SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “aircraft performance model”

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.

76 records · Page 5

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

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 OSTI2024

Multi-Source Machine Learning and Thermoplastics Enhanced Aerostructure Manufacturing (mTEAM)

RTX Technology Research Center (RTRC), together with Collins Aerospace (Collins) and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has developed an Artificial Intelligence (AI) / Machine Learning (ML) guided solution to advance the manufacturing and assembly of high performance and lightweight thermoplastic composite (TPC) aerospace products. The solution aims to lower risk, cost and lead time for induction heating based welding and consolidation processes for TPC structure. The cost and lead time of part and material specific process development for induction welding (IW) and induction consolidation will be reduced by replacing traditional empirical methods with optimization methods that merge AI/ML and physics-based process simulations and process experiments with sensing and controls. TPC-IW process development is empirical in nature, and uncertainties in material & process behavior exist near & far from the induction coil. Physics-based simulations can be leveraged directly for process optimization but can be too computationally expensive to run in high fidelity and real time to do robust process optimization. The key impact of successful TPC induction consolidation and welding is cost & lead time reduction for part & material specific consolidation and welding recipes. This is an enabler for more rapid deployment of TPC structures via joining assembly, which can reduce energy & cost intensive usage of autoclaves & ovens. The solution aimed to advance the U.S. Department of Energy’s interests in using thermoplastics and automation in composite manufacturing for improvement of products for existing markets via increased production speeds, reduced costs, and lowered use of energy. Welded TPC structures can offer significant weight & energy savings for high-value commercial aerospace & industrial applications compared to metal & thermoset composite structures assembled by mechanical fastening and/or adhesive bonding. The project was organized into two Budget Periods. Budget Period 1 (BP1) was 15 months and its goal was to perform ML process optimization framework development & deployment on lab-coupon aerostructure components. A Go/No-Go Review was performed at the end of BP1 to verify fulfilment of key tasks & milestones to justify a Go Decision to move into the next Budget Period. Budget Period 2 (BP2) was 12 months and its goal was the deployment of the ML framework for ML process optimization of pilot industrial scale aerostructure components. The overall project aim was to develop & demonstrate ML-enhanced modeling framework that learns process-property mapping from multiple data sources at different fidelities. During BP1, the team accomplished key tasks & milestones to demonstrate the concept of multi-source ML for TPC aerostructure consolidation and assembly. First, the team completed documentation of induction based TPC heating requirements including baseline metrics to compare measured results against. Next the team completed demonstration of data generation from physics-based simulations for ML surrogate model generation and demonstrated the integration of physics-based simulation data into multi-source AI/ML algorithms. In parallel, the team established the lab-coupon scale induction welding system and completed a process to label and reduce generated data from physics-based simulation and experiments for ML surrogate models to enable multi-source ML model training & testing. To complete BP1, the team integrated physics-based simulation data and experimental data into multi-source ML algorithms. This was based on the team completing ML deployment of the induction welding on a lab system at RTRC and AI/ML deployment on existing induction welding line at Collins. ORNL visited both Collins and RTRC sites to witness the TPC induction welding process. Then, ORNL designed and constructed a new version of their vision-based sensing system better adapted to acquire process signals of the TPC induction welding process for process anomaly and defect detection. In BP2, the team accomplished key tasks & milestones to scale up multi-source ML for TPC aerostructure consolidation and assembly from the lab-coupon scale to the pilot-industrial scale. In BP2, the team demonstrated real time anomaly & defect detection via experiments performed by ORNL & RTRC. The team completed ML-optimization heating trials for TPC induction consolidation at Collins, and the team confirmed pilot industrial scale experimental data from Collins was compatible with the developed ML pipeline from RTRC. The team completed sub-element scale ML process optimization demonstration at RTRC, where the team leveraged RTRC’s robotic TPC welding setup to de-risk the ML process optimization by performing ML analysis of recorded temperatures to account for complex part features. Then, the team applied its ML-derived control strategies and ML process optimization framework at Collins to the pilot-industrial scale on a demo skin-stiffener part representative of a nacelle aerostructure fan cowl section. The key innovation is the AI/ML framework enabling effective process development of high performance, lightweight, energy efficient TPCs for composite aircraft structures.

36 MATERIALS SCIENCE↗

DOE OSTI2021

Analysis of Oil and Gas Ethane and Methane Emissions in the Southcentral and Eastern United States Using Four Seasons of Continuous Aircraft Ethane Measurements

In the last decade, much work has been done to better understand methane (CH 4 ) emissions from the oil and gas (O&G) industry in the United States. Ethane (C 2 H 6 ), a gas that is co-emitted with thermogenic sources of CH 4 , is emitted in the US predominantly by the O&G sector. Here, in this study, we perform an inverse analysis on 200 h of atmospheric boundary layer C 2 H 6 measurements to estimate C 2 H 6 emissions from the US O&G sector. Measurements were collected from 2017 to 2019 as part of the Atmospheric Carbon and Transport (ACT) America aircraft campaign and encompass much of the central and eastern United States. We find that for the fall, winter, and spring campaigns, C 2 H 6 data consistently exceeds values that would be expected based on EPA O&G leak rate estimates by more than 50%. C 2 H 6 observations from the summer 2019 data set show significantly lower C 2 H 6 enhancements in the southcentral region that cannot be reconciled with data from the other three seasons, either due to complex meteorological conditions or a temporal shift in the emissions. Combining the fall, winter, and spring C 2 H 6 posterior emissions estimate to an inventory of O&G CH 4 emissions, we estimate that O&G CH 4 emissions are larger than EPA inventory values by 48%–76%. Uncertainties in the gas composition data limit the accuracy of using C 2 H 6 as a proxy for O&G CH 4 emissions. These limits could be resolved retroactively by increasing the availability of industry-collected gas composition data.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

SSTDR and FDR Detection of Un-Energized and Energized Cable Anomalies Including Thermal Degradation Using Machine Learning

Historically, cables are initially qualified for nuclear power plant use for 40 years. As plants extend their operating license to 60 and 80 years, continued use of these cables must shift to a performance-based approach since it is cost prohibitive to completely replace cables that are likely still capable of performing their design function. A variety of cable tests are available and are commonly applied during outages when the cables can be taken out of service. Frequency domain reflectometry (FDR) is one of these test methods that is being more broadly accepted and used because it not only detects anomalies along the cable with a low-voltage signal that does not stress the cable insulation, but the technique also locates the anomalies. This supports follow-up local inspection and local repair or partial replacement of a damaged cable segment. Currently, FDR testing is only applied to cables that are taken out of service since the test instrument would be damaged by operational voltages. A related technology that has found some acceptance in the aircraft and rail industry is spread spectrum time domain reflectometry (SSTDR). This technology has been implemented with a custom commercial instrument by LiveWire Innovation that is designed to operate on live cables up to 1000 volts and with a bandwidth of 48 MHz. Initial evaluation by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) of the Live Wire system indicated that a broader bandwidth (BW) SSTDR may be better for many kinds of flaws. This led PNNL to develop an SSTDR laboratory instrument suitable for tests up to 500 MHz bandwidth. Testing on energized cables is also desirable for online monitoring systems so an inductive clamshell coupler was developed that allows energized cables to be tested up to at least 5 kV and likely higher voltage levels. Dielectric spectroscopy and tan delta testing plus various laboratory destructive tests were included in this data acquisition campaign directed to feed a machine learning (ML) study. With these kinds of developments, online energized cable tests may be possible with industrial adoption of such hardware advances but it will be completely impractical to have highly skilled data analysts continually examine these complex signals for indications of damage or compromised conditions. If online testing is to be implemented in new test hardware, it must be accompanied by software that can interpret the signals and alert plant operators of changing or degraded conditions. The thermally aged, shielded cable investigated here was separately treated for ML analysis. Visual analysis of electrical data showed generally increasing peaks where the cable entered and exited the oven. These peaks were not exactly aligned with expected locations, but these differences were attributed to velocity of propagation calibration errors. Only supervised ML was applied to the thermally aged data as this data was only available shortly before the committed publication date of this report. The supervised ML was structured to divide the 0 to 70-day responses as ‘normal’ from 0 to 35 days or ‘anomalous’ from 36 to 70 days, based on cable tensile elongation at break (EAB) insulation characterization. Using 80% of the data for training and 20% for testing, the supervised ML predicted normal versus anomalous was 70% accurate. Important conclusions include: • Accuracy to predict the presence of cable damage is improved from the 2023 effort by more training data. Weighted accuracies for comparisons among the instruments ranged from 67 to 89 % for unsupervised ML and 71 to 99% for supervised ML. • Based on the synthetic data tests, the unsupervised models are more generalizable to unseen anomalies. The Multi-Layer Perceptron classifier (MLP) model reported as high as 99.7% accuracy on the test data, but this dropped to 58.3% when tested on the synthetic data. In contrast, the unsupervised Pointwise model only achieved 89.7% accuracy on the experimental data but reported 78.3% accuracy on the synthetic data. • The best anomaly indicators are higher frequency (400 MHz BW) FDR data. Other tests may be interesting but for this study, this was the best predicter.

46 INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AND ↗