Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Aerial measurements”

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 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2024

Surrogate Distributed Radiological Sources—Part II: Aerial Measurement Campaign

In this second part of a multipaper series, we present results from outdoor aerial measurements of surrogate distributed gamma-ray sources. Here we detail the design, manufacture, and testing of 300 individual ~7 mCi Cu-64 sealed sources at the Washington State University (WSU) research reactor and their deployment in various source patterns (each comprising up to 100 point sources) during the aerial measurement campaign. We show the results of two such measurements, in which approximate source shapes and qualitative source intensities can be seen from the count rate versus position plots, even without performing reconstructions. We also detail our efforts in ground-truthing the deployed sources and comparing measured gamma-ray data to model predictions. In particular, we compare measured versus expected count data using the Poisson deviance formalism of Part I to evaluate whether the fielded surrogate point-source arrays “look like” their truly continuous distributed source analogs. More generally, we find that the point-source array technique provides high source placement accuracy, relative ease of quantifying the true source configuration, scalability to source dimensions of ≲100 m, ease of reconfiguration and removal, and relatively low dose to personnel. Finally, we consider potential improvements and generalizations of the point-source array technique for future measurement campaigns.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗
DOE OSTI2021

Deconvolution for Aerial Measurements

Avery Guild-Bingham will present these slides during the 9th Annual AMS Technical Exchange meeting (virtual) held on Oct 6-7, 2021. Attendees include Aerial Measuring System staff and partners from US laboratories, as well as Aerial Radiation detection scientists from partner countries such as the UK, Germany, Switzerland, etc. Overall support provided by NA-81, Office of Nuclear Incident Policy and Cooperation.

42 ENGINEERING↗
DOE OSTI2025

In-situ characterization of a background calibration line for east coast aerial measuring

Report outlines the methodology used to establish a background calibration line for AMS-East operations at Joint Base Andrews. The results provide a general isotopic characterization of the soil within the calibration line at Joint Base Andrews, and the expected terrestrial exposure rate which can be used to aerial measuring.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Aerial Measuring System - Analysis of the Releasable Data Set

This is a collection of spectral data files obtained from AMS flights over areas in and around Las Vegas and the Nevada National Security Site. These are being made available for anyone to analyze and compare results with those in the accompanying report. The data files are attached to the PDF as Excel CSV format files.

99 GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS↗
DOE OSTI2020

AMS History from 1950 to 2020

Presentation illustrates over 60 years of aerial measurements and establishment of Aerial Measuring System asset by the DOE. The presentation will be used as part of the training new AMS personnel. Presentation illustrates over 60 years of aerial measurements and establishment of Aerial Measuring System asset by the DOE. The presentation will be used as part of the training new AMS personnel.

96 KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT AND PRESERVATION↗
DOE OSTI2021

CACTI ARM Aerial Facility Measurements of Ice Nucleating Particles

The dataset comprises measures, using Colorado State University's Ice Spectrometer (IS, an immersion freezing device with a range from 0°C down to -26 to -29°C) of atmospheric ice nucleating particle (INP) concentrations taken on the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) program Aerial Facilty (AAF) G-1 aircraft. INP measurements on the G-1 were collected from varied altitudes on different flights over the region of the Sierras de Córdoba mountain range of north-central Argentina, centred over ARM's Mobile Facility (AMF-1) near Villa Yacanto, where ground-based INP measures were being taken concurrently. Both studies took place as part of the Cloud, Aerosol, and Complex Terrain Interactions (CACTI) Experiment. A filter sampling system was deployed on the G-1 to collect aerosol particles for post-processing of INPs collected on filters (measuring their immersion freezing ability) once returned to Colorado State University (CSU). Filter holders used were pre-cleaned aluminum in-line units loaded with pre-cleaned and pre-sterilized 47 mm dia. Nuclepore polycarbonate filters (0.2 mm pore size). Filters were drawn for varied times, resulting in varied volumes collected (51 to 1667 SL). Mass flow rate was recorded in real-time so that total sampled volume (at standard temperature and pressure) could be determined. A total of 34 sample filters were collected over the IOP, including 5 blanks. Filters were stored at -20°C freezer prior to frozen return to Colorado State University (CSU). . Processing to obtain spectra of INP number concentration active via the immersion freezing mechanism versus temperature was conducted using CSU's IS instrument (McCluskey et al., 2018). For measurment of INPs, collected aerosol particles were re-suspended in 7 mL of 0.02 µm-filtered deionized water. Aliquots of each suspension, and serial dilutions, were dispensed into trays which were fit into aluminum blocks in the IS. Samples are cooled at 0.33°C min-1 and the freezing temperatures of wells recorded automatically. Cumulative INP concentrations were determined by first calculating the INPs per mL of suspension based on Vali (1971) and then converting to concentration per standard liter of air using the proportion of the total liquid sample dispensed and the air sample volumes. Aliquots of suspensions from selected samples were also heat treated (95°C for 20 min) to denature and deactivate biological INPs, and digested in 10% H2O2 at 95°C under UV-B to remove all organic carbon INPs. McCluskey, C. S., J. Ovadnevaite, M. Rinaldi, J. Atkinson, F. Belosi, D. Ceburnis, S. Marullo, T. C. J. Hill, U. Lohmann, Z. A. Kanji, C. O’Dowd, S. M. Kreidenweis, P. J. DeMott, 2018: Marine and Terrestrial Organic Ice Nucleating Particles in Pristine Marine to Continentally-Influenced Northeast Atlantic Air Masses, Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 123, 6196–6212, https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD028033. Vali, G., 1971: Quantitative evaluation of experimental results on the heterogeneous freezing nucleation of supercooled liquids. J. Atmos. Sci., 28, 402–409.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2026

Author Correction: US oil and gas system emissions from nearly one million aerial site measurements

Correction to: Naturehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07117-5 Published online 13 March 2024 In the version of the article initially published, several errors were present and have been corrected in the HTML and PDF versions of the article and Supplementary Information. The main results, conclusions, and our interpretations of the data remain unchanged. See the new Supplementary Information Section S15 for a more detailed description of the errors corrected and the resulting effects on the analysis. Data processing and methods corrections Overflight count correction: We previously used pre-computed source coverage data for some Carbon Mapper campaigns that was computed differently than was required for our analysis. We have re-computed Carbon Mapper source coverage based on flightline polygons and source coordinates. Transition point computation, well sites: The updated version now correctly compares the cumulative emissions distribution of simulated well site emissions with that of aerially detected sources (rather than plumes) when computing the transition point. Transition point computation, midstream: Additionally, the transition point calculation has been corrected to exclude aerially detected midstream emissions below the transition point, which was previously leading to double counting of these emissions. This error was not present for upstream (well site) emissions. Calculation errors Unit error: We corrected a specific unit conversion error affecting well site emissions in the Kairos Fort Worth dataset. Across all datasets, we also correct the conversion factor for converting from standard volume to mass for midstream emissions. Sorting error: We correct code that was applying incorrect sorting when computing correction factors to account for partial detection at well sites. Small typographical corrections were made in Fig. 1b and SI Section S4.1. Data processing and methods corrections Overflight count correction: We previously used pre-computed source coverage data for some Carbon Mapper campaigns that was computed differently than was required for our analysis. We have re-computed Carbon Mapper source coverage based on flightline polygons and source coordinates. Transition point computation, well sites: The updated version now correctly compares the cumulative emissions distribution of simulated well site emissions with that of aerially detected sources (rather than plumes) when computing the transition point. Transition point computation, midstream: Additionally, the transition point calculation has been corrected to exclude aerially detected midstream emissions below the transition point, which was previously leading to double counting of these emissions. This error was not present for upstream (well site) emissions. Calculation errors Unit error: We corrected a specific unit conversion error affecting well site emissions in the Kairos Fort Worth dataset. Across all datasets, we also correct the conversion factor for converting from standard volume to mass for midstream emissions. Sorting error: We correct code that was applying incorrect sorting when computing correction factors to account for partial detection at well sites. Small typographical corrections were made in Fig. 1b and SI Section S4.1. The following practices may help researchers conducting similar analyses avoid making similar errors: 1, Clear, accessible documentation explaining the interpretation of all columns in data input tables and all internal variables within the model, 2, Simple cross-check calculations computed before and after unit conversions.

Sherwin, Evan D↗