Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Measurement uncertainty”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Survey of prospective techniques for molten salt reactor feed monitoring

Safeguards verification measurements of nuclear material content in fresh fuel salt for liquid-fueled molten salt reactors (MSRs) are likely to be required as part of nuclear material accountancy for International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. Here, this paper presents a comprehensive review and evaluation of 18 potential candidate techniques to quantify total uranium and 235 U for input accountancy measurements for liquid-fueled MSRs. As part of an overall screening and down-selection effort to identify the most promising techniques for further development for an MSR feed monitoring system, this paper defines eight figures of merit (FOMs): reasonably achievable measurement uncertainty, measurement time required, capital cost, burden upon the facility operator, maintenance intensity, technological maturity, human capital requirements for operation, and whether the technique introduces a path for potential material removal. Each candidate technique is then evaluated across these FOMs to identify the techniques with the highest potential for future development for fresh fuel accountancy measurements in MSRs. Our findings indicate that no single technique or combination thereof currently has the requisite technological maturity for immediate implementation in nuclear material accountancy at a liquid-fueled MSR facility. While several promising techniques are identified, there is a critical lack of experimental data for most systems in the context of molten salt applications.

11 NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE AND FUEL MATERIALS↗
NASA NTRS2019

Uncertainty in Electric Propulsion Erosion Measurements

Uncertainty in erosion rates as measured by different methods is discussed and quantified. The work focuses on case studies from components on the Hall Effect Rocket with Magnetic Shielding (HERMeS) Hall thruster, but the methods can be extended for many electric propulsion applications. The primary method used for evaluating erosion is non-contact profilometry of masked and exposed components. Accurate quantification of the erosion rates of components is critical to determining lifetime and is therefore critical to mission planning purposes.

Mackey, J.↗
NASA NTRS2019

Uncertainty in Electric Propulsion Erosion Measurements

Uncertainty in erosion rates as measured by different methods is discussed and quantified. The work focuses on case studies from components on the Hall Effect Rocket with Magnetic Shielding (HERMeS) Hall thruster, but the methods can be extended for many electric propulsion applications. The primary method used for evaluating erosion is non-contact profilometry of masked and exposed components. Accurate quantification of the erosion rates of components is critical to determining lifetime and is therefore critical to mission planning purposes.

Mackey, Jonathan A.↗
NASA NTRS2020

Uncertainty in Electric Propulsion Erosion Measurements

Uncertainty in erosion rates as measured by different methods is discussed and quantified. The work focuses on case studies from components on the Hall Effect Rocket with Magnetic Shielding (HERMeS) Hall thruster, but the methods can be extended for many electric propulsion applications. The primary method used for evaluating erosion is non-contact profilometry of masked and exposed components. Accurate quantification of the erosion rates of components is critical to determining lifetime and is therefore critical to mission planning purposes.

Jonathan A Mackey↗
NASA NTRS2005

Multi-reference evaluation of uncertainty in earth orientation parameter measurements

Uncertainties in polar motion and length-of-day measurements are evaluated empirically using several data series from the space-geodetic techniques of the global positioning system (GPS), satellite laser ranging (SLR), and very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) during 1997-2002. In the evaluation procedure employed here, known as the three-corner hat (TCH) technique, the signal common to each series is eliminated by forming pair-wise differences between the series, thus requiring no assumed values for the 'truth' signal. From the variances of the differenced series, the uncertainty of each series can be recovered when reasonable assumptions are made about the correlations between the series. In order to form the pair-wise differences, the series data must be given at the same epoch. All measurement data sets studied here were sampled at noon (UTC); except for the VLBI series, whose data are interpolated to noon and whose UT1 values are also numerically differentiated to obtain LOD. The numerical error introduced to the VLBI values by the interpolation and differentiation is shown to be comparable in magnitude to the values determined by the TCH method for the uncertainties of the VLBI series. The TCH estimates for the VLBI series are corrupted by such numerical errors mostly as a result of the relatively large data intervals. Of the remaining data sets studied here, it is found that the IGS Final combined series has the smallest polar motion and length-of-day uncertainties.

Combination↗
NASA NTRS1993

A practical approach to determining the uncertainty of a pressure measurement system

The pressure measurement systems located at three propulsion component test stands at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) were evaluated for their specific measurement uncertainty levels. An elemental error source evaluation was performed to provide an analytical estimate of uncertainty. Applied loads tests were also conducted at the different MSFC test sites to derive an empirical estimate of uncertainty for the measurement system process. The analytical results are compared to those obtained empirically. The data from MFSC was also compared to data reported from other comparable test facilities. Methods for acquiring and processing the data from calibration, acquisition, and reduction error sources are also addressed.

Fish, James E.↗
NASA NTRS1981

On the uncertainty in the determination of ground reflectance and temperature from TM measurements

Uncertainties in the derivation of the ground reflectance and temperature relative to the uncertainty in the estimation of aerosol loading and water vapor amount are presented. To compute the reflectance for TM 1 (thematic mapper) through TM6, a doubling model is used, and to compute satellite-received radiance for TM7, an emission-transmission model is employed. It is shown that at a water vapor concentration of higher than 50% above normal, the relative sensitivity remains as low as 8% for ground reflectance determinations. The relative sensitivity for determining ground temperature for midlatitude summer climatological profile is less than 5%, but as the ground temperature is approximately 300 K, low sensitivity still means a variation of a few degrees. An increase in water vapor amount causes an uncertainty in ground temperature and reflectance calculations comparable to the uncertainty in aerosol loading and water vapor amount estimations.

Kiang, R. K.↗
DOE OSTI2022

Measurement Plan for Uncertainty Contributions to 252 Cf Waste Measurements

This measurement plan establishes the methodology for performing and analyzing mock-up measurements of Building 7930 Cell G Cf waste generated from 252 Cf product preparation to better determine the measurement uncertainty contributors. Understanding the uncertainty contributors will establish the total measurement uncertainty. This is critical because it will impact the administrative threshold at which personnel can discriminate between low-level waste (LLW) and transuranic (TRU) waste.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
NASA NTRS2014

Past Changes in the Vertical Distribution of Ozone Part 1: Measurement Techniques, Uncertainties and Availability

Peak stratospheric chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) and other ozone depleting substance (ODS) concentrations were reached in the mid- to late 1990s. Detection and attribution of the expected recovery of the stratospheric ozone layer in an atmosphere with reduced ODSs as well as efforts to understand the evolution of stratospheric ozone in the presence of increasing greenhouse gases are key current research topics. These require a critical examination of the ozone changes with an accurate knowledge of the spatial (geographical and vertical) and temporal ozone response. For such an examination, it is vital that the quality of the measurements used be as high as possible and measurement uncertainties well quantified. In preparation for the 2014 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)/World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, the SPARC/IO3C/IGACO-O3/NDACC (SI2N) Initiative was designed to study and document changes in the global ozone profile distribution. This requires assessing long-term ozone profile data sets in regards to measurement stability and uncertainty characteristics. The ultimate goal is to establish suitability for estimating long-term ozone trends to contribute to ozone recovery studies. Some of the data sets have been improved as part of this initiative with updated versions now available. This summary presents an overview of stratospheric ozone profile measurement data sets (ground and satellite based) available for ozone recovery studies. Here we document measurement techniques, spatial and temporal coverage, vertical resolution, native units and measurement uncertainties. In addition, the latest data versions are briefly described (including data version updates as well as detailing multiple retrievals when available for a given satellite instrument). Archive location information for each data set is also given.

stratospheric ozone layer measurement↗
DOE OSTI2020

Uncertainty about the Uncertainty [Slides]

A golden standard in science is to repeat an experiment a statistically significant number of times, recording data using the same set of detectors and the same data analysis methodology. In such case experimental error includes both the range of true values generated by repetitions of the experiment, and measurement uncertainty caused by the detector. They are independent. It is a huge and too frequently used simplification, to assume that one can measure multiple repetitions of an identical experiment, resulting in identical true experimental value. Repetitions, as similar is it is experimentally achievable result in a range of the true values rather than in a single value. When modern, very sensitive and well calibrated measurement systems are used, this range is not negligible, and sometimes dominates, in comparison to the measurement uncertainty. Range of true values depends on the physics of the experiment, while measurement uncertainty depends on the measurement method (properties of the detector not of the experiment). When data from one–of–a kind experiment are analyzed, only the measurement uncertainty is reported. It gives no information about the range, in which the true values of experiment would spread if the experiment was repeated. A frequently used approximation, that if a physical quantity is measured as a function of time, only measurement of this quantity, produces uncertainty is also in some real experiments fare to strong. Example: In reaction history time measurement uncertainty propagated to alpha dominated under certain conditions over the flux measurement uncertainty propagated to alpha. Reliability of a data point is in general independent from its measurement uncertainty. However, in practice reliable measurement methods frequently have high measurement uncertainty, while low reliability methods are applied to limit measurement uncertainty. Comparison of reliable data with high measurement uncertainty to not so reliable data measured with low uncertainty is discussed – in different scenarios different data analysis methods are applicable.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗