Cover Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology

  • Andre, J. C., G. DeMoor, P. Lacarrere, G. Therry, and R. DuVachat, 1978: Modeling the 24-hour evolution of the mean and turbulent structure of the planetary boundary layer. J. Atmos. Sci.,35, 1861–1883.

  • Blackadar, A. K., 1957: Boundary layer wind maxima and their significance for the growth of nocturnal inversion. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,38, 283–290.

  • ——, 1962: The vertical distribution of wind and turbulent exchange in a neutral atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res.,67, 3095–3102.

  • ——, 1979: High resolution models of the planetary boundary layer. Advances in Environmental and Scientific Engineering, Vol. I, J. R. Pfafflin and E. N. Ziegler, Eds., Gordon and Breach, 55–85.

  • Bondin, S., 1981: Applied numerical modeling of the atmospheric boundary layer. Atmospheric Planetary Boundary Layer Physics, A. Longhetto, Ed., Elsevier, 1–76.

  • Boussinesq, J., 1877: Essai sur la theorie des eaux courantes. Mem. Savants Etrange,23, 46.

  • Businger, J. A., 1984: Equations and concepts. Atmospheric Turbulence and Air Pollution Modelling, F. T. M. Nieuwstadt and H. van Dop, Eds., D. Reidel Publishing, 1–36.

  • ——, and S. P. S. Arya, 1974: Height of the mixed layer in a stably stratified planetary boundary layer. Adv. Geophys.,18A, 73–92.

  • ——, J. C. Wyngaard, Y. Izumi, and E. F. Bradley, 1971: Flux-profile relationships in the atmospheric surface layer. J. Atmos. Sci.,28, 181–189.

  • Coulter, R. L., 1990: A case study of turbulence in the stable nocturnal boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,52, 75–91.

  • Deardroff, J. W., 1974: Three-dimensional numerical study of the height and mean structure of a heated planetary boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,7, 81–106.

  • Estournel, C., and D. Guedalia, 1987: A new parameterization of eddy diffusivities for nocturnal boundary-layer modeling. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,39, 191–203.

  • Garratt, J. R., 1982: Observations in the nocturnal boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,22, 21–48.

  • Genon, M. L., 1995: Comparison of different simple turbulence closure with a one-dimensional boundary layer model. Mon. Wea. Rev.,123, 163–180.

  • Gifford, F. A., 1952: The breakdown of a low-level inversion studied by means of detailed soundings with modified radiosonde. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc.,33, 373–379.

  • Holt, T., and S. Raman, 1988: A review and comparative evaluation of multilevel boundary layer parameterizations for first-order and turbulent kinetic energy closure schemes. Rev. Geophys.,26(4), 761–780.

  • Kondo, J., O. Kanechika, and N. Yosuda, 1978: Heat and momentum transfers under strong stability in the atmospheric surface layer. J. Atmos. Sci.,35, 1012–1021.

  • Lacser, A., and S. P. S. Arya, 1986: A comparitive assessment of mixing-length parameterizations in the stably stratified nocturnal boundary layer (NBL). Bound.-Layer Meteor.,36, 53–70.

  • Louis, J. F., 1979: A parametric model of vertical eddy fluxes in the atmosphere. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,17, 187–202.

  • Mahrer, Y., and R. A. Pielke, 1977: A numerical study of airflow over irregular terrain. Beitr. Phys. Atmos.,50, 98–113.

  • McNider, R. T., and R. A. Pielke, 1981: Diurnal boundary-layer development over sloping terrain. J. Atmos. Sci.,38, 2198–2212.

  • ——, M. D. Moran, and R. A. Pielke, 1988: Influence of diurnal and inertial boundary layer oscillations on long-range dispersion. Atmos. Environ.,22, 2445–2462.

  • ——, D. E. England, M. J. Friedman, and X. Shi, 1995: Predictability of the stale atmospheric boundary layer. J. Atmos. Sci.,52, 1602–1614.

  • Monin, A. S., and A. M. Yaglom, 1971: Statistical Fluid Mechanics. Vol I. MIT Press, 769 pp.

  • Nappo, C. J., 1991: Sporadic breakdowns of stability in the PBL over simple and complex terrain. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,54, 69–87.

  • Nieuwstadf, F. T. M., 1984: The turbulent structure of the stable nocturnal boundary layer. J. Atmos. Sci.,41, 2202–2216.

  • ——, 1985: Some aspects of the turbulent stable boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,30, 31–56.

  • O’Brien, J., 1970: A note on the vertical structureof the eddy exchange coefficient in the planetary boundary layer. J. Atmos. Sci.,27, 1213–1215.

  • Panofsky, H. A., A. K. Blackadar, and G.E. McVehil, 1960: The adiabatic wind profile. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,86, 390–398.

  • Pielke, R. A., 1974: A three-dimensional numerical model of sea breeze over south Florida. Mon. Wea. Rev.,102, 115–139.

  • ——, 1984: Mesoscale Meteorological Modeling. Academic Press, 612 pp.

  • Revelle, D. O., 1993: Chaos and “bursting” in the planetary boundary layer. J. Appl. Meteor.,32, 1169–1180.

  • Sasamori, T., 1972: A linear harmonic analysis of atmospheric motion with radiative dissipation. J. Meteor. Soc. Japan,50, 505–518.

  • Sharan, M., R. T. McNider, S. G. Gopalakrishnan, and M. P. Singh, 1995: Bhopal gas leak: A numerical simulation of episodic dispersion. Atmos. Environ.,29, 2061–2070.

  • ——, and Coauthors, 1996: Bhopal gas leak: A numerical investigation of the prevailing meteorological conditions. J. Appl. Meteor.,35, 1637–1657.

  • Shir, C. C., and R. D. Bornstein, 1977: Eddy exchange coefficients in the numerical models of the planetary boundary layer. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,11, 171–185.

  • Stull, R. B., and A. G. M. Driedonks, 1987: Applications of the transilient turbulence parameterization to atmospheric boundary-layer simulations. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,40, 209–239.

  • Swati, B., and N. Raghavan, 1986: Prediction of inversion strengths and heights from a 1-D nocturnal boundary layer model. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,35, 193–204.

  • Tjemkes, S. A., and P. G. Duynkerke, 1989: The nocturnal boundary layer: Model calculations compared with observations. J. Appl. Meteor.,28, 161–175.

  • Wyngaard, J. C., 1975: Modelling the planetary boundary layer: Extension to the stable case. Bound.-Layer Meteor.,9, 441–460.

  • Yu, T. W., 1977: A comparative study on parameterization of vertical exchange processes. Mon. Wea. Rev.,105, 57–66.

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 204 45 4
PDF Downloads 55 9 1
Editorial Type:
Article
Article Type:
Research Article

Comparative Evaluation of Eddy Exchange Coefficients for Strong and Weak Wind Stable Boundary Layer Modeling

Maithili SharanCentre for Atmospheric Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology–Delhi, New Delhi, India

Search for other papers by Maithili Sharan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMedClose
and
S. G. GopalakrishnanCentre for Atmospheric Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology–Delhi, New Delhi, India

Search for other papers by S. G. Gopalakrishnan in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMedClose
Print Publication:
01 May 1997
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1997)036<0545:CEOEEC>2.0.CO;2
Page(s):
545–559
Restricted access

Abstract

Five local K-closure formulations and a TKE closure were incorporated in a one-dimensional version of the Pielke’s model, and a comparative evaluation of the closure schemes was made for strong and weak wind stable boundary layer (SBL). The Cabauw (Netherlands) and EPRI-Kincaid site (United States) observations were used for this purpose. The results indicate that for the strong wind case study, the profiles of turbulent diffusivities in terms of shape, depth of significant mixing, and the height above the surface where diffusion reaches a maximum are more or less the same for the various closure schemes. Only the magnitudes of mixing produced by various closure schemes are different. This difference produced by various closure formulations causes minor but noticeable changes in the mean wind field and thermodynamic structure of the model SBL. However, although the profiles of turbulent diffusivities become weak, variable, and poorly defined under weak wind conditions, the mean profiles become insensitive to the differences in the diffusion that arise due to various parameterization schemes. Apart from the TKE closure scheme, Estournel and Guedalia simple local closure scheme is able to produce the essential features of the SBL quite well.

* Current affiliation: Department of Environmental Sciences, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Maithili Sharan, Centre for Atmospheric Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology–Delhi, Hauz Khas,110016 New Delhi, India.

mathilis@cas.iitd.ernet.in

Abstract

Five local K-closure formulations and a TKE closure were incorporated in a one-dimensional version of the Pielke’s model, and a comparative evaluation of the closure schemes was made for strong and weak wind stable boundary layer (SBL). The Cabauw (Netherlands) and EPRI-Kincaid site (United States) observations were used for this purpose. The results indicate that for the strong wind case study, the profiles of turbulent diffusivities in terms of shape, depth of significant mixing, and the height above the surface where diffusion reaches a maximum are more or less the same for the various closure schemes. Only the magnitudes of mixing produced by various closure schemes are different. This difference produced by various closure formulations causes minor but noticeable changes in the mean wind field and thermodynamic structure of the model SBL. However, although the profiles of turbulent diffusivities become weak, variable, and poorly defined under weak wind conditions, the mean profiles become insensitive to the differences in the diffusion that arise due to various parameterization schemes. Apart from the TKE closure scheme, Estournel and Guedalia simple local closure scheme is able to produce the essential features of the SBL quite well.

* Current affiliation: Department of Environmental Sciences, Cook College, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.

Corresponding author address: Dr. Maithili Sharan, Centre for Atmospheric Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology–Delhi, Hauz Khas,110016 New Delhi, India.

mathilis@cas.iitd.ernet.in

Save