Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “WIND”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 379 records · Page 21
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2022

Experimental and Computational Study of the X-59 Wind Tunnel Model at Glenn Research Center 8- by 6-foot Supersonic Wind Tunnel

The Commercial Supersonics Technology (CST) Project under the NASA Advanced Air Vehicles Program (AAVP) focuses on developing technologies for enabling designs of future commercial supersonic aircraft. Many different technology areas are being addressed, such as designing airframes for better efficiency, improving engine integration for minimizing noise, maximizing combustion efficiency, and reducing high-altitude emissions, but the greatest emphasis has been on understanding the contributions to sonic boom loudness and learning how to shape the airframe and integrate the engine(s) such that the boom noise is minimized.

CST↗
NASA NTRS2010

Tool for Forecasting Cool-Season Peak Winds Across Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

The expected peak wind speed for the day is an important element in the daily morning forecast for ground and space launch operations at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). The 45th Weather Squadron (45 WS) must issue forecast advisories for KSC/CCAFS when they expect peak gusts for >= 25, >= 35, and >= 50 kt thresholds at any level from the surface to 300 ft. In Phase I of this task, the 45 WS tasked the Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) to develop a cool-season (October - April) tool to help forecast the non-convective peak wind from the surface to 300 ft at KSC/CCAFS. During the warm season, these wind speeds are rarely exceeded except during convective winds or under the influence of tropical cyclones, for which other techniques are already in use. The tool used single and multiple linear regression equations to predict the peak wind from the morning sounding. The forecaster manually entered several observed sounding parameters into a Microsoft Excel graphical user interface (GUI), and then the tool displayed the forecast peak wind speed, average wind speed at the time of the peak wind, the timing of the peak wind and the probability the peak wind will meet or exceed 35, 50 and 60 kt. The 45 WS customers later dropped the requirement for >= 60 kt wind warnings. During Phase II of this task, the AMU expanded the period of record (POR) by six years to increase the number of observations used to create the forecast equations. A large number of possible predictors were evaluated from archived soundings, including inversion depth and strength, low-level wind shear, mixing height, temperature lapse rate and winds from the surface to 3000 ft. Each day in the POR was stratified in a number of ways, such as by low-level wind direction, synoptic weather pattern, precipitation and Bulk Richardson number. The most accurate Phase II equations were then selected for an independent verification. The Phase I and II forecast methods were compared using an independent verification data set. The two methods were compared to climatology, wind warnings and advisories issued by the 45 WS, and North American Mesoscale (NAM) model (MesoNAM) forecast winds. The performance of the Phase I and II methods were similar with respect to mean absolute error. Since the Phase I data were not stratified by precipitation, this method's peak wind forecasts had a large negative bias on days with precipitation and a small positive bias on days with no precipitation. Overall, the climatology methods performed the worst while the MesoNAM performed the best. Since the MesoNAM winds were the most accurate in the comparison, the final version of the tool was based on the MesoNAM winds. The probability the peak wind will meet or exceed the warning thresholds were based on the one standard deviation error bars from the linear regression. For example, the linear regression might forecast the most likely peak speed to be 35 kt and the error bars used to calculate that the probability of >= 25 kt = 76%, the probability of >= 35 kt = 50%, and the probability of >= 50 kt = 19%. The authors have not seen this application of linear regression error bars in any other meteorological applications. Although probability forecast tools should usually be developed with logistic regression, this technique could be easily generalized to any linear regression forecast tool to estimate the probability of exceeding any desired threshold . This could be useful for previously developed linear regression forecast tools or new forecast applications where statistical analysis software to perform logistic regression is not available. The tool was delivered in two formats - a Microsoft Excel GUI and a Tool Command Language/Tool Kit (Tcl/Tk) GUI in the Meteorological Interactive Data Display System (MIDDS). The Microsoft Excel GUI reads a MesoNAM text file containing hourly forecasts from 0 to 84 hours, from one model run (00 or 12 UTC). The GUI then displays e peak wind speed, average wind speed, and the probability the peak wind will meet or exceed the 25-, 35- and 50-kt thresholds. The user can display the Day-1 through Day-3 peak wind forecasts, and separate forecasts are made for precipitation and non-precipitation days. The MIDDS GUI uses data from the NAM and Global Forecast System (GFS), instead of the MesoNAM. It can display Day-1 and Day-2 forecasts using NAM data, and Day-1 through Day-5 forecasts using GFS data. The timing of the peak wind is not displayed, since the independent verification showed that none of the forecast methods performed significantly better than climatology. The forecaster should use the climatological timing of the peak wind (2248 UTC) as a first guess and then adjust it based on the movement of weather features.

Barrett, Joe H., III↗
DOE OSTI2025

Performance of wind assessment datasets in United States coastal areas

The atmospheric dynamics that occur near the intersection of land and water offer exciting and challenging opportunities for wind energy deployment in coastal locations. New models and tools are continually being developed in support of wind resource assessment, and three recent products are explored in this work for their performance in representing characteristics of the wind resource at coastal locations: the Global Wind Atlas 3 (GWA3), the 2023 National Offshore Wind dataset (NOW-23), and the wind climate simulations that are a component of the Wind Integration National Dataset (WIND) Toolkit Long-Term Ensemble Dataset (WTK-LED Climate). These relatively new products are freely available and user-friendly so that anyone – from a utility-scale developer to a resident or business owner – can evaluate the potential for wind energy generation at their location of interest. The validations in this work provide guidance on the accuracy of wind resource assessments for coastal customers interested in installing small or midsize wind turbines (≤ 1 MW in capacity) to support energy needs at the residential, business, or community scale, such as the island and remotely located participants of the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Transitions Initiative Partnership Project. At 23 coastal locations across the United States, dataset performance varies according to different evaluation metrics. All three recent datasets tend to overestimate the observed coastal wind resource. GWA3 produces the smallest annual average wind speed relative errors, whereas WTK-LED Climate is in best agreement in terms of representing diurnal wind speed cycles. NOW-23 is the highest performing of the datasets for representing seasonal and interannual trends in the coastal wind resource. While GWA3 and WTK-LED Climate are relatively insensitive to the dataset output heights selected for wind resource assessment at small and midsize wind turbine hub heights (20–60 m), significant variation in the NOW-23 representation of wind shear across the wind profile in the lowest 100 m of the atmosphere leads to notable differences in wind speed estimates according to the dataset output heights selected for evaluation. GWA3 exhibits challenges in the representation of observed wind speed diurnal cycles at small and midsize turbine hub heights, likely due to the dataset's consistent treatment of hourly wind speed trends regardless of altitude.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2025

A Comparison of Pre‐Construction and Operational Wake Loss Estimates for Land‐Based Wind Plants

The overall bias between pre‐construction energy yield assessment (EYA) estimates of wind plant energy production and the achieved operational production is improving in the wind industry, but uncertainty remains high for individual wind plants. Wake effects within wind plants are one of the largest sources of energy loss considered in the EYA process, and previous work shows wake loss estimates to be a major source of disagreement among wind energy consultants who perform EYAs. To better understand the accuracy of wake loss predictions, we compare overall operational wake loss estimates based on supervisory control and data acquisition data to pre‐construction estimates provided by six wind energy consultants for five land‐based wind plants in North America. By augmenting existing approaches for quantifying operational wake losses, we estimate wake losses during the period of record for which operational data are available as well as the expected long‐term wake losses, based on historical reanalysis weather data, to which the EYA estimates are compared. To account for power variations at different turbine locations caused by terrain‐induced wind resource heterogeneity, we correct the operational wake loss estimates using predicted freestream wind speed variations from the Wind Systems Engineering Reynolds‐averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) tool. We identify long‐term corrected operational wake losses between 1.9% and 6.4% for the five plants, with a mean loss of 4%. For the project deemed most acceptable for operational wake loss assessment, which is located in the simplest terrain and isolated from neighboring plants, the mean EYA wake loss estimate is within 0.7 percentage points of the operational value of 6.4%. For most of the remaining plants, results suggest that wake losses are generally overpredicted by 2.6–6.3 percentage points. However, operational wake losses may be underestimated for many of these projects because of spatial wind resource variations not captured by the RANS model, external wake effects that are unaccounted for in the estimation process, and wind plant blockage effects. To better understand factors that contribute to the observed wake losses, we investigate operational wake losses as a function of wind direction and wind speed. As expected, wake losses are generally concentrated near wind directions that are aligned with rows of closely spaced turbines and at below‐rated wind speeds; however, for some projects, the energy produced by the wind plant exceeds the estimated potential energy of the plant without wake interactions for certain wind directions and wind speeds, suggesting inaccurate assumptions in the wake loss estimation method for those plants. Lastly, we compare predicted and operational wake losses for individual wind turbines, finding that even when overall wake losses are predicted accurately, large uncertainty exists at the turbine level.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
NASA NTRS2016

Winds Measured by the Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REMS) During the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) Rover's Bagnold Dunes Campaign and Comparison with Numerical Modeling Using MarsWRF

A high density of REMS wind measurements were collected in three science investigations during MSL's Bagnold Dunes Campaign, which took place over approx. 80 sols around southern winter solstice (Ls approx. 90deg) and constituted the first in situ analysis of the environmental conditions, morphology, structure, and composition of an active dune field on Mars. The Wind Characterization Investigation was designed to fully characterize the near-surface wind field just outside the dunes and confirmed the primarily upslope/downslope flow expected from theory and modeling of the circulation on the slopes of Aeolis Mons in this season. The basic pattern of winds is 'upslope' (from the northwest, heading up Aeolis Mons) during the daytime (approx. 09:00-17:00 or 18:00) and 'downslope' (from the southeast, heading down Aeolis Mons) at night (approx. 20:00 to some time before 08:00). Between these times the wind rotates largely clockwise, giving generally westerly winds mid-morning and easterly winds in the early evening. The timings of these direction changes are relatively consistent from sol to sol; however, the wind direction and speed at any given time shows considerable intersol variability. This pattern and timing is similar to predictions from the MarsWRF numerical model, run at a resolution of approx. 490 m in this region, although the model predicts the upslope winds to have a stronger component from the E than the W, misses a wind speed peak at approx. 09:00, and under-predicts the strength of daytime wind speeds by approx. 2-4 m/s. The Namib Dune Lee Investigation reveals 'blocking' of northerly winds by the dune, leaving primarily a westerly component to the daytime winds, and also shows a broadening of the 1 Hz wind speed distribution likely associated with lee turbulence. The Namib Dune Side Investigation measured primarily daytime winds at the side of the same dune, in support of aeolian change detection experiments designed to put limits on the saltation threshold, and also appears to show the influence of the dune body on the local flow, though less clearly than in the lee. Using a vertical grid with lower resolution near the surface reduces the relative strength of nighttime winds predicted by MarsWRF and produces a peak in wind speed at approx. 09:00, improving the match to the observed diurnal variation of wind speed, albeit with an offset in magnitude. The annual wind field predicted using this grid also provides a far better match to observations of aeolian dune morphology and motion in the Bagnold Dunes. However, the lower overall wind speeds than observed and disagreement with the observed wind direction at approx. 09:00 suggest that the problem has not been solved and that alternative boundary layer mixing schemes should be explored which may result in more mixing of momentum down to the near-surface from higher layers. These results demonstrate a strong need for in situ wind data to constrain the setup and assumptions used in numerical models, so that they may be used with more confidence to predict the circulation at other times and locations on Mars.

Newman, Claire E.↗
DOE OSTI2025

On Alfvénic turbulence of solar wind streams observed by Solar Orbiter during March 2022 perihelion and their source regions

It has been recently accepted that the standard classification of the solar wind solely according to flow speed is outdated, and particular interest has been devoted to the study of the origin and evolution of so-called Alfvénic slow solar wind streams and to what extent such streams resemble or differ from fast wind. In March 2022, Solar Orbiter completed its first nominal phase perihelion passage. During this interval, it observed several Alfvénic streams, allowing for characterization of fluctuations in three slow wind intervals (AS1-AS3) and comparison with a fast wind stream (F) at almost the same heliocentric distance. This work makes use of Solar Orbiter plasma parameters from the Solar Wind Analyzer (SWA) and magnetic field measurements from the magnetometer (MAG). The magnetic connectivity to the solar sources of selected solar wind intervals was reconstructed using a ballistic extrapolation based on measured solar wind speed down to the (spherical) source surface at 2.5 R s below which a potential field extrapolation was used to map back to the Sun. The source regions were identified using SDO/AIA observations. A spectral analysis of in situ measured magnetic field and velocity fluctuations was performed to characterize correlations, Alfvénicity, normalized cross-helicity, and residual energy in the frequency domain as well as intermittency of the fluctuations and spectral energy transfer rate estimated via mixed third-order moments. A machine learning technique was used to separate proton core, proton beam, and alpha particles and to study v − b correlations for the different ion populations in order to evaluate the role played by each population in determining the Alfvénic content of solar wind fluctuations. The comparison between fast wind and Alfvénic slow wind intervals highlights the differences between the two solar wind regimes: The fast wind is characterized by larger amplitude fluctuations, and magnetic and velocity fluctuations are closer to equipartition of energy. In fact the Alfvénic slow wind streams appear to be on a spectrum of wind types, with AS1, originating from open field lines neighboring active regions and displaying similarities with the fast wind in terms of fluctuation amplitude and turbulence characteristics, but not with respect to the alpha particles and proton beams. The other two slow streams differed both in their sources as well as plasma characteristics, with AS2 coming from the expansion of a narrow coronal hole corridor and AS3 from a region straddling a pseudostreamer. The latter displayed the coldest and highest density but the slowest stream with the smallest fluctuation amplitude and greatest magnetic energy excess. It also showed the largest scatter in proton beam speeds and the greatest difference in speed between proton beam and alpha particles. This study shows how the old fast–slow solar wind dichotomy, already called into question by the observations of slower Alfvénic solar wind streams, should further be refined, as the Alfvénic slow wind, originating in different solar wind regions, show significant differences in density, temperature, and proton and alpha-particle properties in the inner heliosphere. The observations presented here provide the starting point for a better understanding of the origin and evolution of different solar wind streams as well as the evolving turbulence contained within.

magnetohydrodynamics (MHD)↗