SEARCH · Engineering Papers
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.
These data include raw scanning Doppler lidar measurements from the deployment of the NREL Halo XR+ (s/n 235) at WFIP3's SHIP. The raw measurements include uncalibrated beam azimuth angles, radial velocity, backscatter, signal to noise ratio per each line of sight, and range-gate.
These data include raw scanning Doppler lidar measurements from the deployment of the NREL Halo XR+ (s/n 235) at WFIP3's BARG. The raw measurements include uncalibrated beam azimuth angles, radial velocity, backscatter, signal to noise ratio per each line of sight, and range-gate. Note: the measurements have NOT been corrected for the motion of the barge.
These data include raw scanning Doppler lidar measurements from the deployment of the LLNL HALO XR+ (s/n 190) at the Rhode Island site for WFIP3. The raw measurements include uncalibrated beam azimuth angles, radial velocity, backscatter, signal to noise ratio per each line of sight, and range-gate.
These data include scanning Doppler lidar measurements from the deployment of the PNNL HALO XR+ (s/n 184) at the Nantucket site. The measurements include calibrated beam azimuth angles, radial velocity, backscatter, signal to noise ratio per each line of sight, and range-gate. The data are provided in NetCDF.
These data include raw scanning Doppler lidar measurements from the deployment of the NREL Halo XR+ (s/n 235) at WFIP3's NOAA ship. The raw measurements include uncalibrated beam azimuth angles, radial velocity, backscatter, signal to noise ratio per each line of sight, and range-gate. The location of the ship is provided separately.
These data include raw scanning Doppler lidar measurements from the deployment of the NREL HALO XR+ (s/n 235) at the A1 site. The raw measurements include uncalibrated beam azimuth angles, radial velocity, backscatter, signal to noise ratio per each line of sight, and range-gate.
These data are collected by a Streamline XR Doppler Lidar operated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and deployed at the Tree Tops site (1.5 km South-West of MLBS site).
These data are collected by a Streamline XR Doppler Lidar operated by the University of Virginia and deployed at the MLBS site.
These data include raw scanning Doppler lidar measurements from the deployment of the NREL HALO XR+ (s/n 235) at the A1 site. The processed measurements include uncalibrated beam azimuth angles, radial velocity, backscatter, signal to noise ratio per each line of sight, and range-gate.
These data are collected by a Streamline XR Doppler Lidar operated by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and deployed at the Tree Tops site (1.5 km South-West of MLBS site).
These data are collected by a Streamline XR Doppler Lidar operated by the University of Virginia and deployed at the MLBS site.
Abstract. Model uncertainty is a significant challenge in the wind energy industry and can lead to mischaracterization of millions of dollars' worth of wind resources. Machine learning methods, notably deep artificial neural networks (ANNs), are capable of modeling turbulent and chaotic systems and offer a promising tool to produce high-accuracy wind speed forecasts and extrapolations. This paper uses data collected by profiling Doppler lidars over three field campaigns to investigate the efficacy of using ANNs for wind speed vertical extrapolation in a variety of terrains, and it quantifies the role of domain knowledge in ANN extrapolation accuracy. A series of 11 meteorological parameters (features) are used as ANN inputs, and the resulting output accuracy is compared with that of both standard log-law and power-law extrapolations. It is found that extracted nondimensional inputs, namely turbulence intensity, current wind speed, and previous wind speed, are the features that most reliably improve the ANN's accuracy, providing up to a 65 % and 52 % increase in extrapolation accuracy over log-law and power-law predictions, respectively. The volume of input data is also deemed important for achieving robust results. One test case is analyzed in depth using dimensional and nondimensional features, showing that the feature nondimensionalization drastically improves network accuracy and robustness for sparsely sampled atmospheric cases.
Abstract Integrated measurements of aerosol, radiation, cloud, and turbulent transport in the planetary boundary layer (PBL) are essential for understanding and modeling climate and air quality. Here, we developed a new technique for the identification of convective turbulent regions and deriving the vertical distribution of aerosol turbulent mass fluxes within PBL. The algorithm uses retrievals from coherent Doppler lidars and a high spectral resolution lidar. The technique was applied to study particle mass fluxes over 2 months (November–December 2020) during the campaign conducted at the DOE Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Southern Great Plains (SGP) site in Lamont, Oklahoma. The algorithm developed here is capable of continuously deriving vertically resolved (curtains) aerosol mass fluxes. Our data analysis shows that at the site, the 30‐min averaged fluxes at 135 m above the surface were mainly positive (upward) at ∼1 μg m −2 s −1 , suggesting that the surface is the primary source of the particle mass supplied to the boundary layer at the SGP site. Analyses of the individual case studies have revealed that not all the derived fluxes can be linked to surface emissions. Both positive and negative values in a range of ±5 μg m −2 s −1 can be caused by convective thermals interacting between the residual layer and the mixed layer and by rotation of the horizontal wind with the height. Large erroneous negative fluxes can also be caused by drizzling/precipitating clouds. We anticipate that the application of the current technique will lead to a more realistic representation of aerosol mass budgets and bidirectional mixing rates.
The convective boundary layer (CBL), also known as the mixing layer, constitutes the critical lower segment of the atmosphere that significantly influences daily human activities. The growing demand for precise weather forecasts is driven by the requirements of agriculture, transportation, and routine societal functions. Here, to enhance understanding of the CBL, this study investigates the spatiotemporal variability in the CBL and its controlling factors using four-year Doppler lidar, surface flux, and profiling measurements at five ARM Southern Great Plains sites within a 100 km radius. This investigation utilizes data collected exclusively under clear-sky conditions or scattered low-cloud conditions. Results reveal significant spatial differences in CBL evolutions. Daily mixing layer heights (MLHs) vary up to 1 km (30% of the mean) in late afternoon. There is a clear east–west contrast: western sites (C1, E32, E37) exhibit higher summer MLH (1.9–2.1 km) and vertical velocity variances (1.0–1.2 m 2 s −2 ) than eastern sites (1.6–1.8 km), reversing in winter. Temporally, the MLH peaks at 70% of the sunrise–sunset interval, the lagging heat flux (HF) peaks at 50%; and the seasonal MLH maxima lag the HF by approximately one month, influenced by nighttime PBL (planetary boundary layer) properties. The HF and lower tropospheric stability are the main factors of influence for the CBL, but site-specific dependencies highlight the critical roles of local factors, underscoring the need for including them in CBL modeling.
Cloud base height (CBH) and cloud base vertical velocity (CBVV) are important variables that impact the overall climate in a region as they influence the formulation, longevity, and evolution of clouds. Retrieval of both parameters have long used ground instrumentation (e.g., Doppler lidar (DL), ground base radar); however, retrieving CBH from satellites is particularly challenging given that space-based instruments only observe cloud tops. In this manuscript, CBH is retrieved using a multi-linear regression equation, while CBVV used a random forests model. Both retrievals combine satellite and numerical weather prediction data. The satellite data used are the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite imagery, while measurements of CBH and CBVV include DL and radiosonde data at the Southern Great Plains (SGP) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement observatory. Data from 83 summer days (May-August) in 2018–2021 featuring cumulus clouds forced by solar heating were examined and used to train the models, with years 2022–2023 used for validation. Various spatial domains were defined with one large (2.4° longitude by 2.0° latitude) SGP domain being split into smaller sections (smallest being 0.99° and 0.61° longitude and latitude respectably). CBH and CBVV values obtained from the DL as compared to the models show root mean square errors between 150 and 200 m, with CBVV values between 0.45 and 1 ms -1 . Finally, it was found that the CBH formulation performs well over all domains, while the CBVV retrievals become less accurate due to more turbulence being introduced into the observations as the number of DL stations decreases in the smaller domains.
This nacelle mounted LiDAR is a Halo Photonics StreamLine XR Scanning Doppler LiDAR, and it is front facing to measure the inflow in front of the turbine.
This nacelle mounted LiDAR is a Halo Photonics StreamLine XR Scanning Doppler LiDAR, and it is front facing to measure the inflow in front of the turbine.
This nacelle mounted LiDAR is a Halo Photonics StreamLine XR Scanning Doppler LiDAR, and it is front facing to measure the inflow in front of the turbine.