Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Relative humidity (RH) in percent”

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.

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 (&deg;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 &ldquo;0&rdquo; 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 &ldquo;time warp&rdquo; 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&ndash;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&ndash;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&ndash;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&ndash;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↗

EPCAPE-PT-LANL Measurements: Humidified Cavity Attenuated Phase Shift Spectroscopy

Coastal cities offer a unique environment for studying aerosol-cloud interactions and the effects of urban emissions on cloud properties. As part of the Eastern Pacific Cloud Aerosol Precipitation Experiment (EPCAPE), the Partitioning Thrust by Los Alamos National Laboratory (EPCAPE-PT-LANL) was conducted. Our campaign focused on measuring the optical and chemical properties of aerosols and their interactions within marine stratocumulus clouds in La Jolla, California. EPCAPE-PT-LANL enhances the primary goals of EPCAPE through innovative observations of vapor-phase transitions between aerosols and cloud droplets, the impact of black carbon on aerosol-cloud dynamics, and the effects of cloud processing on aerosol optical properties. Instrument: Humidified Cavity Attenuated Phase Shift Particulate Matter Single Scattering Albedo (H-CAPS-PMSSA, Aerodyne Inc) Data Notes: The scattering truncation correction was not applied to Bsca. The Bext needs no correction. Files: data_10sec_CAPS.csv, data_10min_CAPS.csv Header: - Bext_wet_CAPS_450nm[1/Mm]: Wet aerosol extinction coefficient measured at 450 nm by the CAPS, in inverse megameters (Mm⁻¹). - Bsca_wet_CAPS_450nm[1/Mm]: Wet aerosol scattering coefficient measured at 450 nm by the CAPS, in inverse megameters (Mm⁻¹). - Temp_wet_CAPS[K]: Temperature inside the wet CAPS measurement chamber, in Kelvin. - Bext_dry_CAPS_450nm[1/Mm]: Dry aerosol extinction coefficient measured at 450 nm by the CAPS, in inverse megameters (Mm⁻¹). - Bsca_dry_CAPS_450nm[1/Mm]: Dry aerosol scattering coefficient measured at 450 nm by the CAPS, in inverse megameters (Mm⁻¹). - Temp_dry_CAPS[K]: Temperature inside the dry CAPS measurement chamber, in Kelvin. - Wet_RH_preCAPS[%]: Relative humidity before entering the wet CAPS, in percent. - Wet_RH_postCAPS[%]: Relative humidity after exiting the wet CAPS, in percent. - Humidifier_RH_CAPS[%]: Relative humidity inside the humidifier used with the CAPS, in percent. - dualCAPS_inlet_RH[%]: Relative humidity at the inlet of the dual (wet/dry) CAPS setup, in percent. - Wet_Temp_preCAPS[C]: Temperature before entering the wet CAPS, in degrees Celsius. - Wet_Temp_postCAPS[C]: Temperature after exiting the wet CAPS, in degrees Celsius. - Humidifier_Temp[C]: Temperature inside the humidifier used with the CAPS, in degrees Celsius. - dualCAPS_inlet_Temp[C]: Temperature at the inlet of the dual (wet/dry) CAPS setup, in degrees Celsius. - Zero_dry_CAPS: 1 is a calibration check for the dry CAPS to ensure zero reading under filter air conditions. - Zero_wet_CAPS: 1 is a calibration check for the wet CAPS to ensure zero reading under filter air conditions. - CVI_Flag[bool]: A boolean flag indicating whether the Counterflow Virtual Impactor (CVI) was active (true) or inactive (false) during the measurement.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Trace Gases, Meteorological Parameters, and GPS data for TRACER-MAP

This dataset includes trace gas, meteorological, and GPS measurements made on Mobile Air Quality Laboratory 2 (MAQL2) for the TRACER-MAP sampling campaign. Trace gas measurements include nitric oxide (NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), reactive nitrogen compounds (NOy), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO). All trace gases are in units of ppbv, excluding CO which is in ppmv. The dataset also includes the photolysis rate of NO2 (jNO2), latitude and longitude, wind speed (WS), wind direction (WD), ambient relative humidity (RH), ambient pressure (press), and ambient temperature (temp). Units for trace gases are in parts per billion (ppbv), latitude and longitude are in decimal degrees (dd), jNO2 is in per second (per sec), pressure is in millibar (mbar), relative humidity is in percent, the temperature is in degrees C, wind direction is in degrees, and wind speed is in meters per second. All data is 5 minutes averaged.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

Analysis of Material Properties of Aged Rigid Polyurethane Foam

Foams are classified as either rigid or flexible and are commonly used in applications such as pipe insulation, carpet fibers, and chair foam cushions. Polyurethane foams are excellent thermal insulators, have excellent mechanical properties, and are chemically inert. With the addition of fire protective additives, polyurethane foams have the ability to intumescence when exposed to high temperatures. For the future storage of the 9977 nuclear shipping packages, the material properties of the General Plastics 3716 rigid polyurethane foam were evaluated for long term performance by comparing aged samples to unaged samples. General Plastics 3716 rigid polyurethane foam was aged from November 2014 to June 2019 at varying temperatures of: 160 deg. F, 160 deg. F + 50% relative humidity (RH), 185 deg. F, 215 deg. F, and 250 deg. F. The foam was then analyzed via Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), 3D Optical Microscope, Thermal Gravimetric Analysis (TGA), Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC). FTIR and Optical Microscope: No significant change to chemical or physical structure was evident by FTIR or optical microscope analysis. DSC: Decrease of heat capacity over time for all oven temperatures except a slight increase for the 185 deg. F conditioned foams. Largest decrease evident with foams conditioned at 250 deg. F. A slight increase in heat capacity for humid samples. Similar trends in heat capacities at 71 deg. C and 102 deg. C. TGA: As conditioning temperature increased, a decline was evident in the average percent weight loss, onset temperature, and first derivative peak temperature. No significant effect due to humidity except for a decrease in first derivative peak temperature. Unaged samples exhibited strong intumescence. Foams conditioned at 160 deg. F exhibited slight intumescence. Results suggest fire protective additives decomposed at higher temperatures, which contributed to a lower average percent mass loss in higher temperature conditioning. Further thermal degradation testing would be beneficial to evaluate the ability of the conditioned foams to intumesce. Evaluate irradiation dose rate effects on conditioned foam. Possible conditioning in an environment with a known humidity or analyzing a new aliquot of sample for each trial to achieve a more representative heat capacity calculation.

12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗