Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Geomagnetic”

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.

At least 163 records · Page 9
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2022

Effects-Based Monitoring of Geomagnetically-Induced Current Using a Convolutional Neural Network

Geomagnetically-induced current (GIC) due to space weather can flow in the power grid causing undesirable effects such as transformer overheating, misoperation of protection devices, and potential blackouts. It is therefore important to monitor GIC in the power grid to improve online situational awareness and decision-making of system operators during a geomagnetic disturbance. To avoid the costly installation of GIC monitors at transformers’ neutrals, it is desirable to find correlations between GIC and already-monitored parameters. Hence, this work proposed the use of a convolutional neural network (CNN) to compute GIC amplitudes from learned patterns in the time-series data of transformer even harmonic currents. Using an electromagnetic transient program, GIC injection simulations were performed for a modeled Dominion Energy Virginia (DEV) substation with two 504 MVA, 500/230 kV transformers. Data collected from these offline simulations were used to train the CNN to provide online GIC monitoring. Testing the CNN performance involved using real GIC measurements from published literature and from a physical GIC monitor in the DEV area. Finally, the results showed that the proposed method was able to provide GIC readings with a root mean squared error of 1.56 A/phase (equivalent to an average accuracy of 94%) for these real GIC waveforms.

42 ENGINEERING↗
NASA NTRS1994

Do Coronal Holes Cause 27 Day Recurring Geomagnetic Storms?

We examine 3 years of interplanetary data and geomagnetic activity indices (1973-1975) to determine the causes of geomagnetic storms and substorms during the descending phase of the solar cycle. In this paper, we specifically studied the year 1974 where two long lasting coronating streams existed.

geomagnetic storms geomagnetic activity interplane↗
DOE OSTI2020

Electron Dropout Events and Flux Enhancements Associated With Geomagnetic Storms Observed by PROBA-V/Energetic Particle Telescope From 2013 to 2019

Electron flux variations for E > 500 keV during geomagnetic storms are investigated using the Energetic Particle Telescope (EPT). This detector launched in May 2013 on board the satellite PROBA-V at an altitude of 820 km was designed to provide uncontaminated spectra of electrons, protons, and alpha particles. Electron flux dropout events are observed during the main phase of each storm and even during substorms: a rapid reduction of the electron flux is noted throughout the outer electron radiation belt at all energies above about 0.5 MeV on timescales of a few hours. The electron spectrograms measured by the EPT between 2013 and 2019 show that after each geomagnetic storm, dropout events are followed by a flux enhancement starting first at low L values, and reaching the slot or even the inner belt for the strongest storms. We determine the link between Disturbed Storm Time (Dst) and the minimum value of the L-shell where the dropouts deplete the outer belt, as well as the nonlinear relation between Dst and the minimum L-shell where the flux penetrates in the slot region or even the inner belt during the storms. Dropouts appear at all energies measured by EPT and penetrate down to $\textit{L}$~3.5 for the strongest events. Dropouts are observed at Low Earth Orbit each time Dst has an inverted peak < –40 nT. Flux enhancements appear at lower L only for big storm events with Dst < –50 nT. They penetrate down to an impenetrable barrier with a minimum L-shell related to Dst and to the energy. For E > 1 MeV, this limit is also linked to the plasmapause position.

58 GEOSCIENCES↗
NASA NTRS1996

Coronal Hole-Active Region-Current Sheet (CHARCS) Association with Intense Interplanetary and Geomagnetic Activity

Intense geomagnetic storms (Dst<or equal to -100nT) have been associated with interplanetary structures involving large-intensity (B(sub 3)<or equal to 10nT) and long-duration (T< or equal to 3 hours) values of the southward component of the IMF. We show that near solar maximum, the solar origin of such structures seems to be associated with active regions(flares and/or filament eruptions) ocurring close to the streamer belt and to growing low altitude coronal holes. It is also shown that such type of coronal holes had a dual-peak solar cycle distribution during solar cycle 21, similar to that previously reported for the above mentioned interplanetary and geomagnetic phenomena.

geomagnetic storms IMF solar maximum flares filame↗
NASA NTRS2012

Comparison of Dst Forecast Models for Intense Geomagnetic Storms

We have compared six disturbance storm time (Dst) forecast models using 63 intense geomagnetic storms (Dst <=100 nT) that occurred from 1998 to 2006. For comparison, we estimated linear correlation coefficients and RMS errors between the observed Dst data and the predicted Dst during the geomagnetic storm period as well as the difference of the value of minimum Dst (Delta Dst(sub min)) and the difference in the absolute value of Dst minimum time (Delta t(sub Dst)) between the observed and the predicted. As a result, we found that the model by Temerin and Li gives the best prediction for all parameters when all 63 events are considered. The model gives the average values: the linear correlation coefficient of 0.94, the RMS error of 14.8 nT, the Delta Dst(sub min) of 7.7 nT, and the absolute value of Delta t(sub Dst) of 1.5 hour. For further comparison, we classified the storm events into two groups according to the magnitude of Dst. We found that the model of Temerin and Lee is better than the other models for the events having 100 <= Dst < 200 nT, and three recent models (the model of Wang et al., the model of Temerin and Li, and the model of Boynton et al.) are better than the other three models for the events having Dst <= 200 nT.

Geomagnetic Storms↗
NASA NTRS2014

Predicting Solar Cycle 24 Using a Geomagnetic Precursor Pair

We describe using Ap and F(10.7) as a geomagnetic-precursor pair to predict the amplitude of Solar Cycle 24. The precursor is created by using F(10.7) to remove the direct solar-activity component of Ap. Four peaks are seen in the precursor function during the decline of Solar Cycle 23. A recurrence index that is generated by a local correlation of Ap is then used to determine which peak is the correct precursor. The earliest peak is the most prominent but coincides with high levels of non-recurrent solar activity associated with the intense solar activity of October and November 2003. The second and third peaks coincide with some recurrent activity on the Sun and show that a weak cycle precursor closely following a period of strong solar activity may be difficult to resolve. A fourth peak, which appears in early 2008 and has recurrent activity similar to precursors of earlier solar cycles, appears to be the "true" precursor peak for Solar Cycle 24 and predicts the smallest amplitude for Solar Cycle 24. To determine the timing of peak activity it is noted that the average time between the precursor peak and the following maximum is approximately equal to 6.4 years. Hence, Solar Cycle 24 would peak during 2014. Several effects contribute to the smaller prediction when compared with other geomagnetic-precursor predictions. During Solar Cycle 23 the correlation between sunspot number and F(10.7) shows that F(10.7) is higher than the equivalent sunspot number over most of the cycle, implying that the sunspot number underestimates the solar-activity component described by F(10.7). During 2003 the correlation between aa and Ap shows that aa is 10 % higher than the value predicted from Ap, leading to an overestimate of the aa precursor for that year. However, the most important difference is the lack of recurrent activity in the first three peaks and the presence of significant recurrent activity in the fourth. While the prediction is for an amplitude of Solar Cycle 24 of 65 +/- 20 in smoothed sunspot number, a below-average amplitude for Solar Cycle 24, with maximum at 2014.5+/-0.5, we conclude that Solar Cycle 24 will be no stronger than average and could be much weaker than average.

predictions↗
NASA NTRS2014

Two-Step Forecast of Geomagnetic Storm Using Coronal Mass Ejection and Solar Wind Condition

To forecast geomagnetic storms, we had examined initially observed parameters of coronal mass ejections (CMEs) and introduced an empirical storm forecast model in a previous study. Now we suggest a two-step forecast considering not only CME parameters observed in the solar vicinity but also solar wind conditions near Earth to improve the forecast capability. We consider the empirical solar wind criteria derived in this study (Bz ≤ −5 nT or Ey ≥ 3 mV/m for t ≥ 2 h for moderate storms with minimum Dst less than −50 nT) (i.e. Magnetic Field Magnitude, B (sub z) less than or equal to -5 nanoTeslas or duskward Electrical Field, E (sub y) greater than or equal to 3 millivolts per meter for time greater than or equal to 2 hours for moderate storms with Minimum Disturbance Storm Time, Dst less than -50 nanoTeslas) and a Dst model developed by Temerin and Li (2002, 2006) (TL [i.e. Temerin Li] model). Using 55 CME-Dst pairs during 1997 to 2003, our solar wind criteria produce slightly better forecasts for 31 storm events (90 percent) than the forecasts based on the TL model (87 percent). However, the latter produces better forecasts for 24 nonstorm events (88 percent), while the former correctly forecasts only 71 percent of them. We then performed the two-step forecast. The results are as follows: (i) for 15 events that are incorrectly forecasted using CME parameters, 12 cases (80 percent) can be properly predicted based on solar wind conditions; (ii) if we forecast a storm when both CME and solar wind conditions are satisfied (∩, i.e. cap operator - the intersection set that is comprised of all the elements that are common to both), the critical success index becomes higher than that from the forecast using CME parameters alone, however, only 25 storm events (81 percent) are correctly forecasted; and (iii) if we forecast a storm when either set of these conditions is satisfied (∪, i.e. cup operator - the union set that is comprised of all the elements of either or both), all geomagnetic storms are correctly forecasted.

geomagnetic storm forecast↗
NASA NTRS2017

Thermosphere Global Time Response to Geomagnetic Storms Caused by Coronal Mass Ejections

We investigate, for the first time with a spatial superposed epoch analysis study, the thermosphere global time response to 159 geomagnetic storms caused by coronal mass ejections (CMEs) observed in the solar wind at Earth's orbit during the period of September 2001 to September 2011. The thermosphere neutral mass density is obtained from the CHAMP (CHAllenge Mini-Satellite Payload) and GRACE (Gravity Recovery Climate Experiment) spacecraft. All density measurements are intercalibrated against densities computed by the Jacchia-Bowman 2008 empirical model under the regime of very low geomagnetic activity. We explore both the effects of the pre-CME shock impact on the thermosphere and of the storm main phase onset by taking their times of occurrence as zero epoch times (CME impact and interplanetary magnetic field Bz southward turning) for each storm. We find that the shock impact produces quick and transient responses at the two high-latitude regions with minimal propagation toward lower latitudes. In both cases, thermosphere is heated in very high latitude regions within several minutes. The Bz southward turning of the storm onset has a fast heating manifestation at the two high-latitude regions, and it takes approximately 3 h for that heating to propagate down to equatorial latitudes and to globalize in the thermosphere. This heating propagation is presumably accomplished, at least in part, with traveling atmospheric disturbances and complex meridional wind structures. Current models use longer lag times in computing thermosphere density dynamics during storms. Our results suggest that the thermosphere response time scales are shorter and should be accordingly adjusted in thermospheric empirical models.

mass ejections↗
DOE OSTI2024

Geomagnetic Disturbance Uncertainty Quantification Modeling: An Electromagnetic Transient and Steady-State Simulation Based Approach

Geomagnetic disturbances have been shown to disrupt the operation of the bulk electrical system through low-frequency effects in the earth's magnetic field that in turn induce changing electrical fields on the earth's surface. As a result, geomagnetically induced currents flow in transmission lines, introducing the risk for widespread damage to high-voltage transformers and voltage collapse due to induced reactive power loss. In a previous paper, the authors showed how certain modeling assumptions can lead to results that are unacceptable in certain edge case scenarios. In this paper, the authors build on their previous results using modeling uncertainty quantification in order to compare the results from electromagnetic transient program modeling software, ATP, to the positive-sequence calculation software, PowerWorld.

Bretas, Arturo Suman↗
DOE OSTI2025

Impact of Geomagnetic Induced Current Neutral Blocking Devices on Distance Relays in Sub-transmission Networks with IBR

Geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) can flow through transmission lines during geomagnetic disturbances, such as solar flares or coronal mass ejections. These currents can cause problems like transformer saturation and equipment damage. The most common method of mitigating GICs involves installing GIC neutral blocking devices (NBDs) in transformer neutrals. However, the wide application of capacitive GIC blocking devices may have unintended adverse effects on other devices, such as distance protection relays. As the number of inverter-based resources being connected to the transmission and sub-transmission systems increases, the likelihood of a sub-transmission line protected by a distance relay connected to a transformer with NBDs is increasing. Therefore, distance relays fed by IBRs and transmission lines with GIC-NBDs must be studied. This paper studies the effect of GIC-NBDs on a 69kV sub-transmission line of various lengths fed by a 25 MVA IBR and synchronous source. This work focused on the behavior of the GIC-NBDs using the measured apparent phase-to-ground and phase-to-phase impedance calculated by the relay and the source impedance ratio (SIR) during various electrical faults.

Patel, Trupal R [Sandia National Laboratories (SNL↗
DOE OSTI2024

An Integrated Assessment of a G3 GMD Event on Large-Scale Power Grids: From Magnetometer Data to Geomagnetically Induced Current Analysis

Solar activities can cause geomagnetic disturbances (GMDs) that give rise to geomagnetically induced currents (GICs) which may compromise the reliability of the power system. In order to build more reliable models representing GMD interactions with the power grid, the power system’s detailed electrical model must be considered along with fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic and induced surface electric fields. Here, this study investigates the impact of incorporating spatially varying magnetic fields into surface electric field models on GMD risk metrics. A spatially independent magnetic field model and a spatially varying model are compared through simulations. To perform this analysis, the earth’s magnetic field disturbances are transformed into surface electric fields using respective one-dimensional earth conductivity models. Then, the modeling impact of these electric fields is studied using a 2,000-bus grid for Texas and a 25,000-bus grid for the northeast and mid- Atlantic regions of the United States. Simulation results reveal that the inclusion of spatially varying magnetic fields results in considerable differences in GMD risk metrics, highlighting the importance of accounting for spatial variability when assessing GMD risks in the power system.

24 POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION↗
NASA NTRS1968

B-L space and geomagnetic field models.

Geomagnetic field models compared in magnetic field strength-earth distance coordinates /B-L space/, noting geomagnetically trapped radiation flux ambiguities

Heckman, H. H.↗
NASA NTRS1969

On the cause of geomagnetic bays.

Geomagnetic bays produced by neutral sheet plasma earthward movement resulting from solar wind enlargement of geomagnetic tail

Cummings, W. D.↗
NASA NTRS1970

Empirical analytic transformations between geographic and corrected geomagnetic coordinates

Based upon a mathematical model of contours of constant corrected geomagnetic latitude in a polar projection of geographic coordinates, analytic equations are developed for converting geographic coordinates to corrected geomagnetic coordinates and vice versa. The equations were programmed for use on a small computer. This treatment is restricted to the Northern Hemisphere.

Comfort, R. H.↗