SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “real-time allocation”

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.

60 records · Page 4

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

DOE OSTI2022

Fast and accurate influenza forecasting in the United States with Inferno

Infectious disease forecasting is an emerging field and has the potential to improve public health through anticipatory resource allocation, situational awareness, and mitigation planning. By way of exploring and operationalizing disease forecasting, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has hosted FluSight since the 2013/14 flu season, an annual flu forecasting challenge. Since FluSight’s onset, forecasters have developed and improved forecasting models in an effort to provide more timely, reliable, and accurate information about the likely progression of the outbreak. While improving the predictive performance of these forecasting models is often the primary objective, it is also important for a forecasting model to run quickly, facilitating further model development and improvement while providing flexibility when deployed in a real-time setting. In this vein I introduce Inferno, a fast and accurate flu forecasting model inspired by Dante, the top performing model in the 2018/19 FluSight challenge. When pseudoprospectively compared to all models that participated in FluSight 2018/19, Inferno would have placed 2nd in the national and regional challenge as well as the state challenge, behind only Dante. Inferno, however, runs in minutes and is trivially parallelizable, while Dante takes hours to run, representing a significant operational improvement with minimal impact to performance. Forecasting challenges like FluSight should continue to monitor and evaluate how they can be modified and expanded to incentivize the development of forecasting models that benefit public health.

29 ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY, AND ECONOMY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Sequential Decision Making (SDM) for Mesh Refinement and Model Selection in Multiscale, Multi-Physics Applications

Intelligent automation and decision support are needed to enhance computational efficiency and robustness in multiscale and multi-physics problems, including materials science, manufacturing, and climate and weather modeling. Current scientific computing approaches for enabling decisions by scientists fail to explore the role of learning, reasoning, and probabilistic planning. Often these decisions are not performed in real-time during the computation but are made prior to the start of the computation, which must be interrupted in order to make changes to the prior choices. Such interruptions at different stages of the computation increase the total computing time and the need for a human expert to frequently monitor the results. State of art scientific computing methods consist of rule-based algorithms that cannot automatically adapt to a dynamically changing computing environment. The development of a Sequential Decision Making (SDM) framework will automate scientific computing by optimizing the policies for mesh refinement, time-stepping, model and algorithm selection, resource allocation, and pre and post-processing. Our agent SDM framework for scientific computing will consist of data-driven learning (Classifier), automated reasoning (contextual knowledge), and probabilistic planning (Reinforcement Learning). In this project, we focused on three problems to demonstrate our SDM framework on a set of ordinary and partial differential equations. Classification of Lorenz system regions using Feed-Forward Neural Networks examined learning in the SDM framework. On the other hand, reasoning and planning in the SDM framework were used in two problems: adaptive time-stepping for nonlinear ODEs using on-policy RL algorithms, and adaptive mesh refinement for 2-D PDEs using off-policy RL algorithms.

97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗

DOE OSTI2024

Integrate Latimer Controls' Solution into RTAC (CRADA Final Report, CRD-23-24672)

Latimer Controls, Inc. was awarded two vouchers under the Department of Energy's American-Made Solar Prize Round 6 to conduct collaborative research at a national laboratory. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) was selected as a partner to assist Latimer Controls in the performance evaluation of its photovoltaic (PV) control software. This collaboration focuses on developing a hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testbed at NREL, which will be used to test and validate the Latimer PV control technology in a realistic yet de-risked environment. Both Latimer and NREL teams will work together to analyze the collected test data, derive insights, and disseminate the scientific findings. Recent studies underscore the potential of solar energy as a zero-marginal-cost and zero-emission flexibility resource within the bulk power system, particularly when integrated with advanced control systems. To enhance the performance of such systems, Latimer Controls has developed leading-edge technologies, including machine learning (ML) algorithms and hierarchical inverter set-point allocation methods. These innovations are designed to estimate the operational headroom of large PV plants for grid integration and control. However, comprehensive validation under real-world conditions remains necessary. To address this gap, the concurrent CRADA project proposes the real-world application and validation of the Latimer Control solution within a HIL environment. Initially, the Latimer algorithm was developed and tested within MATLAB Simulink, a platform suitable for research-level simulations and iterative development. However, transitioning this technology to a real solar site as an industry-ready solution necessitates implementation in a format compatible with widely used solar power plant controllers. In this additional CRADA work, the MATLAB Simulink-based logic will be translated into Structured Text, a programming language compliant with IEC 61131 standards, which is commonly used for custom logic implementations in industry-leading programmable logic controllers (PLCs), such as the Schweitzer SEL real-time automation controller (RTAC). This transition will facilitate the deployment of the Latimer Control solution in real-world solar power plants, thereby advancing the technology towards commercialization.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2025

Performance Evaluation of Intelligent Solar Control Software Through Hardware-in-the-Loop (CRADA Final Report)

Recent research has highlighted the potential for solar to act as a zero-marginal-cost and zero-emission flexibility resource on the bulk power system when operated with advanced control systems. To increase the performance of these systems, leading technologies, including machine learning (ML) and hierarchical inverter set point allocation, have been developed by Latimer Controls, Inc. to estimate the headroom of large PV plants for grid operation and control; however, these technologies lack comprehensive validation under real-world application scenarios. Latimer Controls, Inc. received two voucher awards for research at a national laboratory from the Department of Energy American Made Solar Prize Round 6. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) was selected to collaborate with Latimer staff to conduct a performance evaluation of Latimer PV control software. The NREL team will develop a hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) testbed to perform testing and validation of the Latimer PV control technology in a de-risked yet realistic testbed environment. Latimer and NREL worked together to analyze the test data, draw conclusions from the results, and disseminate the resulting scientific findings. In this CRADA work, we propose to test and validate the real-world application of the Latimer Control solution in an HIL environment. We evaluate the performance of different flexible solar technologies in responding to automatic generation control signals in a closed-loop fashion. In particular, a data-driven potential high limit (PHL) estimation is developed for large solar plants to accurately estimate their headroom so that they have fast and short-time regulation and control capability to participate in grid services and respond to grid signals in real time (e.g., AGC). This PHL estimation algorithm is embedded in a hardware power plant controller (PPC) and tested with an IEEE-39 bus system model developed in RTDS. To account for the varying cloud conditions and diverse inverter dispatches, we developed a 135-MW PV plant with detailed modeling of 27 individual PV modules and inverters using RTDS. The real-world communications used in such big plants, such as ModBus TCP/IP for inverter level and DNP3 for plant level, were developed to emulate the real-world applications in big PV plants. The ML-based PHL estimation method is tested under nine separate weather scenarios against the ‘reference-control’ solution, hereafter referred to as the baseline solution. The baseline method reserves a subset of inverters (reference group) to operate at their PHL at all times and dispatches only the remaining inverters (control group) at curtailed levels to fulfill the flexibility need. Despite being successfully piloted by NREL in California in 2017 and Chile in 2020, there exist two gaps in the state of the art to fully unlock the flexibility of PV plants: a. There is a trade-off between the PHL estimation accuracy and the flexibility range. b. There lacks granularity in the PHL estimation to capture the variation across inverters. The Latimer solution seeks to address these gaps by applying machine learning methods to improve PHL estimation accuracy while accounting for variability at every inverter. Performance metrics were taken from the 2023 Georgia Power CARES utility-scale RFP. The results demonstrate that the ML-based approach outperforms the traditional baseline method in PHL estimation accuracy for 7 of 9 scenarios. The average PHL error across the nine scenarios was 7.40% for the ML-based method, 2.06% less than the 9.46% PHL error average across scenarios that was exhibited by the baseline method. Additionally, the PHL error was below 5% for at least 95% of the testing interval for 3 of 9 tested intervals with the ML approach, whereas it did not achieve this metric for any of the baseline tests. Overall, simulation results indicate the superior performance of an ML-based approach compared to the conventional baseline reference-control approach, showcasing its potential to support grid stability and operational efficiency. This laboratory HIL testing using real PPC, representative power system simulation models in real-time with detailed PV plant and inverter models, and real-world communication protocols gives us confidence that this machine learning based PHL estimation algorithm works well in the hardware PPC and therefore de-risks future field commissioning. The end goal of this project is to advance grid technology to address the grid operation challenges brought by solar plant’s variability and uncertainties in power generation.

14 SOLAR ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2021

Combined Mesonet and Tracker

Title: Combined Mesonet and Trackers (UNL Mobile Mesonets) Authors University of Nebraska PI: Adam Houston, UNL Professor (ahouston2@unl.edu) Mailing Address: 126 Bessey Hall P.O. Box 880340 Lincoln, NE 68588-0340 CoMeT Overview The University of Nebraska-Lincoln operates three Combined Mesonet and Tracker (CoMeTs). CoMeTs are Ford Explorers (model years 2015, 2017, and 2019) with forward-mounted suites of meteorological sensors and dual moonroofs, combining the capability of a mobile mesonet to collect near-surface observations with the capability of an unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) tracker vehicle, which enables an observer in the second row of seats to see the aircraft and maintain compliance with Federal Aviation Administration policies on UAS operation. The CoMeTs collect observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155A, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass (Barbieri et al. 2019). The HMP155A and 109SS-L thermistor are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). This list of sensors is also included in the CoMeT data file metadata. Manufacturer specifications for these instruments are given in Table 1 of Hanft and Houston (2018). The reported measured quantities are summarized below.CoMeT-3 was funded through an equipment allocation included in the NSF TORUS award (AGS-1824649). Instrument Description The specific sensors included on each CoMeT are summarized in the table at the end of this section. In general each CoMeT collects observations of slow temperature and humidity at ~2 m above ground level (AGL) using a Vaisala HMP155, fast temperature at ~2 m AGL using a Campbell Scientific 109SS-L thermistor, pressure at ~2.5 m AGL using a Vaisala PTB210 barometer with a Gill pressure port, wind speed and direction at ~3.25 m AGL using an R.M. Young 05103 propeller anemometer, position using a Garmin 19x HVS receiver, and vehicle heading using a KVH Industries C-100 fluxgate compass. The HMP155 and 109SS are shielded and aspirated within a U-tube (Waugh and Frederickson 2010; Houston et al. 2016). Fast temperature and corrected RH measurements (using sensors housed within the U-tube) have a time constant of 10-12 s based on data collected across a temperature and RH shock during the CLOUD-MAP 2017 calibration/validation tests on June 26, 2017. Vehicle speed was < 10 kts for this test. CoMeT-1 CoMeT-2 CoMeT-3 Slow Temperature Slow RH Vaisala HMP155A-L20-PT Part #: 22280-7 Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Vaisala HMP155E Part #: E1AA11A0B1A1A0A Fast temperature Campbell Scientific 109SS-L20-PT Part #: 21448-3 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-109 Campbell Scientific 109SS-L12-PW Part #: 21448-150 Pressure Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Vaisala PTB-210 Part #: A1A1B Gill Pressure Port Part #: 61002 Wind RM Young 05103-L20-PT Part #: 18435-310 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 RM Young 05103-L20-PW Part #: 18435-244 GPS Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Garmin GPS 19x HVS (NMEA 0183) Part #: 010-01010-00 Compass KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 KVH C-100 Part #: 01-0177-15 Logger Campbell Scientific CR6-NA-XT-SW Part #: 28385-9 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Campbell Scientific CR6-WIFI-XT-SW Part #: 28385-6 Data Collection and Real-Time Processing The reported measured quantities are summarized in the table below. Quantity Units Source Epoch time Seconds GPS Latitude and longitude Degrees GPS Altitude m GPS Pressure hPa PTB210 Temperature (fast) deg C 109SS-L Temperature (slow) deg C HMP155 RH (slow) % HMP155 Vehicle speed m/s GPS Vehicle heading deg C-100 and GPS In addition to the measured variables, several derived variables are calculated. Corrected/fast relative humidity (%) Relative humidity is adjusted to the fast temperature following Richardson et al. (1998) and Houston et al. (2016). Water vapor mixing ratio (g/kg) Dew point temperature (°C) Potential temperature (Kelvin) Virtual potential temperature (Kelvin) Equivalent potential temperature (Kelvin) Regular intercomparisons between all three CoMeTs were performed during TORUS 2019. Comparisons were also conducted between CoMeT-1 and CoMeT-2 during LAPSE-RATE (2018) on 14 July. In these intercomparisons, the vehicles were parked adjacent to each other aligned perpendicular to (and facing into) the wind. To minimize engine heating effects, intercomparisons were only conducted when the wind speed was >10 kts. Data Format Original data files for each deployment are saved as text files and then converted to NetCDF. NetCDF versions have units that are CF compliant and may not match the original units in the txt files. The naming convention for the NetCDF files is as follows: UNL.CoMeT3.{deployment date YYYYMMDD}.{start time of observation collection in UTC HHMM}.L2.{post-processing codes}.cdf example: UNL.CoMeT3.20190627.1931.L2.g1.f1.cdf Post-processing codes are included to track modifications to the raw data. These codes are closely connected to error flags associated with each record. Each letter corresponds to a particular instrument: g: GPS p: Barometer tf: Fast temperature ts: Slow temperature rh: Relative humidity f: Compass w: Wind monitor a: All instruments Each number corresponds to a particular post-processing action described more below. Measured and derived variables are included in the following table. Variable Heading Standard Name Units time Time seconds since 00:00:00, 01-01-1970 Alt Altitude meters lat Latitude degrees north lon Longitude degrees east fast_temp Air Temperature kelvin slow_temp Air Temperature kelvin pressure Air Pressure pascals logger_RH Relative Humidity percent calc_corr_RH Relative Humidity percent wind_speed Wind Speed meters per second wind_dir Wind From Direction degrees vehicle_dir Vehicle Direction degrees dewpoint Dew Point Temperature kelvin mixing_ratio Humidity Mixing Ratio g/g theta Air Potential Temperature kelvin theta_v Virtual Potential Temperature kelvin theta_e Equivalent Potential Temperature Kelvin error_flag The error_flag variable is a string that matches the post-processing codes listed above. All instruments will have an associated code, but will have a “0” if the datum is unchanged from the initial processed value. Error Codes The following table summarizes the error codes for data collected before 2020: Error Code Relevant CoMeT Description g1 1,2,3 Exact correction. GPS position and time reprocessed from raw data g2 1 As far as we can tell this is an exact correction to an error in the GPS time. During the correct time periods the time suddenly went backwards ~250s and stayed at this offset for 750s when it corrected itself. The offset was applied to the “time warp” period. p1 2 Approximate correction. Hole in the pressure tube connecting the pressure port to the barometer. Resulted in erroneously low air pressure measurements when the vehicle was in motion. Derived variables recalculated (dew point temperature [e depends on qv and p], water vapor mixing ratio, potential temperature, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) a1 3 Exact correction. Missing data reprocessed from raw data a2 1 Bug fix to bias correction for ts1, ts2, and rh1: water vapor mixing ratio was off by a factor of 10 and virtual potential temperature was wrong because of this. f1 3 No correction, missing data. Fluxgate compass inoperable. Wind speed and direction calculated using GPS-derived vehicle heading instead. rh1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.7% removed from relative humidity. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts1 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +0.6 K removed from slow temperature. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) ts2 1 Approximate correction. Constant bias of +1.0 K removed. Derived variables recalculated (corrected/fast relative humidity, dew point temperature, water vapor mixing ratio, virtual potential temperature, equivalent potential temperature) References Bolton, D., 1980: The Computation of Equivalent Potential Temperature. Mon. Wea. Rev., 108, 1046–1053, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1980)108<1046:TCOEPT>2.0.CO;2. Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An Observational and Modeling Study of Mesoscale Air Masses with High Theta-E. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 2503–2524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.Wexler Houston, A. L., R. J. Laurence III, T. W. Nichols, S. Waugh, B. Argrow, and C. L. Ziegler, 2016: Intercomparison of unmanned aircraft-borne and mobile mesonet atmospheric sensors. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology. 33, 1569-1582, doi: 10.1175/JTECH-D-15-0178.1. Lowe, P. R., 1977: An Approximating Polynomial for the Computation of Saturation Vapor Pressure. J. Applied Meteorology, 16, 100–103. Richardson, S. J., S. E. Frederickson, F. V. Brock, and J. A. Brotzge, 1998: Combination temperature and relative humidity probes: Avoiding large air temperature errors and associated relative humidity errors. Preprints, 10th Symp. On Meteorological Observations and Instrumentation, Phoenix, AZ, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 278–283. Waugh, S., and S. E. Frederickson, 2010: An improved aspirated temperature system for mobile meteorological observations, especially in severe weather. 25th Conf. on Severe Local Storms, Denver, CO, Amer. Meteor. Soc., P5.2. [Available online at https://ams.confex.com/ams/25SLS/techprogram/paper_176205.htm.]

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

STRATOS: A cyber-energy SAAS platform to manage real-time experiment configuration and deployment [SWR-23-16]

STRATOS is a novel management SAAS platform for achieving multi-environment, multi-tenant real-time cyber-energy experimentation. The platform empowers users to configure a wide variety of experiment environments by automating the initialization process and providing a framework for building system configurations. During run-time the platform ensures resources are allocated appropriately and the environment remains stable until the required cyber-energy events have occurred. This capability to manage this complex process in a single user-focused application significantly reduces difficulty and setup time for performing high-impact cyber-energy research.

Van Natta, Joshua↗