Engineering Papers⌕ Search

SEARCH · Engineering Papers

Results for “Error”

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 73 records · Page 4
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2000

Global Warming Estimation from MSU: Correction for Drift and Calibration Errors

Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) radiometer observations in Ch 2 (53.74 GHz), made in the nadir direction from sequential, sun-synchronous, polar-orbiting NOAA morning satellites (NOAA 6, 10 and 12 that have about 7am/7pm orbital geometry) and afternoon satellites (NOAA 7, 9, 11 and 14 that have about 2am/2pm orbital geometry) are analyzed in this study to derive global temperature trend from 1980 to 1998. In order to remove the discontinuities between the data of the successive satellites and to get a continuous time series, first we have used shortest possible time record of each satellite. In this way we get a preliminary estimate of the global temperature trend of 0.21 K/decade. However, this estimate is affected by systematic time-dependent errors. One such error is the instrument calibration error. This error can be inferred whenever there are overlapping measurements made by two satellites over an extended period of time. From the available successive satellite data we have taken the longest possible time record of each satellite to form the time series during the period 1980 to 1998 to this error. We find we can decrease the global temperature trend by about 0.07 K/decade. In addition there are systematic time dependent errors present in the data that are introduced by the drift in the satellite orbital geometry arises from the diurnal cycle in temperature which is the drift related change in the calibration of the MSU. In order to analyze the nature of these drift related errors the multi-satellite Ch 2 data set is partitioned into am and pm subsets to create two independent time series. The error can be assessed in the am and pm data of Ch 2 on land and can be eliminated. Observations made in the MSU Ch 1 (50.3 GHz) support this approach. The error is obvious only in the difference between the pm and am observations of Ch 2 over the ocean. We have followed two different paths to assess the impact of the errors on the global temperature trend. In one path the entire error is placed in the am data while in the other it is placed in the pm data. Global temperature trend is increased or decreased by about 0.03 K/decade depending upon this placement. Taking into account all random errors and systematic errors our analysis of MSU observations leads us to conclude that a conservative estimate of the global warming is 0. 11 (+-) 0.04 K/decade during 1980 to 1998.

Prabhakara, C.↗
NASA NTRS2011

Relative Effects of Trajectory Prediction Errors on the AAC Autoresolver

Trajectory prediction is fundamental to automated separation assurance. Every missed alert, false alert and loss of separation can be traced to one or more errors in trajectory prediction. These errors are a product of many different sources including wind prediction errors, inferred pilot intent errors, surveillance errors, navigation errors and aircraft weight estimation errors. This study analyzes the impact of six different types of errors on the performance of an automated separation assurance system composed of a geometric conflict detection algorithm and the Advanced Airspace Concept Autoresolver resolution algorithm. Results show that, of the error sources considered in this study, top-of-descent errors were the leading contributor to missed alerts and failed resolution maneuvers. Descent-speed errors were another significant contributor, as were cruise-speed errors in certain situations. The results further suggest that increasing horizontal detection and resolution standards are not effective strategies for mitigating these types of error sources.

Lauderdale, Todd↗
NASA NTRS2011

Quantifying Errors in TRMM-Based Multi-Sensor QPE Products Over Land in Preparation for GPM

Determining uncertainties in satellite-based multi-sensor quantitative precipitation estimates over land of fundamental importance to both data producers and hydro climatological applications. ,Evaluating TRMM-era products also lays the groundwork and sets the direction for algorithm and applications development for future missions including GPM. QPE uncertainties result mostly from the interplay of systematic errors and random errors. In this work, we will synthesize our recent results quantifying the error characteristics of satellite-based precipitation estimates. Both systematic errors and total uncertainties have been analyzed for six different TRMM-era precipitation products (3B42, 3B42RT, CMORPH, PERSIANN, NRL and GSMap). For systematic errors, we devised an error decomposition scheme to separate errors in precipitation estimates into three independent components, hit biases, missed precipitation and false precipitation. This decomposition scheme reveals hydroclimatologically-relevant error features and provides a better link to the error sources than conventional analysis, because in the latter these error components tend to cancel one another when aggregated or averaged in space or time. For the random errors, we calculated the measurement spread from the ensemble of these six quasi-independent products, and thus produced a global map of measurement uncertainties. The map yields a global view of the error characteristics and their regional and seasonal variations, reveals many undocumented error features over areas with no validation data available, and provides better guidance to global assimilation of satellite-based precipitation data. Insights gained from these results and how they could help with GPM will be highlighted.

Peters-Lidard, Christa D.↗
NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Characterization of OCO-2 and ACOS-GOSAT biases and errors for flux estimates

We characterize the magnitude of seasonally and spatially varying biases in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) Version 8 (v8) and the Atmospheric CO2 Observations from Space (ACOS) Greenhouse Gas Observing SATellite (GOSAT) version 7.3 (v7.3) satellite CO2 retrievals by comparisons to measurements collected by the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON), Atmospheric Tomography (ATom) experiment, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) and U. S. Department of Energy (DOE) aircraft, and surface stations. Although the ACOS-GOSAT estimates of the column averaged carbon dioxide (CO2) dry air mole fraction (XCO2) have larger random errors than the OCO-2 XCO2 estimates, and the space-based estimates over land have larger random errors than those over ocean, the systematic errors are similar across both satellites and surface types, 0.6 ± 0.1 ppm. We find similar estimates of systematic error whether dynamic versus geometric coincidences or ESRL/DOE aircraft versus TCCON are used for validation (over land), once validation and co-location errors are accounted for. We also find that areas with sparse throughput of good quality data (due to quality flags and preprocessor selection) over land have ~double the error of regions of high-throughput of good quality data. We characterize both raw and bias-corrected results, finding that bias correction improves systematic errors by a factor of 2 for land observations and improves errors by ~0.2 ppm for ocean. We validate the lowermost tropospheric (LMT) product for OCO-2 and ACOS-GOSAT by comparison to aircraft and surface sites, finding systematic errors of ~1.1 ppm, while having 2-3 times the variability of XCO2. We characterize the time and distance scales of correlations for OCO-2 XCO2 errors, and find error correlations on scales of 0.3 degrees, 5-10 degrees, and 60 days. We find comparable scale lengths for the bias correction term. Assimilation of the OCO-2 bias correction term is used to estimate flux errors resulting from OCO-2 seasonal biases, finding annual flux errors on the order of 0.3 and 0.4 PgC/yr for Transcom-3 ocean and land regions, respectively.

Susan S Kulawik↗
NASA NTRS2022

How Well do Multisatellite Products Capture the Space-Time Dynamics of Precipitation? Part II: Building an Error Model Through Spectral System Identification

Satellite precipitation products, as all quantitative estimates, come with some inherent degree of uncertainty. To associate a quantitative value of the uncertainty to each individual estimate, error modeling is necessary. Most of the error models proposed so far compute the uncertainty as a function of precipitation intensity only, and only at one specific spatio-temporal scale. We propose a spectral error model which accounts for the neighboring space-time dynamics of precipitation into the uncertainty quantification. Systematic distortions of the precipitation signal and random errors are characterized distinctively in every frequency-wavenumber band in the Fourier domain, to accurately characterize error across scales. The systematic distortions are represented as a deterministic space-time linear filtering term. The random errors are represented as a non-stationary additive noise. The spectral error model is applied to the IMERG multi satellite precipitation product and its parameters are estimated empirically through a system identification approach using the GV-MRMS gauge-radar measurements as reference (“truth”) over the eastern United States. The filtering term is found to be essentially low-pass. While traditional error models attribute most of the error variance to random errors, it is found here that the systematic filtering term explains 48% of the error variance at the native resolution of IMERG. This fact confirms that, at high resolution, filtering effects in satellite precipitation products cannot be ignored, and that the error cannot be represented as a purely random additive or multiplicative term. An important consequence is that precipitation estimates derived from totally different sources shall not be expected to automatically have statistically independent errors.

Precipitation↗
NASA NTRS2023

Characterization of Errors in Satellite-Based HCHO/NO 2 Tropospheric Column Ratios With Respect to Chemistry, Column-to-PBL Translation, Spatial Representation, and Retrieval Uncertainties

The availability of formaldehyde (HCHO) (a proxy for volatile organic compound reactivity) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) (a proxy for nitrogen oxides) tropospheric columns from ultraviolet–visible (UV–Vis) satellites has motivated many to use their ratios to gain some insights into the near-surface ozone sensitivity. Strong emphasis has been placed on the challenges that come with transforming what is being observed in the tropospheric column to what is actually in the planetary boundary layer (PBL) and near the surface; however, little attention has been paid to other sources of error such as chemistry, spatial representation, and retrieval uncertainties. Here we leverage a wide spectrum of tools and data to quantify those errors carefully. Concerning the chemistry error, a well-characterized box model constrained by more than 500 h of aircraft data from NASA's air quality campaigns is used to simulate the ratio of the chemical loss of HO 2 + RO 2 (LRO x ) to the chemical loss of NO x (LNO x ). Subsequently, we challenge the predictive power of HCHO/NO 2 ratios (FNRs), which are commonly applied in current research, in detecting the underlying ozone regimes by comparing them to LRO x /LNO x . FNRs show a strongly linear (R 2 =0.94) relationship with LRO x /LNO x , but only on the logarithmic scale. Following the baseline (i.e., ln(LRO x /LNO x ) = −1.0 ± 0.2) with the model and mechanism (CB06, r2) used for segregating NO x -sensitive from VOC-sensitive regimes, we observe a broad range of FNR thresholds ranging from 1 to 4. The transitioning ratios strictly follow a Gaussian distribution with a mean and standard deviation of 1.8 and 0.4, respectively. This implies that the FNR has an inherent 20 % standard error (1σ) resulting from not accurately describing the RO x –HO x cycle. We calculate high ozone production rates (PO 3 ) dominated by large HCHO × NO 2 concentration levels, a new proxy for the abundance of ozone precursors. The relationship between PO 3 and HCHO × NO 2 becomes more pronounced when moving towards NO x -sensitive regions due to nonlinear chemistry; our results indicate that there is fruitful information in the HCHO × NO 2 metric that has not been utilized in ozone studies. The vast amount of vertical information on HCHO and NO 2 concentrations from the air quality campaigns enables us to parameterize the vertical shapes of FNRs using a second-order rational function permitting an analytical solution for an altitude adjustment factor to partition the tropospheric columns into the PBL region. We propose a mathematical solution to the spatial representation error based on modeling isotropic semivariograms. Based on summertime-averaged data, the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) loses 12 % of its spatial information at its native resolution with respect to a high-resolution sensor like the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) (> 5.5 × 3.5 km 2 ). A pixel with a grid size of 216 km 2 fails at capturing ∼ 65 % of the spatial information in FNRs at a 50 km length scale comparable to the size of a large urban center (e.g., Los Angeles). We ultimately leverage a large suite of in situ and ground-based remote sensing measurements to draw the error distributions of daily TROPOMI and OMI tropospheric NO 2 and HCHO columns. At a 68 % confidence interval (1σ), errors pertaining to daily TROPOMI observations, either HCHO or tropospheric NO 2 columns, should be above 1.2–1.5 × 10 16 molec. cm −2 to attain a 20 %–30 % standard error in the ratio. This level of error is almost non-achievable with the OMI given its large error in HCHO. The satellite column retrieval error is the largest contributor to the total error (40 %–90 %) in the FNRs. Due to a stronger signal in cities, the total relative error (< 50 %) tends to be mild, whereas areas with low vegetation and anthropogenic sources (e.g., the Rocky Mountains) are markedly uncertain (> 100 %). Our study suggests that continuing development in the retrieval algorithm and sensor design and calibration is essential to be able to advance the application of FNRs beyond a qualitative metric.

Amir H. Souri↗
NASA NTRS2016

Performance Metrics, Error Modeling, and Uncertainty Quantification

A common set of statistical metrics has been used to summarize the performance of models or measurements-­ the most widely used ones being bias, mean square error, and linear correlation coefficient. They assume linear, additive, Gaussian errors, and they are interdependent, incomplete, and incapable of directly quantifying un­certainty. The authors demonstrate that these metrics can be directly derived from the parameters of the simple linear error model. Since a correct error model captures the full error information, it is argued that the specification of a parametric error model should be an alternative to the metrics-based approach. The error-modeling meth­odology is applicable to both linear and nonlinear errors, while the metrics are only meaningful for linear errors. In addition, the error model expresses the error structure more naturally, and directly quantifies uncertainty. This argument is further explained by highlighting the intrinsic connections between the performance metrics, the error model, and the joint distribution between the data and the reference.

Quantification↗
NASA NTRS1986

At least some errors are randomly generated (Freud was wrong)

An experiment was carried out to expose something about human error generating mechanisms. In the context of the experiment, an error was made when a subject pressed the wrong key on a computer keyboard or pressed no key at all in the time allotted. These might be considered, respectively, errors of substitution and errors of omission. Each of seven subjects saw a sequence of three digital numbers, made an easily learned binary judgement about each, and was to press the appropriate one of two keys. Each session consisted of 1,000 presentations of randomly permuted, fixed numbers broken into 10 blocks of 100. One of two keys should have been pressed within one second of the onset of each stimulus. These data were subjected to statistical analyses in order to probe the nature of the error generating mechanisms. Goodness of fit tests for a Poisson distribution for the number of errors per 50 trial interval and for an exponential distribution of the length of the intervals between errors were carried out. There is evidence for an endogenous mechanism that may best be described as a random error generator. Furthermore, an item analysis of the number of errors produced per stimulus suggests the existence of a second mechanism operating on task driven factors producing exogenous errors. Some errors, at least, are the result of constant probability generating mechanisms with error rate idiosyncratically determined for each subject.

Sellen, A. J.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Procedural error monitoring and smart checklists

Human beings make and usually detect errors routinely. The same mental processes that allow humans to cope with novel problems can also lead to error. Bill Rouse has argued that errors are not inherently bad but their consequences may be. He proposes the development of error-tolerant systems that detect errors and take steps to prevent the consequences of the error from occurring. Research should be done on self and automatic detection of random and unanticipated errors. For self detection, displays should be developed that make the consequences of errors immediately apparent. For example, electronic map displays graphically show the consequences of horizontal flight plan entry errors. Vertical profile displays should be developed to make apparent vertical flight planning errors. Other concepts such as energy circles could also help the crew detect gross flight planning errors. For automatic detection, systems should be developed that can track pilot activity, infer pilot intent and inform the crew of potential errors before their consequences are realized. Systems that perform a reasonableness check on flight plan modifications by checking route length and magnitude of course changes are simple examples. Another example would be a system that checked the aircraft's planned altitude against a data base of world terrain elevations. Information is given in viewgraph form.

Palmer, Everett↗
NASA NTRS1993

Radio metric errors due to mismatch and offset between a DSN antenna beam and the beam of a troposphere calibration instrument

Two components of the error of a troposphere calibration measurement were quantified by theoretical calculations. The first component is a beam mismatch error, which occurs when the calibration instrument senses a conical volume different from the cylindrical volume sampled by a Deep Space Network (DSN) antenna. The second component is a beam offset error, which occurs if the calibration instrument is not mounted on the axis of the DSN antenna. These two error sources were calculated for both delay (e.g., VLBI) and delay rate (e.g., Doppler) measurements. The beam mismatch error for both delay and delay rate drops rapidly as the beamwidth of the troposphere calibration instrument (e.g., a water vapor radiometer or an infrared Fourier transform spectrometer) is reduced. At a 10-deg elevation angle, the instantaneous beam mismatch error is 1.0 mm for a 6-deg beamwidth and 0.09 mm for a 0.5-deg beam (these are the full angular widths of a circular beam with uniform gain out to a sharp cutoff). Time averaging for 60-100 sec will reduce these errors by factors of 1.2-2.2. At a 20-deg elevation angle, the lower limit for current Doppler observations, the beam-mismatch delay rate error is an Allan standard deviation over 100 sec of 1.1 x 10(exp -14) with a 4-deg beam and 1.3 x 10(exp -l5) for a 0.5-deg beam. A 50-m beam offset would result in a fairly modest (compared to other expected error sources) delay error (less than or equal to 0.3 mm for 60-sec integrations at any elevation angle is greater than or equal to 6 deg). However, the same offset would cause a large error in delay rate measurements (e.g., an Allan standard deviation of 1.2 x 10(exp -14) over 100 sec at a 20-deg elevation angle), which would dominate over other known error sources if the beamwidth is 2 deg or smaller. An on-axis location is essential for accurate troposphere calibration of delay rate measurements. A half-power beamwidth (for a beam with a tapered gain profile) of 1.2 deg or smaller is desired for calibration of all types of radio metrics. A water-vapor radiometer calibration beam of this size with very low sidelobes would require a clear aperture antenna with a diameter of at least 1.5 m if the primary water vapor sensing channel were in the 20-22 GHz range.

R P Linfield↗
NASA NTRS1994

Cirrus cloud retrieval using infrared sounding data: Multilevel cloud errors

In this study we perform an error analysis for cloud-top pressure retrieval using the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometric Sounder (HIRS/2) 15-microns CO2 channels for the two-layer case of transmissive cirrus overlying an overcast, opaque stratiform cloud. This analysis includes standard deviation and bias error due to instrument noise and the presence of two cloud layers, the lower of which is opaque. Instantaneous cloud pressure retrieval errors are determined for a range of cloud amounts (0.1-1.0) and cloud-top pressures (850-250 mb). Large cloud-top pressure retrieval errors are found to occur when a lower opaque layer is present underneath an upper transmissive cloud layer in the satellite field of view (FOV). Errors tend to increase with decreasing upper-cloud effective cloud amount and with decreasing cloud height (increasing pressure). Errors in retrieved upper-cloud pressure result in corresponding errors in derived effective cloud amount. For the case in which a HIRS FOV has two distinct cloud layers, the difference between the retrieved and actual cloud-top pressure is positive in all cases, meaning that the retrieved upper-cloud height is lower than the actual upper-cloud height. In addition, errors in retrieved cloud pressure are found to depend upon the lapse rate between the low-level cloud top and the surface. We examined which sounder channel combinations would minimize the total errors in derived cirrus cloud height caused by instrument noise and by the presence of a lower-level cloud. We find that while the sounding channels that peak between 700 and 1000 mb minimize random errors, the sounding channels that peak at 300-500 mb minimize bias errors. For a cloud climatology, the bias errors are most critical.

Baum, Bryan A.↗
NASA NTRS1997

Distortion Representation of Forecast Errors for Model Skill Assessment and Objective Analysis

We proposed a novel characterization of errors for numerical weather predictions. In its simplest form we decompose the error into a part attributable to phase errors and a remainder. The phase error is represented in the same fashion as a velocity field and is required to vary slowly and smoothly with position. A general distortion representation allows for the displacement and amplification or bias correction of forecast anomalies. Characterizing and decomposing forecast error in this way has two important applications, which we term the assessment application and the objective analysis application. For the assessment application, our approach results in new objective measures of forecast skill which are more in line with subjective measures of forecast skill and which are useful in validating models and diagnosing their shortcomings. With regard to the objective analysis application, meteorological analysis schemes balance forecast error and observational error to obtain an optimal analysis. Presently, representations of the error covariance matrix used to measure the forecast error are severely limited. For the objective analysis application our approach will improve analyses by providing a more realistic measure of the forecast error. We expect, a priori, that our approach should greatly improve the utility of remotely sensed data which have relatively high horizontal resolution, but which are indirectly related to the conventional atmospheric variables. In this project, we are initially focusing on the assessment application, restricted to a realistic but univariate 2-dimensional situation. Specifically, we study the forecast errors of the sea level pressure (SLP) and 500 hPa geopotential height fields for forecasts of the short and medium range. Since the forecasts are generated by the GEOS (Goddard Earth Observing System) data assimilation system with and without ERS 1 scatterometer data, these preliminary studies serve several purposes. They (1) provide a testbed for the use of the distortion representation of forecast errors, (2) act as one means of validating the GEOS data assimilation system and (3) help to describe the impact of the ERS 1 scatterometer data.

Hoffman, Ross N.↗
NASA NTRS1999

Backus Effect on a Perpendicular Errors in Harmonic Models of Real vs. Synthetic Data

Measurements of geomagnetic scalar intensity on a thin spherical shell alone are not enough to separate internal from external source fields; moreover, such scalar data are not enough for accurate modeling of the vector field from internal sources because of unmodeled fields and small data errors. Spherical harmonic models of the geomagnetic potential fitted to scalar data alone therefore suffer from well-understood Backus effect and perpendicular errors. Curiously, errors in some models of simulated 'data' are very much less than those in models of real data. We analyze select Magsat vector and scalar measurements separately to illustrate Backus effect and perpendicular errors in models of real scalar data. By using a model to synthesize 'data' at the observation points, and by adding various types of 'noise', we illustrate such errors in models of synthetic 'data'. Perpendicular errors prove quite sensitive to the maximum degree in the spherical harmonic expansion of the potential field model fitted to the scalar data. Small errors in models of synthetic 'data' are found to be an artifact of matched truncation levels. For example, consider scalar synthetic 'data' computed from a degree 14 model. A degree 14 model fitted to such synthetic 'data' yields negligible error, but amplifies 4 nT (rmss) added noise into a 60 nT error (rmss); however, a degree 12 model fitted to the noisy 'data' suffers a 492 nT error (rmms through degree 12). Geomagnetic measurements remain unaware of model truncation, so the small errors indicated by some simulations cannot be realized in practice. Errors in models fitted to scalar data alone approach 1000 nT (rmss) and several thousand nT (maximum).

Voorhies, C. V.↗
NASA NTRS2000

Influence of Tooth Spacing Error on Gears With and Without Profile Modifications

A computer simulation was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of profile modification for reducing dynamic loads in gears with different tooth spacing errors. The simulation examined varying amplitudes of spacing error and differences in the span of teeth over which the error occurs. The modification considered included both linear and parabolic tip relief. The analysis considered spacing error that varies around most of the gear circumference (similar to a typical sinusoidal error pattern) as well as a shorter span of spacing errors that occurs on only a few teeth. The dynamic analysis was performed using a revised version of a NASA gear dynamics code, modified to add tooth spacing errors to the analysis. Results obtained from the investigation show that linear tip relief is more effective in reducing dynamic loads on gears with small spacing errors but parabolic tip relief becomes more effective as the amplitude of spacing error increases. In addition, the parabolic modification is more effective for the more severe error case where the error is spread over a longer span of teeth. The findings of this study can be used to design robust tooth profile modification for improving dynamic performance of gear sets with different tooth spacing errors.

Padmasolala, Giri↗
NASA NTRS2002

Finite Element A Posteriori Error Estimation for Heat Conduction

This research investigates residual-based a posteriori error estimates for finite element approximations of heat conduction in single-layer and multi-layered materials. The finite element approximation, based upon hierarchical modelling combined with p-version finite elements, is described with specific application to a two-dimensional, steady state, heat-conduction problem. Element error indicators are determined by solving an element equation for the error with the element residual as a source, and a global error estimate in the energy norm is computed by collecting the element contributions. Numerical results of the performance of the error estimate are presented by comparisons to the actual error. Two methods are discussed and compared for approximating the element boundary flux. The equilibrated flux method provides more accurate results for estimating the error than the average flux method. The error estimation is applied to multi-layered materials with a modification to the equilibrated flux method to approximate the discontinuous flux along a boundary at the material interfaces. A directional error indicator is developed which distinguishes between the hierarchical modeling error and the finite element error. Numerical results are presented for single-layered materials which show that the directional indicators accurately determine which contribution to the total error dominates.

Lang, Christapher G.↗
NASA NTRS2007

Global Distortion of GPS Networks Associated with Satellite Antenna Model Errors

Recent studies of the GPS satellite phase center offsets (PCOs) suggest that these have been in error by approx.1 m. Previous studies had shown that PCO errors are absorbed mainly by parameters representing satellite clock and the radial components of site position. On the basis of the assumption that the radial errors are equal, PCO errors will therefore introduce an error in network scale. However, PCO errors also introduce distortions, or apparent deformations, within the network, primarily in the radial (vertical) component of site position that cannot be corrected via a Helmert transformation. Using numerical simulations to quantify the effects of PC0 errors, we found that these PCO errors lead to a vertical network distortion of 6-12 mm per meter of PCO error. The network distortion depends on the minimum elevation angle used in the analysis of the GPS phase observables, becoming larger as the minimum elevation angle increases. The steady evolution of the GPS constellation as new satellites are launched, age, and are decommissioned, leads to the effects of PCO errors varying with time that introduce an apparent global-scale rate change. We demonstrate here that current estimates for PCO errors result in a geographically variable error in the vertical rate at the 1-2 mm/yr level, which will impact high-precision crustal deformation studies.

Cardellach, E.↗
NASA NTRS2014

Combined Uncertainty and A-Posteriori Error Bound Estimates for General CFD Calculations: Theory and Software Implementation

This workshop presentation discusses the design and implementation of numerical methods for the quantification of statistical uncertainty, including a-posteriori error bounds, for output quantities computed using CFD methods. Hydrodynamic realizations often contain numerical error arising from finite-dimensional approximation (e.g. numerical methods using grids, basis functions, particles) and statistical uncertainty arising from incomplete information and/or statistical characterization of model parameters and random fields. The first task at hand is to derive formal error bounds for statistics given realizations containing finite-dimensional numerical error [1]. The error in computed output statistics contains contributions from both realization error and the error resulting from the calculation of statistics integrals using a numerical method. A second task is to devise computable a-posteriori error bounds by numerically approximating all terms arising in the error bound estimates. For the same reason that CFD calculations including error bounds but omitting uncertainty modeling are only of limited value, CFD calculations including uncertainty modeling but omitting error bounds are only of limited value. To gain maximum value from CFD calculations, a general software package for uncertainty quantification with quantified error bounds has been developed at NASA. The package provides implementations for a suite of numerical methods used in uncertainty quantification: Dense tensorization basis methods [3] and a subscale recovery variant [1] for non-smooth data, Sparse tensorization methods[2] utilizing node-nested hierarchies, Sampling methods[4] for high-dimensional random variable spaces.

CFD↗
NASA NTRS2013

Modeling Errors in Daily Precipitation Measurements: Additive or Multiplicative?

The definition and quantification of uncertainty depend on the error model used. For uncertainties in precipitation measurements, two types of error models have been widely adopted: the additive error model and the multiplicative error model. This leads to incompatible specifications of uncertainties and impedes intercomparison and application.In this letter, we assess the suitability of both models for satellite-based daily precipitation measurements in an effort to clarify the uncertainty representation. Three criteria were employed to evaluate the applicability of either model: (1) better separation of the systematic and random errors; (2) applicability to the large range of variability in daily precipitation; and (3) better predictive skills. It is found that the multiplicative error model is a much better choice under all three criteria. It extracted the systematic errors more cleanly, was more consistent with the large variability of precipitation measurements, and produced superior predictions of the error characteristics. The additive error model had several weaknesses, such as non constant variance resulting from systematic errors leaking into random errors, and the lack of prediction capability. Therefore, the multiplicative error model is a better choice.

Modeling↗