Advertisement

Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 147, Issue 3, pp 469–491 | Cite as

The Wind Profile in the Coastal Boundary Layer: Wind Lidar Measurements and Numerical Modelling

  • R. FloorsEmail author
  • C. L. Vincent
  • S. -E. Gryning
  • A. Peña
  • E. Batchvarova
Article

Abstract

Traditionally it has been difficult to verify mesoscale model wind predictions against observations in the planetary boundary layer (PBL). Here we used measurements from a wind lidar to study the PBL up to 800 m above the surface at a flat coastal site in Denmark during a one month period in autumn. We ran the Weather Research and Forecasting numerical model with two different roughness descriptions over land, two different synoptic forcings and two different PBL schemes at two vertical resolutions and evaluated the wind profile against observations from the wind lidar. The simulated wind profile did not have enough vertical shear in the lower part of the PBL and also had a negative bias higher up in the boundary layer. Near the surface the internal boundary layer and the surface roughness influenced the wind speed, while higher up it was only influenced by the choice of PBL scheme and the synoptic forcing. By replacing the roughness value for the land-use category in the model with a more representative mesoscale roughness, the observed bias in friction velocity was reduced. A higher-order PBL scheme simulated the wind profile from the west with a lower wind-speed bias at the top of the PBL. For easterly winds low-level jets contributed to a negative wind-speed bias around 300 m and were better simulated by the first-order scheme. In all simulations, the wind-profile shape, wind speed and turbulent fluxes were not improved when a higher vertical resolution or different synoptic forcing were used.

Keywords

Internal boundary layer Low-level jet Weather Research and Forecasting model Wind lidar Wind profile 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Andrea Hahmann and Joakim Nielsen for their input in the discussions about the WRF model and three reviewers for their constructive comments. The study is supported by the Danish Research Agency Strategic Research Council (Sagsnr. 2104-08-0025) “Tall wind” project, the Nordic Centre of Excellence programme CRAICC and the EU FP7-People-IEF VSABLA (PIEF-GA-2009-237471). The contribution of C.L. Vincent was supported by the Danish Council for Independent Research—Technology and Production Sciences individual post-doc project (case number 10-093196). TEM section at DTU Wind Energy is acknowledged for maintenance of the data base for all measurements at the Høvsøre site.

References

  1. Baas P, Bosveld F, Lenderink G, van Meijgaard E, Holtslag AAM (2010) How to design single-column model experiments for comparison with observed nocturnal low-level jets. Q J R Meteorol Soc 138(648):671–684Google Scholar
  2. Baas P, Bosveld FC, Klein Baltink H, Holtslag AAM (2009) A climatology of nocturnal low-level jets at Cabauw. J Appl Meteorol 48(8):1627–1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batchvarova E, Gryning S, Hasager C (2001) Regional fluxes of momentum and sensible heat over a sub-arctic landscape during late winter. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 99(3):489–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belušić D, Güttler I (2010) Can mesoscale models reproduce meandering motions? Q J R Meteorol Soc 136(648):553–565Google Scholar
  5. Businger JA, Wyngaard JC, Izumi Y, Bradley EF (1971) Flux-profile relationships in the atmospheric surface layer. J Atmos Sci 28(2):181–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charnock H (1955) Wind stress on a water surface. Q J R Meteorol Soc 81(350):639–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen F, Dudhia J (2001) Coupling an advanced land surface hydrology model with the Penn State-NCAR MM5 modeling system. Part I: model implementation and sensitivity. Mon Weather Rev 129(4):569–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng Y, Brutsaert W (2005) Flux-profile relationships for wind speed and temperature in the stable atmospheric boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 114:519–538Google Scholar
  9. Cuxart J, Holtslag AAM, Beare RJ, Bazile E, Beljaars A, Cheng A, Conangla L, Ek M, Freedman F, Hamdi R, Kerstein A, Kitagawa H, Lenderink G, Lewellen D, Mailhot J, Mauritsen T, Perov V, Schayes G, Steeneveld G-J, Svensson G, Taylor P, Weng W, Wunsch S, Xu K-M (2005) Single-column model intercomparison for a stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 118(2):273–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dee DP, Uppala SM, Simmons AJ, Berrisford P, Poli P, Kobayashi S, Andrae U, Balmaseda MA, Balsamo G, Bauer P, Bechtold P, Beljaars ACM, van de Berg L, Bidlot J, Bormann N, Delsol C, Dragani R, Fuentes M, Geer AJ, Haimberger L, Healy SB, Hersbach H, Hólm EV, Isaksen L, Kållberg P, Köhler M, Matricardi M, McNally AP, Monge-Sanz BM, Morcrette J-J, Park B-K, Peubey C, de Rosnay P, Tavolato C, Thépaut J-N, Vitart F (2011) The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system. Q J R Meteorol Soc 137(656):553–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Derbyshire SH (1999) Boundary-layer decoupling over cold surfaces as a physical boundary-instability. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 90(2):297–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dudhia J (1989) Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional model. J Atmos Sci 46(20):3077–3107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Floors R, Batchvarova E, Gryning S-E, Hahmann AN, Peña A, Mikkelsen T (2011a) Atmospheric boundary layer wind profile at a flat coastal site—wind speed lidar measurements and mesoscale modeling results. Adv Sci Res 6:155–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Floors R, Gryning S, Peña A, Batchvarova E (2011b) Analysis of diabatic flow modification in the internal boundary layer. Met Zeit 20(6):649–659Google Scholar
  15. Gibbs JA, Fedorovich E, van Eijk AMJ (2011) Model predictions of turbulent flow parameters in a dry convective boundary layer. J Appl Meteorol 50(12):2429–2444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gryning S-E, Batchvarova E, Brümmer B, Jørgensen H, Larsen S (2007) On the extension of the wind profile over homogeneous terrain beyond the surface boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 124(2): 251–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hong S-Y (2010) A new stable boundary-layer mixing scheme and its impact on the simulated East Asian summer monsoon. Q J R Meteorol Soc 136(651):1481–1496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hong S-Y, Noh Y, Dudhia J (2006) A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Mon Weather Rev 134(9):2318–2341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hu X-M, Nielsen-Gammon JW, Zhang F (2010) Evaluation of three planetary boundary layer schemes in the WRF model. J Appl Meteorol 49(9):1831–1844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jiménez PA, Dudhia J, González-Rouco JF, Navarro J, Montávez JP, García-Bustamante E (2012) A revised scheme for the WRF surface layer formulation. Mon Weather Rev 140(3):898–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mahrt L (1996) The bulk aerodynamic formulation over heterogeneous surfaces. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 78(1–2):87–119Google Scholar
  22. McCabe A, Brown AR (2006) The role of surface heterogeneity in modelling the stable boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 122(3):517–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mellor GL, Yamada T (1982) Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems. Rev Geophys 20(4):851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mlawer EJ, Taubman SJ, Brown PD, Iacono MJ, Clough SA (1997) Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmospheres: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwave. J Geophy Res 102(D14):16663–16682Google Scholar
  25. Nakanishi M, Niino H (2009) Development of an improved turbulence closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. J Meteorol Soc of Jpn 87(5):895–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peña A, Hahmann AN (2012) Atmospheric stability and turbulence fluxes at Horns Rev—an intercomparison of sonic, bulk and WRF model data. Wind Energy 15(5):717–731Google Scholar
  27. Peña A, Hasager CB, Gryning S-E, Courtney M, Antoniou I, Mikkelsen T (2009) Offshore wind profiling using light detection and ranging measurements. Wind Energy 12(2):105–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Schotanus P, Nieuwstadt F, Bruin H (1983) Temperature measurement with a sonic anemometer and its application to heat and moisture fluxes. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 26(1):81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shin HH, Hong S-Y (2011) Intercomparison of planetary boundary-layer parametrizations in the WRF model for a single day from CASES-99. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 139(2):261–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shir CC (1972) A numerical computation of air flow over a sudden change of surface roughness. J Atmos Sci 29(2):304–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Skamarock W, Klemp J, Dudhia J, Gill D, Barker D, Duda M, Huang X, Wang W (2008) A description of the advanced research WRF version 3. Technical report, NCAR/TN-475+ STR, 115 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Steeneveld GJ, Tolk LF, Moene AF, Hartogensis OK, Peters W, Holtslag AAM (2011) Confronting the WRF and RAMS mesoscale models with innovative observations in the Netherlands: evaluating the boundary layer heat budget. J Geophys Res 116(D23):D23114Google Scholar
  33. Sušelj K, Sood A (2010) Improving the Mellor–Yamada–Janjić parameterization for wind conditions in the marine planetary boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 136(2):301–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thompson G, Rasmussen RM, Manning K (2004) Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. Part I: description and sensitivity analysis. Mon Weather Rev 132(2): 519–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Van Dijk A, Moene AF, De Bruin HAR (2004) The principles of surface flux physics: theory, practice and description of the ECPACK library. Technical report, Meteorology and Air Quality Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 99 ppGoogle Scholar
  36. Vickers D, Mahrt L (1999) Observations of non-dimensional wind shear in the coastal zone. Q J R Meteorol Soc 125(559):2685–2702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wieringa J (1986) Roughness-dependent geographical interpolation of surface wind speed averages. Q J R Meteorol Soc 112(473):867–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilczak JM, Oncley SP, Stage SA (2001) Sonic anemometer tilt correction algorithms. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 99(1):127–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wyngaard JC (2004) Toward numerical modeling in the Terra Incognita. J Atmos Sci 61(14):1816–1826CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang D-L, Zheng W-Z (2004) Diurnal cycles of surface winds and temperatures as simulated by five boundary layer parameterizations. J App Meteorol 43(1):157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zilitinkevich SS, Esau IN (2005) Resistance and heat-transfer laws for stable and neutral planetary boundary layers: old theory advanced and re-evaluated. Q J R Meteorol Soc 131(609):1863–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Floors
    • 1
    Email author
  • C. L. Vincent
    • 1
  • S. -E. Gryning
    • 1
  • A. Peña
    • 1
  • E. Batchvarova
    • 2
  1. 1.DTU Wind Energy, Risø CampusTechnical University of DenmarkRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.National Institute of Meteorology and HydrologySofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations