Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 123, Issue 1, pp 77–98 | Cite as

Spatial representativeness of single tower measurements and the imbalance problem with eddy-covariance fluxes: results of a large-eddy simulation study

  • Gerald Steinfeld
  • Marcus Oliver Letzel
  • Siegfried Raasch
  • Manabu Kanda
  • Atsushi Inagaki
Original Paper


A large-eddy simulation (LES) study is presented that investigates the spatial variability of temporal eddy covariance fluxes and the systematic underestimation of representative fluxes linked to them. It extends a prior numerical study by performing high resolution simulations that allow for virtual measurements down to 20 m in a convective boundary layer, so that conditions for small tower measurement sites can be analysed. It accounts for different convective regimes as the wind speed and the near-surface heat flux are varied. Moreover, it is the first LES imbalance study that extends to the stable boundary layer. It reveals shortcomings of single site measurements and the necessity of using horizontally-distributed observation networks. The imbalances in the convective case are attributed to a locally non-vanishing mean vertical advection due to turbulent organised structures (TOS). The strength of the TOS and thus the imbalance magnitude depends on height, the horizontal mean wind and the convection type. Contrary to the results of a prior study, TOS cannot generally be responsible for large energy imbalances: at low observation heights (corresponding to small towers and near-surface energy balance stations) the TOS related imbalances are generally about one order of magnitude smaller than those in field experiments. However, TOS may cause large imbalances at large towers not only in the case of cellular convection and low wind speeds, as found in the previous study, but also in the case of roll convection at large wind speeds.

In the stably stratified boundary layer for all observation heights neither TOS nor significant imbalances are observed.

Attempting to reduce imbalances in convective situations by applying the conventional linear detrending method increases the systematic flux underestimation. Thus, a new filter method is proposed.


Convective boundary layer Eddy covariance Imbalance problem Large-eddy simulation Stable boundary layer Turbulent fluxes 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Beare RJ, Cortes MAJ, Cuxart J, Esau I, Golaz C, Holtslag AAM, Khairoutdinov M, Kosovic B, Lewellen D, Lund T, Lundquist J, McCabe A, Macvean MK, Moene A, Noh Y, Poulos G, Raasch S, Sullivan PP (2006) An intercomparison of large-eddy simulations of the stable boundary-layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 118:247–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernhardt K, Piazena H (1988) Zum Einfluss der turbulenzbedingten Dichteschwankungen auf die Bestimmung turbulenter Austauschstrme in der Bodenschicht. Z Meteorol 38:234–245Google Scholar
  3. Beyrich F, Richter SH, Weisensee U, Kohsiek W, Lohse H, de Bruin HAR, Foken T, Göckede M, Berger F, Vogt R, Batchvarova E (2002) Experimental determination of turbulent fluxes over the heterogeneous LITFASS area: selected results from the LITFASS-98 experiment. Theor Appl Climatol 73:19–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosveld FC, Beljaars ACM (2001) The impact of sampling rate on eddy-covariance flux estimates. Agric For Meteorol 109:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bosveld FC, Bouten W (2001) Comparing transpiration models with eddy-correlation observations for a douglas-fir forest. Agric For Meteorol 108:247–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Caramori P, Schuepp P, Desjardins R, Macpherson I (1994) Structural analysis of airborne flux estimates over a region. J Climate 7:627–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deardorff JW (1980) Stratocumulus-topped mixed layers derived from a three-dimensional model. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 18:495–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Foken T (2003) Angewandte meteorologie. Springer, Berlin, Germany, 290 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Foken T, Wichura B (1996) Tools for quality assessment of surface-based flux measurements. Agric For Meteorol 78:83–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Inagaki A, Letzel MO, Raasch S, Kanda M (2006) The impact of the surface heterogeneity on the energy imbalance problem using LES. J Meteorol Soc Japan 84:187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Isaac PR, McAneney J, Leuning R, Hacker M (2004) Comparison of aircraft and ground-based flux measurements during OASIS95. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 110:39–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kanda M, Inagaki A, Letzel MO, Raasch S (2004) LES study of the energy imbalance problem with eddy covariance fluxes. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 110:381–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Katul G, Hsieh C, Bowling D, Clark K, Shurpali N, Turnipseed A, Albertson J, Tu K, Hollinger D, Evans B, Offerle B, Anderson D, Ellsworth D, Vogel C, Oren R (1999) Spatial variability of turbulent fluxes in the roughness sublayer of an even-aged pine forest. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 93:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Khanna S, Brasseur JG (1998) Three-dimensional buoyancy- and shear-induced local structure of the atmospheric boundary layer. J Atmos Sci 55:710–743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lee X (1998) On micrometeorological observations of surface-air exchange over tall vegetation. Agric For Meteorol 91:39–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. LeMone MA (1973) The structure and dynamics of horizontal roll vortices in the planetary boundary layer. J Atmos Sci 30:1077–1091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Letzel MO, Raasch S (2003) Large-eddy simulation of thermally induced oscillations in the convective boundary layer. J Atmos Sci 60:2328–2341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leuning R, Legg BJ (1982) Comments on “The influence of water vapor fluctuations on turbulent fluxes” by Brook. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 23:255–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mahrt L (1998) Flux sampling errors for aircraft and towers. J Atmos Ocean Tech 15:416–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Massman WJ, Lee X (2002) Eddy covariance flux corrections and uncertainties in long-term studies of carbon and energy exchanges. Agric For Meteorol 113:121–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Moeng CH, Sullivan PP (1994) A comparison of shear- and buoyancy-driven planetary boundary layer flows. J Atmos Sci 51:939–1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oncley SP, Foken T, Vogt R, Bernhofer C, Kohsiek W, Liu H, Pitacco A, Grantz D, Ribeiro L, Weidinger T (2002) The energy balance experiment EBEX-2000. In: Proceedings of the 15th symposium on boundary layer and turbulence, Wageningen, The Netherlands, American Meteorological Society, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  23. Panin GN, Tetzlaff G, Raabe A (1998) Inhomogeneity of the land surface and problems in the parameterization of surface fluxes in natural conditions. Theor Appl Climatol 60:163–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Raasch S, Etling D (1998) Modeling deep oceanic convection: Large-eddy simulation in comparison with laboratory experiments. J Phys Oceanog 28:1786–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raasch S, Harbusch G (2001) An analysis of secondary circulations and their effects caused by small-scale surface inhomogeneities using large-eddy simulation. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 101:31–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raasch S, Schröter M (2001) PALM – a large eddy simulation model performing on massively parallel computers. Meteorol Z 10:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Raasch S (cited 2006) PALM group. [Available online at http://www.muk.uni-hannover. de/~/PALM_group/]Google Scholar
  28. Rannik Ü, Vesala T (1999) Autoregressive filtering versus linear detrending in estimation of fluxes by the eddy-covariance method. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 91:259–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmidt H, Schumann U (1989) Coherent structure of the convective boundary layer derived from large-eddy simulation. J Fluid Mech 200:511–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schröter M, Bange J, Raasch S (2000) Simulated airborne flux measurements in a LES generated convective boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 95:437–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stull RB (1988) An introduction to boundary layer meteorology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 666 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Sykes RI, Henn DS (1989) Large-eddy simulation of turbulent sheared convection. J Atmos Sci 46:1106–1118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Twine TE, Kustas WP, Norman JM, Cook DR, Houser PR, Meyers TP, Prueger JH, Starks PJ, Wesely ML (2000) Correcting eddy-covariance flux underestimates over a grassland. Agr For Meteorol 103:279–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Webb EK, Pearman GI, Leuning R (1980) Correction of flux measurements for density effects due to heat and water vapor transfer. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc 106:85–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson K, Goldstein A, Falge E, Aubinet M, Baldocchi D, Berbigier P, Bernhofer C, Ceulemans R, Dolman H, Field C, Grelle A, Ibrom A, Law BE, Kowalski A, Meyers T, Moncrieff J, Monson R, Oechel W, Tenhunen J, Valentini R, Verma S (2002) Energy balance closure at FLUXNET sites. Agric For Meteorol 113:223–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald Steinfeld
    • 1
  • Marcus Oliver Letzel
    • 1
  • Siegfried Raasch
    • 1
  • Manabu Kanda
    • 2
  • Atsushi Inagaki
    • 2
  1. 1.Institut für Meteorologie und KlimatologieUniversität HannoverHannoverGermany
  2. 2.Department of International Development EngineeringTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations