SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “gridded data”

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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 613 records · Page 34

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS2011

A Real-Time MODIS Vegetation Composite for Land Surface Models and Short-Term Forecasting

The NASA Short-term Prediction Research and Transition (SPoRT) Center is producing real-time, 1- km resolution Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) gridded composites over a Continental U.S. domain. These composites are updated daily based on swath data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) sensor aboard the polar orbiting NASA Aqua and Terra satellites, with a product time lag of about one day. A simple time-weighting algorithm is applied to the NDVI swath data that queries the previous 20 days of data to ensure a continuous grid of data populated at all pixels. The daily composites exhibited good continuity both spatially and temporally during June and July 2010. The composites also nicely depicted high greenness anomalies that resulted from significant rainfall over southwestern Texas, Mexico, and New Mexico during July due to early-season tropical cyclone activity. The SPoRT Center is in the process of computing greenness vegetation fraction (GVF) composites from the MODIS NDVI data at the same spatial and temporal resolution for use in the NASA Land Information System (LIS). The new daily GVF dataset would replace the monthly climatological GVF database (based on Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer [AVHRR] observations from 1992-93) currently available to the Noah land surface model (LSM) in both LIS and the public version of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. The much higher spatial resolution (1 km versus 0.15 degree) and daily updates based on real-time satellite observations have the capability to greatly improve the simulation of the surface energy budget in the Noah LSM within LIS and WRF. Once code is developed in LIS to incorporate the daily updated GVFs, the SPoRT Center will conduct simulation sensitivity experiments to quantify the impacts and improvements realized by the MODIS real-time GVF data. This presentation will describe the methodology used to develop the 1-km MODIS NDVI composites and show sample output from summer 2010, compare the MODIS GVF data to the AVHRR monthly climatology, and illustrate the sensitivity of the Noah LSM within LIS and/or the coupled LIS/WRF system to the new MODIS GVF dataset.

Case, Jonathan L.↗

NASA NTRS2012

Projections of Declining Surface-Water Availability for the Southwestern United States

16 of the CMIP5 models had all the data needed for this work for at least one simulation that was continuous from 1950 to 2040. Details of the models analyzed here are provided in Table S1. The model data analyzed here are available at http://strega.ldeo.columbia.edu:81/expert/home/.naomi/.AR5/.v2/.historical:rcp85/.mmm16/ a. Assessing the climatology of the models Despite increases in horizontal resolution of many models compared to their CMIP3 counterparts none of these models can adequately resolve the topography of the south west United States, such as the Sierra Nevada and Rocky Mountains and the associated orographic precipitation. This requires that caution be used when interpreting the results presented here. To assess the ability of the models to simulate the current hydroclimate, in Figure S1 we show the observed (from the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre gridded rain gauge data, (1)) monthly climatology of precipitation and the same for all the models and the multimodel mean for the California-Nevada, Colorado headwaters and Texas regions. The GPCC data uses rain gauges only and interpolates to regular grids of which we used the 1◦ by 1◦ one. Details of the data set can be found in (2). While the models apparently overestimate precipitation in California and Nevada the seasonal cycle with wet winters and dry summers is very well represented. It is also possible that the rain gauge observations are biased low by inadequately sampling the higher mountain regions. How ever the models might also be expected to underestimate orographic precipitation due to inadequate horizontal resolution. The 25 models are also too wet in the Colorado headwaters region but correctly represent the quite even distribution though the year. The bimodal distribution of precipitation in Texas, with peaks in May and September, and the absolute amounts, are well modeled but with the September peak too weak. The positive precipitation bias translates into a positive runoff bias for the Colorado headwaters as also shown in Figure S1. Here the observed runoff values are taken from simulations of the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) land surface-hydrology model (3) forced by observed meteorology (5) that were conducted as part of the North American Land Data Assimilation System project phase 2 ( (NLDAS-2), http://www.emc.ncep.noaa.gov/mmb/nldas/. Runoff for California-Nevada is better simulated but there is a positive bias over Texas despite no strong precipitation bias. To check whether regional climate models better simulate P and runoff in these regions we analyzed the historical simulation with the Regional Climate Model version 3 driven by the National Centers for Environmental Prediction-Department of Energy Reanalysis 2 available from the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (http://www.narccap.ucar.edu). This model configuration retained these biases in P and runoff although they were reduced in amplitude. Given these varying biases we plot P and P − E changes in actual values but apply the simplest bias correction possible to the runoff and soil moisture values and show the modeled changes in terms of percentages of the 20th Century model climatologies. A thorough assessment of the simulation of North American climate in CMIP5 models is conducted in Sheffield at al. (North American Climate in CMIP5 Experiments. Part I: Evaluation of 20th Century Continental and Regional Climatology, manuscript submit ted to J. Climate, available at http://www.climate.noaa.gov/index.jsp?pg=./cpo pa/ mapp/cmip5 publications.html). Sheffield et al. analyze the climatology of precipitation, surface air temperature, low level winds, moisture fluxes, runoff etc. and conclude that the main features of the hydrological cycle, including characteristics of the atmospheric moisture balance and its seasonality, are captured in the CMP5 models subject to biases in total precipitation amounts. We chose to use all available models instead of selecting some and rejecting others based on an assessment of model realism. This is in accord with the suggestions of Mote et al. for CMIP3 (4) but future work needs to revisit this matter for the case of the CMIP5 ensemble.

Seager, Richard↗

NASA NTRS1990

Statistical prediction of satellite magnetic anomalies

Computationally rapid statistical procedures are presented for satellite altitude normalizations and the gridding of magnetic anomaly data, as an alternative to the more commonly used but computationally expensive equivalent-source inversion procedures. The statistical predictions of Magsat observations over South America have demonstrated the great computational advantages of collocation over equivalent source inversion in gridding magnetic anomally data; in general, three-dimensional collocation is an efficient and cost-effective approach for obtaining altitude-normalized anomally grids from orbital or arbitrarily distributed data.

Goyal, H. K.↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

FUN3D Analyses of the 5th AIAA Propulsion Aerodynamics Workshop Inlet Test Case

This work presents the results of FUN3D analyses that were performed for the 5th AIAA Propulsion Aerodynamics Workshop. The workshop was separated into two sections that focused on inlet and nozzle flows. This paper focuses on the inlet section of the workshop, which considered an axisymmetric inlet in close-proximity to the ground and subjected to a crosswind. Four levels of grid refinement were provided by the workshop committee. Participants were asked to perform simulations for three crosswind velocities on a minimum of three levels of grid refinement, for a total of nine required cases. This work employed an updated set of grids provided by the committee after completion of the workshop based on feedback from participants. The updated grids featured a larger computational domain and increased refinement near the ground vortex region. This work employed the three coarsest grid levels from the updated grid set. Note that an additional extension downstream of the inlet was added to the provided grids for this work to mitigate observed convergence issues. Additionally, a limited turbulence model study was performed for the highest value of crosswind velocity and the finest grid. The results show that grid convergence was only achieved for the case with the lowest value of crosswind velocity. However, the results were generally observed to improve, relative to the experimental data, with increasing grid refinement. The FUN3D predictions were observed to agree qualitatively with the provided experimental data. However, FUN3D exhibited a tendency to underpredict the minimum value of the radially averaged total pressure at the Aerodynamic Interface Plane, which is consistent with the general findings from the workshop. Overall, FUN3D was found to perform well relative to its peers for the PAW5 workshop inlet test case.

PAI↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

FUN3D Analyses of the 5th AIAA Propulsion Aerodynamics Workshop Inlet Test Case

PAI↗

NASA NTRS2018

Numerical Simulations of a Quiet SuperSonic Technology (QueSST) Aircraft Preliminary Design

Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations were performed on a Lockheed Martin Quiet SuperSonic Technology (QueSST) aircraft preliminary design to assess inlet performance. The FUN3D flow solver and its adjoint-based grid refinement capability were used for the simulations in hopes of determining internal "best practices" for predicting inlet performance on top-aft-mounted inlets. Several parameters were explored including tetrahedral vs. pentahedral cells in/around the boundary-layer regions, an engine axis-aligned linear pressure sensor vs. a pressure box objective as the grid adaptation metric, and the number of grid adaptation cycles performed. Additional simulations were performed on manually refined grids for comparison with the adjoint-based adapted grids. Results showed poor agreement in predicted inlet performance on the refined grids compared to experimental data. This was true regardless of whether the refinement was adjoint-based or manual, the cell type in/near the boundary-layer regions, or the grid adaptation metric used. In addition, the 40-probe total pressure recovery was shown to decrease asymptotically as the number of adaptation cycles is increased. Solutions on the unadapted grids generally had better agreement with experimental data than their refined grid counterparts.

Inlet Performance↗

NASA NTRS2000

BOREAS TE-1 Soils Data Over The SSA Tower Sites in Raster Format

The BOREAS TE-1 team collected various data to characterize the soil-plant systems in the BOREAS SSA. This data set was gridded from vector layers of soil maps that were received from Dr. Darwin Anderson (TE-1), who did the original soil mapping in the field during 1994. The vector layers were gridded into raster files that cover approximately 1 square kilometer over each of the tower sites in the SSA. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).

Hall, Forrest G.↗

DOE OSTI2023

HeatMap

SAND2021-14230 O HeatMap generates geospatial wildfire fuel models by applying machine learning algorithms to satellite imagery and weather station data. The code then leverages wildfire behavior software FlamMap to determine fire spread. It also uses PSLF software to model grid impacts and display data analytics for grid components that have been impacted by wildfire. Sandia National Laboratories is a multimission laboratory managed and operated by National Technology & Engineering Solutions of Sandia, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Honeywell International Inc., for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-NA0003525.

Danford, Forest↗

DOE OSTI2024

Leveraging graph clustering techniques for cyber‐physical system analysis to enhance disturbance characterisation

Abstract Cyber‐physical systems have behaviour that crosses domain boundaries during events such as planned operational changes and malicious disturbances. Traditionally, the cyber and physical systems are monitored separately and use very different toolsets and analysis paradigms. The security and privacy of these cyber‐physical systems requires improved understanding of the combined cyber‐physical system behaviour and methods for holistic analysis. Therefore, the authors propose leveraging clustering techniques on cyber‐physical data from smart grid systems to analyse differences and similarities in behaviour during cyber‐, physical‐, and cyber‐physical disturbances. Since clustering methods are commonly used in data science to examine statistical similarities in order to sort large datasets, these algorithms can assist in identifying useful relationships in cyber‐physical systems. Through this analysis, deeper insights can be shared with decision‐makers on what cyber and physical components are strongly or weakly linked, what cyber‐physical pathways are most traversed, and the criticality of certain cyber‐physical nodes or edges. This paper presents several types of clustering methods for cyber‐physical graphs of smart grid systems and their application in assessing different types of disturbances for informing cyber‐physical situational awareness. The collection of these clustering techniques provide a foundational basis for cyber‐physical graph interdependency analysis.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

NASA NTRS2017

Global Gridded Crop Model Evaluation: Benchmarking, Skills, Deficiencies and Implications.

Crop models are increasingly used to simulate crop yields at the global scale, but so far there is no general framework on how to assess model performance. Here we evaluate the simulation results of 14 global gridded crop modeling groups that have contributed historic crop yield simulations for maize, wheat, rice and soybean to the Global Gridded Crop Model Intercomparison (GGCMI) of the Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP). Simulation results are compared to reference data at global, national and grid cell scales and we evaluate model performance with respect to time series correlation, spatial correlation and mean bias. We find that global gridded crop models (GGCMs) show mixed skill in reproducing time series correlations or spatial patterns at the different spatial scales. Generally, maize, wheat and soybean simulations of many GGCMs are capable of reproducing larger parts of observed temporal variability (time series correlation coefficients (r) of up to 0.888 for maize, 0.673 for wheat and 0.643 for soybean at the global scale) but rice yield variability cannot be well reproduced by most models. Yield variability can be well reproduced for most major producing countries by many GGCMs and for all countries by at least some. A comparison with gridded yield data and a statistical analysis of the effects of weather variability on yield variability shows that the ensemble of GGCMs can explain more of the yield variability than an ensemble of regression models for maize and soybean, but not for wheat and rice. We identify future research needs in global gridded crop modeling and for all individual crop modeling groups. In the absence of a purely observation-based benchmark for model evaluation, we propose that the best performing crop model per crop and region establishes the benchmark for all others, and modelers are encouraged to investigate how crop model performance can be increased. We make our evaluation system accessible to all crop modelers so that other modeling groups can also test their model performance against the reference data and the GGCMI benchmark.

wheat↗

DOE OSTI2022

Time Delay of Wide Area Damping Control in Urban Power Grid: Model-Based Analysis and Data-Driven Compensation

Due to the rapid development of economies, large urban cities consume an increasing amount of energy and have a higher requirement for power quality. Voltage source converter based high voltage direct current (VSC-HVDC) is a promising device to transmit clean power from remote regions to urban power systems, while also providing wide area damping control (WADC) for frequency stabilization. However, the time-delay naturally existing in the VSC-HVDC system may degrade the performance of WADC and even result in instability. To address this issue, this paper develops a time-delay correction control strategy for VSC-HVDC damping control in urban power grids. First, a small signal model of WADC is built to analyze the negative impacts of time delay. Then, a data-driven approach is proposed to compensate for the inherent time delay in VSC-HVDC damping control. The extensive training data will be generated under various disturbances. After offline training, the long short-term memory network (LSTM) can be implemented online to predict the actual frequency deviation based on real-time measurements. Finally, the proposed method is validated through MATLAB-Simulink in a two-area four-machine system. The results indicate that the data-driven compensation has a strong generalization ability for random delay time constants and can improve the performance of WADC significantly.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗

NASA NTRS2017

Assessing Uncertainties in Gridded Emissions: A Case Study for Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide (FFCO2) Emission Data

Fossil fuel carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (FFCO2) are the largest input to the global carbon cycle on a decadal time scale. Because total emissions are assumed to be reasonably well constrained by fuel statistics, FFCO2 often serves as a reference in order to deduce carbon uptake by poorly understood terrestrial and ocean sinks. Conventional atmospheric CO2 flux inversions solve for spatially explicit regional sources and sinks and estimate land and ocean fluxes by subtracting FFCO2. Thus, errors in FFCO2 can propagate into the final inferred flux estimates. Gridded emissions are often based on disaggregation of emissions estimated at national or regional level. Although national and regional total FFCO2 are well known, gridded emission fields are subject to additional uncertainties due to the emission disaggregation. Assessing such uncertainties is often challenging because of the lack of physical measurements for evaluation. We first review difficulties in assessing uncertainties associated with gridded FFCO2 emission data and present several approaches for evaluation of such uncertainties at multiple scales. Given known limitations, inter-emission data differences are often used as a proxy for the uncertainty. The popular approach allows us to characterize differences in emissions, but does not allow us to fully quantify emission disaggregation biases. Our work aims to vicariously evaluate FFCO2 emission data using atmospheric models and measurements. We show a global simulation experiment where uncertainty estimates are propagated as an atmospheric tracer (uncertainty tracer) alongside CO2 in NASA's GEOS model and discuss implications of FFCO2 uncertainties in the context of flux inversions. We also demonstrate the use of high resolution urban CO2 simulations as a tool for objectively evaluating FFCO2 data over intense emission regions. Though this study focuses on FFCO2 emission data, the outcome of this study could also help improve the knowledge of similar gridded emissions data for non-CO2 compounds with similar emission characteristics.

FFCO↗

DOE OSTI2022

Kimberlina 1.2 CCUS Geophysical Models and Synthetic Data Sets

This synthetic multi-scale and multi-physics data set was produced in collaboration with teams at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Colorado School of Mines through the Science-informed Machine Learning for Accelerating Real-Time Decisions in Subsurface Applications (SMART) Initiative. Data are associated with the following publication: Alumbaugh, D., Gasperikova, E., Crandall, D., Commer, M., Feng, S., Harbert, W., Li, Y., Lin, Y., and Samarasinghe, S., “The Kimberlina Synthetic Geophysical Model and Data Set for CO2 Monitoring Investigations”, The Geoscience Data Journal, 2023, DOI: 10.1002/gdj3.191. The dataset uses the Kimberlina 1.2 CO2 reservoir flow model simulations based on a hypothetical CO2 storage site in California (Birkholzer et al., 2011; Wainwright et al., 2013). Geophysical properties models (P- and S-wave seismic velocities, saturated density, and electrical resistivity) were produced with an approach similar to that of Yang et al. (2019) and Gasperikova et al. (2022) for 100 Kimberlina 1.2 reservoir models. Links to individual resources are provided below: [CO2 Saturation Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-co2-saturation-models); Resistivity Models – [part 1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-1), [part 2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-2), and [part 3](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-resistivity-models-part-3); [Vp Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vp-velocity-models); [Vs Velocity Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-vs-velocity-models); [Density Models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-density-models). The 3D distributions of geophysical properties for the 33 time stamps of the SIM001 model were used to generate synthetic seismic, gravity, and electromagnetic (EM) responses for 33 times between zero and 200 years. Synthetic surface seismic data were generated using 2D and 3D finite-difference codes that simulate the acoustic wave equation (Moczo et al., 2007). 2D data were simulated for six point-pressure sources along a 2D line with 10 m receiver spacing and a time spacing of 0.0005 s. 3D simulations were completed for 25 surface pressure sources using a source separation of 1 km in both the x and y directions and a time spacing of 0.001 s. Links to individual resources are provided below: [2D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-velocity-models) and [2D surface seismic data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-2d-surface-seismic-data). [3D velocity models](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-velocity-models), and 3D seismic data [year0](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year0), [year1](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year1), [year2](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year2), [year5](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year5), [year10](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year10), [year15](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year15), [year20](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year20), [year25](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year25), [year30](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year30), [year35](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year35), [year40](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year40), [year45](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year45), [year49](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year49), [year50](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year50), [year51](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year51), [year52](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year52), [year55](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year55), [year60](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year60), [year65](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year65), [year70](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year70), [year75](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year75), [year80](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year80), [year85](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year85), [year90](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year90), [year95](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year95), [year100](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year100), [year110](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year110), [year120](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year120), [year130](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year130), [year140](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year140), [year150](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year150), [year175](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year175), [year200](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-seismic-data-year200). The Python scripts to read these models and data are provided [here](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-python-scripts). EM simulations used a borehole-to-surface survey configuration, with the source located near the reservoir level and receivers on the surface using the code developed by Commer and Newman (2008). Pseudo-2D data for the source at [2500 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz2500m) and [3025 m](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-pseudo-2d-csem-data-tz3025m), used a 2D inline receiver configuration to simulate a response over 3D resistivity models. The [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-3d-csem-data) contain electric fields generated by borehole sources at monitoring well locations and measured over a surface receiver grid. Vector gravity data, both on the surface and in boreholes, were simulated using a modeling code developed by Rim and Li (2015). The simulation scenarios were parallel to those used for the EM: [pseudo-2D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were calculated along the same lines and within the same boreholes, and [3D data](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-gravity-data) were simulated over 3D models on the surface and in three monitoring wells. A series of [synthetic well logs](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-well-logs) of CO2 saturation, acoustic velocity, density, and induction resistivity in the injection well and three monitoring wells are also provided at 0, 1, 2, 5, 10, 15, and 20 years after the initiation of injection. These were constructed by combining the low-frequency trend of the geophysical models with the high-frequency variations of actual well logs collected in the Kimberlina 1 well that was drilled at the proposed site. Measurements of permeability and pore connectivity were made on cores of Vedder Sandstone, which forms the primary reservoir unit: [CT micro scans](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-ct-micro-scans-of-vedder-formation) and [Industrial CT Images](https://edx.netl.doe.gov/dataset/kimberlina-1-2-ccus-geophysical-models-and-synthetic-data-sets-industrial-ct-images-vedder-formation). These measurements provide the range of scales in the otherwise synthetic data set to be as close to a real-world situation as possible. References: Birkholzer, J.T., Zhou, Q., Cortis, A. and Finsterle, S., 2011. A sensitivity study on regional pressure buildup from large-scale CO2 storage projects. Energy Procedia, 4, 4371-4378. Commer, M., and Newman, G.A., 2008. New advances in three-dimensional controlled-source electromagnetic inversion, Geophysical Journal International, 172, 513-535. Gasperikova, E., Appriou, D., Bonneville, A., Feng, Z., Huang, L., Gao, K., Yang, X., Daley, T., 2022, Sensitivity of geophysical techniques for monitoring secondary CO2 storage plumes, Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control, Volume 114, 103585, ISSN 1750-5836, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2022.103585. Moczo, P., J.O. Robertsson and L. Eisner, 2007, The finite-difference time-domain method for modeling of seismic wave propagation: Advances in geophysics, 48, 421-516. Rim, H., and Y. Li, 2015, Advantages of borehole vector gravity in density imaging, Geophysics, 80, G1-G13. Wainwright, H. M.; Finsterle, S.; Zhou, Q.; Birkholzer, J. T., 2013. Modeling the Performance of Large-Scale CO2 Storage Systems: A Comparison of Different Sensitivity Analysis Methods. International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 17, 189205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2013.05.007, DOI: 10.18141/1603331. Yang, X., Buscheck, T.A., Mansoor, K., Wang, Z., Gao, K., Huang, L., Appriou, D., and Carroll, S.A., 2019. Assessment of geophysical monitoring methods for detection of brine and CO2 leakage in drinking water aquifers, International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control, 90, 102803, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2019.102803.

CCUS↗

DOE OSTI2020

IS BLOCKCHAIN A SUITABLE TECHNOLOGY FOR ENSURING THE INTEGRITY OF DATA SHARED BY LIGHTING AND OTHER BUILDING SYSTEMS?

Increasing amounts of data are available from lighting and other building systems. In commercial buildings, these data can be used to improve system and energy performance, detect and diagnose faults, and facilitate maintenance. Building data are not only of interest to owners and operators of the building systems, however. Owners and operators of similar buildings, manufacturers of building systems, utilities, and city agencies also have interesting use cases. Energy data can, for example, be used to verify the performance of energy-conservation measures, issue renewableenergy certificates, and financially settle grid services. Increased data sharing, however, significantly expands the cyber-attack surface, creating new challenges. In this work, blockchain is explored as an option for ensuring the integrity of data that are shared by lighting and other building systems. Blockchain fundamentals and variants are briefly reviewed, and value propositions relevant to building systems are discussed. A recently developed blockchain applicability framework (BAF) that builds upon and addresses the limitations of previous applicability models is also briefly reviewed. The BAF is used to assess the suitability of blockchain over other technologies or approaches for building-data applications, using emerging connected lighting systems as an example use case.

blockchain, connected lighting system, data integr↗

DOE OSTI2026

GAT (Grid Analysis Toolkit) [SWR-25-41]

Grid Analysis Toolkit (GAT) is a unified Python API and plotting for power system PCM and CEM results (Sienna, PLEXOS, ReEDS™). It's a toolkit for wrangling data for Bulk Grid Dispatch and Transmission Analysis. GAT aims to provide simplified access to PCM and CEM results in a standard format while also allowing raw data access to underlying datasets specific to the model. This software can also be found on PyPI at For plotting, GAT defaults to standard National Lab of the Rockies (NLR) color schemes and standard styles while allowing customization.

Webb, Micah [National Laboratory of the Rockies (N↗

DOE OSTI2020

Big Data Analytic for Cascading Failure Analysis

With the challenges of increased grid dynamics and more variability of power generation from renewable energy sources, rapidly increasing complexity in the grid model, and abundant data from measurements and simulations, the requirements for computational analysis have also increased dramatically. Power system operators and engineers need to analyze more scenarios, extract meaningful information from a larger set of data, and respond more quickly when faced with these new challenges for large-scale applications, such as contingency analysis. This paper proposes a novel big data analysis approach for power system cascading analysis, prevention, and remediation. The developed techniques will be capable of cascading analysis, better assessment of the system’s vulnerability level, as well as proposing potential remediation. Case studies using IEEE 118-bus system and a 500-bus system, with a comparison against a commercial tool, validate the advantages of the developed big data approach: accurate prediction, and more importantly, faster and effective correction actions.The developed techniques could be further used for other power system applications.

big data, cascading analysis, corrective action, m↗

NASA NTRS1998

A TRMM Rainfall Estimation Method Applicable to Land Areas

Utilizing multi-spectral, dual-polarization Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) radiometer measurements, we have developed in this study a method to retrieve average rain rate, R(sub f(sub R)), in a mesoscale grid box of 2deg x 3deg over land. The key parameter of this method is the fractional rain area, f(sub R), in that grid box, which is determined with the help of a threshold on the 85 GHz scattering depression 0 deduced from the SSM/I data. In order to demonstrate the usefulness of this method, nine-months of R(sub f(sub R))are retrieved from SSM/I data over three grid boxes in the Northeastern United States. These retrievals are then compared with the corresponding ground-truth-average rain rate, R(sub g), deduced from 15-minute rain gauges. Based on nine months of rain rate retrievals over three grid boxes, we find that R(sub f(sub R)can explain about 64 % of the variance contained in R(sub g). A similar evaluation of the grid-box-average rain rates R(sub GSCAT) and R(sub SRL), given by the NASA/GSCAT and NOAA/SRL rain retrieval algorithms, is performed. This evaluation reveals that R(sub GSCAT) and R(sub SRL) can explain only about 42 % of the variance contained in R(sub g). In our method, a threshold on the 85 GHz scattering depression is used primarily to determine the fractional rain area in a mesoscale grid box. Quantitative information pertaining to the 85 GHz scattering depression in the grid box is disregarded. In the NASA/GSCAT and NOAA/SRL methods on the other hand, this quantitative information is included. Based on the performance of all three methods, we infer that the magnitude of the scattering depression is a poor indicator of rain rate. Furthermore, from maps based on the observations made by SSM/I on land and ocean we find that there is a significant redundancy in the information content of the SSM/I multi-spectral observations. This leads us to infer that observations of SSM/I at 19 and 37 GHz add only marginal information to that given by 85 GHz scattering depression. As with other methods, the area-average rain retrieval method developed in this study needs tuning with radar and/or rain gauge observations. In the TRMM mission, the microwave radiometer rain retrieval algorithm can be tuned with TRMM radar observations. Since the radiometer has about 3.5 times wider spatial coverage compared to the radar in the TRMM mission, such an algorithm can be useful to extend geographically the rain information provided by the TRMM Precipitation Radar.

Prabhakara, C.↗

NASA NTRS1989

The implementation of the graphics of program EAGLE: A numerical grid generation code on NASA Langley SNS computer system

Program EAGLE (Eglin Arbitrary Geometry Implicit Euler) Numerical Grid Generation System is a composite (multi-block) algebraic or elliptic grid generation system designed to discretize the domain in and/or around any arbitrarily shaped three dimensional regions. This system combines a boundary conforming surface generation scheme and includes plotting routines designed to take full advantage of the DISSPLA Graphics Package (Version 9.0). Program EAGLE is written to compile and execute efficiently on any Cray machine with or without solid state disk (SSD) devices. Also, the code uses namelist inputs which are supported by all Cray machines using the FORTRAN compiler CFT77. The namelist inputs makes it easier for the user to understand the inputs and operation of Program EAGLE. EAGLE's numerical grid generator is constructed in the following form: main program, EGG (executive routine); subroutine SURFAC (surface generation routine); subroutine GRID (grid generation routine); and subroutine GRDPLOT (grid plotting routines). The EAGLE code was modified to use on the NASA-LaRC SNS computer (Cray 2S) system. During the modification a conversion program was developed for the output data of EAGLE's subroutine GRID to permit the data to be graphically displayed by IRIS workstations, using Plot3D. The code of program EAGLE was modified to make operational subroutine GRDPLOT (using DI-3000 Graphics Software Packages) on the NASA-LaRC SNS Computer System. How to implement graphically, the output data of subroutine GRID was determined on any NASA-LaRC graphics terminal that has access to the SNS Computer System DI-300 Graphics Software Packages. A Quick Reference User Guide was developed for the use of program EAGLE on the NASA-LaRC SNS Computer System. One or more application program(s) was illustrated using program EAGLE on the NASA LaRC SNS Computer System, with emphasis on graphics illustrations.

Houston, Johnny L.↗