Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Ambient Monitoring”

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 OSTI2023

Updated Application of Frequency of Detection Methods for the INL Site Ambient Air Monitoring Network

This report presents a quantitative assessment of the current INL Site air monitoring network using frequency of detection (FD) methods. The first assessment of the INL network was performed in 2015 and made recommendations for improving the network. As a result of changes made in response to the recommendations and the addition of new source locations, the network was modified and reassessed in 2017. Since 2017, administration of the air sampling program has been consolidated under one contractor, which resulted in additional changes to the network (sampler numbers and locations) and changes in radionuclide detection levels. As a result of these changes and others, an updated assessment of the INL Site ambient air monitoring network was performed. The same two exposure scenarios used in previous assessments were used for this assessment: a resident scenario and a shepherd/rancher scenario. The resident was assumed to be continuously present at their residence/business/farm operation outside the INL Site boundary while the shepherd/rancher was assumed to be present 24-hours at the nearest INL grazing allotment boundary in each of the 22.5-degree sectors along the sector centerline from each source. Updates to both the resident and shepherd/rancher receptor locations were included. Other changes include updates to flow rates for stack sources, expansion of the list of important radionuclides based on the most recent National Emission Standards for Hazardous Pollutants (NESHAPs) analysis, and updated dose coefficients. The assessment was conducted to determine whether the current INL monitoring network is capable of detecting releases of important radionuclides from INL Site sources that have the potential to exceed a conservative dose threshold for the two exposure scenarios. The assessment revealed that for the resident scenario, the current network meets the desired performance objective (FD = 95%) for all radionuclides and sources except for Cl-36 from the TRA-770 stack (94.4%). For the shepherd/rancher scenario, the FD performance objective is met for all radionuclides and sources except tritium from MFC-774 and TAN 679 (91% for both). An investigation of reported emissions for the past three years revealed that Cl 36 is not emitted from TRA-770, and routine tritium emissions from MFC-774 and TAN-679 are very small and the sources are likely incapable of emitting enough tritium to cause a release that should be detectable by the monitoring network. This assessment is based on a conservative dose threshold. This coupled with fact that the FD for Cl 36 is only slightly less than the performance objective and Cl-36 is not emitted from TRA-770, modifying the network (i.e. adding another sampler, increasing sampler flow rate, moving samplers) to meet the 95% performance objective for this radionuclide/source/receptor scenario is not warranted. Similarly, because tritium emissions from MFC-774 and TAN-679 are very small and these two sources are likely incapable of causing a dose due to tritium release that should be detectable by the network, modifications to increase tritium detection for these sources is also unwarranted at this time. However, if it is required to meet the performance objective for tritium for all sources and receptor scenarios, additional analysis determined the FD could be raised from 91% to > 99% for both sources by adding two tritium samplers to the network.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2021

Aquifer Monitoring Using Ambient Seismic Noise Recorded With Distributed Acoustic Sensing (DAS) Deployed on Dark Fiber

Abstract Groundwater is a critical resource for human activities worldwide, and a vital component of many natural ecosystems. However, the state and dynamics of water‐bearing aquifers remain uncertain, mostly due to the paucity of subsurface data at high spatial and temporal resolution. Here, we show that analysis of infrastructure‐generated ambient seismic noise acquired on distributed acoustic sensing (DAS) arrays has potential as a tool to track variations in seismic velocities (d v / v ) caused by groundwater level fluctuations. We analyze 5 months of ambient noise acquired along an unused, 23 km‐long telecommunication fiber‐optic cable in the Sacramento Valley, CA, a so‐called “dark fiber." Three array subsections, ∼6 km apart, are processed and the stretching technique is applied to retrieve daily d v / v beneath each location. Near the Sacramento river, d v / v variations in the order of 2%–3% correlate with precipitation events and fluctuations in river stage of ∼1.5 m. In contrast, regions away (2.5 km) from the river do not experience large d v / v variations. These observations reveal short‐scale spatial variability in aquifer dynamics captured by this approach. Dispersion analysis and surface wave inversion of noise gathers reveal that seismic velocity perturbations occur at depths of 10–30 m. Rock physics modeling confirms that observed d v / v are linked to pore pressure changes at these depths, caused by groundwater table fluctuations. Our results suggest that DAS combined with ambient noise interferometry provides a means of tracking aquifer dynamics at high spatial and temporal resolutions at local to regional scales, relevant for effective groundwater resource management.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Cleaned 5-Minute Resolution Air Quality and Meteorological Data from Nine TCEQ CAMS Sites in Houston, Texas (Nov 2021 – Oct 2022)

These data encompass 5-minute air monitoring and meteorological observations collected in the greater Houston, Texas metropolitan region, at nine (9) Continuous Ambient Monitoring Stations (CAMS) operated by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) between November 1, 2021 and October 31, 2022. The CAMS sites (CAMS 1, 8, 35, 45, 148, 403, 405, 410, and 1052) were chosen because their instrumentation includes measurements of PM2.5. These sites also provide continuous multi-parameter air-quality and meteorological measurements. Particulate matter (PM2.5, PM10) was sampled along with several trace gases, including ozone (O3), nitrogen oxides (NO, NO2, NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO). The data set also contains standard surface meteorological parameters (temperature, humidity, pressure, wind speed, and wind direction). Several sites also include AutoGC-based measurements of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Air monitoring instruments deployed at the selected sites comprise the following systems: BAM-1020 or TEOM (PM2.5), Thermo Scientific TEI 49i (O3), TEI 42i (NOx), and AutoGCs (VOCs). This data set is similar to the data included within the houairq5mX1.00 datastream, except for a few additional quality control steps. A systematic data cleaning and verification process was performed on the data set to ensure its quality and preparation for analysis. Removal of non-numeric status flags (e.g., [LIM], [QAS], [SPZ], [CAL], [PMA], [AQI], [SPN], [MAL]) was accomplished by employing rule-based string parsing to extract valid numerical values. Missing entries were set to -9999; however, invalid or anomalous values (e.g., 99999) were retained as originally reported by the TCEQ to preserve data provenance. The time sequence was verified for completeness, removal of duplicates, and uniformity at 5-minute intervals. Column labeling was standardized, and corresponding values were assessed for physical plausibility. All timestamps in the data set were reported in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) as provided by the TCEQ. Further, the latitude and longitude coordinates were added for each CAMS site. A subset of the data (June 1–September 30, 2022) has been used in the following publication: Subba et al. 2025. “Implications of sea breeze circulations on boundary layer aerosols in the southern coastal Texas region.” EGUsphere 2025: 1–49, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2659.

latitude↗
DOE OSTI2024

Notice of Submittal – 2023 Radionuclide Air Emissions Report for Los Alamos National Laboratory

This report describes the emissions of airborne radionuclides from operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for calendar year 2023 and the resulting off-site dose from these emissions. This document fulfills the requirements established by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in 40 CFR 61, Subpart H – Emissions of Radionuclides other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities, commonly referred to as the Radionuclide NESHAP or Rad-NESHAP. Compliance with this regulation and preparation of this document is the responsibility of LANL’s Rad NESHAP compliance program, which is part of the Environmental Protection and Compliance (EPC) Division. The information in this report is required under the Clean Air Act and is being submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters and EPA Region 6. The highest effective dose equivalent (EDE) to an off-site member of the public was calculated using procedures specified by the EPA and described in this report. LANL’s EDE was 0.43 for 2023. The annual limit is 10 millirem per year, established by the EPA in 40 CFR 61 Subpart H. All measured air emissions are modeled to a single location, known as the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI). During calendar year 2023, LANL continuously monitored radionuclide emissions at 28 “major” release points, or stacks. The Laboratory estimates emissions from an additional 59 “minor” release points using radionuclide usage source terms in lieu of stack monitoring. Also, LANL uses an EPA approved network of air samplers around the Laboratory perimeter to monitor ambient airborne levels of radionuclides. To provide data for dispersion modeling and dose assessment, LANL maintains and operates several meteorological monitoring towers. From these various systems, a comprehensive evaluation is conducted to calculate the MEI dose for the Laboratory. The MEI can be any member of the public at any off-site location where there is a residence, school, business, or office. In 2023, this MEI location was a business at 129 New Mexico State Road 4 (NM-4), located in the northern end of White Rock. The primary contributors to the off-site dose at this location are the ambient air data at that location combined with the collected potential emissions from unmonitored (minor) sources. Overall, the MEI dose in 2023 is similar to that which has been observed in recent years, and it remains well below the EPA’s 10 millirem per year limit. Doses reported to the EPA for the past 10 years are shown in Table E1.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

2022 LANL Radionuclide Air Emissions Report (Rev. 2)

This report describes the emissions of airborne radionuclides from operations at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) for calendar year 2022 and the resulting off-site dose from these emissions. This document fulfills the requirements established by the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants in 40 CFR 61, Subpart H – Emissions of Radionuclides other than Radon from Department of Energy Facilities, commonly referred to as the Radionuclide NESHAP or Rad-NESHAP. Compliance with this regulation and preparation of this document is the responsibility of LANL’s Rad NESHAP compliance program, which is part of the Environmental Protection and Compliance (EPC) Division. The information in this report is required under the Clean Air Act and is being submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Headquarters and EPA Region 6. The highest effective dose equivalent (EDE) to an off-site member of the public was calculated using procedures specified by the EPA and described in this report. LANL’s EDE was 0.45 for 2022. The annual limit is 10 millirem per year, established by the EPA in 40 CFR 61 Subpart H. All measured air emissions are modeled to a single location, known as the Maximally Exposed Individual (MEI). During calendar year 2022, LANL continuously monitored radionuclide emissions at 27 “major” release points, or stacks. The Laboratory estimates emissions from an additional 34 “minor” release points using radionuclide usage source terms in lieu of stack monitoring. Also, LANL uses an EPA approved network of air samplers around the Laboratory perimeter to monitor ambient airborne levels of radionuclides. To provide data for dispersion modeling and dose assessment, LANL maintains and operates several meteorological monitoring towers. From these various systems, a comprehensive evaluation is conducted to calculate the MEI dose for the Laboratory. The MEI can be any member of the public at any off-site location where there is a residence, school, business, or office. In 2022, this MEI location was a business at 95 Entrada Drive, located in the eastern end of Los Alamos town site. The primary contributors to the off-site dose at this location are the ambient air data at that location combined with radioactive gas emissions from the LANSCE facility and the collected potential emissions from unmonitored (minor) sources. Overall, the MEI dose in 2022 is similar to that which has been observed in recent years, and it remains well below the EPA’s 10 millirem per year limit. Doses reported to the EPA for the past 10 years are shown in Table E1.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2023

Ground Water Age Predictor

Machine Learning script to predict groundwater ages based on auxiliary features in a publicly available dataset, based on publicly available software libraries. Code applied to data from the Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program in California, including well location and construction information, chemical constituents and isotopic tracers, and land use metrics.

Chakraborty, Indrasis↗
DOE OSTI2023

Review of New or Modified Radioactive Air Emission Sources

This Environmental Protection and Compliance (EPC), Compliance Programs (CP) Quality Procedure (QP) describes the process for review and evaluation of new and modified sources of radioactive air emissions to determine the requirements for pre-construction approval, stack monitoring, stack sampling system upgrade, ambient air monitoring, and the implementation of As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principles. These requirements are specified in 40 CFR 61 Subpart H and by DOE Order 458.1, Radiation Protection of the Public and the Environment.

61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Annual Environmental Report 2019

The purposes of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Environmental Report 2019 are to record LLNL's compliance with environmental standards and requirements, describe LLNL’s environmental protection and remediation programs, and present the results of environmental monitoring at the two LLNL sites—the Livermore Site and Site 300. The report is prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Submittal of the report satisfies requirements under DOE Order 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” and DOE Order 458.1, “Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment.” The report begins with an executive summary, which provides the purpose of the report and an overview of LLNL’s compliance and monitoring results. The first three chapters provide background information: Chapter 1 is an overview of the location, meteorology, and hydrogeology of the two LLNL sites; Chapter 2 is a summary of LLNL’s compliance with environmental regulations; and Chapter 3 is a description of LLNL’s environmental programs with an emphasis on the Environmental Management System including pollution prevention. The majority of the report covers LLNL’s environmental monitoring programs and monitoring data for 2019: effluent and ambient air monitoring and dose assessment (Chapter 4); waters, including wastewater, storm water runoff, surface water, rain, and groundwater (Chapter 5); and terrestrial, including soil, sediment, vegetation, foodstuff, ambient radiation, and special status wildlife and plants (Chapter 6). The remaining two chapters discuss LLNL’s groundwater remediation program (Chapter 7), and quality assurance for the environmental monitoring programs (Chapter 8). Complete monitoring data, which are summarized in the body of the report, are provided in Appendix A.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2022

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2021

The purposes of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Environmental Report 2021 are to record Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL’s) compliance with environmental standards and requirements, describe LLNL’s environmental protection and remediation programs, and present the results of environmental monitoring at the two LLNL sites—the Livermore Site and Site 300. The report is prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) by LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Submittal of the report satisfies requirements under DOE Order 231.1B, “Environment, Safety and Health Reporting,” and DOE Order 458.1, “Radiation Protection of the Public and Environment.” The report is distributed electronically and is available at https://saer.llnl.gov/, the website for the LLNL annual environmental report. Previous LLNL annual environmental reports beginning with 1994 are also on the website. Some references in the electronic report text are underlined, which indicates that they are clickable links. Clicking on one of these links will open the related document, data workbook, or website. Sampling location maps throughout this report were created using ArcGIS® software by Esri. The report begins with an executive summary, which provides the purpose of the report and an overview of LLNL’s compliance and monitoring results. The first three chapters provide background information: Chapter 1 is an overview of the location, meteorology, and hydrogeology of the two LLNL sites; Chapter 2 is a summary of LLNL’s compliance with environmental regulations; and Chapter 3 is a description of LLNL’s environmental programs with an emphasis on the Environmental Management System including pollution prevention. The majority of the report covers LLNL’s environmental monitoring programs and monitoring data for 2021: effluent and ambient air monitoring and dose assessment (Chapter 4); waters, including wastewater, storm water runoff, surface water, rain, and groundwater (Chapter 5); and terrestrial, including soil, sediment, vegetation, foodstuff, ambient radiation, and special status wildlife and plants (Chapter 6). The remaining two chapters discuss LLNL’s groundwater remediation program (Chapter 7), and quality assurance for the environmental monitoring programs (Chapter 8). Complete monitoring data, which are summarized in the body of the report, are provided in Appendix A. The report uses Système International units, consistent with the federal Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and Executive Order 12770, “Metric Usage in Federal Government Programs” (1991). For ease of comparison to environmental reports issued prior to 1991, dose values and many radiological measurements are given in both metric and U.S. customary units. A conversion table is provided in the glossary. The report is the responsibility of LLNL’s Environmental Functional Area. Monitoring data were obtained through the combined efforts of the Environmental Functional Area; Environmental Restoration Department; Physical and Life Sciences Environmental Monitoring Radiological Laboratory; and the Radiation Protection Functional Area.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Ambient field seismology in critical zone hydrological sciences

Passive ambient noise monitoring is an emerging tool in environmental seismology, leveraging the ambient seismic field to assess temporal variations in shallow subsurface properties. This review focuses on the potential and challenges of using scattered coda waves from noise correlation functions to monitor critical zone dynamics. The sensitivity of seismic velocities to various environmental factors, including precipitation, snowmelt, atmospheric pressure, and groundwater fluctuations, underscores the method’s versatility. While coda waves excel in detecting subtle changes due to their scattered nature, ballistic waves provide higher spatial resolution, albeit with challenges in source stability. Advances in seismic sensing, including distributed acoustic sensing and low-cost geophone networks, have enabled high-resolution monitoring of hydrological processes, subsurface deformation, and seismic hazards. Integrating seismic data with hydrological models provides insights into water storage, pore pressure changes, and soil moisture dynamics. However, limitations in spatial resolution, calibration with ground truth data, and coupled effects between environmental factors remain key challenges. This review emphasizes the importance of interdisciplinary approaches in refining methodologies, enhancing sensor deployments, and addressing data gaps. Passive seismic monitoring offers opportunities to understand critical zone processes and their broader impacts on seismic hazards and environmental sustainability.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
DOE OSTI2025

Open-Source Ambient-Signal-Based Inertia Monitoring Tool for Power systems [SWR-25-59]

This script, developed by NREL, implements an inertia estimation algorithm using a sliding window approach. The inertia (H) is estimated based on frequency deviations and active power deviations, utilizing the swing equation from power system dynamics. An example application is provided using the WECC 240-bus system.

Peng, Jiangkai [National Renewable Energy Laborato↗
DOE OSTI2023

Thermal Constraint Violations as a Result of Ambient Adjusted Transmission Line Ratings

Ambient Adjusted Ratings allow transmission line current ratings to be increased above static ratings while requiring minimal weather monitoring. However, Ambient Adjusted Ratings are still contingent on static parameters that may not match real world conditions. This poster examines how simulation methods can estimate the extent to which using Ambient Adjusted Ratings could result in the violation of a transmission line's thermal constraints.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
DOE OSTI2020

Comparing the Use of High- to Low-Cost Black Carbon and Carbon Dioxide Sensors for Characterizing On-Road Diesel Truck Emissions

The exhaust plume capture method is a commonly used approach to measure pollutants emitted by in-use heavy-duty diesel trucks. Lower cost sensors, if used in place of traditional research-grade analyzers, could enable wider application of this method, including use as a monitoring tool to identify high-emitting trucks that may warrant inspection and maintenance. However, low-cost sensors have for the most part only been evaluated under ambient conditions as opposed to source-influenced environments with rapidly changing pollutant concentrations. This study compared black carbon (BC) emission factors determined using different BC and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) sensors that range in cost from $200 to $20,000. Controlled laboratory experiments show that traditional zero and span steady-state calibration checks are not robust indicators of sensor performance when sampling short duration concentration peaks. Fleet BC emission factor distributions measured at two locations at the Port of Oakland in California with 16 BC/CO 2 sensor pairs were similar, but unique sensor pairs identified different high-emitting trucks. At one location, the low-cost PP Systems SBA-5 agreed on the classification of 90% of the high emitters identified by the LI-COR LI-7000 when both were paired with the Magee Scientific AE33. Conversely, lower cost BC sensors when paired with the LI-7000 misclassified more than 50% of high emitters when compared to the AE33/LI-7000. Confidence in emission factor quantification and high-emitter identification improves with larger integrated peak areas of CO 2 and especially BC. This work highlights that sensor evaluation should be conducted under application-specific conditions, whether that be for ambient air monitoring or source characterization.

47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
DOE OSTI2024

Predictive model using artificial neural network to design phase change material-based ocean thermal energy harvesting systems for powering uncrewed underwater vehicles

Uncrewed Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) are a major beneficiary of the phase change material (PCM)-based ocean thermal energy harvesting technology for their mission needs. However, this technology relies on different parameters and energy conversion steps that could be critical to the general energy generation efficiency. Sea trials showed that the design performed lower than their laboratory design specifications. This underperformance results from different factors, mainly the UUV’s trajectory, travel time, underwater ocean currents, temperature fluctuations, and biofouling on the heat exchanger due to long term underwater operations. Therefore, there exists a need to continuously monitor the ambient energy harvesting system and predict system performance, for mission planning purposes. Two major parameters influencing the energy harvesting system include the final pressure inside the hydraulic energy storage vessel or accumulator, and the electrical load value. Here, this work focuses on the hydraulic to electric energy conversion system. Therefore, a combination of numerical model and experimental testing is used to develop a predictive model using artificial neural network using MATLAB. After validation with experimental testing, 1000 data samples obtained from the numerical model are used to train the ANN. Compared to the experimental results, the developed ANN model can predict in less than a second the designed benchtop system’s total efficiency with less than 15 percent maximum error range. This predictive model development represents a cost-effective way for optimization and a computational energy efficient mode aboard UUVs for mission planning for deployed UUVs using PCM-based ocean thermal energy harvesting technology.

30 DIRECT ENERGY CONVERSION↗
DOE OSTI2026

Wind and Temperature Consensus at Horn Point, HU-Beltsville, Piney Run (Maryland) in support of CoURAGE

The Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) operates a ground-based atmospheric profiling network consisting of collocated radar wind profilers (RWP) and radio acoustic sounding systems (RASS) as part of its Ambient Air Monitoring Program. This network provides continuous observations of wind and temperature structure in the lower troposphere to support air quality forecasting, regulatory analysis, and atmospheric research. The network currently includes three fixed sites across Maryland: Horn Point (HP, lower eastern shore) [38.587525°,-76.141006°], Howard University-Beltsville (HUB, central Maryland) [39.055277°, -76.878632°], and Piney Run (PR, western Maryland) [39.705950°, -79.012000°] The network is designed to capture regional variability in atmospheric transport and boundary-layer processes. These systems measure vertical profiles of horizontal wind speed and direction using Doppler radar techniques, with observations typically spanning from ~100 m above ground level up to approximately 2.5–4 km. Measurements are derived from the Doppler shift of backscattered electromagnetic signals, enabling retrieval of wind vectors at multiple altitudes with high temporal resolution (e.g., 30-minute averages reported every 6 minutes). Each radar wind profiler is paired with a Radio Acoustic Sounding System (RASS) to provide profiles of virtual temperature in the lower atmosphere (~100–200 m AGL) by measuring the propagation speed of acoustic waves. Together, the RWP/RASS system yields a coupled data set of thermodynamic and kinematic atmospheric structure, including additional parameters such as vertical velocity, radial velocity, signal-to-noise ratio, and spectral width for advanced analysis. There are two types of files for each station: wind data (files with a "w" prefix) and virtual temperature RASS data (files with a "t" prefix). The wind data files are in the format wYYDDD.cns, where YY is the 2-digit year and DDD is the day of the year. The RASS virtual temperature data files are in the format tYYDDD.cns. Each record has the following header structure: Line 1 : Station Name RASS files Line 2 : RASS rev DeTect_2.0, WINDS files Line 2 : WINDS rev ATI 5.1 Line 3 : N latitude, W longitude, and site elevation (m) Line 4 : Date and begin time of consensus: yy mm dd hh mn ss plus # minutes to add to get UTC Line 5 : Consensus averaging time (minutes); number of beams; number of range gates Line 6 : Number of records required to make consensus (num) total number of records (tot) and the consensus window size (m/s) in the format: num:tot (window) RASS files Line 7 : no. of coded cells, no. of spec, pulse width (ns), and inter-pulse period (µs), WINDS files Line 7 : No. of coded cells, no. of spectra, pulse width (ns), and inter-pulse period (µs), each with a pair of values: first value is for oblique beams, second for vertical RASS files Line 8 : Full scale Doppler value (m/s) Delay to first gate (ns) Number of gates Spacing of gates (ns), WINDS files Line 8 : Full scale Doppler velocity (m/s), oblique and vertical Vertical correction applied to oblique beams? (0 = no, 1 = yes) Delay to first gate (ns), oblique and vertical Number of gates, oblique and vertical Spacing of gates (ns), oblique and vertical Line 9 : Azimuth and elevation (9s indicate vertical beam not used) RASS files Line 10, values : HT = Height above ground (km), T = Uncorrected virtual temperature consensus (deg C), Tc = Corrected virtual temperature consensus (deg C), W = Vertical wind consensus (9s indicate vertical beam not used, w-component, positive upward, m/s), CNT = Number of records that made consensus (for the 3 values in same order), SNR = Average signal to noise ratio (dB) of records in consensus (same order) WINDS files Line 10, values : HT = Height above ground (km), SPD = Wind speed (m/s), DIR = Wind direction (deg E of N from N), RAD = Radial velocities for each beam (m/s) in order given in azimuth and elevation line (positive toward radar; 9s indicate vertical beam not used, CNT = Number of records that made consensus, SNR = Average signal to noise ratio (dB) of records in consensus

{"wind speed and direction",temperature}↗