Falcon Series Data Report - 1987 LNG Vapor Barrier Verification Field Trials

8/15/2019 Falcon Series Data Report - 1987 LNG Vapor Barrier Verification Field Trials

1/663

Falcon Series Data Report1987 LNG Vapor Barrier Verification Field Trials

T . C . BrownR.T. CederwallS.T. Chan

D.L. ErmakR.P. KoopmanK.C. Lamson

J.W . McClureL.K. Morris

June 1990,e


2/663

DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by anagency of the United States Government. Neither the United StatesGovernment nor any agency Thereof, nor any of their employees,makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legalliability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, orusefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or processdisclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privatelyowned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, orotherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement,recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or anyagency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed hereindo not necessarily state or reflect those of the United StatesGovernment or any agency thereof.


3/663

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible inelectronic image products. Images are producedfrom the best available original document.


4/663

D I S C L A I M E RNo rk performed under the ausp ices of the US. Depart -ment of Energ) h) Lawrence Livermore Nat ional Labora-

tory under cont ract number N 7405-ENG-48.This document was prepared a s an account of worksponsored b) an agenc) of the Uni ted S ta tes Government .

Nei ther the Uni ted S tates Government nor the Univers i ty ofCal i forn ia nor an) of their employees, makes any warranty,espr ess or implied . or a w m e s any l egal l i ab i l ity or respon-s ih i l i t) fo r the accurac) , completeness , o r usefu lness of an yinformat ion , apparatus , p roduct , o r p rocess d i sclosed , o rrepresent s that i t s use would not infringe privately ownedright s . Reference herein lo any speci f i c commercial p rod-ucts. process. or sert ice b j t rade name. t rademark , manufac-turer. or otherwise. does not neces sari l) cons ti tute or implyi t s endorsement , recommendat ion . o r favor ing by the Uni tedS tates Gosernment or the Univers i ty of Cal i forn ia . Theviews and opinions of autho rs espre ssed he rein do not neces->ari l) ctate or reflect th ose of the Uni ted S tates Governmentor the Universi ty of California, and $hall not be used foradvert isin g or product endorsem ent purposes.


5/663

GRI-89 /0138

UCRL- CR--10 4 3 16DE90 016474

Falcon Series Data Report1987 LNG Vapor Barrier Verification Fie

Prepared by

Trials

T. C. Brown, B.T. Cederwall, S. T. Chan, D. L.-Ermak,It. P. Koopman, K.C. Lamson, J . W . McClure , and L . K. Morris

Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryBox 808Livermore, California 94550

ForGAS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Contract No. 5088-252-1704and

U.S . Department of Transportation

G R I Project ManagerTed A . Williams

Environment, Safety and Distribution Division

June 1990

B~STRIBUTIQNOF THIS DOCUMENT IS UNLIMITED1.


6/663


7/663


8/663

Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .bstract 1

1.0 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 . 0 LNG Vapor Barrier Verification Field Trials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 . 1 The Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 . 2 Command, Control. and Data Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2 2 . 3 Diagnostic Instrumentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8

2 . 3 . 1 hfeteorological Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 8 2 . 3 . 2 Gas Concentration Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9

2 . 4 Photographic Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3 . 0 Experiment Summaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 4 . 0 The Meteorological Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4 . 1 The Atmospheric Boundary Layer Dat.a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 4 . 2 The Wind Field Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 0 4 . 3 The Turbulence Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5 . 0 The Spill 4ea Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 5 . 1 Spill A4reaTemperature Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 5 . 2 Spill Area Heat Flux Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 5 . 3 Spill Area Gas Sensor Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 3

6 . 0 The Vapor Dispersion Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6 . 1 Vapor Cloud Temperature Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 6 . 2 Ancillary Vapor Dispersion Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 6 . 3 LNG Vapor Concentration Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 4 6 . 4 LNG Vapor Mass Flux Dat a and Calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Appendix A. Wind Field Dat a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A - 1Appendix B . Turbulence Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 1 Appendix C . Spill Area Da ta . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1Appendix D . Vapor Cloud Temperature Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D- 1Appendix E . Ancillary Vapor Dispersion Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1Appendix F. Temporal Concentration Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F - 1Appendix G Vapor Concentration Crosswind Contours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G - 1

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .eferences 72


9/663

grn IO1 t~ U Y L N T A T I O N 1. =POUT GRI - 89/ 0138PAGEa. T I M .nd SuWirI.Fal con Ser i es Dat a Repor t1987 LNG Vapor Bar r i er Ver i f i cat i on Fi el d Tr i al s7 . ~u t kodr ) T. C. Br own, R. T. Ceder wal l , S. T. Chan, D. L. Ermak,R. P. Koopman, K. C. Lamson, J . W McCl ur e, and L. K. Mor r i s

Lawr ence Li ver more Nat i onal Labor at or y, L- 262Box 808, 7000 East Ave.Li ver mor e, CA 945509. Podormiry O ~ s n i r ~ l l o no m and Addross

12. Sgonrodry O r l . n i r m t l a , Nsme J W ~d d m sGas Resear ch I nst i t ut e8600 West Br yn Mawr AvenueChi cago, I L 60631

l& Ab .(- (Llmn: 100eA ser i es of f i ve L i quef i ed Nat ur al Gas Spi l l s up t o 66 m3 i n vol ume wer e per f or medon wat er wi t hi n a vapor bar r i er st r uct ur e at Fr enchman Fl at on t he Nevada Test Si t e asa par t of a j oi nt gover nment / i ndust r y study. Thi s dat a r epor t present s a descr i pt i onof t he t es t s , t he t est appar at us, t he i nst r ument at i on, t he met eor ol ogi cal condi t i ons,and the dat a f r om t he tests.

I l r ( H s AcmJon No

a Rmood Date amr oved&

June, 1990* ?domiryOr snlrstion Ropt. NOUCRL-10. m / T . S h / W o r k Unlt No

11. -c) or Or.nt(G) No.( OGRI 5088- 252- 1704(a)1% TI # ol hgort & P.r& C o v o r o dDat a Repor t1/ 86 - 11/ 8914.

1s. cumC1.u O l l S h p o r t )& Av.il.blllty StnrhmOnt Uncl ass i f i edel ease unl i m t ed.Avai l abl e f r om GRI or LLNL 20. l rcudty C h n Ollrh..I Unc l ass i f i ed iO?TIONAL fOR y 272 (4 -7(Formerly NT IE3 5 )5.. ln uctlom on I mw..A N S M 3 9 . 1 8 )

21. No. o f P s g e s66122.


10/663

AbstractA series of five Liquefied Natural Gas spills up to 66 m3 in volume were performed

on water within a vapor barrier structure at Frenchman Flat on the Nevada Test Siteas a part of a study funded by the Gas Research Institute and the U.S. Department ofTransportation. This data report presents a description of the tests, the test apparatus,the i nstrumenta tion, the meteorological conditions, and the dat a from the tests.

1.0 IntroductionTh e Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) conducted a series of five large scale (up

to 6 6 m3) pressurized Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) spill tests for the Department of Transportat ion(DOT) and the Gas Research Institute ( GRI ) as par t of a joint government/industry study. Thesetes ts were code name d the “Falcon” Series. These test s were performed t o evaluate th e effectivenessof vapor fences as a mitigation technique for accidental releases of LNG, and t o provide a da ta basefor the validation of wind tunnel and computer model simulations of vapor fence effects on LNGdispersion. To assist in evaluating the effectiveness of vapor fences as a mitigation techniquethe experimental apparat us w a s designed to be sufficiently large to represent realistic vapor fencegeometries and the tests designed to be of sufficient length t o establish steady state conditionsinside the vapor lower flammability limit (LFL) region. Spills were made onto a specially designedwater pond equipped with a circulation system to maximize evaporation thus attempting to makethe source evapora tion rate as nearly equal t o the spill rate a s possible. The t ests were performedover flat terrain under stable and neutral wind conditions at the Department of Energy ( D O E )Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility (L GF ST F) in the Frenchman F lat Area of the NevadaTest Site ( N T S ) which is under the jurisdiction of the D O E Nevada Operations Office (DOE/NV).

Two previous large scale experimenta l field test series (th e Burro and Coyote series) wereconducted with LNG by LLNL and the Naval JVeapons Center (NLVC) at China Lake, California,under t he joint sponsorship of the D O E and t he G RI. The purpose of the Burro Series, conducted inthe summer of 1980 , was to determine the transport and dispersion of vapor from spills of LNG onwater. The Coyote series was conducted in the summer and fall of 1981, to investigate Rapid PhaseTransition ( R P T ) explosions and to determine the characteristics of fires resulting from ignition ofvapor clouds from LNG spills.

The purpose of this report is to describe the spill tests, test appar atus , instrumentation, mete-orological conditions, a nd to make the da ta from the Falcon Test Series available to the sponsors.The bulk of th e d at a are presented graphically to facilita te user assimilation of the several millionwords of digital da ta stored in the LLNL dat a base. This report is intended to report the dataonly, and therefore contains little analysis. Th e analysis of selected da ta from these test s will bepublished in future reports. Copies of the data tapes have been given to the sponsors.

Th e opera tional information necessary for conducting these spill tests w a s presented in the LGFProgr am Test P lan (Brown et al., 1987) , Test Management Summary (Brown et al., 1987) , SafetyAssessment Document (Brown et al., 1987) , and the Environmental Assessment (EA) (P att on etal., 1986) .


11/663

2.0 LNG Vapor Barrier Verification Field Trials DescriptionThe purpose of this section is to describe th e experimental apparatus, experimental procedures,

diagnostic instrumentation, control systems, da ta acquisition systems, and da ta processing systemsto the extent necessary to allow the reader to understand the measurements used to produce thefinal results and their accuracy. Descriptions will be summary in nature and, where more detailedinformation exi sts, it will be referenced in the text. The exact position and operational status ofeach diagnostic instrument and instrument tower for each individual test is given in the ExperimentSummary section. Tables 1-3 summarize the type and number of sensors employed during the testseries. Figures 1-12 graphically depict the location of each sensor type, the t, , and t coordinatesare with respect to an origin at the working point located in the middle of the.downwind (NE) wallof th e vapor bar rier. The spill array was oriented parallel with the most prevalent wind directionwith the positive z-axis forming an azimuth of 45' East of True North lfrom the working point(positive 2: runs downwind with a wind direction of 225').

Table 1. Gas dispersion instrumentation.Measurement Instrument QuantityGas concentration measurements

Wind field measurementsTurbulence measurementsTemperature measurements

Heat flux measurementsHumidity measurementsAbsolute air pressure

M S AJPL-IRMet-OneGill bivaneThermocoupleRTD

LLNL-IR

HY-CALONDYNEBarometer

3835

41918

3009641

~~

Table 2. Spill facility instrumentation.Measurement QuantityStorage tank pressureDrive gas pressureSpill line pressureInstrument gas pressureStorage tank temperatureSpill line temperatureStorage tank levelSpill line f low

411151041

2


12/663

Table S. Photographic documentation.Instrument Quantity

~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~

3 5 m m Still Frame Camera 31 6 m 4 Frame/second Motion Picture Camera 4Color Video Camera 2CCD type Color Video Camera 1 -

2.1 The Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test FacilityThe Liquefied Gaseous Fuels Spill Test Facility (LGFSTF) w a s used for the f i s t time during

the Falcon Series. The LGFSTF was designed by Bechtel National, Inc., and constructed byHolmes and Narver Engineering and REECo as subcontractors to the USDOE. Complete detaileddescriptions of the facility are available at the facility and at the K T S Engineering Library. Themost comprehensive document is the LGFSTF, Nevada Test Site , Holmes & Narver/Department ofEnergy, Mechanical Design Record Book. A simpler description, plus a discussion of design criteria,the da ta acquisition system, and the meteorological instrumentation may be found in Johnson andThompson (1986) . The Facility is located on Frenchman Flat, an extremely flat playa with littlevegetation.

The baseline facility consists of two generally separate process systems. The larger and morecomplex of the two systems is designed to handle cryogenic fluids, such as L N G , and was thesystem used for the Falcon Test Series. The cryogenic spill system consists of two independent 100-m3 (26,000-gal) cryogenic storage tanks connected t o 500-ft-long spill pipes that lead northwest tothe spill area. Test fluid is pressure driven out of the storage tanks and through the spill pipes bymeans of nitrogen ( N , ) drive gas at 5 to 140 psig. The drive gas is supplied from a 2000 psig, 2400ft3 ( 6 7 m3)pressure vessel. The source of this gas is an LN, storage tank provided with a vaporizerand pumping system.

The operation and performance of the LGFSTF was controlled and monitored from a remotedata recording control point located a safe distance upwind from the LGFSTF process systemslocation. The general location and intrasystem relationships of the LGFSTF are shown in the siteplan in Figyre 13.

The nitrogen storage and supply system that provided drive, cooldown, and purge gas to thefacility is shown schematically in Figure 14 . This system provided nitrogen drive gas at controlledpressures from 35 to 140 psig to force LNG out of the storage tanks and through the spill pipes tothe spill point. Nitrogen w a s also supplied for purging tanks and piping prior to their use and af tertesting was completed, as well as for remote controlled valve actuation.

Th e drive gas system consists of piping, pressure control, and valving tha t feed the high pressuregas into the storage tanks or th e upstr eam end of the spill pipes. The piping and valves weredesigned to provide the flow rates and pressures required to drive LNG at the rates specified forthe Falcon Series. The control levels on the pressure control stations were varied and appropriateorifices inserted to provide the different spill rates for each tes t. Drive gas was routed to theupstream end of the spill pipes to drive residual-LNG out of th e spill pipe during t he later stages(blowdown phase) of a test. The procedure involves isolating and bypassing the storage tanks afterthe predetermined volume of LNG ha d been discharged from the storage tank into the spill pipe.

Liquid nitrogen was used to chill the cryogenic piping and tankage prior to introducing LNGinto these systems. Pre-test cooling of the spill pipe was accomplished by introducing LN2 into

3


13/663

40 -a - BV-L4ll0v-WII BV-4Sll BV-LSll

PENCE0 I I I - - -

BV-46110

-140la r-----T----~ ~---i,I 1 I599$993w

293199i wlw

-200-300-4110

-Sa3

-159 -50 50 EO 2sMETERS

Figure 1. Falcon Series bivane array.

WOBU wFENCE t-4-WDZ17 wo4U

+-- EFigure 2. Falcon Series windfield array.

4


14/663

40

30

P

m

-10

-30

40

T C - U . 4 WFENC€ 0

TC--Kk-5cSc.l5J TC--Kk-ScS

40

30

P1D

-10

-30

40

-m -89 -60 -40 -20METERS

Figure 3. Falcon 1-2 spill area temperature array.----

, , I I , , -----i7---r--T 1 . 1----49 -20 0-m -80 -69

METERSFigure 4. Falcon 3-5 spill area temperature array.

5


15/663

_1_.-.--'- ,-- -------150

U

TC-LbU7CI TC-L&ll

-----T--- 7 4-- 159 25950 50METERS

Figure 5. Falcon 1 3 temperature array.140TC-16.11

0TC-SSJ0

TGO,L5,llJ70U TC-LbW70 1

TC-Lkll5 TC-LMlI

TC-;CIll40I . -t--v------ - - - _- -

-1bJla0,

0 FC-L&lLl7CI TC-Lkll0I - - - - - . -T-----r----~ - - - .- .*_59 WO 2591140 -EO -59METER3

Figure 6. Falcon 4-5 temperature array.

6


16/663

149la0103BD8040m0I -a

-40-89-80

-1m-1P

HF-10

HP-10:

HF-1UD W-10

7 1 1 --T--- T---140 I150 -59 59METERS

159 259

Figure 7. Falcon Series heat flux array.149la01m808040P

Q N P 1-:-40-89-80-im-la0

Figure 8. Falcon Series humidity array.

7


17/663

140la0 -I00 -m -a -40 -

L-WM-uL-LSM-Il

L-LSBM-17 0UU

L-Lbllhl-17CI

L-k WM-17 0

l _ __

FENCE j -1 L-L5:M-IL170

-40 --Bo --80 -

-100 --la0 --140

L-&5,M-17 L-ISM-lL17- -__K

r--------~ r-----------

L-LSM-IL17-L8&M-17UID L-L5BM-17UL-LBW-I70

L-EM-l i0CI L-LSrM-Il

0 M-tSU

50 259

Figure 9. Falcon 1 gas array.

r---- 1METERS

Figure 10. Falcon 2 gas array.

8


18/663


19/663


20/663

mr am

v ~ n tm1 5 C E 1 0 2L iq ul d n i w m stw.gs SUprCnnUlni t raQ m heat er0 8 X 106 Btulh1 2 - f t 9 - m Id .8ooo gal

c - 1 0 2. c - l o 3Niwopn d r i r a m t o r q ~ Now- v-omer5-ft 8 - m Id X 9041 1 - i n . T 2 3 5 0 i t 3 1 1 X 1 0 6 Btulh

0 1 0 2 E 101

G-102L i q u i d nitrogenh i g h . p n u u r ea t e 1 0 pp”u m p

G 101L q u d n i t r o wI 0 w . p n u u r . p u m pr a t e 30 epm

L e g e n dH C H a n d c o n t r o lL I L e v e l i n d i c a t i o nPC Pressure cont ro lPCV P r e s s u r e - c o n t r o lva lveP I P r e s su r e i n d i c a t i o nT C T e m p r a t w e control

TOc - 1 0 4

TOC - 1 0 6eC - I O 5

H i +pressure> n i t r o g md r i v egar

Figure 4 . Nitrogen storage and supply system.


21/663

the spill pipe and venting the boil-off through the spill valve and/or the high point vent valve.Temperature monitoring of the spill pipe was used to determine the flow of LN2 into the spill pipeduring cooldown and to determine when LNG could be introduced into the spill pipe.

The cryogenic spill system, shown in Figure 15, provided the means for receiving, storing,and discharging LNG. The syst em received LNG delivered by tanker truck (supplied by TrussvilleUtilities Board, Trussville, Alabama) an d provided storage between tests. The two cryogenic tanksare provided with valves and piping for receiving LNG deliveries, for discharging LNG, and fortransferring LNG from one tank t o the other. The tanks are instrumented with vacuum andpressure gauges, thermocouples, and liquid level sensors. Tank C-105 is connected to two separatelines; a 12-inch diameter line to provide high flow capability, and a 6-inch diameter line, which wasnot utilized in this test series. Tank C-106 is connected separately to a single 12-inch diameter line.

Each spill pipe is equipped with control valves a t each end. To provide uniform LNG distr i-bution on the pond surface a multi-exit spill “spider” was used. The spill “spider” was used, thespill pond, a nd the water circulation system are schematically depicted in Figure 16. Each armof the spider was approximately 11.6 m in length, was oriented 90” from adjacent arms, and wasfitted with a restrictive orifice at the downstream end of the horizontal portion to prevent flashingin the pipe. The spill pond w a s 40 m by 60 m and w a s filled to a depth of approximately 76 cm.Detailed mechanical drawings are available from the Liquified Gaseous Fuels Program at LLNL.Th e spill pond, the “spider” and the water circulation system were designed t o vaporize the LNGat a high rate so tha t the vapor source rate was nearly equal to the spill rate. A known vapor sourcerate is very important for modeling purposes, especially when the data are to be used for modelvalidation. RP Ts were a known hazard for spills on water, but the requirement for a high (andknown) vaporization rate w a s primary and the water pond was the only practical w a y of obtainingit.

The vapor fence structure (depicted in Figure 17) was fabricated from a propri etary fiberglasscloth impregnated with a mixture of silicon, Teflon and graphite. The fabric was reinforced byaluminum battens and suspended from a series of 9.1 m aluminum pillars by stainless steel cable.The barrier was 44 m by 88 m and was raised to a height of 8.7 m. The “billboard” structure,located upwind of the pond was employed to generate turbulence typical of a storage tank insidethe fence. It was made from the same material as the vapor fence, reinforced with the same batte nmateria l and suspended from 13.7 m a luminum pillars. The str uctu re was 17.1 m wide and wasraised to a height of 13.3 m (see Figure 17).

2.2 Command, Control, and Data AcquisitionThe Command, Control, a nd Da ta Acquisition System (CCDAS) provides remote and local

control for the spill process, monitors important parameters and status information within the spillprocess, and provides a centra l location wrhere all spill dat a are collected and stored. The systemconsists of the LGF Dat a -4cquisition System (LGFDAS) and industrial control computer hardwareand software. A block diagram of the CCDAS is shown in Figure 18. At the spill site, a localmicrocomputer-based subsystem provides signal conditioning for both inpu t an d output, provideslocal monitoring and control for manual operation and checkout, and supports communicationswith t he remote subsystem. The operators’ console and main control hardware are located a t t heremote site (CCDAS building), approximately one mile t o the west. B y means of a high speed da ta

12


22/663


23/663

t 1 8 8 4

w 41

Tie down supports (4-6)

Circulation linesJ

lo" spillLGFSTF

12" cryogenicspill lineWater exlts

1 UIater Inlets

Figure 18. The vapor s o u r c e multi-Cxit spill configuration.

14

- Inlets- Exits

tnlets- ExitsPrevailingwlnd


24/663

-

F

T

fensruu

1


25/663


26/663


27/663

transferred to the LLNL Computation Center for archival. Data are stored on an off line massstorage system and are readily available for analysis.

Data manipulation, IR sensor data processing, and plotting were done on a CDC 7600 com-puter, using the high quality computational and graphics output devices available at LLNL. Gasconcentration contour generation, mass flux analysis, and meteorological analysis were done usingprogra ms writte n specifically for this purpose. Acquisition a nd processing of the calibration dat awere done on a dedicated LSI-11 minicomputer, and the resulting files used a t bo th LLNL andNTS for conversion of raw sensor dat a to calibrated da ta in engineering units.

2.3 Diagnostic Instrument at ionThe purpose of this section is to describe each instrument used to measure the physical pa-

ramet ers necessary to evalua te the effectiveness of vapor barriers on dispersion of LNG. Discussionof each sensor is intended t o be sufficient t o appraise the reader of the sensor type, measurementtechnique employed, and e stimated accuracy. hlore detailed descriptions ar e referenced in t he text .

2.3.1 Meteorological Sensors

2.3.1.1 Turbulence AnemometersA tot al of 18 standard, commercially available Gill bivane anemometers (R.M. Young Company)

were employed on the Falcon series of tests as depicted in Figure 1. These anemometers have athresh-old of 0.1-0.2 m/s and a response distance c onstant of 1.0 m. Factory supplied calibrationcurves were used, and d at a taken every 1 sec. Absolute pointing accuracy was estimated to be bett erthan 3 5 ’ horizontally. Vertical error was generally larger, but da ta were corrected by subtractingthe apparent pre-zero vertical mea n angle. Speed and horizontal direction were generally in goodagreement with the two-axis anemometers.

2.3.1.2 Wind Field Anemornet ersThe wind field measurements were made using commercially available two-axis cup an d vane

anemometers (Met-One) located at 19 stations, 2 m above ground, both upwind an d downwind ofthe spill point, as shown in Figure 2 . They have a starti ng threshold of 0.2 m/s and a responsedistance constant of 1 . 5 m. Da ta were taken at 1 sec intervals, then vector averaged by theinstrument for 10 sec prior t o tra nsmitti ng to the LGFDAS. The s tandard deviation of the individualdirections abou t th e 10 sec scalar mean were also transmitt ed. Th e wind field anemometers werecalibrated with respect to three other ‘standard’ sensors selected from the same product group.The standa rds were then sent to t he National Bureau of Sta ndards for calibration in a wind tunnel,and the results used for final calibration of the field instruments. The uncertainty in wind speedfor these instrumen ts is the larger of 31 r 0.07 m/s . Pointing accuracy was estimated to be h2O.

1 8


28/663

2.3 .1 .3 ThermocouplesStandard Chromel-Alumel (type k) hermocouples were collocated with each gas sensor t o pro-

vide tem perature measurement of the gas cloud. A s shown in Figures 3-6, additional thermocoupleswere installed at other locations both inside and outside the vapor curtain and in the ground atsome stations. The 20 mil thermocouples had a response time of about 1 sec, corresponding roughlyto t he gas sensors which averaged da ta for 1 sec. Improvements in amplifier design have eliminatedthe amplifier drift problems experienced on previous test series, and the RTD array at stationG11 (center station, 150 m row) allowed elimination of most thermocouple baseline uncertaintyby adjust ing individual da ta sets to the pre-test temperature profile measured by the RTD array.Relative temperature variations measured during the test are believed accurate to k0.5'C.

2.3 .1 .4 Res is t ive Temperature DevicesThe sensing element for the resistive temperature device (RTD) is an 1000 ohm platinum

resistor mounted in an aspirated solar shield. Five RTD's were mounted on the upwind met tower(station G 2 4 ) at elevations of 1, 2 , 4.8, and 16 m. Four additional RTDs were mounted at stationG11 at elevations of 1, 2 , 4, and 8 m (see Figures 5 and 6) . The accuracy after calibration isestimated to be iO. l°C .

2 .3 .1 .5 Ground Heat -F lux SensorsTh e ground heat-flux sensors were s tan dar d, commercially available heat-flux plates manufac-

tured by HY-CAL Engineering. They consisted of two layers of thermopiles separa ted by materialof known thermal conductivity, forming a thin rectangular wafer t h a t was buried just below the soilsurface. These devices were installed at two locations inside the vapor curtain and four downwindlocations, as depicted in Figure 7. Factory calibration curves were employed. Sensor to sensorvariation was less than 12% at full scale.

2.3 .1 .6 Humidity SensorsThe four humidity sensors deployed during the Falcon Series (see Figure 8) were commercially

ava ilab le'ondyne dew point hygrometers. Several problems were encountered early in the test series,and as a result, dependable humidity data were not recorded for Falcon 1 and 2 by these sensors.Da ta repor ted for t he first two tests were obtained f rom the M:eather Service Nuclear Support Office(M'SNSO). Accuracy of humidity measurements made during Falcon 3-5 are estim ated a t 510%.

2.3.2 Gas Concentration SensorsDuring the Falcon Series, a t ota l of 7 7 gas concentration sensors were employed, as depicted in

Figures 9 through 12. Included in this t otal were 39 infrared sensors (35 LLNL-IR and 4 JPL-IR)and 38 MSA catalytic sensors. T he JP L-IR sensors measured samples from inside the vapor fence,where the highest concentrations were expected. These samples were warmed to evaporate anywater droplets or ice particles formed by the cold LNG vapor. Th e LLNL-IR sensors were at lowerelevations a t 50 and 150 m downwind, where intermediat e concentrations were expected. The MSA

1 9


29/663


30/663

f&iLermeticallysealed

Lens holder

I R source

Zinc-selenide lensMicarta

-Double-wall can

Pyroelectricdetector

Hermeticallysealed connector

Circu it boards

F i g u r e 19. C r o s s s e c t i o n o f t h e LLNL-IR s e n s o r .

2 1


31/663

and four uni ts were employed on the Falcon Series. All four uni ts sampled gas concentrations withinthe vapor curtain. To eliminate fog, the sensors themselves were placed outside the vapor curtainand samples were drawn by air pumps through long tubes run underwater to warm the samples.

JPL selected the spectral region of the 2.0 to 2.5 pm bands of methane, ethane, and propane,due to the availability of inexpensive components and high performance room temperature detec-t o rs . The four bands centered at 2.02, 2 . 36 , 2.46, and 2.51 m were chosen to enable detection ofany of the three species down to 0.4% with an accuracy of 0.2% or 10% of concentration, whicheveris greater. Figure 20 shows a schematic of the sensor, which used four crossings of a 15 cm path togive an effective path length of 60 cm. An incandescent lamp, operating at approximately 1850 K ,provides a source beam which was chopped by a motor driven blade. After exiting the uni t an dpassing through the L N G vapor sample, the beam reenters the housing, is split by a partially sil-vered mirror to produce four beams which are focused on the interference filters and PbS detector.The detector assembly was cooled with a thermoelectric cooler in order to stabilize the detectorresponse and the filter pass bands.

2.3.2.3 M S A Catalyt ic SensorhIS.4 sensors are well understood, standard commercial units that operate on the catalytic

principal and work well as long as they are not exposed to flame, high wind, or gas concentrationsapproaching the stoichiometric mixture (10% for methane). The sensor response is very linear, andthe uncertainty is approximately 10% of the reading. Sensors were individually calibrated, andpost-test calibrations were used to correct for changes in sensor response.

2.3.2.4 Fog Cal ibrat ion of the Mult i spectral LLNL nfrared Gas SensorsBecause of the high concentration fog experienced during this test series, particularly on Falcon

1, i t was necessary t o do additional fog calibration of the sensors. Thi s required t hat an extensivelaboratory program be conducted after the test series was over.

A s has been mentioned earlier, the LLNL IR gas sensor utilizes the principle of molecularabsorption in the middle of the infrared region, between 3 and 4 microns, to detect the presenceof hydrocarbon gas. Methane, etha ne an d propane hav e strong molecular absorption bands in thisspectral region. The four filters used in the sensors have center frequency wavelengths of:

Methane 3 . 2 0 micronsEthane 3 .66 micronsReference 3.90 micronsFog 3 .03 microns

Dense fog in the absorp tion pa th complicated the measurement problem. The sensitivity of thedetector is affected by such factors as fog particle size, density, index of refraction, and wavelengthof incident radiation. Absorption an d scat ter ing by the water d rople ts produce the same effect asgas absorption, and must be corrected for when processing th e measured gas concentration da ta.

The sapphire-rod IR source is separated from the pyroelectric sensor by a 5 or 15 centimeteropen path, a zinc selenide lens, and a rotary chopper wheel with the four narrow bandpass filters.

22


32/663

2


33/663


34/663

2 . 52. 0

1 . 5

1 . 0

. 5

. 0

Figure 21. LLNL IR sensor fog response and fog ratios.25


35/663

R, Reference baseline readingBased on estimates of fog intensity in the field tests being mostly less than l o % , the mean

values and standard deviations of SI3 nd SZ4were determined for fog intensity i n the range of 1to 10% within the vertical lines of the graph (outside of this range, the variations are much largerand thus not as appropriate). Results for all the sensors used in the field tests are summarizedin Table 4. As is seen, the fog coefficients vary noticeably among sensors. For this reason, valuesfor individual sensors were used in the data reduction program to obtain the concentrations ofhydrocarbons.

2.4 Photographic CoveragePhotographic coverage was provided by LLXL Xevada Photo Applications Group and video

coverage was provided by the L G F Program field team. Table 3 summarizes the equipment em-ployed during the test series and Figure 22 graphically depicts the camera locations. The 35 mmframing cameras were programmed with variable framing rates, and took 36 frames over a period of15 min (from t = 10 sec to t = 904 sec). The crosswind location contained two 35 m p cameras, onewith a telepho to lens and one with a wide angle lens. The upwind location had one 35 mm camerawith a wide angle lens. Both locations had two motion picture cameras set at two different lightsettings to insure good exposure. The motion picture cameras operated at 24 frames per second.The C C D type television camera was located next t o the vapor curta in at a height of 60 f t lookingdown into the enclosed area . The two remaining video cameras were located at an elevation of80 f t on the met tower (collocated with the 35 mm and two movie cameras), and on top of the LK2storage tank at the rear of the tank farm (elevation = 60 ft, range = 600 ft).

26


36/663


37/663

-150 ,l

- 4 9 0 -2w 0M€TER.S

200

Figure 22. Falcon Series camera array.28


38/663


39/663

1. Between Falcon 3 and Falcon 4, two entire stations were moved from the 50 meter row tothe 150 meter row to provide a wider mass flux row, due to a wider than anticipated vaporcloud observed in Falcon 1 and Falcon 3 .

2. Between Falcon 2 and 3, certain JPL-IR sensors were increased in sample height from 1 t o2 m and some thermocouples, previously submerged in the pond or near the pond surface,were distributed over elevations from 1 to 6 meters to study temperature profiles withinthe vapor curtain.

Additional remarks specific to each test are listed at the end of each instrumentation plan in Table 6.

30


40/663


41/663

Table 6. Continued.Instrument ation Plan-Falcon 1

Station Inst rumen z Y z S/N CommentsGO6 T C

T CT CT C

MSALLNL-IRLLNL-JRLLNL-IR

GO7 T CT CT CT C

MSALL N L- IRLLNL-IRLLNL-IR

GO8 T CT CT C

MSALLNL-IRLLNL-IR

GO9 T CT CT CT C

MSALLNL-IRheat fluxLLNL-IR

G I 0 T CT CT CT C

MSAMSA

LLNL-IRLLNL-IR

bivanebivanebivane

GI1 MSAMSA

LLNL-IRbivanebivanebivane

LLNL-IR

50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m ’50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m

150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m

150 m

44 m44 m44 m4 4 m4 4 m44 m44 m44 m6 6 m6 6 m66 m6 6 m66 m66 m66 m66 m

-75 m-75 m-75 m-75 m-75 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m

0000000

-75 m

l m5 m

11 m17 m17 ml m5 m

11 ml m5 m

11 m1 7 m17 m

l m5 m

11 mI m

11 m11 m

l m5 m0l m5 m

11 m11 ml m5 m0l m5 m

11 m17 m11 m17 m

l m5 ml m5 m11 m

11 m17 m

l m5 ml m5 m

11 m

5 m

NSNNSNNSN DNF214009037016006NSNNSNNSN20101 3035017014

NSIiN S X217020028005NSNN S NNSN218519018025023NSNNSN20320400401602 1002384392387007512007026380385379

32


42/663


43/663

Table 6. Continued.Instr umen tatio n Plan-Falcon 1

Stat on Instrument 2 Y 2 S/N CommentsT C 250 m 0 11 m 237

MSA 250 m 0 11 m 514MSA 250 m 0 I m 002

G20

G21

G22

G23

T C 250 m 28 m I m 201T C 250 m 28 m 5 m 207T C 250 m 28 m 11 m 209

MSA 250 m 28 m 5 m 005MSA 250 m 28 m 11 m 516TC 250 m 56 m l m 210T C 250 m 56 m 11 m 221T C 250 m 56 m 5 m 219

MSA 250 m 56 m 5 m 003M S A 250 m 56 m 11 m 521T C 250 m 84 m I m 222TC 250 m 84 m 5 m PITSNTC 250 m 8 4 m 11 m 2 2 4

MSA 250 m 8 4 m I m 019MSA 250 m 84 m 5 m 008MSA 250 m 84 m 11 m 5 1 7T CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT C

JPL-IR

-32 m-32 m-32 m-32 m-32 m

-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m

-62 m

000000000000000

20 m

-10 cm-5 cm

5 cm15 cmI m

-10 cm-5 cm5 cm15 cm

I ml m2 m6 m

10 m14 ml m

N S NNSNNSISNSNNSNNSNNSN DNFNSN -NSNNSNNSNNSNNSNNSNNSN001

T C -64 m 0 0 NSNT C -76 m 0 0 NSNT C -88 m 0 I m NSNT C -88 m 0 2 m NSNT C -88 m 0 6 m NSNT C -88 m 0 10 m NSNT C -88 m 0 13 m NSN

heat flux -64 m 0 0 NSNheat flux -76 m 0 0 NSNhumidity -2 m 0 I m 389humidity -32 m 0 I m 394humidity -64 m 20 I m 387JPL-IR -62 m 0 l m 006 DNF

34


44/663

Table 6 . Continued.Instrumentation Plan-Falcon I

Stat on Instrument 2 Y z S I N CommentsG24 TC -130 m -25 m 0 N S N

T C -130 m -25 rn l m NSNheat f l ux -130 rn -25 m 0 N S Nbi vane -130 rn -25 rn I m 382bivane -130 m -25 m 4 m 375bivane -130 rn -25 rn 16 m 374

(TCS) RTD -130 m -25 m I m NSKR T D -130 rn -25 m 2 m N S NRT D -130 m -25 rn 4 m N S XRTD -130 m -25 rn 8 m NSh-R T D I -130m -25 m 16 m N S X

G25

w01w 0 2\1”3W04WO 5W06W 0 7WO8W09w10W l lw12W13W14w15MI166 ’ 1 7W18w19

T CT CT CT CT CT C

bivanebivanebivane

Met-OneMet-OneMet Onehlet-Onehlet-OneMet - OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-Oneh4et - OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-Oneh l e - OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet- OneMet-One

-64 rn-64 rn-64 m-64 m-64 rn-64 rn

20 m20 rn20 ‘m

-1000 m-600 rn-600 rn-300 m-300 rn-44 m

50 m50 m50 rn

150 m150 m150 rnI50 m150 m300 rn300 rn300 m300 m300 m

2 5 m2 5 m2 5 rn25 rn25 m25 rn

000

0-100 rn

100 m-100 rn

100 m25 m

-75 m07’5 rn-150 rn

-75 m0

75 mI50 rn

-150 rn- 7 5 rn

075 rn

I50 rn

I m2 m4 m8 m

I 1 m1 7 m

I m5 m

11 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 r n2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m

N S NNSNNSNNSKNSNK SN388376381

Remarks:1. Visual observation indic ates significant overfilling of the vapor barrier structure causing exessive spillover earlyin the test.


45/663


46/663

Table 6. Continued.Instru menta tion Plan-Falcon 2

Station Instrument 2 Y z SIN CommentsGO6 T C 50 m 44 m l m NSN

T C 50 m 44 m 5 m N S NT C 50 m 4 4 m I1 m NSNT C 50 m 4 4 m 17 m 214

MSA 50 m 4 4 m 17 m 009LLNL-IR 50 m 4 4 m l m 0 3 7 DNFLLNL-IR 50 m 4 4 m 5 m 016 DNFLLNL-IR 50 m 44 m 1 1 m 006 DNF

GO7

GO8

GO9

T CT CT CT C

hlSALLNL-IRLLNL-IRLLNL-IR

50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m

66 m66 m6 6 m6 6 m66 m6 6 m6 6 m6 6 m

I m5 m

1 1 m1 7 m17 mI m5 m11 m

NSNNSNNSN201013035 DNF0 1 7 DNF014 DNF

TC 150 rn -75 m l m N S NTC 150 m -75 m 5 m NSNT C 150 m - 7 5 m 1 1 rn 217

hlSX 150 m -15 m 11 m 0 2 0LLNL-IR 150 m - 7 5 m I m 0 2 8LLNL-IR 150 m -75 m 5 m 005

T CT CT CT C

hlSALLNL-IRheat fluxLLNL-IR

T CT C

T CT C

MSAMSA

LLNL-IRbivanebivanebivane

LLNL-IR

150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m

-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m

0I m5 m

11 mI1 m

l m5 r n0

NSNNSNNSN2 1 851 9018025023

150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m

-25 m l m N S N- 2 5 m 5 m NSK

-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m

1 1 m17 mI 1 m17 m

I m5 mI m5 m

1 1 m

203 ~2040040160210 0 23843923 8 7

DNFDNF

DNFDNF

DNFDNF

MSA 150 m 0 1 1 m 0 0 7MSA 150 m 0 17 m 5 1 2LLNL-IR 150 m 0 l m 007 D NF

LLNL-IR 150 m 0 5 m 026 D N Fbivane 150 m 0 I m 3 8 0bivane 150 m 0 5 m 385bivane 150 m 0 I 1 m 379

37


47/663


48/663

Table 6 . ContinuedInstrumentation Plan-Falcon 2

Station Instrument 2 Y z SIN CommentsG I 8 T C 250 m 0 I m 235

T C 250 m 0 5 m 236TC 250 m 0 11 m 237MSA 250 m 0 l m 002MSA 250 m 0 11 m 5 1 4

GI9

G20

G21

G22

G23

TC 250 m 28 m l m 201TC 250 m 28 rn 5 m 207T C 250 m 28 m 11 m 209

MSA 250 m 28 m 5 m 005MSA 250 m 28 m 11 m 516T C 250 m 56 m I m 210T C 250 m 56 m 5 m 219T C 250 m 56 m 11 m 2 2 1

MSA 250 m 56 m 5 m 003MSA 250 m 56 m 1 1 m 521T C 250 m 84 m I m 2 2 2TC 250 m 8 4 m 5 m N S NT C 250 m 84 m 11 m 224

MSA 250 m . 84 m I m 01 9MS.4 250 m 84 m 5 m 008MSA 250 m 84 m I1 m 517T CT CT CT CT CT CT CTCT CT CT CT CT CT CT CJPL-IRT CT CT CTCT CT CT C

heat fluxheat fluxhumidityhumidity

-32 m-32 m-32 m-32 m-32 m

-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m

-62 m-64 m-76 m-88 m-88 m-88 m-88 m-88 m-64 m-76 m

-2 m-32 m

000000000000000

20 m00000000000

-10 cm-5 cm

5 cm15 cm

l m-10 cm

-5 cm5 cm

15 cmI ml r n2 m6 m

10 m14 mI m

00I m2 r n6 m

10 m13 m00I mI m

NSNNSNNSNNSNNSNNSNNSN DNFNSNNSNNSNNSNNSN DNFNSNNSNNSN001NSNNSNNSNNSNNSNNSNNSNNSNNSN394 DNF387

39


49/663

Table 6. Continued.Instrumentation Plan-Falcon 2

St ation Instrument 2 Y 2 S / N CommentsJPL-IRJPL-IR

G24 TCTCheat flux

bivanebivane

. (TCS) bivane(TCS) RTD

RTDRTDRTDRTD

G25

L Y O IR O v i 0 2R 0 3W04WO5W06W07W08R’09vi10R 1 1R 1 2W13m’14W15R’16W17W18R’19

T CT CTCT CT CT C

bivanebivanebivane

Met-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet - OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet- One

Remarks:1. LLL-IR sensors failed to take da ta due t o internal software problems.

-32 m-62 m-130 m-130 rn-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m

-64 m-64 m-64 m-64 m- 6 4 m-64 m

20 m20 m20 m

-1000 m-1000 m

-600 m-600 m-300 m-300 m

-44 m50 m50 m50 m

150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m300 m300 m300 m300 m300 m

00-25 m. -25 rn-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m

25 m25 m25 m25 m2 5 m25 m

00000

-100 m100 m

-100 m100 m25 m

-75 m0

75 m-150 m

-75 m0

75 m150 m

-150 m-75 m

075 m150 m

I ml m0I r n0l m4 m

16 mI m2 m4 m8 m

16 ml m2 m4 m8 m

11 m17 ml m5 m

11 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m

006002N S NNSNN S N382375374

N S NN S NN S NN S NNSN

40


50/663


Stat on Instrument 2 Y z S/N CommentsGO1 T C 50 m -66 m I m NSN

T C 50 m -66 m 5 m NSNT C 50 m -66 m 11 m NSNT C 50 m -66 m 17 m 215

M S A 50 m - 66 m 17 m 010LLNL-IR 50 m -66 m I m 0 3LLN L-IR 50 m -66 m 5 m 029LLNL-IR 50 m -66 m 1 1 m '. 022

GO2

GO3

T CT CT CT C

MSALLNL-IRLLNL-IRLLNL-IR

T CT CT CT CT C

MSALLNL-IRLLNL-IRLLNL-IRheat flux

50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m

-44 m-44 m-44 m-44 m-44 m-44 m-44 m-44 m-22 m-22 m-22 m-22 m-22 m-22 m-22 m-22 m-22 m-22 m

I m5 m

1 1 m17 m17 m

I m5 m1 1 m0I m5 m

11 mI 7 m17 m

l m5 m

1 1 m0

NSNNSNNSN2165130330 0 4009

N S NNSNNSNNSN21 I1720 3 2003010NSN

GO4 TC 50 m 0 l m NSNT C 50 m 0 5 m NSNT C 50 m 0 1 3 m NSNT C 50 m 0 17 m 212hlSA 5 0 m 0 1 7 m 5 2 2

LLNL-IR 50 m 0 l m 036LLNL-IR 50 m 0 5 m 015LLNL-IR 50 m 0 1 1 m 013

bivane 50 m 0 I m 378bivane 50 m 0 5 m 377bivane 50 m 0 1 1 m 3 76

humidity 50 m 0 I m 389GO5 T C 50 m 22 m 0 NSN

T C 5 5 m 22 m I m NSNT C 50 m 22 m 5 m NSNT C 50 m 2 2 m 1 1 m NSN -T C 5 0 m 22 m 1 7 m 213

M SA 50 m 2 2 m 1 7 m 012LLNL-IR 50 m 22 m I m 0 3 4LLNL-IR 50 m 2 2 m 5 m 008LLNL-IR 50 m 22 m 1 1 m 0 3 0heat f l u x 50 m 22 m 0 0 2 5

c

41


51/663

Table 6. Continued.Inst rume ntat ion Plan-Falcon 3

Station Instrument 2 Y f S/N CommentsGO6 TC 50 m 44 m I m NSNT C 50 m 44 m 5 m NSN

TC 50 m 44 m 11 m NSNTC 50 m 44 m 17 m 214M S A 50 m 44 m 1 7 m 009

LLNL-IR 50 m 44 m l m 037LLNL-IR 50 m 44 m 5 m 016LLNL-IR 50 m 44 m 11 m 006

GO7 T C 50 mTC 50 mT C 50 mTC 50 m

h l S A 50 mLLNL-IR 50 mLLNL-IR 50 mLLNL-IR 50 m

66 m6 6 m66 m6 6 m66 m66 m6 6 m66 m

I m5 m

11 m17 m1 7 ml m5 m

11 m

NSNNSNNSN201013035017014

GO8

GO9

G10

T C 150 m -75 m I m NSKTC 150 m -75 m 5 m N S NT C 150 m -75 m 11 m 217

LLNL-IR 150 m -75 m I m 028LLNL-IR 150 m -75 m 5 m 005

T CTCTCT CM A4

LLNL-IRLLNL-IRheat flux

150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m

-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m

0I m5 m

11 m11 m

I m5 m0

TCTCTCTC

M S AM S A

LLNL-IRLLNL-IRbivanebivanebivane

150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m

-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m

l m5 m

11 m17 m11 m17 m

I m5 mI m5 m

11 m

NSNNSNNSN218519018025023NSNNSN203204004016021002384 a392387

G I 1 M S A 150 m 0 11 m 00 7M S A 150 m 0 17 m 512LLNL-IR 150 m 0 l m 007

LLNL-IR 150 m 0 5 m 026bivane 150 m 0 l m 380bivane 150 m 0 5 m 385bivane 150 m 0 11 m 379R TD , 150 m 0 I m 006

4 2


52/663


Station Instrument z Y 2 S/N CommentsRTD 150 m 0 2 m 007RTD 150 m 0 4 m 008RTD 150 m 0 8 m 009

G12 TCT CT CT C

MSAMSA

LLKL-IRLLNL-IR

bivanebivanebivane

G I 3

G14

G15

GI 6

G17

T CT CT CTC

MS AL LK L-IRLLKL-IRheat f l u x

150 rn150 m150 rn150 rn150 m150 m150 m150 m150 rn150 m150 m150 m150 rn150 m150 m150 m150 rn150 m150 m

25 rn25 rn25 rn25 rn25 rn25 m25 m25 rn25 rn25 m25 m50 m50 rn50 rn50 m50 rn50 rn50 rn50 rn

l r n5 r n

11 m17 rn11 m17 m

l m5 mI m5 m

11 m0I r n5 m

11 mI 1 rnI m5 m0

NSNNSN20520652051502402 3391389373

NSNNSNNSN22001 101 I027029

T C 150 rn 75 rn l m NSNT C 150 rn 75 rn 5rn NSNT C 150 m 75 m 11 rn 230

MSA 150 rn 75 rn 11 rn 017LLKL-IR 150 m 75 m l r n 012LLKL-IR 150 rn 7 5 rn 5 m 019

T C 250 m -84 rn I m 225TC 250 rn -84 rn 5 r n 226T C 250 m - 8 4 m 11 m 227MSA 250 rn -84 rn l r n 014

MSA 250 rn - 8 4 rn 5 m 006T C 250 m -56 rn I r n 228TC 250 rn -56 rn 5rn 229TC 250 rn -56 rn 1 1 rn 231

MSA 250 m -56 m I r n 015M S A 250 m -56 rn 5 m 00 1MSA 253 m -56 rn 11 m 018T C 250 rn -28 rn I r n 232T C 250 rn -28 m 5 m 233TC 250 rn -28 rn 11 rn 234MSA 250 rn -28 m I r n 173MSA 250 rn. -28 rn 5 m 518

G I 8 T C 250 rn 0 l r n 235T C 250 rn 0 5 r n 236

4 3


53/663

Table 6. Continued.Instrume ntation Plan-Falcon 3

Station Instrument 2 Y 2 S / N Comments250 m 0 11 m 237CMSA

M S A250 m 0 l m 002MSA 250 m 0 5 m 020250 m 0 11 m 514

GI9

G20

G21

G22

T CT CT C

M S AM S AT CT CT C

h l S AM S Ah4SA

250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m

28 m28 m28 m28 m28 m56 m56 m56 m56 m56 m56 m

I m5 m

11 mI m5 mI m5 m

11 m11 m5 m

11 m

2012072095160052102 1 9221517003521

250 m 84 m I m 2 2 2CT CT CM S Ah l SI\

250 m 84 m 5 m NSN250 m 84 m 11 m 2 2 4250 m 84 m I m 019250 m 84 m 5 m 008

T CT CT CT CT CTCT CT C

-32 m-32 m-32 m-32 m-32 m

-2 m-2 m-2 m

000000 -00

I m2 m4 m6 mI m

10 cm-5 cm

5 cm

NSN D N FNSNNSNNSNNSNNSNNSNNSN-2 m 0 15 cm NSN-2 m 0 l m NSN-2 m 0 I m NSN-2 m 0 2 m NSN-2 m 0 6 m NSN-2 m 0 10 m NSN-2 m 0 14 m NSN

T CT CT CT CT CT CT C

-62 m 20 m 2 m 00 1PL-IR-64 m 0 0 NSN2 3 TC -76 m 0 0 NSNC-88 m 0 I m NSNC

TC -88 m 0 2 m NSN-88 m 0 6 m NSNC-88 m 0 10 m NSNC-88 m 0 13 m NSNC

heat flux -64 m 0 0 NSN-76 m . 0 0 NSNeat flux

humidity -2 m 0 l m 392-2 m 0 I m 005PL-IR

humidity -32 m 0 l m 394

4 4


54/663

Table 6. C o n t i n u e d .I n s t r u m e n t a t io n P l a n - F a l c on 3

S t a t i o n I n s t r u m e n t 2 Y I S / N C o m m e n t sJPL-IR -3 2 m 0 I m 006JPL-IR -62 m 0 2 m 002

G 2 4 T CT C

h e a t f l uxb i v a n eb i v a n eb i v a n eRTDRTDRTDRTDRTD

G25 T CT CT CT CT CTC

b i v a n ebivanebivane

-130 m-130 m- 1 3 0 m- 1 3 0 m-130 m-130 m-130 m- 1 3 0 m- 1 3 0 m-130 m-130 m

-64 m-64 m-64 m-64 m-64 m-64 m20 m20 m20 m

-25 rn-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m- 25 m-25 m-25 rn- 2 5 m-2 5 m-25 m

25 m25 m2 5 m25 m2 5 m2 5 m

000

0I m0l m4 m

16 ml m2 m4 m8 r n

16 rnI m2 r n4 m8 m

11 m17 mI m5 m

I 1 m

N S NN S NN S N3 8 23 7 53 7 4N S N

NS NN SNN S NN S NNSNN S NNS NX S NN S NN S N3 8 83 7 6381

D N FESD

W O l M e t - O n e -1000 m 0 2 m N / AR’01 M e t - O n e -1000 m 0 2 m l i / Aw 0 2 M et -O n e - 60 0 m -100 m 2 m N / AW03 M e t - O n e -600 m 100 m 2 m N / AW 0 4 M e t - O n e -300 m -100 m 2 m N / AW O 5 M e t - O n e -300 m 100 rn 2 m K I A\1”6 M e t - O n e - 4 4 m 25 m 2 m ?; /AW07 M e t - O n e 50 m - 7 5 m 2 r n N / AW08 M e t - O n e 50 m 0 2 m N / Aw 1 0 M e t - O n e 150 m - 1 5 0 m 2 m N / Aw11 M e t - O n e 150 m - 7 5 m P r n N/AW’13 M e t - O n e 1 5 0 m 75 m 2 m Ir; Aw 1 5 M e t - O n e 300 m -150 m 2 m N / AW16 M e t - O n e 300 m - 7 5 m 2 m N / AN’17 M e t - O n e 3 0 0 m 0 2 m N / AW18 M e t - O n e 300 m 75 m 2 m N / A

w o 9 M e t - O n e 50 m 75 m 2 r n N / A

w 1 2 M e t - O n e 150 m 0 2 m N / AM‘14 M e t - O n e 150 m 150 m 2 m N / A

W19 M e t - O n e 300 m I50 m 2 m N / ARemarks:

I . Large R P T e x p l o s i o n s o c c u r r e d b e g i n n i n g a t a p p r o x i m a t e l y T = 6 0 s e c .

45


55/663


Station Instrument 2 Y z S/ N CommentsGO1 TC 50 m -66 m I m NSNT C 50 m -66 m 5 m NSN

T C 50 m -66 m 11 m N S NTC 50 m -66 m 1 7 m 215

MSA 50 m -66 m 1 7 m 010LLNL,-IR 50 m -66 m l m 0 3 1LLNL-IR 50 m -66 m 5 m 0 2 9LLNL-IR 50 m -66 m 11 m 0 2 2

GO2

GO3

GO4

GO5

T CT CT CT CT C

M S ALLNL-IRLLNL-IRLLNL- IRheat flux

150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m

-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m-50 m- S O m-50 rn

0I m5 m

1 1 m1 7 m1 7 ml m5 m

1 1 m0

NSNNSNNSNN S N2165130 3 30 0 40090 2 3

T CTCT CT CT C

RI S ALLNL-IRLLNL-IRheat fluxLLN L- IR

50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m

-33 m-33 m-33 m-33 m-33 m-33 m- 3 3 m-33 m-33 m- 3 3 m

0I m5 m

11 m1 7 m1 7 m

l m5 m

11 m0

NSNNSNI iSYN S X2111 7 20 3 20 0 3010N S N

T CT CT CT C

M S ALLNL-IRLLNL-IR

bivaneLLNL-IR

bivanebivane

humidityT CTCT CT CT C

M S ALLNL-IRheat flux

LLNL-IRLLNL-IR

50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m

000000000000

I m5 m

11 m1 7 m1 7 m

I m5 m

11 mI mS m

11 mI m

N S NNSNN S N2 1 25220 3 60150 1 33783 7 63 8 93 7 7

50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m

3 3 m3 3 m3 3 m3 3 m3 3 m3 3 m3 3 m3 3 m3 3 m3 3 m

0l m5 m

11 m1 7 m1 7 mI m5 m

11 m0

NSNNSNNSNN S N2 1 30120 3 40 0 80 3 0025


56/663

Table 6. ContinuedInstrume ntation Plan-Falcon 4

Station Instrument 2 Y L S / N CommentsGO6 T C 150 m 50 m 0 NSN

T C 150 m 50 m l m NSNT C 150 m 50 m 5 m NSNTC 150 m 50 m 11 m N S NT C 150 m 50 m 17 m 214

M S A 150 m 50 m 17 m 009LLNL-IR 150 m 50 m l m 037LLNL-IR 150 m 50 m 5 m 016LLNL-IR 150 m 50 m 11 m 006heat f l u x 150 m 50 m 0 029

GO7

GO8

GO9

G10

T CT CT CT C

M S ALLNL-IRLLNL-IRLLNL-IR

50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m

66 m6 6 m66 m66 m66 m66 m6 6 m66 m

l m5 m

11 m17 m17 ml m5 m

11 m

NSNN S NNSN201013035017014

T C 150 m -75 m I m NSNT C 150 m -75 m 5 m N S NT C 150 m -75 m 11 m 217

M S A 150 m -75 m 11 m 117LLNL-IR 150 m -75 m l m 028LLNL-IR 150 m -75 m 5 m 005

T C 150 m -100 m l m YSIST C 150 m -100 m 5 m NSNT C 150 m -100 m 11 m 218M S A 150 m -100 m 11 m 519LLN L- I R 150 m -100 m l m 018

LLNL-IR 150 m -100 m 5 m 025TCT CT CT CM SA

M SALLNL-IR

bivanebivanebivane

LLNL-IR

150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m '150 m150 m

-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m

I m5 m

11 m17 m11 m17 m

I m5 ml m5 m

11 m

NSNNSN203204004016021002384392387

MSA 150 m 0 11 m 007M S A 150 m 0 17 m 512LLNL-IR 150 m 0 l m 007

LLNL-IR 150 m 0 5 m 026bivane 150 m 0 l m 380bivane 150 m 0 5 m 385bivane 150 m 0 11 m 379

4 7


57/663

Table 6. Continued.Instrumen tation Plan-Falcon 4

Station Lnstrument z Y 2 S / N CommentsRTD 150 m 0 I m 006RTD 150 m 0 2 m 007RTD 150 m 0 4 m 008RTD 150 m 0 8 m 009

G12 T CT CT CT C

MSAMSA

LLNL-IRLLN L- I Rbivanebivanebivane

350 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m

25 m25 m2 5 m25 m25 m2 5 m25 m2 5 m2 5 m2 5 m2 5 m

I m5 m

11 m17 m11 m17 m

I m5 mI m5 m11 m

N SNNSN205206520515024023391389373

G13 TC 150 m 300 m l m NSNTC 150 m 100 m 5 m NSNT C 150 m 100 m 11 m 220

M S A 150 m 100 m 11 m 011LLNL-IR 150 m 100 m I m 011LLNL-IR I 5 0 m 100 m 5 m 027

GI4 T C 150 m 75 m I m NSNTC 150 m 55 m 5 , ' NSNT C 150 m 75 m 11 m 230

MSA 150 m 75 m 11 m 017LLNL-IR 150 m 75 m l m 012LLNL-IR 150 m 75 m 5 m 019

GI5 TC 250 m -84 m l m 225TC 250 m -84 m 5 m 226T C 250 m -84 m 11 m 227

MSA 250 m -84 m I m 014MSA 250 m -84 m 5 m 006

GI6

GI7

T C 250 m -56 m I m 228T C 250 m -56 m 5 m 229TC 250 m -56 m 11 m 231

MSA 250 m -56 m I m 015MSA 250 m -56 m 5 m 001MSA 250 m -56 m 11 m 018T C 250 m -28 m I m 232TC 250 m -28 m 5 m 233T C 250 m -28 m 11 m 234

MSA 250 m -28 m I m 173MSA 250 m - 28 m 5 m 518

GI 8 TC 250 m 0 I m 235T C 250 m 0 5 m 236T C 250 m 0 11 m 237

4 8


58/663


59/663

Table 6. Continued.Instr umen tatio n Plan-Falcon 4

Station Instrument z Y Z S / N CommentsG24 TC -130 m -25 m 0 N S N

T C -130 m -25 m I m N S Nheat f l u x -130 m -25 m 0 NS N

bivane -130 m -25 m I m 382bivane -130 m -25 m 4 m 375bivane -130 m -25 m 16 m 374RTD -130 m -25 m I m NS NR TD -130 m -25 m 2 m NSNRTD -130 m -25 m 4 m K SNRTD -130 m -25 m 8 m N S NRTD -130 m -25 m 1 6 m NSIV

G25 T CT CTCTCTC

bivanebivanebivane

-64 m-64 m-64 m-64 m-64 m

20 m20 m20 m

25 m25 m2 5 m25 m25 m

000

l m2 m4 m8 m

1 1 mI m5 m

I 1 m

N S XNSNN S NN S NN SN38837638 1

DNFESD

W O I RI e - One -1000 m 0 2 m N AK O 2 hl e - One -600 m -100 m 2 m N1.4W03 Met - One -600 m 100 m 2 m K / AM705 Met -One -300 m 100 m 2 m K / AW06 hl e - One -44 m 25 m 2 m N / AV i 0 7 hle -On e 50 m -75 m 2 m KIA

w10 Met-One 150 m -150 m 2 m N/AM’12 Met -One 150 m 0 2 m N/Aw 1 3 Met- One 150 m 75 m 2 m N/AMI14 Met-One 150 m 150 m 2 m N/Aw15 Met -One 300 m -150 m 2 m N/AK’16 Met-One 300 m -75 m 2 m N/Aw 17 Met-One 300 m 0 2 m N/AMT18 Met-One 300 m 75 m 2 m N/AM’19 Met-One 300 m 150 m 2 m N/A

W04 Rlet-One -300 m -100 m 2 m KIA

UT08 Met - One 50 m 0 2 m N/Awo9 Met-One 50 m 75 m 2 m N / Aw11 Met - One 150 m -75 m 2 m N / A

50


60/663

Table 6. Continued.Instru mentati on Plan-Falcon 5

Station Instrument 2 Y z S/N CommentsGO1 T C 50 m -66 m I r n 107

T C 5 0 rn -66 rn 5rn 01 7 T C 50 m -66 m 11 m NSNT C 50 rn -66 rn 17 m 215

M S A 50 m -66 rn 17 rn 010LLNL-IR 50 m -66 rn I r n 031L L NL- IR 50 rn -66 rn 5 m 029LLNL-IR 50 rn -66 rn 11 m 022

GO2

GO3

GO4

T CT CT CT CT C

MSALLNL-IRLLNL-IRLLNL-IRheat fluxhumidity

T CT C

. T CT CT C

M S ALLNL-IRLLNL-IRLLNL-IRheat flux

T CT CT CTC

M S ALLNL-IRLLNL-IRLLNL-IR

bivanebivanebivane

humidity

150 m150 m150 m150 rn150 m150 m150 rn150 rn150 m150 m150 rn50 m50 m50 m50 rn50 m50 rn50 m50 rn50 m50 m50 rn5 0 m50 m50 r n ,50 rn50 m50 m50 m50 m50 m5 0 m50 m

-50 TT.-50 m-50 m-50 rn-50 rn-50 rn-50 rn-50 m-50 m- 5 0 m-50 rn-33 rn-33 m-33 rn-33 rn-33 rn-33 rn-33 rn-33 rn-33 m-33 m

000000000000

0I m5 m

11 m17 m17 mI m5 r n

11 m0I r n0I m5 m

11 m17 m17 m

l m5 m

I1 m0l m5 r n

11 m17 m17 m

I m5 m

11 mI r n5 r n

1 1 mI m

012173 0002170235130330040090233870 2 41050832032117 72 0320030100240580930742 1 2522036015013378377376389

GO5 T C 5 0 m 33 m 0 0 2 5T C 50 m 33 m I r n 089T C 50 m 33 m 5 m 016T C 50 m 33 m 11 m 054T C 5 0 m 33 m 17 m 213M SA 5 0 m 33 m 17 rn 012

LLNL-IR 50 m 33 m l m 034LLNL-IR 50 rn 33 m 5 m 008

51


61/663


62/663

Table 6. Continued.Instrum entatio n Plan-Falcon 5

Station Instrument z 11 z S/ N Comments

GI2

GI3

G15

GI6

GI 7

bivanebivanebivaneRTDRTDRTDRTDT CT CTCT C

htSAM S A

LLKL-IRLLNL-IR

bivanebivanebivane

T CTCT C

M S ALLKL-IRL L NL- IRT CTCT CM S A

LLNL-IRLLNL-IR

T CT CT C

MSAMSAT CT CT C

MSAMSAMSAT CT CT CMSA

M S A

150 m150 m150 m150 rn150 m150 rn150 rn150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m150 rn150 rn150 m150 m150 rn150 m150 m150 m150 rn150 m150 rn150 m250 rn250 m250 rn250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m250 m

0000000

2 5 m2 5 rn25 rn2 5 rn2 5 m2 5 rn2 5 m25 rn2 5 m25 rn25 rn

100 m100 rn100 m100 m100 m100 m

75 rn75 rn7 5 m7 5 m7 5 m75 rn

-84 m-84 m-84 m-84 rn-84 m-56 m-56 m-56 rn-56 rn-56-rn-56 m-28 m-28 m-28 m-28 m-28 m

l r n5 r n

11 ml m2 r n4 m8 mI m5 r n

11 rn17 rn11 m17 rnl m5 mI m5 m

I 1 mI m5 r n

11 m11 rn

l r n5 r nl r n5 r n

11 rnI1 rnI r n5 ml m5 m

1 1 mI m5 mI m5 m

11 mI m5 r n11 mI m5 m

1 1 rnI m5 r n

380385379006007008009011 0192052065 2 05150 2 40 2 339138937305206622001 1 0110 2 70400 2 42300170 1 20192 2 52 2 62 2 7014006210219221015 001 01 8 202207209173 518

5 3


63/663

Table 6. Continued.Instru mentati on Plan-Falcon 5

Stat on Instrument 2 Y z S/N Comments

G19

G20

G21

G22

G23

G I 8 T C 250 m 0 l m 235T C 250 m 0 5 m 236T C 250 m 0 11 m 237MSA 250 m 0 I m 002MSA 250 m 0 5 m 020

M SA 250 m 0 11 m 514T C 250 m 28 m I m 232T C 250 m 28 m 5 m 233T C 250 m 28 m 11 m 234M S A 250 m 28 m l m 516M SA 250 m 28 m 5 m 005TC 250 m 56 m I m 228TC 250 m 56 m 5 m 229T C 250 m 56 m 11 m 231M S A 250 m 56 m I m 003

M S A 250 m 56 m 11 m 517TC 250 m 84 m l m 225TC 250 m 8 4 m 5 m 226

MSA 250 m 84 m l m 019

M S A 250 m 56 m 5 m 521

T C 250 m 84 m 11 m 227M S A 250 m 84 m 5 m 008T CT CT CTCT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT CT C

JPL-IR'rc

-32 m-32 m-32 m-32 m-32 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m-2 m

-62 m

000000000000000

20 m

I m NS N2 m NSN4 m NSN6 m NSNI m N S N

10 cm NSN-5 cm NSK

5 cm NSNI 5 cm NSN

I m NSNl m NSN2 m NSN6 m NSN

10 m NSN14 m NSN2 m 001

D N F

DNFDNFDNFD N FD N FD N FDNFD N FDNFD N FDNFDNF

D N FT C -64 m 0 0 NSNT C -76 m 0 0 NSNT C -88 m 0 I m NSNTC -88 m 0 2 m NSNT C -88 m ' 0 6 m NSNT C -88 m 0 10 m NSNTC -88 m 0 13 m NSN DNF

heat flux -64 m 0 0 NSNheat f l ux -76 m 0 0 NSNhumidity -2 m 0 I m 392 DNFhumidity -32 m 0 I m 388 D N F

54


64/663

Table 6. ContinuedInst rumen tati on Plan-Falcon 5

Station Instrument z Y z S / N CommentsJPL-IR -2 m 0 I m 005 DN FJPL-IR -32 m 0 l m 006JPL-IR -62 m 0 2 m 002 D N F

G 24 T CT C

heat fluxbivanebivanebivaneRTDRTDRTDRTDRTDT CT CTCT CT C

bivanebivanebivane

G25

MT03MT02W03W04W05W06W07W O Ew o 9w10w 1 1w 1 2W 1 3w14&'I5W16w17W 1 8W l 9

Met-OneMet-OneMet - OneMet-OneMet- O neMet OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet-OneMet- OneMet-OneMet- OneMet-OneMet-One

Met-One

-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m-130 m

-64 m-64 m-64 m-64 m-64 m

20 m '20 m20 m

-1000 m-600 m-600 m-300 m-300 m

-44 m50 m50 m50 m

150 m150 m150 m150 m150 m300 rn300 m300 m300 m300 rn

-25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m- 25 m-25 m-25 m-25 m- 2 5 m-25 m

- 2 5 RI

25 m25 m25 m25 m25 m0000

-100 m100 m

-100 m100 m25 m

-75 m0

75 m-150 m

-75 m0

75 m150 m

-150 m-75 m075 m

150 m

0I m0l m4 m

16 mI m2 m4 m8 m

16 mI m2 m4 m8 m

11 mI m5 m

I 1 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m2 m

030223030382375374

N SNN SNN SNX S NKSN000000000000000388376381

N / AN / AN /AN / AN / AN / A DNFK J A ESDN / A ESD, DNFK / AN / AN / AN / AIG/AN r AN r AN / AN / AN / AN I A

1. Large RP T explosions began a t approximately T = 60 sec.2. Fire began at T = 81 sec.

55


65/663


66/663


67/663

Table 7 . Falcon Series boundary layer data.Test Name

Falcon 1 Falcon 2 Falcon 3 Falcon 4 Falcon 5Array angle 225"TAverage wind 234.3'T0 8 5.46"Average wind 1.7 m/ s6, 0.20 m/s

direction (@ 2 M )

speed ( @ 2 M )

Wind speed profile (G24)at 1.0 metersat 4.0 metersat 16.0 metersU . 0.0605 m/s

1.20 + 0.178 m/s2.20 * 0.142 m/s3.20 * 0.209 m/s

Tempe ratur e Profile (G24)at 1.0 meters 32.2 0.14"Cat 2.0 mete rs 32.8 0.13"Cat 4.0 mete rs 33.4 i .13OCat 8.0 meter s 33 .8 Zk o . 0 8 c cat 16.0 meters 34.1 i .06'Ce. 0.0577 KCloud cover 1%Absolute air 908.9 m bRelative humidity N o dataDew point N o dataStability class GSensible heat flux 3.64 W / m2Momentum 0.0165 m2 /sHeat diffusivity 0.0165 m2 /sRichardson 0.1337Monin-Obukhov 4.963 mRoughness length 0.008 m

pressure

dzusiv i ty ( @ 2 M )( @ 2 MInumber (@ 2 M )length

225'T227.0°T8.27'4.7 m/s1.3 m/s

4.25 i 0.977 m/s5.25 & 1.24 m/s6.25 -i 1.35 m/s0.3565 m / s

31.8 I 0.05'C31.6 i 0.05"C31.5 z 0.06"C31.2 2 0.06OC31 .4 z 0.06'C

-0.0964 K1%905.0 mbNo dataN o dataD-3.57 W/mZ0.313 m2/s0.335 m2/s-0.0193-103.4 m0.008 m

225"T 225'T221.7'T 230.6'"8.41' 5.82'4.1 m/s 5.2 m/s0.56 m/ s 0.62 m/ s

3.70 zk 0.414 m/s4.53 4 0.367 m/s5.55 4 0.303 m/s0.3053 m/ s 0.3694 m/ s

4.33 +L 0.407 m/s5.93i .448 m/s7.87 * 0.499 m/s

35.0 i .05'C34.9 i 0.04"C34.8 i 0.03"C34.7 i .04'C-0,0175 K 0.1521 K

30.8 0.11"C31.1 * 0.13OC31.4 i .15"C32.0 + 0.08'C34.8 i . o 2 = c 31.8 Zk 0.13OC

5% 10%900.8 m b 906.3 m b4.0% 12.0%

D D I E-6.4'C -0.3"C-5.46 W/ m2 58.70 W/ m20.255 m 2 / s 0.265 m z / s0.260 mz s 0.265 m2/s-0.0047 0.0252-422.2 m 69.38 m0.008 m 0.008 m

225'T218.0'T7.70'2.8 m/s0.41 m/s

2.23 * 0.453 m/s3.40i .498 m/s4.82 i .400 m/s0.1562 m/s

31.1 * 0.2O0C31.7 * 0.21'C32.2 i .21'C32 .9 Zk 0.12'C33.4 * 0.06'C0.1379 K20%908.5 mb13.7%2.3'C22.52 W/m20.0740 m2 s0.0740 m2/s0.084413.69 m0.008 m

E / F

In the preceding equations, V z ) s the wind speed a t height z , O ( z ) i s the potential temperatureat height z , and k = 0.41 is the Von Karman constant . The surface roughness value, to wasbracketed by plot ting the zero wind speed intercept for each test. From the resulting range ofvalues, several values were selected and used as zo values in the least squares fit for each test. Theerror in fit was plotted for each value of to nd each test and the minimum error (best fit) located.The results indicated zo = 0.00775 f 0.0021 m. This value was rounded to 0.008 m. For finalcomputation of parameters for all tests.

The similarity functions used in Equations (1) and (2) are defined such tha t when L 2 0:

58


68/663

and when L < 0:

wherex = ( l - l ) 16 z .

The parameters I ,;,, e,, eo, and L are all related by the Monin-Obukhov length definition:u: . eo

g . k . e .L = 7 (4)where g = 9.8 m/s2 is the acceleration of gravity. Equation ( 3 ) is used as a constraint on the leastsquares fit of the profile da ta t o the analytic curves of Equations ( l a ) and (2a).

The potential temperature is defined in terms of the ac tual ambient temper ature and pressureto be:

whereT, = actual ambient temperature

p = ambient pressurep o = standard pressure = 1000 mbp = R f Cp= 0.285.

Differentiating Equ ation (5a) with respect to height 2, using the hydrostatic approximation, d p =9 p - d r ,and the ideal gas law, p = p . R - , assuming that the ratio, O/T, , is essentially consta nt

over the height ra nge of interest, and the n integrati ng with respect to height yields th e followingequation for potential temperature as a function of temperature and height.

where

and T denotes reference value. Equat ion (5b) was used to ca1culat.e the potentia l temp era ture fromthe temperature data.

5 9


69/663

The sensible heat flux, H , defined t o be negative upward, is calculated from:

where p = 1 . 1 3 kg/m3 ( * l or 30 to 40°C) and C, = 1 0 0 5 W s/kg°C are, respectively, thedensity an d specific hea t of the ambient atmosphere. The momentum diffusivity, K , , and th e heatdiffusivity Kh are calculated from the formulas:

The Richardson number is defined and calculat,ed from the similarity functions as follows:

4.2 The Wind Field DataThe wind field was measured before, during, and after each Falcon Series spill test using an

array of 19 Met-One cup and vane anemometers, each mounted at a height of 2 m above groundlevel. The array was distributed from 1 0 0 0 m upwind of the spill point to 300 m downwind, andlaterally to 1 1 5 0 m about the centerline, as shown in Figure 2 . Each remote anemometer stationmeasured wind speed and direction at a sampling rate of one sample per second for a period of10 sec, then calculated mean values of wind speed and direction and RMS values (ae)bout themean wind direction over the 1 0 sec period, transmitted the calculated values to the CCDAS, andrepeated the entire process throughout the test period.

The wind field provides the primary force for the dispersion of the LNG cloud after it exitsthe vapor barrier. In order to provide a preliminary estimate of cloud transport and dispersion,trajectory plots were constructed from the wind field da ta. Data from the 19 wind field stations wereinterpolated and extrapolated to a 400 m wide by 500 m long grid beginning at the spill point andstraddling the array centerline. These da ta were then used to track hypothetical particles releasedevery 10 sec during the spill. Since the vapor barrier was not a point source, but rather releasedthe vapor cloud over its entire 44 m width (and also to some extent along its 88 m length) and alsorepresented a major source of turbulence, the authors chose to plot three centerline trajectoriesfrom three different source points (one from the center and one from each edge of the downwindside of the vapor barrier). The interpolated 10 sec ce data were ignored therefore the dispersionindicated by these plots arises strictly from variation in the trajectory of the gas cloud dependingon where along the vapor cu rta in it was released. These computer-generated centerline trajectoriesat several selected times during each spill test are shown in Appendix A.

These results should approximate the position of the cloud as it passes through the sensorarray. The location of the sensor arr ay stat ions is shown on th e trajectory plots.

60


70/663

4.3 The Turbulence DataTurbulence data were recorded at a sampling rate of one sample per second at stations G04,

G 1 0 , G l 1 , G 1 2 , G 2 4 , and G25 . Each station was equipped with three Gill bivane anemometerscapable of measuring the wind speed and the horizontal and vertical components of wind direction.The anemometer data of station G24 were used to calculate the wind speed profles of Table 7. The purpose of the other five stations was to determine if there was any measurable wind fielddisplacement or turbulence perturbations due to the presence of the LNG cloud and/or the vaporbarrier. Measurable turbulence damping was observable, particularly during Falcon 1, due to thepresence of LNG vapors. Turbulence generated b y the vapor barrier, damping out exponentiallywith distance, i s readily observed in the data.

The anemometer d at a from all six turbulence stations for each spill test is shown in AppendixB . Vertical direction results have been shifted using 300 s ec of dat a prior to zero time t o establisha baseline value defined to be zero ( to correct imbalances in sensor insta lla tion).

.

6 1


71/663

5.0 The Spill Area ResultsIn the spill area, measurements were taken of gas concentration, heat flux, dew point, and

temperature. The number and distribution of these measurements varied from test to test due tosensor availability an d in response t o d at a from previous tests. These changes are reflected in sensormaps in Figures 3, 4, and 7 through 12. These da ta are expected t o provide inputs t o future analysisrelevant to the design of effective vapor barrier mitigation systems. Thermocouple measurementstaken above and below the water surface are to determine if the LNG is evaporating as rapidlyas it is spilled. Gas concentration measurements are t o establish actual source conditions and tocorrelate gas concentration with temperature in the contained vapor cloud. Elevated temperaturemeasurements (qp to 14 m) are intended to provide information on vapor density stratificationwithin the barrier and on mixing of the atmosphere with the confined LNG vapor cloud.L.

Spill Area data are presented in Appendix C . Da ta are grouped by spill test in order of occur-rence (Falcon 1-5). Da ta are organized within each spill test in the following sequence:

1. Gas sensor dat a are presented with collocated dew point and temperature da ta presentedadjacent to the data from the applicable gas sensor.

2 . Heat flux data are presented with collocated ground temperature data.3 . Tempe rature data below and above ( > 1 m height) the pond surface are presented grouped

by z :y coordinate.4 . Temperature data 21 m height are presented grouped b y z,ycoordinate.

5.1 Spill Area Temperature ResultsTem peratu re measurements in the spill area were performed using type k thermocouples, as

described in section 2 .3 . Since relative temperature measurement is more important than absolutetemperature measurement to the analysis anticipated in the spill area , the thermocouples a t 1m orhigher elevations were adjusted to the 1 0 0 sec pre-spill average of all spill area thermocouples (above1 m). Relative temperature changes should be easily extracted from data plotted in this manner.N o adjustments were applied to thermocouples reading pond temperature, ground temperature,or air temperature below 1 m in height. Accuracy of absolute temperature measurement in thespill area is believed to be *3OC and relative temperature measurements are believed accurate to*O.5 Cc.

The presence of adverse conditions during Falcon 3 (RPTs) and Falcon 5 (RPTs and f ie)disrupted measurements in the spill area . Da ta from these two tests often were truncated atbetween t = 60 sec and t = 200 sec because of these events. Similarly, on Falcon 2, station G22,channel A14, da ta were truncated at t = 400 sec due to th e sudden (and as yet unexplained) failureof the sensor on that channel. Other da ta deleted from the dat a plots were due to sensor failureand are noted in Table 6.

5.2 Spill Area Heat Flux ResultsSpill area heat flux data are presented together with collocated ground temperature data to

provide a measure of cloud heating provided by th e exposed ground surface inside the vapor barrier.

62


72/663

The two heat flux sensors were located one downwind and one upwind of the billboard structure tohelp understa nd the effects of th at s tructu re. Ground temperature measurements are not adjustedand are believed accurate to k3OC in absolute temperature, and *0.5'C in relative temperature.Heat flux measurements ar e given in Watts per m2 with the sign convention chosen such tha t anegative reading indicates heat flow in to the ground.

m5.3 Spill Area Gas Sensor Results

Da ta from each JPL-IR sensor are presented in three plots showing percent by volume concen-trations of methane , ethane, a nd to ta l hydrocarbons. Immediately following the plots from eachgas sensor is any collocated tempera ture and humidity da ta available. Collocated tempera tureda ta are intended to help establish the relationship bet ween gas concentration a nd te mperatu re forextrapolation to t emperature/ gas concentration profiles elsewhere within the vapor barrier. Collo-cated dew point d at a (samples were taken from the gas sampling tube at a point near the JPL-IRsensor, physically located outs ide the vapor barri er) are intended to help in establishing the energybalance due to the interaction between the cryogenic LNG and the water pond (i.e., water vaporin the cold cloud freezes and reduces the partial pressure of H 2 0 , allowing more water vapor tobe introduced into the cloud from the pond. The vapor from the pond also freezes and the cyclecontinues transferring heat f rom the pond to the cloud). Temperature dat a are believed accurateto &3'C in absolute temperat ure, and to k 0 . 5 ' C in relative temperature. Measurement of absolutedew point temperature was suspect throughout the test series. Three dew poin t hygrometers, allmeasuring samples taken from the same height within the vapor barrier during the last 100 secprior to spill, showed variations on the order of i l O ° C . Relative measurements are believed to bemore accurate at 110 of the recorded variation in dew point temperature.

JPL-IR gas sensors were individually calibrated prior to the test series and, where possible, afterthe tes t series was completed (some sensors could not be recalibrated due to the nat ure of their firedamage). Comparison of identical data plotted, using pre-test calibrations, post-test calibrations,and calibrations from previous test series, indicate an uncertainty of * 5 % of the sensor reading fortota1 hy drocarb ons.

63


73/663

6.0 Vapor Dispersion ResultsOne major objective of the LNG vapor barrier verification field trials was to measure the atmo-

spheric dispersion of LNG vapor released from a full-scale vapor barrie r under actual atmospheric-conditions, with emphasis on determining the range at which dilution below the lower flammabilitylimit (LFL) is achieved. Comparison of the L F L dilution range from these tests with results ofearl ier free field dispersion tes ts provides the principle measure of the effectiveness of vapor barriersas mitigation devices for potential industrial LNG spills. It also provides the basic data to validatewind tunnel and computer models which can then be used to simulate a variety of plant site andmeteorological condi ions.

This objective was achieved by measuring the concentration of natural gas vapors at threeor four levels (up to 1 7 m) at three rows of stations (each containing between 5 and 9 stationsevenly spaced laterally at 50, 150, and 250 m downwind of the vapor barrier . This also allowedthe height and lateral extent of the vapor cloud to be measured a t each row. The locations of thevarious stations for the different tests are shown in Fig. 2 3 and Fig. 24 . This section presents thegas concentration results, along with other measurements pertinent to understanding vapor clouddispersion, including cloud tempe rature (a t each gas sensor location), surface heat flux (at 50 and150 m), surface tempera ture .(at each heat flux sensor locat ion), and humidity (where available).

6.1 Vapor Cloud Temperature DataVapor cloud temperature da ta are presented in Appendix D , grouped by test in the order of

occurrence (Falcon 1-5). For each test the data from each tower ( 3 or 4 sensors) are displayed in a2 x 2 array, each occupying one page of the repor t. The vertical scales are the same for each sensoron a given tower, allowing easy comparison and an overview of vertical gas concentration profilewhile retaining sufficient plot size to allow data extraction by the reader.

The temperature data have been adjusted by matching the pre-test average measurementsto the pre-test average temperature profile measured by the RTDs on station G 2 4 in order toeliminate baseline uncertainty inherent to thermocouples (uncertainties arise from variations injunction thickness, wire resistivity, etc.). RTD data from stations G 1 1 and G 2 4 are included as thelast plots on each test for comparison purposes.

6.2 Ancillary Vapor Dispersion DataThis section presents data on surface heat flux (at 5 0 and 150 m), surface temperature (collo-cated with heat flux sensors), and dew point (where available), which are contained in Appendix

E, grouped by test in order of occurrence (Falcon 1-5). For convenience in referencing data, eachcollocated heat fl ux and ground temperatu re d at a plot are presented immediately adjacent to oneanother. N o adjustments have been made to the da ta presented in this section. These instrumentsare described in Section 2 . 3 and the station locations are defined in Table 6 (also in Figs. 23 and2 4 ) .

64


74/663

GO7n006CI

GO5Il

Ghlmi11fl013C

GkGI2 4IGO8U In

i -----140 j -50 50-EOMETERS

150 250

Figure 23. Falcon 1-3 FDAS station array._ _ _ _ _ _ _ __-___---

Figure 24. Falcon 4-5 FDAS station array.

65


75/663


76/663

was assumed t o be zero at a height of 21 m. Below 1 m, t he gas concentration profile was assumed tobe qu adrati c approaching zero gradient a t the ground if the vertical gradient was negative between1 and 5 m; if the measured gradient was positive, a linear extrapolation was used below the 1-mheight. These values were then interpolated horizontally a t 9 intermediate locations between eachpair of sensor towers. Temperature da ta interpolation w a s similar to tha t for gas concentration da ta ,except that a logarithmic profile with height was assumed below 1 m. Wind speed interpolationwas logarithmic in t he vertical direction and linear in the horizontal direction. Time histories ofcalculated instantaneous and time-integrated (cumulative) mass flux are presented in Figures 25,26 and 27.

The mass flux plots are consistent with spill parameters for the respective tests in two ways.Fir st, th e du rati on of cloud passage for the main cloud, tha t portion of the time history boundedby a rapid rise and then fall in the mass flux, is comparable to the duration of the respective spillevents (valve open to valve closed); this is true even for Falcon 4 , with its relatively l

Documents

Falcon Series Data Report - 1987 LNG Vapor Barrier Verification Field Trials