SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Paragon Geophysical contracted Urban Seismic Specialists to conduct A Ground Motion Study, on their Forge 3D project located near in Milford Utah .The test was conducted to measure the effects of the vibrator array on a pipeline owned by Kern River. Testing began November 22nd, and was completed on November 23rd. Demobilizing was completed on November 24, 2017
Value-added utilization of waste tires in cementitious materials has been studied for decades, whereas the synergy between rubber and alkali-activated cements deserves more investigations. To this end, we compared physico-mechanical and durability properties of alkali-activated slag (AAS) and OPC-based composites containing NaOH-pretreated/as-received crumb rubber (CR). It was found that the incorporation of CR had both positive and negative effects on specimens due to its special attributes. CR reduced electrical conductivity which was associated with the ion transport ability, since it worked as an electrical insulator and increased hydrophobicity of pore walls. The sulfate expansion decreased with CR content because the flow of sulfate ions was demobilized, and the flexibility of CR relieved the internal stress. CR also improved the freeze-thaw durability of composites if the total CR content was less than 30% in specimens. However, the low Young's modulus of CR impaired the compressive strength and failed to effectively control the total shrinkage upon drying. The composites with CR must avoid high temperature exposure which resulted in the pyrolysis of rubber. In addition, the NaOH pretreatment enhanced adhesion between CR and hydrated cement and improved overall performances of composites. The FTIR spectra confirmed the NaOH-induced accelerated oxidation of CR surface and the generation of polar functional groups including carbonyl and carboxyl groups, increasing the total surface energy of rubber. More importantly, the alkali-activation process for AAS could treat the CR aggregate in the meantime, which means the use of CR in alkali-activated cements does not require the pretreatment of CR before blending.
This chapter documents the procedures and methods employed by the UT-GOM2-1 Expedition on the Helix D/V Q-4000 vessel; dockside at the demobilization dock, InterMoor, Port Fourchon, LA; and during subsequent limited shore-based analyses. Dockside analyses reported here include continued pressure core logging, curation, quantitative degassing, gas analysis, and mud lab activities. The limited shore-based analyses reported here include initial core scanning and core description at Ohio State University, smear slide and visual descriptions at the University of New Hampshire, and geochemical analyses at the University of Washington. All work discussed was completed between June and September 2017. Future shore-based analyses of UT GOM2-01 results will be described in separate individual publications. This expedition report is modeled after the reporting style of the International Ocean Discovery Program (IODP). The methods used during the expedition were designed to conform to IODP protocols as much as possible.
This addendum to the Closure Report for Corrective Action Unit 113: Area 25, Reactor Maintenance, Assembly, and Disassembly Facility, Building 3110, Nevada Test Site, Nevada, DOE/NV--891-VOL I-Rev. 1, dated July 2003, provides details of demolition, waste disposal, and use restriction (UR) modification for Corrective Action Unit 113, Area 25 R-MAD Facility. Demolition was completed on July 15, 2010, when the last of the building debris was disposed. Final field activities were concluded on August 30, 2010, after all equipment was demobilized and UR signs were posted. This work was funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Various robotic tooling options have been evaluated for the NRIC DOME concept of operations (ConOps). Framatome was contracted to develop a wide-ranging list of commercial off the shelf (COTS) and custom robotic systems to be considered for performing the DOME ConOps functions. Subsequent project tasks from Framatome narrowed down the list and scored the most viable options. The abbreviated list, and associated scoring, has been reviewed and assessed to provide formal recommendations for the robotic ConOps functions of DOME. The overhead telescoping mast & Kraft arm assembly is recommended as the primary system for reactor demobilization and removal. The estimated cost is $\$700$K with a timeline to develop and deliver of about 2.5 years. The mast & Kraft arm would still require an overhead lift system for mobilization and installation. Either the refurbished polar crane or a new gantry crane delivery platform could both serve as the overhead lift and delivery system. The estimated costs for the refurbishment polar crane and new gantry crane systems are, respectively, $\$4.4$M and $\$3$M with about 2.5 years to develop and deliver. A Brokk + Kraft crawler & arm is recommended as a secondary robotic system to support the overhead mast & Kraft arm system. The Brokk + Kraft crawler & arm would cost an estimated $\$726$k and would take about 1.5 years to develop and deliver. The Boston Dynamics SPOT robot is also recommended for the in-service monitoring during experimentation operations. The estimated cost is $\$220$K with a timeline to deliver of 8-14 months. The Elios 3 aerial drone is recommended to perform large area radiation dose rate mapping and visual inspections. The estimated cost is a $\$100$K and will also need about 8-14 months to develop and deliver. A mockup rig is also recommended to be procured an employed to test & verify the robotic capabilities as well as provide needed training for operations personnel. It is estimated that a mockup rig would cost about $\$500$k and would take up to a year to develop and build.
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.
Cape Thompson, Alaska, is located approximately 120 miles north of Kotzebue, Alaska, within the Ogotoruk Creek valley. The remote Alaskan location is also home to the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) Project Chariot study area. Project Chariot was part of the Plowshare Program, created in 1957 by the AEC to study peaceful uses for atomic energy. Project Chariot began in 1958 when a scientific field team chose Cape Thompson as a potential site to excavate a harbor using a series of nuclear explosions. Between 1959 and 1962, AEC was responsible for over 40 pretest bio-environmental and geotechnical studies of the Cape Thompson area. Strong public opposition to the tests developed, which caused the project to be cancelled with no nuclear explosions ever conducted at the site. In the early 1960's, several deep boreholes were drilled to obtain subsurface, temperature, and high-explosive testing data. Refrigerated diesel was used as a drilling fluid to keep the boreholes open so that thermistors could measure subsurface temperatures. The test boreholes were named Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog, and X-1. In the summer of 2014, the US Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management (LM) completed the remediation of remnant diesel at these sites. Prior to the 2014 remediation activities, LM conducted two separate characterization field studies to determine the nature and extent of the contamination from the 1960's drilling activities. In 2013, LM developed a remediation plan that was submitted and approved by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). The 2014 Project Chariot remediation had some unique logistical challenges and historic issues with stakeholders to overcome. Many of the historic issues centered on previous AEC scientific actions and a general mistrust of the government by the local stakeholders. Prior to and during the 2014 remediation work, an outreach campaign was implemented to discuss prior activities at the site and include stakeholders from Point Hope, Alaska, in the remediation-planning process. The remoteness of the region also provided unique logistical challenges. Because of the short field season, LM initiated several subcontracts over a year in advance. The field camp, heavy equipment, and soil storage containers were shipped by barge to the site. Personnel, food, and small materials were flown in by bush plane from Kotzebue, Alaska. Previous site characterization had identified diesel-range organics (DROs) as the primary contaminant. The cleanup levels for the site were provided by the Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) for the Arctic Zone region. The AAC cleanup level for DROs on gravel pads is 500 mg/kg and 12,500 mg/kg tundra in the arctic-zone region. To help determine the extent and direct soil excavation in the field, photoionization detectors (PIDs) were used for field screening. While the PID results provided rough limits for excavation, laboratory confirmation sampling was required to provide actual excavation guidance. All excavation locations remained open until laboratory results met AAC criteria and ADEC approved closure. The laboratory sample protocol required the bush plane to pick up samples almost daily and transfer them to Anchorage for analysis. In order to meet holding time requirements, all laboratory samples were analyzed on an expedited basis. Analytical results and ADEC approval notifications were e-mailed back to the site via satellite connection. A total of 202 laboratory analyses were needed to complete the remediation effort. At each location (Able, Baker, Charlie, Dog, and X-1), the boreholes were plugged and abandoned in accordance with ADEC regulations. Contaminated soil was excavated, and the material was placed in super-sacks and hauled to connex boxes located near the sea shore. Approximately 786 tons of material was removed and shipped by barge to the Columbia Ridge Landfill in Arlington, Oregon, for disposal. The well casings were cut and sealed below ground surface. Each location was graded to its original contours and reclaimed with native vegetation, and a geodetic survey was conducted. Tours with leaders of the Village of Point Hope and the land owner (Arctic Slope Regional Corporation) were conducted prior to the final demobilization. All remediation equipment and camp facilities were removed at the completion of the project. (authors)