SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Ocean Deployment”

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.

260 records · Page 15

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2023

Cascadia Subduction Zone Fault Heterogeneities From Newly Detected Small Magnitude Earthquakes

The Cascadia subduction zone (CSZ) is known to host M9 megathrust ruptures; however, no such event has occurred in historical observation. The distribution and characteristics of small- to moderate-sized earthquakes can be used to determine the behavior of the megathrust fault but are notably absent offshore the CSZ due to the distance from onshore seismometers. We use automated subspace detection coupled with an onshore-offshore seismic deployment to find small-magnitude earthquakes in the offshore seismogenic zone and analyze their locations in the context of interseismic locking and seismogenic zone extent. Here we detected and located 5,282 earthquakes, 4,096 of which had been previously undetected. We find that the downdip extent of the seismogenic zone as defined by interplate seismicity agrees with the 20% locking contour of the Schmalzle et al. (2014, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013GC005172) geodetic model and extends deeper than predicted by previous thermal models. We cannot determine the updip extent of the seismogenic zone; this may be due to a lack of templates for detection in the updip source area, stress shadows updip of asperity loading, and/or strong locking to the trench. We present a map of possible asperities determined by the small earthquakes in this study. Our asperity locations and extents show some, but not complete, agreement with the asperities modeled from the 1700 M9 rupture and geodetic locking models, and good agreement with the paleo-rupture extents determined from offshore turbidites and forearc basin-based asperity estimates. This highlights the need of continued offshore observations over time, and to elucidate fine-scale variation in locking.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2026

Emerging mobile lidar technology to study boundary layer winds influenced by operating turbines

The development of a microjoule-class pulsed Doppler lidar and deployment of this compact system on mobile platforms such as aircraft, ships, or trucks have opened a new opportunity to characterize the dynamics of complex mesoscale wind flows. The PickUp-based Mobile Atmospheric Sounder (PUMAS) truck-based lidar system was recently used during the American Wake Experiment (AWAKEN) to assess the general structure of boundary layer (BL) wind and turbulence around wind turbines in central Oklahoma. Wind speed profiles averaged over PUMAS transects influenced by the operating turbines (waked flow) show a 1–2 m s −1 reduction compared to mean undisturbed (free flow) wind speed profiles. Spatial variability in wind speed was observed in time–height cross-sections at different distances from turbines. The wind speeds were about 9–12 m s −1 at 6 km distance compared to 5–7 m s −1 at the transects near the turbines. The PUMAS dataset from AWAKEN demonstrated the capability of the mobile Doppler lidar system to document spatial variability in wind flows at different distances from wind turbines and obtain quantitative estimates of wind speed reduction in the waked flow. The high-frequency, simultaneous measurements of the horizontal and vertical winds provide a new approach for characterizing dynamic processes critical for wind farm wake analyses.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

CCN data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.5 LPM is directed to the CCN. To calculate particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate particle loss through the inlet during sampling. Second, the corrected SMPS data was used to calculate the average of the total losses per scan down the CCN line. Then, the correction was applied to the CCN data. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. The supersaturation uncertainty is estimated conservatively at +/- 0.03%, where variation in the inlet temperature, pressure, and calibration technique prevents a more accurate measurement. Confidence in the reported supersaturation measurements is based on a pre-campaign calibration (following the methods from our previous work and Deng, 2014 based on Rose, 2008) in addition to inter-comparisons with the DOE for two days (22/08/18 and 22/09/01) where TAMU was co-located with AMF1. The inter-comparisons show good agreement between our instrument and the DOEs instrument on both days at all supersaturations. After the last inter-comparison on 22/09/01, there was no indication of a malfunction by our instrument through the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately, the instrument was dropped during demobilization. A post-campaign calibration was conducted, which showed a substantial departure from the pre-campaign calibration. The drop may have damaged the instrument’s ability to produce the desired supersaturations. Therefore, we do consider the data after 22/09/01 to be correct, but it should be used with caution. The CCN counter sampled for 3 minutes at each supersaturation setpoint (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%). At the end of a cycle, the instrument was set to 0.01% supersaturation for 5 minutes. The data is comprised of the last 60 seconds of each supersaturation set point (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%) to ensure the instrument stabilized and was able to reach thermal equilibrium. We removed the data during the periods where there were operational difficulties, setup, or maintenance. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Rose et. al. Calibration and Measurement Uncertainties of a Continuous-Flow Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN Activation of Ammonium Sulfate and Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particles in Theory and Experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 1153-1179, 2008. Deng et. al. Using Raman Microspectroscopy to Determine Chemical Composition and Mixing State of Airborne Marine Aerosols over the Pacific Ocean. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol 48, Issue 2, 2014. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

PacWave South SeaRAY k2 Risk Registers

The SeaRAY is a deployable power system for maritime sensors, monitoring equipment, communications, unmanned underwater vehicles, and other similar payloads. This project is to design, deliver, and test a prototype low-power WEC that lowers the total cost of ownership and provides robust, new capabilities for customers in the maritime environment. Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) is conducted to systematically identify all potential failure modes and their effects on the system, and to analyze the criticality of each risk based on the likelihood of the event and the severity of the impact. Actions may then be recommended to mitigate the criticality of a risk, either by reducing the likelihood of the risk or the severity of its impact. Risk assessment is executed iteratively as an integral part of the design process. By incorporating risk assessment early in the development cycle, mitigation of risk can be achieved cost effectively. The actions recommended to mitigate risk may be subsequently executed, and as the design progresses the risk assessment is reviewed and revised. Review of the risk assessment is integrated into structured design reviews, ensuring that critical risks are comprehended and that the Project will not progress to e.g. fabrication while intolerable risks remain. The risk assessment process results in the population and maintenance of Risk Registers (RRs). Each major system (and as needed, subsystem) will have a distinct RR. This allows each system or subsystem to be assessed individually, rendering the RRs to a manageable size for review.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

DOE OSTI2026

Performance Evaluation of an Offshore Wave Measurement Buoy in Monochromatic Waves

The accurate measurement of waves underpins marine energy resource characterization, device design, and project development. Datawell wave buoys are widely deployed and have long served as a trusted standard for wave measurements. We quantify the measurement performance, including wave elevation and energy flux estimation, of a Datawell DWR-MkIII buoy using prescribed monochromatic heave motions on a large-amplitude six-degree-of-freedom motion platform at the National Laboratory of the Rockies, assuming the buoy behaves as an ideal wave follower. Commanded motions were validated with an optical motion tracking system while buoy elevation and raw acceleration were recorded. Wave elevations were propagated to wave energy flux estimation using four methods, including one frequency-domain method and three time-domain methods. The Bayesian optimization was applied for design of experiments, and records from three test sites were also applied and evaluated in the present study. Results show two error regions within the nominal period range of 1.6 s to 30 s. For wave periods between 5 s and 25 s, the buoy provides accurate wave height measurements. For short periods less than 5 s, the 1.28 Hz sampling frequency induces sub-Nyquist artifacts that bias elevation and can drive maximum energy flux estimation errors above 100%. For long periods exceeding 25 s, the buoy reported elevation is underpredicted with error depending on period but relatively independent of wave height, with maximum wave height and wave energy flux errors reaching 64% and 87%, respectively. Furthermore, analysis of three field-derived cases shows that frequency-domain estimates at 1.28 Hz agree within 2% of the corresponding 100 Hz estimates, while larger method-dependent differences are observed for the Hilbert method.

16 TIDAL AND WAVE POWER↗

DOE OSTI2025

Operational wind plants increase planetary boundary layer height: an observational study

As wind energy deployment grows, interactions between wind plants and the surrounding environment become more prevalent. The current investigation seeks to understand these interactions by characterizing the impact of wind plants on the planetary boundary layer height (PBLH), utilizing observations from the American WAKE experimeNt (AWAKEN) campaign. Given the ambiguity of the definition of PBLH under stable atmospheric conditions, where the impact of wind plants is expected to be strongest, a comparison of different methods for identifying PBLH is first conducted using data collected by multiple types of instruments. The Heffter method is selected as the thermodynamic method because it generates the most consistent results for the radiosonde and infrared spectrometer. A minimum vertical velocity variance method is used for a turbulence-based definition. Using both of these methods, the values of PBLH measured at spatially distributed sites are compared under a range of atmospheric conditions. Both methods show a clear increase in PBLH downstream of a wind plant for stable conditions. These impacts are strongest when the upstream PBLH is shallow (less than 0.25 km), with the thermodynamic method showing a PBLH increase of 35 %–39 % and the turbulence-based method showing a 143 % increase. At a site 20 km downstream of the wind plant, these effects are no longer observed, suggesting PBLH is not influenced by the wind plant at this distance. The results of this investigation show that wind plants can modify PBLH in their vicinity. As PBLH is a key parameter for numerical models, this insight into wind plant–atmosphere interactions can be used to validate and improve the accuracy of wind energy forecasts.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

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↗

DOE OSTI2025

Experiment of Sea Breeze Convection, Aerosols, Precipitation, and Environment (ESCAPE)

Convective clouds play an important role in Earth’s climate system and are a known source of extreme weather. Gaps in our understanding of convective vertical motions, microphysics, and precipitation across a full range of aerosol and meteorological regimes continue to limit our ability to predict the occurrence and intensity of these cloud systems. To improve predictability, the National Science Foundation (NSF) sponsored a large field experiment entitled “Experiment of Sea Breeze Convection, Aerosols, Precipitation, and Environment (ESCAPE).” ESCAPE took place between 30 May and 30 September 2022 in the vicinity of Houston, Texas, because this area frequently experiences isolated deep convection that interacts with the region’s mesoscale circulations and its range of aerosol conditions. ESCAPE focused on collecting observations of isolated deep convection through innovative sampling and developing novel analysis techniques. This included the deployment of two research aircraft, the National Research Council of Canada Convair-580 and the Stratton Park Engineering Company Learjet, which combined conducted 24 research flights from 30 May to 17 June. On the ground, three mobile X-band radars and one mobile Doppler lidar truck equipped with soundings were deployed from 30 May to 28 June. From 1 August to 30 September 2022, a dual-polarization C-band radar was deployed and operated using a novel, multisensor agile adaptive sampling strategy to track the entire life cycle of isolated convective clouds. Analysis of the ESCAPE observations has already yielded preliminary findings on how aerosols and environmental conditions impact the convective life cycle.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗