Energy compensated terrain corrections for AMS data
This is a presentation for the 2022 AMS Technical Exchange at the North Las Vegas Airport
73 NUCLEAR PHYSICS AND RADIATION PHYSICS↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “terrain correction”
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.
Terrain-Influenced Winds and Fire-Fire Interactions in Wildland Fire Simulations [Dissertation]
Ensemble-based approaches to prescribed fire planning cannot be supported by computational fluid dynamics based models like FIRETEC and the Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Dynamics Simulator (WFDS) because they are too computationally expensive and cannot leverage large eddy simulation approaches like CAWFE and WRF-SFIRE because they have too coarse of resolution. QUIC-Fire was developed to fill this gap but it cannot currently address complex terrain, that is typical for instance in the Western United States. This dissertation describes a variety of improvements made to QUIC-Fire and its various incorporated algorithms in an effort to make it a viable tool in simulating wildland and prescribed fires on terrain. The modifications made to QUIC-Fire are described in three chapters. The first chapter describes the extension of the diagnostic wind model QUIC-URB, the wind engine of QUIC-Fire, to a terrain-following coordinate system. The terraininfluenced winds it generates are analyzed and compared. In particular, this chapter presents the mathematical derivation of the wind solver leading to a linear system of equations that are solved through the successive over-relaxation method. The model is validated against a standard test used in previous works (the Askervein Hill) and against a new dataset from measurements in the Socorro Mountains, New Mexico. The terrain-following implementation captures the correct phenomenology for the isolated Askervein Hill, with a wind speed up at the top of the hill. The model agrees well with measurements on the upwind side of the peak, but overestimates speed-up on the downwind side of the hill. This is due to the inability of the model to generate flow separation and wake-eddy dynamics. On a common laptop, the divergence-free wind field is obtained in 6 s, making the solver appealing for coupled fire-atmosphere simulations. The Socorro Mountain is highly complex, with many cliff faces, peaks, and valleys. Although the model captures the magnitude and direction of inlet and outlet areas of the domain, it performs rather poorly in the valley region and in the regions near the steep cliffs. Hence, the model shows good agreement with data in areas of open sloped terrain but lacks in areas where flow separation and thermally driven effects may be present (neither effect is addressed in this work). In the second chapter the implementation of the terrain-following version of QUIC-URB into QUIC-Fire, and the necessary changes needed to include terrain are described. No changes to the underlying fire spread algorithm are made other than what is required to correctly account for the inclusion of terrain. Previously published FIRETEC results that use five different topographies that share the same centerline profile are compared to simulation results from the modified QUIC-Fire that use the same topographies and fuels. QUIC-Fire results show overall similar behaviors in terms of how the topographies affect fire shapes and trends in spread rates. Due to the terrain-following version of QUIC-URB being unable to generate flow separations at the crest of hills, fire spread rates in these regions across all topographies are over-predicted when compared to FIRETEC. Lateral fire growth shows similar trends with FIRETEC between topographies but does not capture the increase in spread due to a diagonal interface between grassland and forested fuel region of the domain. These results suggest that there are three algorithms within QUIC-Fire that could use improvement: how flame tilt angle is accounted for, the incorporation of non-local drag effects, and the inclusion of the wake-eddy parameterizations that are used in QUIC-URB. Lastly, the third chapter describes a modification to the initial guess used for the calculation of the QUIC-URB mass-conserved wind solution during fire simulations. The modification is aimed at improving fire-fire interactions in QUIC-Fire simulations. The modification consists of using the solution from the previous timestep as the starting point for the calculation of the solution for the next timestep. Fire-fire interactions is greatly improved by the change but a new source of error is introduced. Due to how plumes are modelled in QUIC-Fire the new solution contains errors where gaps in the plume structure are present. However, these errors are mostly limited to the upper atmosphere, where they do not affect fire behavior at the surface, and their magnitude isn’t significant enough to discount the amount of new fire phenomenology now captured in QUIC-Fire with the change.
58 GEOSCIENCES↗
QUIC-URB and QUIC-fire extension to complex terrain: Development of a terrain-following coordinate system
Ensemble-based approaches to prescribed fire planning cannot be supported by CFD-based models like FIRETEC and WFDS because they are too computationally expensive and cannot leverage LES approaches like CAWFE and WRF-SFIRE because too coarse of resolution. QUIC-Fire was developed to fill this gap but it cannot currently address complex terrain, typical for instance of the Western United States. In this paper, we describe the extension of the diagnostic wind model QUIC-URB, the wind engine of QUIC-Fire, to a terrain-following coordinate system. In particular, the paper presents the mathematical derivation of the wind solver leading to a linear system of equations that are solved through the successive over-relaxation method. The model is validated against a standard test used in previous works (the Askervein Hill) and against a new dataset from measurements in the Socorro Mountains, New Mexico. The terrain-following implementation captured the correct phenomenology for the isolated Askervein Hill, with a wind speed up at the top of the hill. We report the model agreed well with measurements on the upwind side of the peak, but overestimated speed-up on the downwind side of the hill. This is due to the inability of the model to generate flow separation and wake-eddy dynamics. On a common laptop, the divergence-free wind field was obtained in 6 s, making the solver appealing for coupled fire–atmosphere simulations. The Socorro Mountain was highly complex, with many cliff faces, peaks, and valleys. Although the model captures the magnitude and direction of inlet and outlet areas of the domain, it performs rather poorly in the valley region and in the regions near the steep cliffs. Hence, the model shows good agreement with data in areas of open sloped terrain but lacks in areas where flow separation and thermally driven effects may be present (neither effect was addressed in this work). Results highlight that future work should focus on the implementation of parameterizations of wake-eddies, similar to QUIC-URB’s building parameterizations, and on thermodynamic-driven flow.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
The effect of terrain-influenced winds on fire spread in QUIC-Fire
Here in this manuscript, we describe the implementation of the terrain-following version of QUIC-URB into QUIC-Fire and a demonstration of the impacts of terrain-influenced winds on QUIC-Fire-simulated fire spread. No changes to the underlying QUIC-Fire fire spread algorithm were made other than what was required to correctly account for the inclusion of terrain. This paper summarizes simulations used to understand how the QUIC-URB terrain-influenced winds affect upslope fire behavior without additional changes to the QUIC-Fire fire spread algorithm. Previously published FIRETEC results are compared to simulation results from the modified QUIC-Fire (incorporating terrain-influenced winds) that use the same topographies and fuels. QUIC-Fire results showed overall similar behaviors in terms of how the topographies affected fire shapes and trends in spread rates. Due to the terrain-following version of QUIC-URB being unable to generate flow separations at the crest of hills, fire spread rates in these regions across all non-flat topographies were over-predicted when compared to FIRETEC. Lateral fire growth showed similar trends with FIRETEC between topographies but did not capture the increase in spread due to a diagonal interface between grassland and forested fuel regions in the test domain. These simulations suggest possible refinements that are necessary to improve QUIC-Fire and thus guide ongoing efforts related to: how flame tilt angle is accounted for, the incorporation of non-local drag effects, and the inclusion of the wake-eddy parameterizations that are used in QUIC-URB.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
A Comparison of Pre‐Construction and Operational Wake Loss Estimates for Land‐Based Wind Plants
The overall bias between pre‐construction energy yield assessment (EYA) estimates of wind plant energy production and the achieved operational production is improving in the wind industry, but uncertainty remains high for individual wind plants. Wake effects within wind plants are one of the largest sources of energy loss considered in the EYA process, and previous work shows wake loss estimates to be a major source of disagreement among wind energy consultants who perform EYAs. To better understand the accuracy of wake loss predictions, we compare overall operational wake loss estimates based on supervisory control and data acquisition data to pre‐construction estimates provided by six wind energy consultants for five land‐based wind plants in North America. By augmenting existing approaches for quantifying operational wake losses, we estimate wake losses during the period of record for which operational data are available as well as the expected long‐term wake losses, based on historical reanalysis weather data, to which the EYA estimates are compared. To account for power variations at different turbine locations caused by terrain‐induced wind resource heterogeneity, we correct the operational wake loss estimates using predicted freestream wind speed variations from the Wind Systems Engineering Reynolds‐averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) tool. We identify long‐term corrected operational wake losses between 1.9% and 6.4% for the five plants, with a mean loss of 4%. For the project deemed most acceptable for operational wake loss assessment, which is located in the simplest terrain and isolated from neighboring plants, the mean EYA wake loss estimate is within 0.7 percentage points of the operational value of 6.4%. For most of the remaining plants, results suggest that wake losses are generally overpredicted by 2.6–6.3 percentage points. However, operational wake losses may be underestimated for many of these projects because of spatial wind resource variations not captured by the RANS model, external wake effects that are unaccounted for in the estimation process, and wind plant blockage effects. To better understand factors that contribute to the observed wake losses, we investigate operational wake losses as a function of wind direction and wind speed. As expected, wake losses are generally concentrated near wind directions that are aligned with rows of closely spaced turbines and at below‐rated wind speeds; however, for some projects, the energy produced by the wind plant exceeds the estimated potential energy of the plant without wake interactions for certain wind directions and wind speeds, suggesting inaccurate assumptions in the wake loss estimation method for those plants. Lastly, we compare predicted and operational wake losses for individual wind turbines, finding that even when overall wake losses are predicted accurately, large uncertainty exists at the turbine level.
17 WIND ENERGY↗
AI/ML-Enhanced Wind Forecasts for Reducing Uncertainty in Prescribed Fire Planning
Prescribed fire is a vital tool for ecosystem management and wildfire risk reduction but its escalation is constrained by overly conservative burn windows because of uncertainties, for instance, in wind forecasts. This review describes the state of the art in weather product use by fire/smoke models and identifies three priority research gaps that artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) is well positioned to address: (1) spatial and temporal downscaling to meter-scale, sub-hourly wind fields; (2) bias correction for systematic model errors in complex terrain; and (3) robust uncertainty quantification to inform ensemble-based simulations. Emerging AI/ML techniques offer promising frameworks to address all three challenges. By providing high-resolution, bias-corrected, and probabilistic wind fields, AI/ML-enhanced forecasts will allow for expanded burn windows, improved ignition strategy design and a reduced reliance on expert intuition, especially when a prescribed fire is introduced into new areas.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Custom NEON AOP reflectance mosaics and maps of shade masks, canopy water content
This mosaic of visible to shortwave infrared (VSWIR) data was derived from the assignable asset NEON AOP radiance data that was collected by LBNL’s Watershed Function SFA during the summer of 2018 (DOI: 10.15485/1617204). This atmospheric correction was completed to take into account site-specific terrain variability in the 334 km2 survey area centered around Crested Butte, CO. The atmospheric correction was completed using ACORN atmospheric correction software executed on 200 x 200 pixel kernels rather than line by line in order to capture local flight altitude conditions. Manual cloud delineation removed any small shaded areas that occurred within the data collection areas. Mosaics were developed based on preference for days that were in close timing proximity to the coincident ground campaign and with mosaicing criteria that minimized the angle between the sun and the sensor to retrieve the most consistent reflectance (min_phase_refl_tiled). Finally, we generated shade masks based on the geometry between the sun angle at time of flight, the ground surface, and the sensor. Here we provide the orthomosaiced estimated reflectance data (min_phase_refl_tiled.tif), canopy water content (wtrl), estimated atmospheric water vapor (wtrv), the observational data (obs) for this particular mosaic, the estimated visibility (vis), shade masks derived from the digital surface elevation model (shade) and the digital terrain model (shade_tch) added to the canopy height model (DOI: 10.15485/1617203), and a wavelength metadata file. Each image file is provided as a GeoTiff with internal tiling and LZW compression. These data can also be found on Google Earth Engine for extraction, download, and analysis of smaller extents (Google Earth Engine data is linked in external link table).
2018 NEON and 2025 CHESS Campaigns↗
Topographic Correction of Optical Remote Sensing Images in Mountainous Areas: A systematic review
Rugged terrain distorts optical remote sensing observations and subsequently impacts land cover classification and biophysical and biochemical parameter retrieval over mountainous areas. Therefore, topographic correction (TC) is a prerequisite for many remote sensing applications. Although various TC methods have been explored over the past four decades to mitigate topographic effects, a systematic and global review of these studies is still lacking. Using a multicomponent bibliometric approach, we extracted bibliometric metadata from 426 publications identified by searching titles, keywords, and abstracts for research on “topographic correction” and “topographic effects” in Scopus and Web of Science (WoS) from 1980 to 2022. Here this systematic review revealed a rapid growth in the number of TC studies since the 1980s, primarily driven by the availability of decametric-resolution remote sensing observations and digital elevation models (DEMs). Most of the research has focused on relatively low-elevation regions, with increasing attention beyond American and European regions, particularly in China. The seasonal distribution of satellite acquisition for TC showed considerable imbalance, mainly concentrated in months with favorable solar illumination conditions (e.g., May to October). Important themes emerged from the keyword analysis, including satellite sensors, DEMs, TC methods, evaluation criteria, and applications.
58 GEOSCIENCES↗
Systematically tracking the hourly progression of large wildfires using GOES satellite observations
Abstract. In the western United States, prolonged drought, a warming climate, and historical fuel buildup have contributed to larger and more intense wildfires as well as to longer fire seasons. As these costly wildfires become more common, new tools and methods are essential for improving our understanding of the evolution of fires and how extreme weather conditions, including heat waves, windstorms, droughts, and varying levels of active-fire suppression, influence fire spread. Here, we develop the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES)-Observed Fire Event Representation (GOFER) algorithm to derive the hourly fire progression of large wildfires and create a product of hourly fire perimeters, active-fire lines, and fire spread rates. Using GOES-East and GOES-West geostationary satellite detections of active fires, we test the GOFER algorithm on 28 large wildfires in California from 2019 to 2021. The GOFER algorithm includes parameter optimizations for defining the burned-to-unburned boundary and correcting for the parallax effect from elevated terrain. We evaluate GOFER perimeters using 12 h data from the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS)-derived Fire Event Data Suite (FEDS) and final fire perimeters from the California's Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). Although the GOES imagery used to derive GOFER has a coarser resolution (2 km at the Equator), the final fire perimeters from GOFER correspond reasonably well to those obtained from FRAP, with a mean Intersection-over-Union (IoU) of 0.77, in comparison to 0.83 between FEDS and FRAP; the IoU indicates the area of overlap over the area of the union relative to the reference perimeters, in which 0 is no agreement and 1 is perfect agreement. GOFER fills a key temporal gap present in other fire tracking products that rely on low-Earth-orbit imagery, where perimeters are available at intervals of 12 h or longer or at ad hoc intervals from aircraft overflights. This is particularly relevant when a fire spreads rapidly, such as at maximum hourly spread rates of over 5 km h−1. Our GOFER algorithm for deriving the hourly fire progression using GOES can be applied to large wildfires across North and South America and reveals considerable variability in the rates of fire spread on diurnal timescales. The resulting GOFER product has a broad set of potential applications, including the development of predictive models for fire spread and the improvement of atmospheric transport models for surface smoke estimates. The resulting GOFER product has a broad set of potential applications, including the development of predictive models for fire spread and the improvement of atmospheric transport models for surface smoke estimates (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8327264, Liu et al., 2023).
Geology↗
Advances in hexagon mesh-based flow direction modeling
Watershed delineation and flow direction representation are the foundations of streamflow routing in spatially distributed hydrologic modeling. A recent study showed that hexagon-based watershed discretization has several advantages compared to the traditional Cartesian (latitude–longitude) discretization, such as uniform connectivity and compatibility with other Earth system model components based on unstructured mesh systems (e.g., oceanic models). Despite these advantages, hexagon-based discretization has not been widely adopted by the current generation of hydrologic models. One major reason is that there is no existing model that can delineate hexagon-based watersheds while maintaining accurate representations of flow direction across various spatial resolutions. In this study, we explored approaches such as spatial resampling and hybrid breaching-filling stream burning techniques to improve watershed delineation and flow direction representation using a newly developed hexagonal mesh watershed delineation model (HexWatershed). We applied these improvements to the Columbia River basin and performed 16 simulations with different configurations. The results show that (1) spatial resampling modulates flow direction around headwaters and provides an opportunity to extract subgrid information; and (2) stream burning corrects the flow directions in mountainous areas with complex terrain features.
58 GEOSCIENCES↗
SAIL-Net Raw and Post Corrected POPS Data Fall 2021 - Summer 2023
SAIL-Net is a DOE funded project in the East River Watershed near Crested Butte, Colorado with the goal of advancing our understanding of aerosol-cloud interactions in complex, mountainous regions. Through the deployment of a network of six low cost microphysics nodes in Fall 2021 in the same domain at the SAIL campaign, SAIL-Net provides data on aerosol size distributions, cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), and ice nucleation particles (INP). This network enables the investigation of small-scale variations in complex terrain. Two datasets are provided - one containing raw data and the other containing post-corrected data. The raw dataset provides the raw data recorded from the POPS which were deployed at each of the six sites. These data are organized by site and broken down into daily data files. The six site names used here are: “gothic”, “irwin”, “cbtop”, “cbmid”, “pumphouse”, and “snodgrass”. These data are not cleaned or post-corrected, but some flags have been added. The data are reported at 1 second time resolution. The post-corrected dataset provides the post-corrected and cleaned data recorded from the POPS which were deployed at each of the six sites. This data are also organized by site (same as those found in the raw data) and broken down into daily data files. Unlike the raw POPS data, these data have already been cleaned to remove what we believe are bad values. These data should be ready to use with no cleaning. For a full description of the cleaning and post-correction process, see the readme.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
COMBLE Radar b1 Processing: Corrections, Calibrations, and Processing Report
The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility recently concluded its Cold-Air Outbreaks in the Marine Boundary Layer Experiment (COMBLE), with its campaign emphasis on marine boundary-layer clouds and mixed-phase clouds during cold-air outbreaks. The COMBLE campaign featured the deployment of the first ARM Mobile Facility (AMF1) to northern Scandinavia (Andenes, Norway), including its standard complement of ARM cloud radars. In keeping with user demands stemming from the previous AMF Cloud, Aerosol, and Complex Terrain Interactions (CACTI) field campaign in Argentina, a post-campaign radar mentor effort was initiated for COMBLE. This activity was intended to improve the usability of the ARM cloud radar data sets in response to overall demands for calibrated, corrected data sets for downstream studies and retrieval applications. In addition to the terrain complexities previously important to CACTI data sets (e.g., clutter designation and/or removal), COMBLE presented new challenges to existing ARM radar mentor capabilities. These included the extension of existing methodologies (e.g., relative calibration adjustment [RCA] target techniques) to frozen environments and the potential issues with their applicability when considering mixed-phase precipitation conditions. As in the previous CACTI documentation (Hardin et al. 2020), the overall calibration and conditioning process in ARM nomenclature is referred to as generating a “b1” datastream. For the radars, these “b1” standards refer to a datastream that has been calibrated (and cross-calibrated), with effort to deliver the highest-quality (well-characterized) data possible. The “b1” radar mentor reporting (this current document) is intended to detail (i) the status/quality of the original “a1” (raw) data sets during the COMBLE AMF campaign, (ii) the corrections and calibrations that are applied to generate the b1 datastreams available on ARM’s Data Discovery, and (iii) the details of the applied methods, e.g., how radar offset/calibration numbers were determined.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
CACTI Radar b1 Processing: Corrections, Calibrations, and Processing Report
The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility deployed a large number of instruments to a region nearby the Sierra de Córdobas mountains in Argentina as part of the Cloud, Aerosol, and Complex Terrain Interactions (CACTI) field campaign (1). During this campaign, four radars were installed at a site outside of Villa Yacanto as shown in Figure 1. As part of a post-campaign effort to improve the usability of these data, a significant activity was undertaken towards the calibration, correction, and improvement of the data quality of these radar datastreams. This process in ARM nomenclature is referred to as generating a “b1” datastream. While these “b1” standards may imply different corrections or standards for various ARM instruments, for radars it refers to a datastream that has been calibrated (and cross-calibrated), including a serious effort to deliver the highest-quality (well-characterized) data possible. This report details (i) the status/quality of the original “a1” (raw) data, (ii) the corrections and calibrations that are applied to generate these b1 datastreams, (iii) the details of the applied algorithms and how radar offset/calibration numbers were determined for the eventual corrections, and (iv) the new and flexible plug-in-based processing system designed during CACTI for radar b1 activities (current, future) that interfaces with ARM’s Data Integrator (ADI) and high-performance computing (HPC) system.
47 OTHER INSTRUMENTATION↗
Operational-based annual energy production uncertainty: are its components actually uncorrelated?
Calculations of annual energy production (AEP) from a wind power plant – whether based on preconstruction or operational data – are critical for wind plant financial transactions. The uncertainty in the AEP calculation is especially important in quantifying risk and is a key factor in determining financing terms. A popular industry practice is to assume that different uncertainty components within an AEP calculation are uncorrelated and can therefore be combined as the sum of their squares. We assess the practical validity of this assumption for operational-based uncertainty by performing operational AEP estimates for more than 470 wind plants in the United States, mostly in simple terrain. We apply a Monte Carlo approach to quantify uncertainty in five categories: revenue meter data, wind speed data, regression relationship between density-corrected wind speed (from reanalysis data) and measured wind power, length of long-term-correction data set, and future interannual variability. We identify correlations between categories by comparing the results across all 470 wind plants. We observe a positive correlation between interannual variability and the linearized long-term correction; a negative correlation between wind resource interannual variability and linear regression; and a positive correlation between reference wind speed uncertainty and linear regression. Then, we contrast total operational AEP uncertainty values calculated by omitting and considering correlations between the uncertainty components. We quantify that ignoring these correlations leads to an underestimation of total AEP uncertainty of, on average, 0.1% and as large as 0.5% for specific sites. Although these are not large increases, these would still impact wind plant financing rates; further, we expect these values to increase for wind plants in complex terrain. Based on these results, we conclude that correlations between the identified uncertainty components should be considered when computing the total AEP uncertainty.
17 WIND ENERGY↗
MOSAiC Radar b1 Processing: Corrections, Calibrations, and Processing Report
The U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) user facility deployed many instruments on board a German ice breaker, the Research Vessel (RV) Polarstern, for one year from October 2019 to October 2020. The purpose of the Multidisciplinary Drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) field campaign was to study the decline in the sea-ice pack around the North Pole, and what factors may be at play. After the campaign ended, efforts were undertaken to provide a calibrated radar data set for future studies. MOSAiC presented new challenges to this process, as existing methodologies often were not applicable for the frozen environment with little to no ground clutter, and concurrent engineering updates or calibrations could not be accomplished once the ship set off. Like the previous Cloud, Aerosol, and Complex Terrain Interactions (CACTI) and Cold-air Outbreaks in the Marine Boundary Layer Experiment (COMBLE) documentation (Hardin et al. 2020, Matthews et al. 2023), the data correction and calibration process is known in ARM as creating a “b1” datastream. This means that the radar datastreams have been well characterized to the best possible quality. This report will detail the status of the raw “a1” level data sets during the MOSAiC campaign, the corrections that were applied to create the “b1” data files, and the details of the applied methods.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Corrected Moments in Antenna Coordinates (CMAC) Technical Report
Various corrections are needed in order to extract the best value of the measurements from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) User Facility’s scanning precipitation radars. The Corrected Moments in Antenna Coordinates (CMAC) Value-Added Product provides an application chain for providing radar moments that are corrected for artifacts such as aliasing, attenuation, multi-trip echoes, and beam blockage. This technical report provides details on the entire process of correcting the ARM scanning precipitation radar data using CMAC. CMAC has been used at multiple ARM sites and ARM Mobile Facility deployments including the Tracking Aerosol Convection Interactions Experiment (TRACER), Cloud, Aerosol, and Complex Terrain Interactions (CACTI), and the Surface Atmosphere Integrated Laboratory (SAIL).
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Ka-Band Scanning ARM Cloud Radar (a1)
The Ka-Band Scanning ARM Cloud Radar (KASACR) records cloud properties. ARM's scanning cloud radars are dual-frequency, dual-polarization Doppler radars mounted on a common scanning pedestal. Each pedestal includes a Ka-band radar (2kW peak power) and the deployment location determines whether the second radar is a W-band (1.7 kW peak power) or an X-band (20 kW peak power). Beamwidths for Ka-bands paired with W-bands are roughly matched at 0.3 degrees. The X-band beamwidth is approximately 1 degree. Due to the narrow antenna beamwidth, ARM’s scanning cloud radars use scanning strategies unlike typical weather radars. Rather than focusing on plan position indicator, or PPI, scans, the KASACR uses range height indicator, or RHI, scans at numerous azimuths to obtain cloud volume data. Measurements collected with the KASACR are copolar and cross-polar radar reflectivity, Doppler velocity, spectra width and spectra when not scanning, and linear depolarization ratio. KASACR data from the 2018–2019 Cloud, Aerosol, and Complex Terrain Interactions (CACTI) field campaign in Argentina are now available as b1-level products. Building on the original CACTI operational data, the b1-level products feature improved data quality resulting from extensive analyses and corrections. The data are cross-calibrated to a common point, datastreams are corrected for operational issues that occurred during the campaign, and several data quality masks and basic derived products are incorporated. For more information, read the CACTI radar b1-level processing report.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Ka-Band Scanning ARM Cloud Radar (a1)
The Ka-Band Scanning ARM Cloud Radar (KASACR) records cloud properties. ARM's scanning cloud radars are dual-frequency, dual-polarization Doppler radars mounted on a common scanning pedestal. Each pedestal includes a Ka-band radar (2kW peak power) and the deployment location determines whether the second radar is a W-band (1.7 kW peak power) or an X-band (20 kW peak power). Beamwidths for Ka-bands paired with W-bands are roughly matched at 0.3 degrees. The X-band beamwidth is approximately 1 degree. Due to the narrow antenna beamwidth, ARM’s scanning cloud radars use scanning strategies unlike typical weather radars. Rather than focusing on plan position indicator, or PPI, scans, the KASACR uses range height indicator, or RHI, scans at numerous azimuths to obtain cloud volume data. Measurements collected with the KASACR are copolar and cross-polar radar reflectivity, Doppler velocity, spectra width and spectra when not scanning, and linear depolarization ratio. KASACR data from the 2018–2019 Cloud, Aerosol, and Complex Terrain Interactions (CACTI) field campaign in Argentina are now available as b1-level products. Building on the original CACTI operational data, the b1-level products feature improved data quality resulting from extensive analyses and corrections. The data are cross-calibrated to a common point, datastreams are corrected for operational issues that occurred during the campaign, and several data quality masks and basic derived products are incorporated. For more information, read the CACTI radar b1-level processing report.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗