Results for “lidar error” — Page 6

DOE OSTI2021

All-sky aerosol direct radiative effects at the ARM SGP site

All-sky aerosol direct radiative effect (DRE) was estimated for the first time at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Southern Great Plains site using multi-year ground-based observations. The NASA Langley Fu-Liou radiation model was employed. Observed inputs for the radiation model include aerosol and cloud vertical extinction profile from Raman lidar; spectral aerosol optical depth, single-scattering albedo, and asymmetry factor from Aerosol Robotic Network; cloud water content profiles from radars; temperature and water vapor profiles from radiosondes; and surface shortwave spectral albedo from radiometers. A cloudy-sky radiative closure experiment was performed. The relative mean differences between modeled and observed surface downwelling shortwave total fluxes were 6% (7%) for transparent (opaque) cloudy-skies. The estimated annual mean all-sky aerosol DRE is -2.13±0.54W m -2 at the top of atmosphere (TOA) and -5.95±0.87 W m -2 at the surface, compared to -3.00±0.58 W m -2 AND -6.85±1.00 W m -2 , respectively, under clear-sky conditions. The seasonal cycle of all-sky aerosol DRE is similar to that of the clear-sky, except with secondary influences of the clouds: The cloud radiative effect is strongest (most negative) in the spring, which reduces the all-sky aerosol DRE. The relative uncertainties in all-sky aerosol DRE due to measurement errors are generally comparable to those in clear-sky conditions except for the aerosol single-scattering albedo. Finally, the TOA all-sky aerosol DRE relative uncertainty due to aerosol single-scattering albedo uncertainty is larger than that in clear-sky, leading to a larger total relative uncertainty. The measurement errors in cloud properties have small effects on the all-sky aerosol DRE.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2024

Quantum Information for Fusion Energy Sciences (Final Technical Report)

The simulation of plasma dynamics is a critical area of Fusion Energy Sciences (FES) due to it’s usefulness in predicting, controlling, and confining plasmas in the context of potential fusion reactors. The simulation of plasmas is a computationally difficult problem in both classical and quantum physics, motivating investigation into the potential of quantum computers to simulate these systems. This project took several concrete steps towards this goal by developing tools for improving the control, characterization, and calibration of quantum gates on a superconducting quantum computer, developing error suppression and mitigation tools to reduce errors on the quantum computer, and utilizing these advancements to simulate reduced models of plasma dynamics on the quantum computer.

70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗

DOE OSTI2022

Airborne Lidar Measurements of XCO 2 in Synoptically Active Environment and Associated Comparisons With Numerical Simulations

Frontal boundaries have been shown to cause large changes in CO 2 mole-fractions, but clouds and the complex vertical structure of fronts make these gradients difficult to observe. It remains unclear how the column average CO 2 dry air mole-fraction (XCO 2 ) changes spatially across fronts, and how well airborne lidar observations, data assimilation systems, and numerical models without assimilation capture XCO 2 frontal contrasts (ΔXCO 2 , i.e., warm minus cold sector average of XCO 2 ). We demonstrated the potential of airborne Multifunctional Fiber Laser Lidar (MFLL) measurements in heterogeneous weather conditions (i.e., frontal environment) to investigate the ΔXCO 2 during four seasonal field campaigns of the Atmospheric Carbon and Transport-America (ACT-America) mission. Most frontal cases in summer (winter) reveal higher (lower) XCO 2 in the warm (cold) sector than in the cold (warm) sector. During the transitional seasons (spring and fall), no clear signal in ΔXCO 2 was observed. Intercomparison among the MFLL, assimilated fields from NASA's Global Modeling and Assimilation Office (GMAO), and simulations from the Weather Research and Forecasting-—Chemistry (WRF-Chem) showed that (a) all products had a similar sign of ΔXCO 2 though with different levels of agreement in ΔXCO 2 magnitudes among seasons; (b) ΔXCO 2 in summer decreases with altitude; and (c) significant challenges remain in observing and simulating XCO 2 frontal contrasts. A linear regression analyses between ΔXCO 2 for MFLL versus GMAO, and MFLL versus WRF-Chem for summer-2016 cases yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.95 and 0.88, respectively. The reported ΔXCO 2 variability among four seasons provide guidance to the spatial structures of XCO 2 transport errors in models and satellite measurements of XCO 2 in synoptically-active weather systems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2020

How Should Machine Learning Be Successfully Used for Wind Speed Vertical Extrapolation?

An accurate characterization of the wind resource available at hub-height is required for an efficient and bankable wind farm project. However, direct measurement of wind speed at the constantly increasing height of the hub of commercial wind turbines is oftentimes challenging and expensive, so that it is common practice to vertically extrapolate the wind resource from lower and more easily accessible levels. Conventional techniques for wind speed vertical extrapolation include the use of a power law and a logarithmic profile. While simple, the limits in accuracy of these methods have been shown in various studies. Recently, machine learning has been proposed as a new method to vertically extrapolate winds. All the published studies on the topic assess the performance of machine learning techniques in vertically extrapolating the wind resource at the same location where the algorithm has been trained. However, in real-world applications, the wind resource is measured at the instrument location, but it then needs to be extrapolated at hub height at the location of the wind turbines within the find farm. To be able to fully recommend the use of machine learning techniques over the simple power law and logarithmic law, the spatial variability of the performance improvements of the machine learning approaches needs to be assessed. Here, we propose a round-robin validation of a machine learning-based method for wind speed extrapolation. We use 20 months of observations at four locations spanning a 100 km wide region at the Southern Great Plains (SGP) atmospheric observatory, in north-central Oklahoma. At each location, we train a random forest to predict 30-min average wind speed at 143 m AGL. We use as input features lidar wind speed at 65 m AGL, time of day, sonic anemometer wind speed at 4 m AGL, turbulent kinetic energy, and Obukhov length. First, we perform a same-site comparison of the performance of the proposed random forest against the conventional techniques for wind speed extrapolation (namely power law and logarithmic profile, with widely accepted stability corrections). We find that the random forest outperforms the power law in vertically extrapolating wind speed in all the considered stability regimes, with a 33% reduction in MAE for stable conditions, and a 31% reduction in unstable conditions. Similar results are found when comparing predictions of extrapolated winds from the logarithmic profile and the random forest with the observed values. Next, we propose a round-robin validation, to use the random forest trained at each site to extrapolate wind speed at the remaining three sites. We find that the performance of the random forest approach degrades when the algorithm is tested at a site different than the training one. However, even under those circumstances, the machine learning-based approach still outperforms the conventional techniques for wind speed extrapolation, with, on average, a reduction in mean absolute error between 15 and 20% over the conventional methods, with the largest benefits obtained under stable conditions.

Monte Carlo↗

DOE OSTI2023

CPC data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston, TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.3 LPM is directed to the CPC. To correct the data for particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate total particle loss through the inlet for every SMPS scan at a single deployment location. Second, the CPC data was corrected for particle losses using the average of the total losses per scan. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. An additional flatline correction of 14% was applied to all CPC data based on laboratory calibration prior to and after the campaign. In laboratory calibrations, we identified that for the same sample of air the field CPC (GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC) undercounted the total concentration of particles by 14% compared to the ground truth laboratory CPC (TSI Model 3750). This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2025

Evaluating the potential of short-term instrument deployment to improve distributed wind resource assessment

Distributed wind projects, which are connected at the distribution level of an electricity system or in off-grid applications to serve specific or local energy needs, often rely solely on wind resource models to establish wind speed and energy generation expectations. Historically, anemometer loan programs have provided an affordable avenue for more accurate onsite wind resource assessment, and the lowering cost of lidar systems has shown similar advantages for more recent assessments. While a full 12 months of onsite wind measurement is the standard for correcting model-based long-term wind speed estimates for utility-scale wind farms, the time and capital investment involved in gathering onsite measurements must be reconciled with the energy needs and funding opportunities that drive expedient deployment of distributed wind projects. Much literature exists to quantify the performance of correcting long-term wind speed estimates with 1 or more years of observational data, but few studies explore the impacts of correcting with months-long observational periods. This study aims to answer the question of how short you can go in terms of the observational time period needed to make impactful improvements to model-based long-term wind speed estimates. Three algorithms, multivariable linear regression, adaptive regression splines, and regression trees, are evaluated for their skill at correcting long-term wind resource estimates from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis version 5 (ERA5) using months-long periods of observational data from 66 locations across the US. On average, correction with even 1 month of observations provides significant improvement over the baseline ERA5 wind speed estimates and produces median bias magnitudes and relative errors within 0.22 m s −1 and 4 percentage points of the median bias magnitudes and relative errors achieved using the standard 12 months of data for correction. However, in cases when the shortest observational periods (1 to 2 months) used for correction are not well correlated with the overlapping ERA5 reference, the resultant long-term wind speed errors are worse than those produced using ERA5 without correction. Summer months, which are characterized by weaker relative wind speeds and standard deviations for most of the evaluation sites, tend to produce the worst results for long-term correction using months-long observations. The three tested algorithms perform similarly for long-term wind speed bias; however, regression trees perform notably worse than multivariable linear regression and adaptive regression splines in terms of correlation when using 6 months or less of observational data for correction. Translating the analysis to wind energy, median relative errors in the capacity factor are on average within 10 % using 1 month of training. If the observation period used for correction is not well correlated with the reference data, however, misrepresentation of the observed capacity factor can be substantial. The risk associated with poor correlation between the observed and reference datasets decreases with increasing training period length. In the worst-correlation scenarios, the median capacity factor relative errors from using 1, 3, and 6 months are within 47 %, 26 %, and 16 %, respectively.

17 WIND ENERGY↗

DOE OSTI2023

CCN data from TAMU TRACER campaign in the Houston TX region from July to September 2022

During TRACER, the Texas A&M Rapid Onsite Atmospheric Measurements Van (ROAM-V) was deployed to capture airmasses behind (maritime) and ahead (continental) of the passage of the sea-breeze front through Houston. On select sampling days, ROAM-V sampled in the morning/mid-day on the coast and then transited to a second inland site for the afternoon/evening. The suite of instruments deployed on ROAM-V included a Condensation Particle Counter (CPC; GRIMM Model 5.403 CPC), Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS; TSI 3750 detector, TSI 3082 classifier, TSI 3088 neutralizer, TSI 3081A Differential Mobility Analyzer), Cloud Condensation Nuclei counter (Droplet Measurement Technologies CCN Counter), micro pulse lidar (Droplet Measurement Technologies Micro Pulse LiDAR (miniMPL)), and a Davis Rotating Uniform size-cut Monitor (DRUM; DRUMAir 4-DRUM). Before sampling at each location, the latitude and longitude were recorded using the GPS on the phone application “My Altitude”. Onboard the ROAM-V, aerosol samples are drawn through a shared isokinetic inlet at a flow rate ranging from 3.5 to 7.0 LPM. A portion of this flow is directed through a cyclone impactor (Brechtel, Inc. Model SCC 0.732) and 0.5 LPM is directed to the CCN. To calculate particle losses, we used a two-step method. First, the measured SMPS size distributions were used to calculate particle loss through the inlet during sampling. Second, the corrected SMPS data was used to calculate the average of the total losses per scan down the CCN line. Then, the correction was applied to the CCN data. This calculation was done separately for each deployment location due to changes in the measured size distributions between locations. Particle loss from diffusion (based on Kesten, 1991 and Gormley, 1949), inertial impaction in 90-degree bends (based on Aerosol Measurement, 2011 and Crane, 1977), and cyclone impactor efficiency (based on Dirgo, 1985) were included in the loss calculation. When the SMPS was not sampling at a location (in the case of an instrument malfunction or operator error), the reported CPC data was corrected with an average of the total losses for the entire campaign at the specified deployment location (e.g., if we needed to correct Galveston data, then the average of all calculated losses at Galveston was taken). These flatline corrections were used for all data on 22/07/13, 22/07/20, 22/07/22, and the data from Galveston on 22/08/09. The supersaturation uncertainty is estimated conservatively at +/- 0.03%, where variation in the inlet temperature, pressure, and calibration technique prevents a more accurate measurement. Confidence in the reported supersaturation measurements is based on a pre-campaign calibration (following the methods from our previous work and Deng, 2014 based on Rose, 2008) in addition to inter-comparisons with the DOE for two days (22/08/18 and 22/09/01) where TAMU was co-located with AMF1. The inter-comparisons show good agreement between our instrument and the DOEs instrument on both days at all supersaturations. After the last inter-comparison on 22/09/01, there was no indication of a malfunction by our instrument through the rest of the campaign. Unfortunately, the instrument was dropped during demobilization. A post-campaign calibration was conducted, which showed a substantial departure from the pre-campaign calibration. The drop may have damaged the instrument’s ability to produce the desired supersaturations. Therefore, we do consider the data after 22/09/01 to be correct, but it should be used with caution. The CCN counter sampled for 3 minutes at each supersaturation setpoint (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%). At the end of a cycle, the instrument was set to 0.01% supersaturation for 5 minutes. The data is comprised of the last 60 seconds of each supersaturation set point (0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0, and 1.2%) to ensure the instrument stabilized and was able to reach thermal equilibrium. We removed the data during the periods where there were operational difficulties, setup, or maintenance. This data was collected for ARM Field Campaign AFC07055 and supported by DOE ASR grant DE-SC0021047. For any further questions, please feel free to contact the instrument PI, Sarah D. Brooks, sbrooks@tamu.edu. Rose et. al. Calibration and Measurement Uncertainties of a Continuous-Flow Cloud Condensation Nuclei Counter (DMT-CCNC): CCN Activation of Ammonium Sulfate and Sodium Chloride Aerosol Particles in Theory and Experiment. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 8, 1153-1179, 2008. Deng et. al. Using Raman Microspectroscopy to Determine Chemical Composition and Mixing State of Airborne Marine Aerosols over the Pacific Ocean. Aerosol Science and Technology, Vol 48, Issue 2, 2014. Kesten et. al. Calibration of a TSI Model 3025 Ultrafine Condensation Particle Counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 15:2, 107-111, 1991. Gormley et. al. Diffusion from a Stream Flowing through a Cylindrical Tube. Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol 52, 163-169, 1948. Aerosol Measurement: Principles, Techniques, and Applications, Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2011. Crane et. al. Inertial Deposition of Particles in a Bent Pipe. Journal of Aerosol Science, Vol 8, 161-170, 1977. Dirgo et. al. Cyclone Collection Efficiency: Comparison of Experimental Results with Theoretical Predictions. Aerosol Science and Technology, 4:4, 401-415, 1985.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Clarifying remotely-retrieved precipitation of shallow marine clouds from the NSF/NCAR Gulfstream V

Precipitation is a key process within the shallow cloud lifecycle. The Cloud System Evolution in the Trades (CSET) campaign included the first deployment of a 94 GHz Doppler radar and 532 nm lidar. Despite a larger sampling volume, initial mean radar/lidar retrieved rain rates (Schwartz et al. 2019) based on the upward-pointing remote sensor datasets are systematically less than those measured by in-situ precipitation probes in the cumulus regime. Subsequent retrieval improvements produce rainrates that compare better to in-situ values, but still underestimate. Retrieved shallow cumulus drop sizes can remain too small and too few, with an overestimated shape parameter narrowing the raindrop size distribution too much. Three potential causes for the discrepancy are explored: the gamma functional fit to the dropsize distribution, attenuation by rain and cloud water, and an underaccounting of Mie dampening of the reflectivity. A truncated exponential fit may represent the dropsizes below a showering cumulus cloud more realistically, although further work would be needed to fully evaluate the impact of a different dropsize representation upon the retrieval. The rain attenuation is within the measurement uncertainty of the radar. Mie dampening of the reflectivity is shown to be significant, in contrast to previous stratocumulus campaigns with lighter rain rates, and may be difficult to constrain well with the remote measurements. An alternative approach combines an a priori determination of the dropsize distribution width based on the in-situ data with the mean radar Doppler velocity and reflectivity. This can produce realistic retrievals, although a more comprehensive assessment is needed to better characterize the retrieval errors.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2022

Autonomous System Subversion Tactics: Prototypes and Recommended Countermeasures

One of the fielding requirements for Advanced and Small Modular Reactors (AR/SMR) is the ability to support remote and autonomous operations. Autonomous Control Systems (ACS) are found on platforms such as Autonomous Space Vehicles, Cruise Missiles, and advanced driver-assistance systems. Each of these ACS implementations depends upon a set of decision support subsystems responsible for supporting Autonomous Mission Managers (names vary based upon field and author preferences). These Autonomous Mission Managers receive inputs from system sensors (e.g., LIDAR collection from an automobile travelling down a street; transients from a nuclear reactor), and perform a set of classifications (e.g., Red Traffic Light; Small Pedestrian at 10m; Load Rejection; Single Coolant Pump Trip), and then use these classifications in combination with recommendation algorithms to achieve platform goals (e.g., Stop the Vehicle at the Traffic Light, Avoid the Small Pedestrian; Trip the Reactor to prevent a Safety Event). The design, implementation, and fielding of an ACS capability will alter the cyber-attack surface such that existing risk management plans will need to be updated to include how to protect and defend against data-science and decision-support-system attack classes. These attack classes would include protection of the design and training environments where algorithm selection and testing and training data would be obvious attack vectors. These attack classes would also require an informed set of detection and response procedures to identify anomalous behaviors and document best practices for anomaly assessment and vulnerability mitigation and remediation. Last year we published a Cyber Threat Assessment Methodology for Autonomous and Remote Operations for AR/SMRs along with a companion publication on Cyber Attack and Defense Use Cases. The focus of the methodology was on describing and enumerating ACS processes, components, and functions such that security engineers could: evaluate subversion options against the target; identify threat actor attributes and capabilities derived from each subversion option; and identify security controls and response countermeasures. The Use Cases document offered detailed methodology examples including an assessment of a Military Base SMR, an Autonomous System Decision Loop, and implementation of AR/SMR Machine Learning algorithms. Our proposal at the end of last year was to focus on implementation of subversion prototypes related to the last Use Case area: AR/SMR Machine Learning (ML) Algorithms. We included six attack scenarios in our Use Cases paper: a Poisoning Attack against ML functions implemented using an FPGA; a Trojaning Attack against ML classifiers exploiting the excitability of Nuclear Engineers; a Backdooring Attack against ML Training environments to ensure persistence of an attack vector; a False Positive Evasion Attack against multi-factor Access Control Systems using clever inputs; an Inference Attack against ML models by an Insider with access to the Operational environment; and an Adversarial Reprogramming Attack against a Material Access Control Video Surveillance System. At the beginning of this year these six attack scenarios were provided to our research teams at Georgia Tech and Idaho State University and each team successfully implemented a subversion attack against a ML implementation to include transient misclassifications. While this is a notable outcome from this type of research, this paper offers the reader insight into not only how to structure and execute these types of attacks, but into the thought process behind how the researcher investigated the problem space, performed initial algorithm implementation, and the trial-and-error behind arriving at the successful subversion prototypes. We include in this paper a set of associated Scenarios on how these subversion prototypes could be implemented and an initial set of guidance for AR/SMR architects, Nuclear Regulators, and Cyber Defenders to implement awareness and defense capabilities into their current operational portfolios.

42 ENGINEERING↗