The Impact of Sensor Response and Airspeed on the Representation of the Convective Boundary Layer and Airmass Boundaries by Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Adam L. Houston Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska

Search for other papers by Adam L. Houston in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
and
Jason M. Keeler Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska

Search for other papers by Jason M. Keeler in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

Abstract

The objective of the research presented is to assess the impact of sensor response and aircraft airspeed on the accuracy of in situ observations collected by small unmanned aircraft systems profiling the convective boundary layer or transecting airmass boundaries. Estimates are made using simulated aircraft flown within large-eddy simulations. Both instantaneous errors (differences between observed temperature, which include the effects of sensor response and airspeed, and actual temperature) and errors in representation (differences between serial observations and representative snapshots of the atmospheric state) are considered. Synthetic data are retrieved assuming a well-aspirated first-order sensor mounted on rotary-wing aircraft operated as profilers in a simulated CBL and fixed-wing aircraft operated through transects across a simulated airmass boundary. Instantaneous errors are found to scale directly with sensor response time and airspeed for both CBL and airmass boundary experiments. Maximum errors tend to be larger for airmass boundary transects compared to the CBL profiles. Instantaneous errors for rotary-wing aircraft profiles in the CBL simulated for this work are attributable to the background lapse rate and not to turbulent temperature perturbations. For airmass boundary flights, representation accuracy is found to degrade with decreasing airspeed. This signal is most pronounced for flights that encounter the density current wake. When representation errors also include instantaneous errors resulting from sensor response, instantaneous errors are found to be dominant for flights that remain below the turbulent wake. However, for flights that encounter the wake, sensor response times generally need to exceed ~5 s before instantaneous errors become larger than errors in representation.

© 2018 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Current affiliation: Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan.

Corresponding author: Dr. Adam L. Houston, ahouston2@unl.edu

Abstract

The objective of the research presented is to assess the impact of sensor response and aircraft airspeed on the accuracy of in situ observations collected by small unmanned aircraft systems profiling the convective boundary layer or transecting airmass boundaries. Estimates are made using simulated aircraft flown within large-eddy simulations. Both instantaneous errors (differences between observed temperature, which include the effects of sensor response and airspeed, and actual temperature) and errors in representation (differences between serial observations and representative snapshots of the atmospheric state) are considered. Synthetic data are retrieved assuming a well-aspirated first-order sensor mounted on rotary-wing aircraft operated as profilers in a simulated CBL and fixed-wing aircraft operated through transects across a simulated airmass boundary. Instantaneous errors are found to scale directly with sensor response time and airspeed for both CBL and airmass boundary experiments. Maximum errors tend to be larger for airmass boundary transects compared to the CBL profiles. Instantaneous errors for rotary-wing aircraft profiles in the CBL simulated for this work are attributable to the background lapse rate and not to turbulent temperature perturbations. For airmass boundary flights, representation accuracy is found to degrade with decreasing airspeed. This signal is most pronounced for flights that encounter the density current wake. When representation errors also include instantaneous errors resulting from sensor response, instantaneous errors are found to be dominant for flights that remain below the turbulent wake. However, for flights that encounter the wake, sensor response times generally need to exceed ~5 s before instantaneous errors become larger than errors in representation.

© 2018 American Meteorological Society. For information regarding reuse of this content and general copyright information, consult the AMS Copyright Policy (www.ametsoc.org/PUBSReuseLicenses).

Current affiliation: Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan.

Corresponding author: Dr. Adam L. Houston, ahouston2@unl.edu
Save
  • Bryan, G. H., and J. M. Fritch, 2002: A benchmark simulation for moist nonhydrostatic numerical models. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130, 29172928, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(2002)130<2917:ABSFMN>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Burns, S. P., and Coauthors, 1999: Comparisons of aircraft, ship, and buoy meteorological measurements from TOGA COARE. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 30 85330 883, https://doi.org/10.1029/1999JD900934.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Carlson, T. N., and F. E. Boland, 1978: Analysis of urban-rural canopy using a surface heat flux/temperature model. J. Appl. Meteor., 17, 9981013, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1978)017<0998:AOURCU>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Chen, C., 1995: Numerical simulations of gravity currents in uniform shear flows. Mon. Wea. Rev., 123, 32403253, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1995)123<3240:NSOGCI>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cohn, S. A., and Coauthors, 2013: Driftsondes: Providing in situ long-duration dropsonde observations over remote regions. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 94, 16611674, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00075.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Droegemeier, K. K., and R. B. Wilhelmson, 1987: Numerical simulation of thunderstorm outflow dynamics. Part I: Outflow sensitivity experiments and turbulence dynamics. J. Atmos. Sci., 44, 11801210, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1987)044<1180:NSOTOD>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dudhia, J., 1996: A multi-layer soil temperature model for MM5. Preprints, Sixth PSU/NCAR Mesoscale Model Users’ Workshop, Boulder, CO, PSU and NCAR, 49–50.

  • Dudhia, J., D. Gill, K. Manning, W. Wang, and C. Bruyere, 2004: PSU/NCAR mesoscale modeling system tutorial class notes and user’s guide (MM5 modelling system version 3). UCAR, 390 pp.

  • Elston, J. S., J. Roadman, M. Stachura, B. Argrow, A. L. Houston, and E. W. Frew, 2011: The Tempest Unmanned Aircraft System for in situ observations of tornadic supercells: Design and VORTEX2 flight results. J. Field Rob., 28, 461483, https://doi.org/10.1002/rob.20394.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Elston, J. S., B. Argrow, M. Stachura, D. Weibel, D. Lawrence, and D. Pope, 2015: Overview of small fixed-wing unmanned aircraft for meteorological sampling. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 32, 97115, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-13-00236.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Frew, E. W., J. Elston, B. Argrow, A. L. Houston, and E. N. Rasmussen, 2012: Unmanned aircraft systems for sampling severe local storms and related phenomena. IEEE Rob. Autom. Mag., 19, 8595, https://doi.org/10.1109/MRA.2012.2184193.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hanft, W., and A. L. Houston, 2018: An observational and modeling study of mesoscale air masses with high theta-e. Mon. Wea. Rev., 146, 25032524, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-17-0389.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Hemingway, B., A. Frazier, B. Elbing, and J. Jacob, 2017: Vertical sampling scales for atmospheric boundary layer measurements from small unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS). Atmosphere, 8, 176, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos8090176.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Houston, A. L., 2016: The sensitivity of deep ascent of cold-pool air to vertical shear and cold-pool buoyancy. Electron. J. Severe Storms Meteor., 11 (3), http://www.ejssm.org/ojs/index.php/ejssm/article/viewArticle/151.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Houston, A. L., B. Argrow, J. Elston, J. Lahowetz, E. W. Frew, and P. C. Kennedy, 2012: The Collaborative Colorado–Nebraska Unmanned Aircraft System Experiment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 93, 3954, https://doi.org/10.1175/2011BAMS3073.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Kiefer, C. M., C. B. Clements, and B. E. Potter, 2012: Application of a mini unmanned aircraft system for in situ monitoring of fire plume thermodynamic properties. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 29, 309315, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00112.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Knuth, S. L., and J. J. Cassano, 2014: Estimating sensible and latent heat fluxes using the integral method from in situ aircraft measurements. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 31, 19641981, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-14-00008.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lee, B. D., and R. B. Wilhelmson, 1997: The numerical simulation of nonsupercell tornadogenesis. Part I: Initiation and evolution of pretornadic misocyclone circulations along a dry outflow boundary. J. Atmos. Sci., 54, 3260, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0469(1997)054<0032:TNSONS>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Liu, C., and M. W. Moncrieff, 1996: A numerical study of the effects of ambient flow and shear on density currents. Mon. Wea. Rev., 124, 22822303, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1996)124<2282:ANSOTE>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Lundquist, J. K., M. J. Churchfield, S. Lee, and A. Clifton, 2015: Quantifying error of lidar and sodar Doppler beam swinging measurements of wind turbine wakes using computational fluid dynamics. Atmos. Meas. Tech., 8, 907920, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-8-907-2015.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Maronga, B., A. F. Moene, D. van Dinther, S. Raasch, F. C. Bosveld, and B. Gioli, 2013: Derivation of structure parameters of temperature and humidity in the convective boundary layer from large-eddy simulations and implications for the interpretation of scintillometer observations. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 148, 130, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-013-9801-6.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • McCarthy, J., 1973: A method for correcting airborne temperature data for sensor response time. J. Appl. Meteor., 12, 211214, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1973)012<0211:AMFCAT>2.0.CO;2.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Monin, A. S., and A. M. Obukhov, 1954: Basic laws of turbulent mixing in the atmosphere near the ground. Tr. Geofiz. Inst., Akad. Nauk SSSR, 24, 163187.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Nowotarski, C. J., P. M. Markowski, Y. P. Richardson, and G. H. Bryan, 2014: Properties of a simulated convective boundary layer in an idealized supercell thunderstorm environment. Mon. Wea. Rev., 142, 39553976, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-13-00349.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Reineman, B. D., L. Lenain, N. M. Statom, and W. K. Melville, 2013: Development and testing of instrumentation for UAV-based flux measurements within terrestrial and marine atmospheric boundary layers. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 30, 12951319, https://doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-12-00176.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Riganti, C. J., and A. L. Houston, 2017: Rear-flank outflow dynamics and thermodynamics in the 10 June 2010 Last Chance, Colorado, supercell. Mon. Wea. Rev., 145, 24872504, https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-16-0128.1.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Scipion, D., R. D. Palmer, P. B. Chilson, E. Fedorovich, and A. Botnick, 2009: Retrieval of convective boundary layer wind field statistics from radar profiler measurements in conjunction with large eddy simulation. Meteor. Z., 18, 175187, https://doi.org/10.1127/0941-2948/2009/0371.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Skamarock, W. C., and Coauthors, 2008: A description of the Advanced Research WRF version 3. NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-475+STR, 113 pp., http://dx.doi.org/10.5065/D68S4MVH.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • van den Kroonenberg, A. C., S. Martin, F. Beyrich, and J. Bange, 2012: Spatially-averaged temperature structure parameter over a heterogeneous surface measured by an unmanned aerial vehicle. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 142, 5577, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-011-9662-9.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Wainwright, C. E., T. A. Bonin, P. B. Chilson, J. A. Gibbs, E. Fedorovich, and R. D. Palmer, 2015: Methods for evaluating the temperature structure-function parameter using unmanned aerial systems and large-eddy simulation. Bound.-Layer Meteor., 155, 189208, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-014-0001-9.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 475 181 17
PDF Downloads 342 105 10