric refractivity, density, and then temperature are retrieved from the bending observations with the Abel transformation and Edlén's law, the hydrostatic equation, and the ideal gas law. The retrieval technique is applied to data collected by two nanosatellites operated by Terran Orbital. Measurements were primarily taken by the GEOStare SV2 mission, with a dedicated imaging telescope, supplemented with images captured by spacecraft bus sensors, namely the star trackers on other Terran Orbital missions. The bending angle noise floor is 10 and 30 arcsec for the star tracker and GEOStare SV2 data, respectively. The most significant sources of uncertainty are due to centroiding errors due to the fairly low-resolution stellar images and telescope pointing knowledge derived from noisy satellite attitude sensors. The former mainly affects the star tracker data, while the latter limits the GEOStare SV2 accuracy, with both providing low vertical resolution. This translates to a temperature profile retrieval up to roughly 20 km for both star tracker and GEOStare SV2 datasets. In preparation of an upcoming 2023 mission designed to correct these deficiencies, SOHIP, we simulated bending angle measurements with varying magnitudes of error. The expected maximum altitude of retrieved temperature is 41 km on average for these simulated measurements with a noise floor of 0.39 arcsec. Our work highlights the capabilities of stellar occultation observations from nanosatellites for atmospheric sounding. Future work will investigate high-frequency observations of atmospheric gravity waves and turbulence, mitigating the major uncertainties observed in these datasets.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

Data-driven analysis of relight variability of jet fuels induced by turbulence

For safety purposes, reliable reignition of aircraft engines in the event of flame blow-out is a critical requirement. Typically, an external ignition source in the form of a spark is used to achieve a stable flame in the combustor. However, such forced turbulent ignition may not always successfully relight the combustor, mainly because the state of the combustor cannot be precisely determined. Uncertainty in the turbulent flow inside the combustor, inflow conditions, and spark discharge characteristics can lead to variability in sparking outcomes even for nominally identical operating conditions. Prior studies have shown that of all the uncertain parameters, turbulence is often dominant and can drastically alter ignition behavior. For instance, even when different fuels have similar ignition delay times, their ignition behavior in practical systems can be completely different. In practical operating conditions, it is challenging to understand why ignition fails and how much variation in outcomes can be expected. The focus of this work is to understand relight variability induced by turbulence for two different aircraft fuels, namely Jet-A and a variant named C1. A detailed, previously developed simulation approach is used to generate a large number of successful and failed ignition events. Using this data, the cause of misfire is evaluated based on a discriminant analysis that delineates the difference between turbulent initial conditions that lead to ignition or failure. From the discriminant analysis, a compressed sensing algorithm is then applied to help pinpoint the locations of relevant turbulent features. Findings from the discriminant analysis are confirmed with the time history of near kernel properties. Next, a clustering strategy is used to identify ignition and misfire modes. With this approach, it was determined that the cause of ignition failure is different for the two fuels. While it was found that Jet-A is influenced by fuel entrainment, C1 was found to be more sensitive to small scale turbulence features. Finally, a larger variability is found in the ignition modes of C1, which can be subject to extreme events induced by kernel breakdown.

42 ENGINEERING↗

DOE OSTI2026

Examining Aerosol Vertical Transport and Removal during Deep Convective Events

Atmospheric aerosols affect the global energy budget by scattering and absorbing sunlight (direct effects) and by changing the microphysical structure, lifetime, and coverage of clouds (indirect effects). Globally, the free troposphere is a major source of nucleation- and Aitken-mode aerosols due to the enhanced new particle formation rates at high altitudes. Recent studies have shown deep convective systems are capable of transporting these small aerosols from the free troposphere to the boundary layer by strong convective downdrafts and weaker downward motions in the stratiform regions. These vertically transported aerosols can grow into cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) and play a significant role in the global climate. During the deep convective processes, existing accumulation-mode aerosols that act as coagulation sinks of smaller particles are also removed by wet scavenging. Compared to the vertical transport of these particles by entrainment mixing, which is slower but more prevalent, the deep convective downdraft processes may be more rapid and efficient in the vertical transport of aerosols. However, most of the current climate models do not include this mechanism as a source of CCN, mainly because the frequency of deep convective events varies significantly with geographic location and thus their contributions to CCN are unpredictable. We target this critical gap in understanding the vertical transport and removal of aerosols by deep convections. We proposed to analyze a multi-year, multi-site measurement record available from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) ARM program, including the observations from the 2014/15 Observations and Modeling of the Green Ocean Amazon (GoAmazon) field campaign, the 2017/18 Aerosol and Cloud Experiments in the Eastern North Atlantic (ACE-ENA) field campaign, the 2018/19 Cloud, Aerosol, and Complex Terrain Interactions (CACTI) field campaign, the 2021/22 Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions Experiment (TRACER) field campaign, and the long-term measurements collected at the Southern Great Plains (SGP) atmospheric observatory, where deep convective clouds were frequently observed. This project is aimed at the following three objectives: (1) Gaining a detailed and quantitative understanding of the aerosols transported by a convective downdraft and their evolution in the atmosphere; (2) Examining the wet scavenging mechanisms and efficiencies of aerosols at altitudes of deep convective systems based on ground and aircraft measurements; (3) Evaluating the contribution of deep convective systems to CCN as both a source and a sink of atmospheric aerosols and its seasonal variabilities.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Combined Mesonet and Tracker

Title: Combined Mesonet and Trackers (UNL Mobile Mesonets) Authors University of Nebraska PI: Adam Houston, UNL Professor (ahouston2@unl.edu) Mailing Address: 126 Bessey Hall P.O. Box 880340 Lincoln, NE 68588-0340 CoMeT Overview The University of Nebraska-Lincoln operates three Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeTs). CoMeTs are Ford Explorers (model years 2015, 2017, and 2019) with forward-mounted suites of meteorological sensors and dual moonroofs, combining the capability of a mobile mesonet to collect near-surface observations with the capability of an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) tracker vehicle, which enables an observer in the second row of seats to see the aircraft and maintain compliance with Federal Aviation Administration policies on UAS operation. The CoMeTs collect observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155A, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass (Barbieri et al. 2019). The HMP155A and 109SS-L thermistor are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). This list of sensors is also included in the CoMeT data file metadata. Manufacturer specifications for these instruments are given in Table 1 of Hanft and Houston (2018). The reported measured quantities are summarized below.CoMeT-3 was funded through an equipment allocation included in the NSF TORUS award (AGS-1824649). Instrument Description The specific sensors included on each CoMeT are summarized in the table at the end of this section. In general each CoMeT collects observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210 barometer with a Gill pressure port, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, position using a Garmin 19x HVS receiver, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass. The HMP155 and 109SS are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). Fast temperature and corrected RH measurements (using sensors housed within the U-tube) have a time constant of 10-12 s based on data collected across a temperature and RH shock during the CLOUD-MAP 2017 calibration/validation tests on June 26, 2017. Vehicle speed was < 10 kts for this test. CoMeT-1 CoMeT-2 CoMeT-3 Slow Temperature Slow RH Vaisala HMP155A-L20-PT Part #: 22280-7 Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Fast temperature Campbell Scientific 109SS-L20-PT Part #: 21448-3 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-109 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-150 Pressure Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Wind RM Young 05103-L20-PT Part #: 18435-310 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 GPS Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Compass KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 Logger Campbell Scientific CR6-NA-XT-SW Part #: 28385-9 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Data Collection and Real-Time Processing The reported measured quantities are summarized in the table below. Quantity Units Source Epoch time Seconds GPS Latitude and longitude Degrees GPS Altitude m GPS Pressure hPa PTB210 Temperature (fast) deg C 109SS-L Temperature (slow) deg C HMP155 RH (slow) % HMP155 Vehicle speed m/s GPS Vehicle heading deg C-100 and GPS In addition to the measured variables, several derived variables are calculated. Corrected/fast relative humidity (%) Relative humidity is adjusted to the fast temperature following Richardson et al. (1998) and Houston et al. (2016). Water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) Dew point temperature (°C) Potential temperature (Kelvin) Virtual potential temperature (Kelvin) Equivalent potential temperature (Kelvin) Regular intercomparisons between all three CoMeTs were performed during TORUS 2019. Comparisons were also conducted between CoMeT-1 and CoMeT-2 during LAPSE-RATE (2018) on 14 July. In these intercomparisons, the vehicles were parked adjacent to each other aligned perpendicular to (and facing into) the wind. To minimize engine heating effects, intercomparisons were only conducted when the wind speed was >10 kts. Data Format Original data files for each deployment are saved as text files and then converted to NetCDF. NetCDF versions have units that are CF compliant and may not match the original units in the txt files. The naming convention for the NetCDF files is as follows: UNL.CoMeT3.{deployment date YYYYMMDD}.{start time of observation collection in UTC HHMM}.L2.{post-processing codes}.cdf example: UNL.CoMeT3.20190627.1931.L2.g1.f1.cdf Post-processing codes are included to track modifications to the raw data. These codes are closely connected to error flags associated with each record. Each letter corresponds to a particular instrument: g: GPS p: Barometer tf: Fast temperature ts: Slow temperature rh: Relative humidity f: Compass w: Wind monitor a: All instruments Each number corresponds to a particular post-processing action described more below. Measured and derived variables are included in the following table. Variable Heading Standard Name Units time Time seconds since 00:00:00, 01-01-1970 Alt Altitude meters lat Latitude degrees north lon Longitude degrees east fast_temp Air Temperature kelvin slow_temp Air Temperature kelvin pressure Air Pressure pascals logger_RH Relative Humidity percent calc_corr_RH Relative Humidity percent wind_speed Wind Speed meters per second wind_dir Wind From Direction degrees vehicle_dir Vehicle Direction degrees dewpoint Dew Point Temperature kelvin mixing_ratio Humidity Mixing Ratio g/g theta Air Potential Temperature kelvin theta_v Virtual Potential Temperature kelvin theta_e Equivalent Potential Temperature Kelvin error_flag The error_flag variable is a string that matches the post-processing codes listed above. All instruments will have an associated code, but will have a “0” if the datum is unchanged from the initial processed value. Error Codes The following table summarizes the error codes for data collected before 2020: Error Code Relevant CoMeT Description g1 1,2,3 Exact correction. GPS position and time reprocessed from raw data g2 1 As far as we can tell this is an exact correction to an error in the GPS time. During the correct time periods the time suddenly went backwards ~250s and stayed at this offset for 750s when it corrected itself. The offset was applied to the “time warp” period. p1 2 Approximate correction. Hole in the pressure tube connecting the pressure port to the barometer. Resulted in erroneously low air pressure measurements when the vehicle was in motion. Derived variables recalculated (dew point temperature [e depends on qv and p], water vapor mixing ratio, potential temperature, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) a1 3 Exact correction. Missing data reprocessed from raw data a2 1 Bug fix to bias correction for ts1, ts2, and rh1: water vapor mixing ratio was off by a factor of 10 and virtual potential temperature was wrong because of this. f1 3 No correction, missing data. Fluxgate compass inoperable. Wind speed and direction calculated using GPS-derived vehicle heading instead. rh1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.7% removed from relative humidity. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +0.6 K removed from slow temperature. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts2 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.0 K removed. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) References Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1046–1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1046:TCOEPT>2.0.CO;2. Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An Observational and Modeling Study of Mesoscale Air Masses with High Theta-E. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 2503–2524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.Wexler Houston, A. L., R. J. Laurence III, T. W. Nichols, S. Waugh, B. Argrow, and C. L. Ziegler, 2016: Intercomparison of unmanned aircraft-borne and mobile mesonet atmospheric sensors. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 33, 1569-1582, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0178.1. Lowe, P. R., 1977: An Approximating Polynomial for the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. J. Applied Meteorology, 16, 100–103. Richardson, S. J., S. E. Frederickson, F. V. Brock, and J. A. Brotzge, 1998: Combination temperature and relative humidity probes: Avoiding large air temperature errors and associated relative humidity errors. Preprints, 10th Symp. On Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 278–283. Waugh, S., and S. E. Frederickson, 2010: An improved aspirated temperature system for mobile meteorological observations, especially in severe weather. 25th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P5.2. [Available online at https://ams.confex.com/ams/25SLS/techprogram/paper_176205.htm.]

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗