Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “preventive outage evaluation”

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.

2 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2024

Launch Complex 34, SWMU CC054 2023 DNAPL Source Zone Operations, Maintenance, and Monitoring, Site-Wide Long-Term Monitoring, and Hot Spot 6 Air Sparge System Annual Performance Monitoring and Phase Two Expansion Construction Completion Report Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida

This Annual Performance Monitoring Report (PMR) for the Dense Non-Aqueous Phase Liquid (DNAPL) Source Zone (DSZ), Site-Wide Long-Term Monitoring (LTM), and Hot Spot 6 (HS 6) Air Sparge (AS) System presents the results of Year 14 operations and performance monitoring of the hydraulic containment (HC) Interim Measure (IM), details associated with construction and implementation of the HS 6 AS system expansion (Phase Two), and the results of operations and performance sampling of the HS 6 AS IM at Launch Complex 34 (LC34), located at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), Florida. The timeframe for activities documented in this PMR extends from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024. LC34 has been designated Solid Waste Management Unit CC054 under the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program. The objective of the HC IM at LC34 is to contain the shallow and deep DSZ and surrounding dissolved-phase trichloroethene (TCE) high concentration plume via operation of a hydraulic containment system (HCS). The pre-IM design 300 micrograms per liter (μg/L) TCE groundwater contour was used to establish the deep zone capture area for deep recovery wells, and the shallow zone capture area was defined by the DSZ. The system began operating in 2010, and in 2015, the system was expanded to provide HC for areas within the 300 μg/L TCE groundwater isocontours of HS 3 and 4. In 2018 and 2019, an investigation was conducted to recharacterize the DSZ, which included investigating TCE mass in Layer 7. This data was subsequently used to optimize the pumping rates of the HCS and install additional recovery wells in Layer 7 to more adequately capture residual contaminant mass. The operational period for Year 14 of the HCS was from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024. Operational runtime for the system was 94 percent during Year 14, with downtime events attributed to planned maintenance, system repairs, and power outages. As of March 31, 2024, a total of 344,849,634 cumulative gallons of groundwater containing 94,656 pounds of chlorinated volatile organic compounds (CVOCs) have been removed by the HCS. During the reporting period covered under this report, the HCS recovered 31,176,393 gallons and approximately 6,319 pounds of CVOC mass. Total combined influent concentrations of TCE have decreased since startup from approximately 280,000 µg/L (January 2010) to 25,000 µg/L (March 2024). During the reporting period, all effluent concentrations from the HCS (aqueous and vapor) were below regulatory reporting limits, indicating the system continues to operate as intended. Performance monitoring was conducted in January 2024 within the DSZ to evaluate TCE contamination. Groundwater samples were collected via DPT at nine locations, consistent with previous events between 2017 and 2022. Full vertical profile sampling was completed at each DPT from 8 to 98 feet below land surface (bls), at 5-foot intervals. The DPT performance monitoring results are summarized in this PMR. The results revealed TCE remains at concentrations greater than 11,000 µg/L in the DSZ (1-percent solubility, indicative of DNAPL) at eight of the nine DPT locations and at depths ranging from 28 to 98 feet bls. An overall decreasing trend of TCE concentrations was observed in DPT samples during this reporting period, which is a reduction from the previous event (December 2022) and the peak event in December 2021, where TCE percentages appeared to increase in all depth zones because several recovery wells were turned off during the AS pilot study in the DSZ. The maximum TCE concentration in January 2024 was 1,600,000 µg/L in the 53 feet bls depth interval at DPT594 (previous maximum result in 2022 was 1,800,000 µg/L in the 48 feet bls depth interval at DPT599). This maximum concentration in the 53 feet bls depth interval is in the deep capture zone. During the January 2024 DPT event, the largest portion of TCE mass was observed in the 48 feet bls interval above/within Layer 4. This trend remains consistent with previous years and appears to indicate continued mass discharge from Layer 4 (fine-grained unit). In addition to DPT sampling, annual groundwater samples were collected from 11 deep monitoring wells in the DSZ area (Layers 7 and 8) in December 2023 to verify vertical and horizontal delineation. Three of the wells were also sampled biweekly to evaluate operations of recovery well RW21D (screened 86 to 106 feet bls), which was installed in January 2023. Of the Layer 7/8 monitoring sampled only annually, results were non-detect or less than groundwater cleanup target levels GCTLs in December 2023, with the exception of one well, IW45D2, which had a cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cDCE), detection greater than the GCTL. Of the three wells sampled biweekly during the operational period, the well located closest to Layer 7 recovery well RW21D (IW44D2, screened 105 to 115 feet bls) had concentrations of TCE, cDCE and vinyl chloride (VC) greater than GCTLs throughout the operational period, but displayed a decreasing trend since the peak concentrations in September 2023. The maximum TCE concentration during this operational period was 190,000 µg/L at IW44D2 in September 2023, but reduced to 700 µg/L in March 2024, indicating the HCS is still effectively removing mass from the source area. Expansion of the HCS and addition of new recovery wells is ongoing and will continue to be evaluated as the groundwater recovery scheme is optimized. Details of the expansion and optimization will be provided in a future PMR. The HS 6 AS IM was initiated in 2018 with 160 AS wells and expanded in 2019 with another 140 AS wells. An additional expansion of the HS 6 AS IM was completed during the reporting period covered under this report and details of the construction implementation and startup of the expansion are detailed in Section III of this report. The new expansion, referred to as Phase Two, was implemented between August 17, 2022 and August 28, 2023, and included the installation of 190 air sparge wells to treat an additional 11.2 acres. The original configuration (referred to as Phase One) operated until Phase Two came online, then all but 52 AS wells were turned off so the components could be moved and utilized in the Phase Two area. The 52 AS wells that remain on are in a barrier configuration preventing contaminated groundwater from impacting the treated area. The HS 6 AS system (both Phase One and Two) operated normally during the reporting period covered under this report. Semi-annual performance monitoring of the Phase One configuration was conducted in April and November 2023, consistent with previous years. For the Phase Two configuration, 21 new monitoring wells were installed and sampled quarterly, with a baseline event in July 2023, and quarterly events in November 2023 and February 2024 summarized in this report. Semi-annual monitoring results collected in April and October 2023 show concentrations of contaminants of concern (cDCE, trans-1,2-dichloroethene, and VC) have decreased to less than GCTLs in nearly all wells and not impacting the surface water drainage canal, indicating the HS 6 IM continues to meet objectives. The baseline and quarterly sampling for the Phase Two configuration indicate generally decreasing concentrations in wells within and around the perimeter of the treatment area. At least two more quarters of monitoring will be conducted and once those results are evaluated a reduced the sampling frequency may be considered. Overall, the tasks associated with Year 14 operation of the HC IM and operation of the HS 6 AS IM were performed in accordance with recommendations included in the previous 2022 LC34 (Year 13) PMR. Evaluation of results from the HC IM and HS 6 IM show that these systems are operating as designed and meeting performance objectives.

groundwater remediation↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Monitoring Airspace Complexity and Determining Contributing Factors

The national airspace has evolved over many years to accommodate increased traffic demand [1] while simultaneously maintaining one of the safest forms of transportation [2], [3]. One of the reasons for this success is the ability of the system and the operators to adapt and accommodate to situations that routinely disrupt optimal operations. These situations may include: adverse weather, delays, early arrivals, equipment outages, and other factors that are outside the operators ability to control. These factors can lead to states where automation is unable to properly handle these issues and therefore air traffic controllers and pilots have to intervene, ultimately increasing communication between operators resulting in higher workload. As controller workload increases to handle sub-optimal operating conditions this can be viewed as an increase in complexity. The reasoning for this is because humans are now required to make tactical decisions in response to external factors, resulting in a departure from the strategic plan where operations would be more efficiently managed. Human operators control airspace complexity under rigid regulations that are constantly changing. The airspace is divided into sectors and the number of aircraft assigned to each controller is limited for safe handling. There has been past work that devised airspace complexity metrics in commercial aviation and related these metrics to controller workload (e.g., [4],[5]). The upper bounds on the system load are pre-determined. Such bounds on complexity make for a safe system, but the system cannot scale and adapt to autonomous, dense, and heterogeneous traffic, including the many types of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) envisioned to be added to the operations. We hypothesize that, as traffic density and heterogeneity grow, and other key metrics change, there will be phase transitions at which the way traffic should be managed changes significantly [6]. We offer a method for in-time detection of contributing factors that lead to phase transitions, characterized by increased complexity. To the best of our knowledge, there is no tool similar to our proposed effort that identifies such contributing factors or precursor patterns. To define the scope we are proposing to measure complexity from the viewpoint of the Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON) controller’s perspective. In particular we are analyzing arrivals into KSFO. With safety as the top concern for airspace operators, it is important to recognize that as density and heterogeneity grow, the focus of the system will change. Times of the day when the airspace has low density and heterogeneity, the flights will follow more efficient paths where the aircraft move on established routes that are more or less directly to the destination. However, when density and heterogeneity increases, the system will begin changing focus to avoiding conflicts and collisions and route the flights in a more flexible way. Higher flexibility requires more communication and coordination between controllers and pilots which the current automation is unable to handle. This paper proposes a novel approach that monitors airspace complexity at multiple scales, uses a Machine Learning-based tool that predicts when operations will transition to a regime of greater complexity, and identifies actions that can reduce the complexity while still maintaining efficient and safe operations. We demonstrate our proposed approach using data from multiple complementary sources. This includes, but is not limited to: historical aircraft surveillance data from NASA’s Sherlock Data Warehouse [7], METAR weather data, and airport configuration data from Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM). The surveillance data flight paths are sampled at a variable sample rate — increasing as the aircraft approaches the airport. This is due to how Sherlock manages flight track stitching between different radar facilities which have different sampling rates. The weather and performance data are logged at defined intervals throughout the day at a courser refresh rate. In addition to the logged data and metrics, we leverage pre-defined Standard Terminal Arrival Routes (STARs) procedures to characterize the path of each flight. Each flight files for one of these routes in the flight plan well before entering the terminal airspace, and approximately follows the route until it leaves the STAR, typically on the final fix of a runway transition. However, most flights do not always fly the full STAR procedure to completion [8], but the majority do adhere to the fixes within the common route of the procedure. Our approach leverages fixes in the common route of each of the STARs to build a reference path to the airport. This allows us to characterize the flight paths in what we are defining as the “maneuvering area” (the airspace between the STAR and before the flight is lined up on the runway’s final approach) to determine how off nominal the flights are to calculate its complexity score. Determining airspace complexity is a concept that does not have a concrete answer. In designing this metric, we consider what increases the workload for the air traffic controllers. Consequently more specialized vectoring maneuvers results in higher workload. Accordingly, we start with a theory: each flight has a direct path it takes from the STAR’s common route to the final approach’s outer marker fix for the flight’s landing runway. It is important to note that the direct path is only used as a reference. If the majority of the flights have a large consistent offset as compared to other routes it does not necessarily mean that those flights have higher complexity. We are merely building a distribution based on this direct path for that particular STAR and runway pair to determine the normal mode of operations for that route. Flights that are in the upper tail of these distributions will result in higher complexity scores and flights that fly in the median will represent the normal mode of operations and therefore will have lower complexity scores. Since flights following each STAR route take different paths to the airport, we have a different distribution for each STAR route and therefore can model these distributions to compute a complexity score from their respective normalized distributions. To evaluate the effectiveness of our proposed airspace complexity metric we will compare against an established approach based on trajectory clustering [9]. This unsupervised learning technique consists of the following steps: (1) identify the general maneuvering areas (waypoints) by performing $\kappa$-means or DBSCAN clustering on locations where aircraft frequently turn based on the surveillance radar track data, (2) map flight trajectories onto sequences of waypoints, and (3) cluster the sequences based on their common subsequences. From a high-level perspective, this baseline model learns nominal operations in the airspace through the sequence of waypoints that are representative of where aircraft change direction and defines deviations from the nominal operations as “complex.” Therefore, more deviations from the nominal operations correspond to higher complexity values. For our validation, we re-implemented this technique and tune model hyper-parameters to correctly detect waypoints for the arrival traffic into the San Francisco bay area. We will compute the complexity measure over a one-year period using our proposed technique as well as the baseline. Our validation will be based on each technique’s ability to detect a set of undesirable outcomes (e.g., go-arounds, holding patterns, average time in the airspace, etc.). Since our current complexity metric is derived from the offset from the direct reference path, it’s important to understand what causes these offsets. In many of the flights with high offset distance, flights performing holding patterns and S turns can be observed. These maneuvering tactics are utilized to add distance between the aircraft and the destination runway to prevent multiple flights from having conflicting arrival times. In order to predict a rise in complexity (or the precursor to complexity), it’s necessary to be able to identify these potential conflicts (which in turn, result in higher offsets). To do this, we define a “representative flight” for each STAR route and runway pair. This flight is approximately the path the flight would take if there was a clear path with no other flights in the airspace — including the time remaining to the airport. We first identify the flights for a given STAR runway pair using the offset to the reference path distributions that fall between the 44-55 percentiles. This yields the flights that conform to the most normal mode of operation. Each of these flights is partitioned based on the percent complete from the entry point into the maneuvering areas from 0\% – 100\% complete. Then for each percent “bin”, we take the median value of the flight’s latitude/longitude coordinates, airspeed, and (non causal) time remaining to the airport to construct a lookup table for each percent complete bin on a given route. As a flight enters the maneuvering area, we can find the estimated arrival time of a flight to the airport by finding the closest point to the representative path’s percent complete bin (relative to the flight’s current position at any snapshot in the airspace) and therefore retrieve the corresponding remaining time left on the “representative path”. We assume that the flight will follow the representative path to completion when deriving these estimates. We can then compare these estimated arrival times against other flights for the same snapshot in time to identify potential conflicts. If more flights are estimated to arrive within a tolerance window than there are runways available, then we have a potential conflict. We can use this derived measure along with other factors expected to add disruption to the operation such as weather and runway configuration changes as an input to machine learning tools to detect precursors that increases in our complexity measure. This novel method will assist in uncovering insights into the contributing factors that lead to increased complexity that may allow for in-time responses to avoid reaching a high complexity state in the airspace.

complexity↗