Engineering Papers⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Kenyon, Jaymes S.

Publications and source records attributed to Kenyon, Jaymes S..

6 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
DOE OSTI2023

Measurements and Model Improvement: Insight into NWP Model Error Using Doppler Lidar and Other WFIP2 Measurement Systems

Abstract Doppler-lidar wind-profile measurements at three sites were used to evaluate NWP model errors from two versions of NOAA’s 3-km-grid HRRR model, to see whether updates in the latest version 4 reduced errors when compared against the original version 1. Nested (750-m grid) versions of each were also tested to see how grid spacing affected forecast skill. The measurements were part of the field phase of the Second Wind Forecasting Improvement Project (WFIP2), an 18-month deployment into central Oregon–Washington, a major wind-energy-producing region. This study focuses on errors in simulating marine intrusions, a summertime, 600–800-m-deep, regional sea-breeze flow found to generate large errors. HRRR errors proved to be complex and site dependent. The most prominent error resulted from a premature drop in modeled marine-intrusion wind speeds after local midnight, when lidar-measured winds of greater than 8 m s −1 persisted through the next morning. These large negative errors were offset at low levels by positive errors due to excessive mixing, complicating the interpretation of model “improvement,” such that the updates to the full-scale versions produced mixed results, sometimes enhancing but sometimes degrading model skill. Nesting consistently improved model performance, with version 1’s nest producing the smallest errors overall. HRRR’s ability to represent the stages of sea-breeze forcing was evaluated using radiation budget, surface-energy balance, and near-surface temperature measurements available during WFIP2. The significant site-to-site differences in model error and the complex nature of these errors mean that field-measurement campaigns having dense arrays of profiling sensors are necessary to properly diagnose and characterize model errors, as part of a systematic approach to NWP model improvement. Significance Statement Dramatic increases in NWP model skill will be required over the coming decades. This paper describes the role of major deployments of accurate profiling sensors in achieving that goal and presents an example from the Second Wind Forecast Improvement Program (WFIP2). Wind-profile data from scanning Doppler lidars were used to evaluate two versions of HRRR, the original and an updated version, and nested versions of each. This study focuses on the ability of updated HRRR versions to improve upon predicting a regional sea-breeze flow, which was found to generate large errors by the original HRRR. Updates to the full-scale HRRR versions produced mixed results, but the finer-mesh versions consistently reduced model errors.

Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences↗
DOE OSTI2021

Doppler-Lidar Evaluation of HRRR-Model Skill at Simulating Summertime Wind Regimes in the Columbia River Basin during WFIP2

Complex-terrain locations often have repeatable near-surface wind patterns, such as synoptic gap flows and local thermally forced flows. An example is the Columbia River Valley in east-central Oregon-Washington, a significant wind-energy-generation region and the site of the Second Wind-Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP2). Data from three Doppler lidars deployed during WFIP2 define and characterize summertime wind regimes and their large-scale contexts, and provide insight into NWP model errors by examining differences in the ability of a model [NOAA’s High-Resolution Rapid-Refresh (HRRR-version1)] to forecast wind-speed profiles for different regimes. Seven regimes were identified based on daily time series of the lidar-measured rotor-layer winds, which then suggested two broad categories. First, in three regimes the primary dynamic forcing was the large-scale pressure gradient. Second, in two regimes the dominant forcing was the diurnal heating-cooling cycle (regional sea-breeze-type dynamics), including the marine intrusion previously described, which generates strong nocturnal winds over the region. The other two included a hybrid regime and a non-conforming regime. For the large-scale pressure-gradient regimes, HRRR had wind-speed biases of ~1 m s -1 and RMSEs of 2-3 m s -1 . Errors were much larger for the thermally forced regimes, owing to the premature demise of the strong nocturnal flow in HRRR. Thus, the more dominant the role of surface heating in generating the flow, the larger the errors. Major errors could result from surface heating of the atmosphere, boundary-layer responses to that heating, and associated terrain interactions. Finally, measurement/modeling research programs should be aimed at determining which modeled processes produce the largest errors, so those processes can be improved and errors reduced.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2020

Wind ramp events validation in NWP forecast models during the second Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP2) using the Ramp Tool and Metric (RT&M)

The second Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP2) is a multi-agency field campaign held in the Columbia Gorge area (October 2015 - March 2017). The main goal of the project is to understand and improve the forecast skill of numerical weather prediction (NWP) models in complex terrain, particularly beneficial for the wind energy industry. This region is well-known for its excellent wind resource. One of the biggest challenges for wind power production is the accurate forecasting of wind ramp events (large changes of generated power over short periods of time). Poor forecasting of the ramps requires large and sudden adjustments in conventional power generation, ultimately increasing the costs of power. A Ramp Tool and Metric (RT&M) was developed during the first WFIP experiment, held in the U.S. Great Plains (September 2011 - August 2012). The RT&M was designed to explicitly measure the skill of NWP models at forecasting wind ramp events. Here we apply the RT&M to 80-m (turbine hub-height) wind speeds measured by 19 sodars and 3 lidars, and to forecasts from the High Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR), 3-km, and from the High Resolution Rapid Refresh Nest (HRRRNEST), 750-m horizontal grid spacing, models. The diurnal and seasonal distribution of ramp events are analyzed, finding a noticeable diurnal variability for spring and summer but less for fall and especially winter. Also, winter has fewer ramps compared to the other seasons. The model skill at forecasting ramp events, including the impact of the modification to the model physical parameterizations, was finally investigated.

Djalalova, Irina V.↗
DOE OSTI2019

Improving Wind Energy Forecasting through Numerical Weather Prediction Model Development

The primary goal of the Second Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP2) is to advance the state-of-the-art of wind energy forecasting in complex terrain. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive 18-month field measurement campaign was conducted in the region of the Columbia River basin. The observations were used to diagnose and quantify systematic forecast errors in the operational High-Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR) model during weather events of particular concern to wind energy forecasting. Examples of such events are cold pools, gap flows, thermal troughs/marine pushes, mountain waves, and topographic wakes. WFIP2 model development has focused on the boundary layer and surface-layer schemes, cloud–radiation interaction, the representation of drag associated with subgrid-scale topography, and the representation of wind farms in the HRRR. Additionally, refinements to numerical methods have helped to improve some of the common forecast error modes, especially the high wind speed biases associated with early erosion of mountain–valley cold pools. This study describes the model development and testing undertaken during WFIP2 and demonstrates forecast improvements. Specifically, WFIP2 found that mean absolute errors in rotor-layer wind speed forecasts could be reduced by 5%–20% in winter by improving the turbulent mixing lengths, horizontal diffusion, and gravity wave drag. The model improvements made in WFIP2 are also shown to be applicable to regions outside of complex terrain. Ongoing and future challenges in model development will also be discussed.

17 WIND ENERGY↗
DOE OSTI2019

Impact of model improvements on 80 m wind speeds during the second Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP2)

Abstract. During the second Wind Forecast Improvement Project (WFIP2; October 2015–March 2017, held in the Columbia River Gorge and Basin area of eastern Washington and Oregon states), several improvements to the parameterizations used in the High Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR – 3 km horizontal grid spacing) and the High Resolution Rapid Refresh Nest (HRRRNEST – 750 m horizontal grid spacing) numerical weather prediction (NWP) models were tested during four 6-week reforecast periods (one for each season). For these tests the models were run in control (CNT) and experimental (EXP) configurations, with the EXP configuration including all the improved parameterizations. The impacts of the experimental parameterizations on the forecast of 80 m wind speeds (wind turbine hub height) from the HRRR and HRRRNEST models are assessed, using observations collected by 19 sodars and three profiling lidars for comparison. Improvements due to the experimental physics (EXP vs. CNT runs) and those due to finer horizontal grid spacing (HRRRNEST vs. HRRR) and the combination of the two are compared, using standard bulk statistics such as mean absolute error (MAE) and mean bias error (bias). On average, the HRRR 80 m wind speed MAE is reduced by 3 %–4 % due to the experimental physics. The impact of the finer horizontal grid spacing in the CNT runs also shows a positive improvement of 5 % on MAE, which is particularly large at nighttime and during the morning transition. Lastly, the combined impact of the experimental physics and finer horizontal grid spacing produces larger improvements in the 80 m wind speed MAE, up to 7 %–8 %. The improvements are evaluated as a function of the model's initialization time, forecast horizon, time of the day, season of the year, site elevation, and meteorological phenomena. Causes of model weaknesses are identified. Finally, bias correction methods are applied to the 80 m wind speed model outputs to measure their impact on the improvements due to the removal of the systematic component of the errors.

17 WIND ENERGY↗