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.
Functions started with an implicit definition - the dependency of some quantity on others. Functions were coined by Leibniz in 1673, were given the f(x) notation by Euler in 1734, were formalized in the language of set theory from around 1847 to 1939. Functions have since been further abstract, often capture and represent structure.
The NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC) was requested to support the development of a governing philosophy to provide a consistent and systematic approach for fracture control certification of additive manufacturing (AM) hardware that cannot be reliably inspected. The overall goal of the NESC assessment was to make progress toward a framework for general certification of un-inspectable fracture critical AM hardware and toward approaches for evaluating risks associated with these components. This report contains the results of the assessment.
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.
A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on data sourced from WestDAAT - Changed using a Site ID column to identify unique records to using aa combination of Site ID and Allocation ID - Removed the Water Management Area (WMA) column from the harmonized records. The replacement is a separate file which stores the relationship between allocations and WMAs. This allows for allocations to contribute to water right amounts to multiple WMAs during the subsequent cumulative process. - Added a column describing a water rights legal status - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category - Added an acre-foot (AF) column - Added a column for the classification of the right's owner v1.02 - Added a .RData file to the dataset as a convenience for anyone exploring our code. This is an internal file, and the one referenced in analysis scripts as the data objects are already in R data objects. v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description Here we present an updated database of Western U.S. water right records. This database provides consistent unique identifiers for each water right record, and a consistent categorization scheme that puts each water right record into one of seven broad use categories. These data were instrumental in conducting a study of the multi-sector dynamics of inter-sectoral water allocation changes though water markets (Grogan et al., *in review*). Specifically, the data were formatted for use as input to a process-based hydrologic model, Water Balance Model (WBM), with a water rights module (Grogan et al., *in review*). While this specific study motivated the development of the database presented here, water management in the U.S. West is a rich area of study (e.g., Anderson and Woosly, 2005; Tidwell, 2014; Null and Prudencio, 2016; Carney et al., 2021) so releasing this database publicly with documentation and usage notes will enable other researchers to do further work on water management in the U.S. West. We produced the water rights database presented here in four main steps: (1) data collection, (2) data quality control, (3) data harmonization, and (4) generation of cumulative water rights curves. Each of steps (1)-(3) had to be completed in order to produce (4), the final product that was used in the modeling exercise in Grogan et al. (*in review*). All data in each step is associated with a spatial unit called a Water Management Area (WMA), which is the unit of water right administration utilized by the state in which the right came from. Steps (2) and (3) required use to make assumptions and interpretation, and to remove records from the raw data collection. We describe each of these assumptions and interpretations below so that other researchers can choose to implement alternative assumptions an interpretation as fits their research aims. Motivation for Changing Data Sources The most significant change has been a switch from collecting the raw water rights directly from each state to using the water rights records presented in WestDAAT, a product of the Water Data Exchange (WaDE) Program under the Western States Water Council (WSWC). One of the main reasons for this is that each state of interest is a member of the WSWC, meaning that WaDE is partially funded by these states, as well as many universities. As WestDAAT is also a database with consistent categorization, it has allowed us to spend less time on data collection and quality control and more time on answering research questions. This has included records from water right sources we had previously not known about when creating v1.0 of this database. The only major downside to utilizing the WestDAAT records as our raw data is that further updates are tied to when WestDAAT is updated, as some states update their public water right records daily. However, as our focus is on cumulative water amounts at the regional scale, it is unlikely most records updates would have a significant effect on our results. The structure of WestDAAT led to several important changes to how HarWR is formatted. The most significant change is that WaDE has calculated a field known as `SiteUUID`, which is a unique identifier for the Point of Diversion (POD), or where the water is drawn from. This separate from `AllocationNativeID`, which is the identifier for the allocation of water, or the amount of water associated with the water right. It should be noted that it is possible for a single site to have multiple allocations associated with it and for an allocation to be able to be extracted from multiple sites. The site-allocation structure has allowed us to adapt a more consistent, and hopefully more realistic, approach in organizing the water right records than we had with HarDWR v1.0. This was incredibly helpful as the raw data from many states had multiple water uses within a single field within a single row of their raw data, and it was not always clear if the first water use was the most important, or simply first alphabetically. WestDAAT has already addressed this data quality issue. Furthermore, with v1.0, when there were multiple records with the same water right ID, we selected the largest volume or flow amount and disregarded the rest. As WestDAAT was already a common structure for disparate data formats, we were better able to identify sites with multiple allocations and, perhaps more importantly, allocations with multiple sites. This is particularly helpful when an allocation has sites which cross WMA boundaries, instead of just assigning the full water amount to a single WMA we are now able to divide the amount of water between the number of relevant WMAs. As it is now possible to identify allocations with water used in multiple WMAs, it is no longer practical to store this information within a single column. Instead the stAllocationToWMATab.csv file was created, which is an allocation by WMA matrix containing the percent Place of Use area overlap with each WMA. We then use this percentage to divide the allocation's flow amount between the given WMAs during the cumulation process to hopefully provide more realistic totals of water use in each area. However, not every state provides areas of water use, so like HarDWR v1.0, a hierarchical decision tree was used to assign each allocation to a WMA. First, if a WMA could be identified based on the allocation ID, then that WMA was used; typically, when available, this applied to the entire state and no further steps were needed. Second was the spatial analysis of Place of Use to WMAs. Third was a spatial analysis of the POD locations to WMAs, with the assumption that allocation's POD is within the WMA it should belong to; if an allocation still had multiple WMAs based on its POD locations, then the allocation's flow amount would be divided equally between all WMAs. The fourth, and final, process was to include water allocations which spatially fell outside of the state WMA boundaries. This could be due to several reasons, such as coordinate errors / imprecision in the POD location, imprecision in the WMA boundaries, or rights attached with features, such as a reservoir, which crosses state boundaries. To include these records, we decided for any POD which was within one kilometer of the state's edge would be assigned to the nearest WMA. Other Changes WestDAAT has Allowed In addition to a more nuanced and consistent method of assigning water right's data to WMAs, there are other benefits gained from using the WestDAAT dataset. Among those is a consistent categorization of a water right's legal status. In HarDWR v1.0, legal status was effectively ignored, which led to many valid concerns about the quality of the database related to the amounts of water the rights allowed to be claimed. The main issue was that rights with legal status' such as "application withdrawn", "non-active", or "cancelled" were included within HarDWR v1.0. These, and other water rights status' which were deemed to not be in use have been removed from this version of the database. Another major change has been the addition of the "unspecified water source category. This is water that can come from either surface water or groundwater, or the source of which is unknown. The addition of this source category brings the total number of categories to three. Due to reviewer feedback, we decided to add the acre-foot (AF) column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. We added the ownerClassification column so that the data may be more applicable to a wider audience. File Descriptions The dataset is a series of various files organized by state sub-directories. In addition, each file begins with the state's name, in case the file is separate from its sub-directory for some reason. After the state name is the text which describes the contents of the file. Here is each file described in detail. Note that st is a placeholder for the state's name. stFullRecords_HarmonizedRights.csv: A file of the complete water records for each state. The column headers for each of this type of file are: state - The name of the state to which the allocations belong to. FIPS - The two digit numeric state ID code. siteID - The site location ID for POD locations. A site may have multiple allocations, which are the actual amount of water which can be drawn. In a simplified hypothetical, a farm stead may have an allocation for "irrigation" and an allocation for "domestic" water use, but the water is drawn from the same pumping equipment. It should be noted that many of the site ID appear to have been added by WaDE, and therefore may not be recognized by a given state's water rights database. allocationID - The allocation ID for the water right. For most states this is the water right ID, and what is recommended to use should a right be looked up on a given state's water rights database. The water amounts associated with these IDs tend to be finer scaled than those associated with siteID. It should be noted that some allocations may be extracted from multiple sites, particularly for larger Places of Use. ownerClassification - A classification of the types of owners for water rights. The most common is `Private` which incorporates a wide range of entities. Several classifications would be grouped into a government category, most of which are for the U.S. Federal Government. These allocations could be listed as "Federal", "United States of America", or as the names of any number of federal agencies. The last major grouping of entities is for "Native American"s. priorityDate - The date we use as the water right priority date for our modeling analysis. This is the legal priority date when it is available. However, for some rights, specifically from California and New Mexico, we used a pseudo priority date (e.g. well completion date or start of well drilling date) when a legal priority date was not available. The most questionable dates come from New Mexico, where the only date associated with certain water right records was the date the allocation was recorded in the database. As the allocation record creation tended to be within a few months of the filing of the application of the water right, from manually double checking the water rights, and our analysis focuses on aggregating water rights on the timescale of years, we determined it was acceptable to use such dates to include as many records as possible. primaryBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category for the primary water use at the PoD site. allocationBeneficialUse - From the numerous state water use categories, WaDE categorized them into 21 categories for WestDAAT. This column is the original WaDE category
This brief summarizes a collection of state- and utility-commissioned value-of-solar (VoS) studies and related literature, with a focus on who commissioned the study, which value and cost categories were discussed and/or quantified, and the methods used. Our objective is to compile information on prior VoS studies to inform state regulators and other stakeholders that may pursue related studies or integrate findings into rate design. The brief is organized into three parts: 1) an introduction to distributed solar photovoltaic (DPV) compensation; 2) a review of theoretical research on VoS; and 3) a review of VoS studies. The vast majority of VoS studies have served an informational role of quantifying the net benefits of PV. Three studies were commissioned in states or utility service territories that subsequently implemented VoS tariffs in California, New York, and Austin, Texas. When applied as a tariff, VoS aims to compensate PV output as efficiently as possible by doing so at rates that reflect the marginal benefits and costs of PV through value and cost categories that may vary temporally and/or geographically. This could lead to higher compensation in locations and times where more PV output is more valuable and consequently drive adoption in those locations to provide more societal benefits. Value and cost factors can be broadly grouped into five categories: generation, transmission, distribution, other utility, and other social categories. Those conducting VoS studies must weigh various tradeoffs when deciding which categories to include and quantify. Tradeoffs include prioritizing values based on their magnitude of value or cost impact, as well as taking into account the feasibility of data collection and accurate quantification. Values of higher magnitude and estimation feasibility are quantified in the majority of studies, including the earliest of studies conducted in the 2000s and 2010s. Additionally, some values of higher magnitude but low feasibility in the earliest of studies have become quantifiable in recent years. There are some values with low average system-wide levels but very high magnitude in specific locations or hours. The value magnitude in some cases can be tied to DPV penetration with low value in areas with little congestion and/or low penetration and vice versa. In these cases, values that are easier to quantify are often incorporated, while those that are more difficult are often addressed via a placeholder value. The placeholder value is paired with a discussion around data needs and methods to improve future estimates, as well as a conversation about when these value categories may increase in magnitude and necessitate more rigorous quantification. This brief summarizes findings from two meta-analyses of VoS studies that took place between 2005 and 2018, as well as findings from four additional studies published from 2018 to 2023. Table ES-1 summarizes the various value and cost categories included in each respective study and whether they were quantified, discussed, or omitted. Values such as avoided energy, capacity, transmission capacity, line losses, and avoided environmental costs are quantified in every study. Some categories were deemed harder to quantify and less impactful at the time of the study, so they were discussed but not quantified (e.g., ancillary services). Other categories, including many at the distribution level, were very locationally and/or temporally specific and dependent on high DPV penetration. These were sometimes quantified and at other times discussed. Notably, when it came to utility costs, integration costs were discussed in all cases, though they were deemed to have a small impact. Other utility costs were omitted for the most part; however, the utility-commissioned study (by NorthWestern Energy in Montana) included both lost utility revenue and programmatic/administrative cost categories. While there are some similarities across studies, each had fairly unique methods that are detailed in the body of this brief.
A total of 12 mesoscale convective systems (MCSs) were investigated. The duration of the gust front, produced by each MCS, was used to classify the MCSs. Category 1 MCSs were defined as ones that produced a gust front and the gust front lasted for more than 6 h. There were 7 category 1 MCSs in the sample. Category 2 MCSs were defined as ones that produced a gust front and the gust front lasted for 6 h or less. There were 4 category 2 MCSs. The MCS of Case 12 was not categorized because the precipitation characteristics were similar to a squall line, rather than an MCS. All of the category 1 MCSs produced arc cloud complexes (ACCs), while only one of the category 2 MCSs produced an ACC. To determine if there were any differences in the characteristics between the MCSs of the two categories, composite analyses were accomplished. The analyses showed that there were significant differences in the characteristics of category 1 and 2 MCSs. Category 1 MCSs, on average, had higher thunderstorm heights, greater precipitation intensities, colder cloud top temperatures and produced larger magnitudes of surface divergence than category 2 MCSs.
A dataset within the Harmonized Database of Western U.S. Water Rights (HarDWR). For a detailed description of the database, please see the meta-record v2.0. Changelog v2.0 - Recalculated based on Harmonized Water Rights Records v2.0 sourced from WestDAAT - Added "Unspecified" was a water source category, and files associated with this category v1.01 - Updated the names of each file with an ID number less than 3 digits to include leading 0s v1.0 - Initial public release Description This product an updated version of the database used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al. in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (2024). This database contains 2,667 individual .csv files, three for each Water Management Area (WMA) in the 11-state region. File Naming WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either "S" for surface water rights, "G" for groundwater rights, or "U" for unspecified. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the [###] unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al. in review) For those whom may be interested in exploring our code more in depth, we are also making available an internal data file for convenience. The file is in .RData format and contains everything described above as well as some minor additional objects used within the code calculating the cumulative curves. For completeness, here is a detailed description of the various objects which can be found within the .RData file: states: A character vector containing the state names for those states in the study region. More importantly, the index of the state name is also the index in which that state's data can be found in the various following list objects. For example, if California is the second index in this object, the data for California will also be in the second index for each accompanying list. wmasRightsPersGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for groundwater. wmasRightsPersSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for surface water. wmasRightsPersUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The data frames in this object are the same as the above described .csv files, specifically for water from an unspecified source. wmasRightsTotsGrd: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for groundwater. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsSur: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for surface water. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmasRightsTotsUnsp: A list of nested lists of data frames. Each state has one entry in the top level list and consist of a list with one data frame per WMA. The values in the data frames of this object would be the equivalent to multiplying the CUML column by the sector percentage columns to create the sector total ft3s-1, specifically for water from an unspecified source. This object is provided for convenience to check out original total values, if desired. wmaIDByState: A list of data frames which contain the by state allocation by WMA matrix. There is a matrix for each state in a different data frame within the object.
Microcrater frequency distributions, determined for 11 Apollo 16 rocks and three Apollo 15 rocks, fall into four categories. Category 1 rocks (68415, 68416, 62235) are angular, cratered on one side only, and have moderate crater densities. Category 2 rocks (60016, 66075, 61175) are subrounded, cratered on all sides, and have distributions suggestive of the steady state. Category 3 rocks (61015, 62295) are subangular and cratered on only one side, but the crater frequency distributions have some of the characteristics of category 2 rocks. Category 4 rocks (15015, 15017, 15076, 60335) are angular, cratered on only one side, and have moderated to very low crater densities. The crater frequency distributions of categories 1 and 4 have properties indicating the possibility of estimating the time they were exposed to micrometeor bombardment. Category 1 rocks appear to have been exposed for 2 to 3 m.y. These rocks, particularly 68415, 68416, and 69935, may be ejecta from South Ray Crater, indicating an age of 2 to 3 m.y. for South Ray Crater. Category 4 rocks have been exposed for much shorter periods.
The present study evaluates the ability of a cloud-resolving model (CRM) to simulate the physical properties of tropical deep convective cloud objects identified from a Clouds and the Earth s Radiant Energy System (CERES) data product. The emphasis of this study is the comparisons among the small-, medium- and large-size categories of cloud objects observed during March 1998 and between the large-size categories of cloud objects observed during March 1998 (strong El Ni o) and March 2000 (weak La Ni a). Results from the CRM simulations are analyzed in a way that is consistent with the CERES retrieval algorithm and they are averaged to match the scale of the CERES satellite footprints. Cloud physical properties are analyzed in terms of their summary histograms for each category. It is found that there is a general agreement in the overall shapes of all cloud physical properties between the simulated and observed distributions. Each cloud physical property produced by the CRM also exhibits different degrees of disagreement with observations over different ranges of the property. The simulated cloud tops are generally too high and cloud top temperatures are too low except for the large-size category of March 1998. The probability densities of the simulated top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA) albedos for all four categories are underestimated for high albedos, while those of cloud optical depth are overestimated at its lowest bin. These disagreements are mainly related to uncertainties in the cloud microphysics parameterization and inputs such as cloud ice effective size to the radiation calculation. Summary histograms of cloud optical depth and TOA albedo from the CRM simulations of the large-size category of cloud objects do not differ significantly between the March 1998 and 2000 periods, consistent with the CERES observations. However, the CRM is unable to reproduce the significant differences in the observed cloud top height while it overestimates the differences in the observed outgoing longwave radiation and cloud top temperature between the two periods. Comparisons between the CRM results and the observations for most parameters in March 1998 consistently show that both the simulations and observations have larger differences between the large- and small-size categories than between the large- and medium-size, or between the medium- and small-size categories. However, the simulated cloud properties do not change as much with size as observed. These disagreements are likely related to the spatial averaging of the forcing data and the mismatch in time and in space between the numerical weather prediction model from which the forcing data are produced and the CERES observed cloud systems.
We consider the triality fusion category discovered in the c = 1 Kosterlitz-Thouless theory. We analyze this fusion category using the tools from the group theoretical fusion category and compute the simple lines, fusion rules and F-symbols. We then studied the physical implication of this fusion category including deriving the spin selection rule, computing the asymptotic density of states of irreducible representations of the fusion category symmetries, and analyzing its anomaly and constraints under the renormalization group flow. There is another set of F-symbols for the fusion categories with the same fusion rule known in the literature. We find these two solutions are different as they lead to different spin selection rules. This gives a complete list of the fusion categories with the same fusion rule by the classification result in.
For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. This product is the dataset used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al., in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (submission pending). This database contains 1,744 individual .csv files, two for each Water Management Area (WMA; see here) in the 11-state region. File naming convention: WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either S for surface water rights, or G for groundwater rights. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the ### unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al., in review)
For a detailed description of the database of which this record is only one part, please see the HarDWR meta-record. This product is the dataset used as input to the WBM model (Grogan et al., in review; Grogan et al. 2022), and is the result of the step creating cumulative water rights curves described in Lisk et al. (submission pending). This database contains 1,744 individual .csv files, two for each Water Management Area (WMA; see here) in the 11-state region. File naming convention: WMA_[###]_[X]W.csv, where [###] is the unique identifier for each WMA, and [X] is either S for surface water rights, or G for groundwater rights. Column headers in each file: Year: the priority date year CUML: the total cumulative water rights allocated up to this priority date year (ft3s-1) Irrigation: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Irrigation category up to this priority date year (%) Domestic: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Domestic category up to this priority date year (%) Livestock: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Livestock category up to this priority date year (%) Fish: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Fish category up to this priority date year (%) Industrial: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Industrial category up to this priority date year (%) Environmental: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Environmental category up to this priority date year (%) Other: The percent of cumulative water rights allocated to the Other category up to this priority date year (%) In addition to the database files, there is a companion .csv file, called stateWMAs_ID.csv. The main purpose of this file is to provide the means of translating between the ### unique identifier and the various other id of the WMA the file is attached to. This translation file has five columns, which are: basinNum: The official state given alpha-numeric identifier of the WMA basinName: the state provided English name of the area, where applicable state: the state name uniID: a unique identifier we created by concatenating the state name, and underscore, and the state numerical ID ID: a unique numeric identifier we created as a requirement for the files to be used within WBM (Grogan et al., in review) The code related to the creation of this dataset can be viewed within HarDWR GitHub Repository/dataCumulationCurves.
Summary charts of the following topics are presented: the Percentage of Critical Questions in Constrained and Robust Programs; the Executive Committee and AMAC Disposition of Critical Questions for Constrained and Robust Programs; and the Requirements for Ground-based Research and Flight Platforms for Constrained and Robust Programs. Data Tables are also presented and cover the following: critical questions from all Life Sciences Division Discipline Science Plans; critical questions listed by category and criticality; all critical questions which require ground-based research; critical questions that would utilize spacelabs listed by category and criticality; critical questions that would utilize Space Station Freedom (SSF) listed by category and criticality; critical questions that would utilize the SSF Centrifuge; facility listed by category and criticality; critical questions that would utilize a Moon base listed by category and criticality; critical questions that would utilize robotic missions listed by category and criticality; critical questions that would utilize free flyers listed by category and criticality; and critical questions by deliverables.
Category 1, Problems 1 and 2, Category 2, Problem 2, and Category 3, Problem 2 are solved computationally using the Dispersion-Relation-Preserving (DRP) scheme. All these problems are governed by the linearized Euler equations. The resolution requirements of the DRP scheme for maintaining low numerical dispersion and dissipation as well as accurate wave speeds in solving the linearized Euler equations are now well understood. As long as 8 or more mesh points per wavelength is employed in the numerical computation, high quality results are assured. For the first three categories of benchmark problems, therefore, the real challenge is to develop high quality numerical boundary conditions. For Category 1, Problems 1 and 2, it is the curved wall boundary conditions. For Category 2, Problem 2, it is the internal radiation boundary conditions inside the duct. For Category 3, Problem 2, they are the inflow and outflow boundary conditions upstream and downstream of the blade row. These are the foci of the present investigation. Special nonhomogeneous radiation boundary conditions that generate the incoming disturbances and at the same time allow the outgoing reflected or scattered acoustic disturbances to leave the computation domain without significant reflection are developed. Numerical results based on these boundary conditions are provided.
This publication contains the proceedings of the Fourth Computational Aeroacoustics (CAA) Workshop on Benchmark Problems. In this workshop, as in previous workshops, the problems were devised to gauge the technological advancement of computational techniques to calculate all aspects of sound generation and propagation in air directly from the fundamental governing equations. A variety of benchmark problems have been previously solved ranging from simple geometries with idealized acoustic conditions to test the accuracy and effectiveness of computational algorithms and numerical boundary conditions; to sound radiation from a duct; to gust interaction with a cascade of airfoils; to the sound generated by a separating, turbulent viscous flow. By solving these and similar problems, workshop participants have shown the technical progress from the basic challenges to accurate CAA calculations to the solution of CAA problems of increasing complexity and difficulty. The fourth CAA workshop emphasized the application of CAA methods to the solution of realistic problems. The workshop was held at the Ohio Aerospace Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, on October 20 to 22, 2003. At that time, workshop participants presented their solutions to problems in one or more of five categories. Their solutions are presented in this proceedings along with the comparisons of their solutions to the benchmark solutions or experimental data. The five categories for the benchmark problems were as follows: Category 1:Basic Methods. The numerical computation of sound is affected by, among other issues, the choice of grid used and by the boundary conditions. Category 2:Complex Geometry. The ability to compute the sound in the presence of complex geometric surfaces is important in practical applications of CAA. Category 3:Sound Generation by Interacting With a Gust. The practical application of CAA for computing noise generated by turbomachinery involves the modeling of the noise source mechanism as a vortical gust interacting with an airfoil. Category 4:Sound Transmission and Radiation. Category 5:Sound Generation in Viscous Problems. Sound is generated under certain conditions by a viscous flow as the flow passes an object or a cavity.