SEARCH · Search NASA
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Offshore wind energy projects are currently in development off the east coast of the United States and may influence the local meteorology of the region. Wind power production and other commercial uses in this area are related to atmospheric conditions, and so it is important to understand how future wind plants may change the local meteorology. In the absence of measurements of potential wind plant impacts on meteorology, simulations offer the next-best possible insight into wake effects on boundary layer height, temperature, fluxes, and wind speeds. However, simulation tools that capture these effects offer multiple options for representing the amount of turbine-added turbulence that may impact assessments of micrometeorological effects. To explore this sensitivity, we compare 1 year of simulations from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model with and without wind plants incorporated, focusing on the lease area south of Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The simulations with wind plants are repeated to include both the maximum and minimum amounts of added turbulence to provide bounds on the potential impacts. We assess changes in wind speeds, 2 m temperature, surface heat flux, turbulence kinetic energy (TKE), and boundary layer height during different stability classifications and ambient wind speeds over the entire year and compare results for the degree of added turbulence in the wind plant simulations. Because the wake behavior may be a function of boundary layer stability, in this paper, we also present a machine learning algorithm to quantify the area and distance of the wake generated by the wind plant. This analysis enables us to identify the relationship between wake extent and boundary layer height. We find that hub-height wind speed is reduced within and downwind of the wind plant, with the strongest impacts occurring during stable conditions and faster wind speeds in region 3 of the turbine power curve, although impacts lessen as wind speeds increase past 15 m s−1. In contrast, wind speeds near the surface decrease when no turbine-added turbulence is included but can increase for stably stratified conditions when 100 % of possible TKE is included in the simulations. TKE increases at hub height in the simulations with added TKE for all stability classes, suggesting that atmospheric stability does not immediately modify the TKE generated by turbines. Negligible changes in hub-height TKE manifest in the simulations without the added TKE. At the surface, TKE increases in the simulations with maximum added turbulence only for unstable conditions. In the no-added-turbulence simulations, surface TKE decreases slightly in neutral and unstable simulations. Differences in 2 m temperatures and surface heat fluxes are small but vary considerably with atmospheric stability and the amount of added TKE. Boundary layer heights increase within the wind plant when turbine-added turbulence is included and decrease slightly downwind during stable conditions. In contrast, with no added turbulence, the boundary layer height is in general reduced in stable conditions with wind speeds less than 15 m s −1 and slightly increased in neutral conditions. Finally, shallower upwind boundary layer heights tend to correlate with larger wake areas and distances, though other factors likely also play a role in determining the extent of the wind plant wake. These simulation-based results provide a bound for micrometeorological impacts of wind plant wakes: simulations that couple the atmosphere to the ocean may reduce these impacts, and we await observational verification.
The expected peak wind speed of the day is an important forecast element in the 45th Weather Squadron's (45 WS) daily 24-Hour and Weekly Planning Forecasts. The forecasts are used for ground and space launch operations at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). The 45 WS also issues wind advisories for KSC/CCAFS when they expect wind gusts to meet or exceed 25 kt, 35 kt and 50 kt thresholds at any level from the surface to 300 ft. The 45 WS forecasters have indicated peak wind speeds are challenging to forecast, particularly in the cool season months of October - April. In Phase I of this task, the Applied Meteorology Unit (AMU) developed a tool to help the 45 WS forecast non-convective winds at KSC/CCAFS for the 24-hour period of 0800 to 0800 local time. The tool was delivered as a Microsoft Excel graphical user interface (GUI). The GUI displayed the forecast of peak wind speed, 5-minute average wind speed at the time of the peak wind, timing of the peak wind and probability the peak speed would meet or exceed 25 kt, 35 kt and 50 kt. For the current task (Phase II ), the 45 WS requested additional observations be used for the creation of the forecast equations by expanding the period of record (POR). Additional parameters were evaluated as predictors, including wind speeds between 500 ft and 3000 ft, static stability classification, Bulk Richardson Number, mixing depth, vertical wind shear, temperature inversion strength and depth and wind direction. Using a verification data set, the AMU compared the performance of the Phase I and II prediction methods. Just as in Phase I, the tool was delivered as a Microsoft Excel GUI. The 45 WS requested the tool also be available in the Meteorological Interactive Data Display System (MIDDS). The AMU first expanded the POR by two years by adding tower observations, surface observations and CCAFS (XMR) soundings for the cool season months of March 2007 to April 2009. The POR was expanded again by six years, from October 1996 to April 2002, by interpolating 1000-ft sounding data to 100-ft increments. The Phase II developmental data set included observations for the cool season months of October 1996 to February 2007. The AMU calculated 68 candidate predictors from the XMR soundings, to include 19 stability parameters, 48 wind speed parameters and one wind shear parameter. Each day in the data set was stratified by synoptic weather pattern, low-level wind direction, precipitation and Richardson Number, for a total of 60 stratification methods. Linear regression equations, using the 68 predictors and 60 stratification methods, were created for the tool's three forecast parameters: the highest peak wind speed of the day (PWSD), 5-minute average speed at the same time (A WSD), and timing of the PWSD. For PWSD and A WSD, 30 Phase II methods were selected for evaluation in the verification data set. For timing of the PWSD, 12 Phase\I methods were selected for evaluation. The verification data set contained observations for the cool season months of March 2007 to April 2009. The data set was used to compare the Phase I and II forecast methods to climatology, model forecast winds and wind advisories issued by the 45 WS. The model forecast winds were derived from the 0000 and 1200 UTC runs of the 12-km North American Mesoscale (MesoNAM) model. The forecast methods that performed the best in the verification data set were selected for the Phase II version of the tool. For PWSD and A WSD, linear regression equations based on MesoNAM forecasts performed significantly better than the Phase I and II methods. For timing of the PWSD, none of the methods performed significantly bener than climatology. The AMU then developed the Microsoft Excel and MIDDS GUls. The GUIs display the forecasts for PWSD, AWSD and the probability the PWSD will meet or exceed 25 kt, 35 kt and 50 kt. Since none of the prediction methods for timing of the PWSD performed significantly better thanlimatology, the tool no longer displays this predictand. The Excel and MIDDS GUIs display forecasts for Day-I to Day-3 and Day-I to Day-5, respectively. The Excel GUI uses MesoNAM forecasts as input, while the MIDDS GUI uses input from the MesoNAM and Global Forecast System model. Based on feedback from the 45 WS, the AMU added the daily average wind speed from 30 ft to 60 ft to the tool, which is one of the parameters in the 24-Hour and Weekly Planning Forecasts issued by the 45 WS. In addition, the AMU expanded the MIDDS GUI to include forecasts out to Day-7.
Abstract. Offshore wind farms are scheduled to be constructed along the East Coast of the US in the coming years. Low-level jets (LLJs) – layers of relatively fast winds at low altitudes – also occur frequently in this region. Because LLJs provide considerable wind resources, it is important to understand how LLJs might change with turbine construction. LLJs also influence moisture and pollution transport; thus, the effects of wind farms on LLJs could also affect the region’s meteorology. In the absence of observations or significant wind farm construction as yet, we compare 1 year of simulations from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model with and without wind farms incorporated, focusing on locations chosen by their proximity to future wind development areas. We develop and present an algorithm to detect LLJs at each hour of the year at each of these locations. We validate the algorithm to the extent possible by comparing LLJs identified by lidar, constrained to the lowest 200 m, to WRF simulations of these very low LLJs (vLLJs). In the NOW-WAKES simulation data set, we find offshore LLJs in this region occur about 25 % of the time, most frequently at night, in the spring and summer months, in stably stratified conditions, and when a southwesterly wind is blowing. LLJ wind speed maxima range from 10 m s−1 to over 40 m s−1. The altitude of maximum wind speed, or the jet “nose”, is typically 300 m above the surface, above the height of most profiling lidars, although several hours of vLLJs occur in each month in the data set. The diurnal cycle for vLLJs is less pronounced than for all LLJs. Wind farms erode LLJs, as LLJs occur less frequently (19 %–20 % of hours) in the wind farm simulations than in the no-wind-farm (NWF) simulation (25 % of hours). When LLJs do occur in the simulation with wind farms, their noses are higher than in the NWF simulation: the LLJ nose has a mean altitude near 300 m for the NWF jets, but that nose height moves higher in the presence of wind farms, to a mean altitude near 400 m. Rotor region (30–250 m) wind veer is reduced across almost all months of the year in the wind farm simulations, while rotor region wind shear is similar in both simulations.
The wind profile with all of its variations with respect to altitude has been, is now, and will continue to be important for aerospace vehicle design and operations. Wind profile databases and models are used for the vehicle ascent flight design for structural wind loading, flight control systems, performance analysis, and launch operations. This report presents the evolution of wind statistics and wind models from the empirical scalar wind profile model established for the Saturn Program through the development of the vector wind profile model used for the Space Shuttle design to the variations of this wind modeling concept for the X-33 program. Because wind is a vector quantity, the vector wind models use the rigorous mathematical probability properties of the multivariate normal probability distribution. When the vehicle ascent steering commands (ascent guidance) are wind biased to the wind profile measured on the day-of-launch, ascent structural wind loads are reduced and launch probability is increased. This wind load alleviation technique is recommended in the initial phase of vehicle development. The vehicle must fly through the largest load allowable versus altitude to achieve its mission. The Gumbel extreme value probability distribution is used to obtain the probability of exceeding (or not exceeding) the load allowable. The time conditional probability function is derived from the Gumbel bivariate extreme value distribution. This time conditional function is used for calculation of wind loads persistence increments using 3.5-hour Jimsphere wind pairs. These increments are used to protect the commit-to-launch decision. Other topics presented include the Shuttle Shuttle load-response to smoothed wind profiles, a new gust model, and advancements in wind profile measuring systems. From the lessons learned and knowledge gained from past vehicle programs, the development of future launch vehicles can be accelerated. However, new vehicle programs by their very nature will require specialized support for new databases and analyses for wind, atmospheric parameters (pressure, temperature, and density versus altitude), and weather. It is for this reason that project managers are encouraged to collaborate with natural environment specialists early in the conceptual design phase. Such action will give the lead time necessary to meet the natural environment design and operational requirements, and thus, reduce development costs.