Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics

, Volume 99, Issue 1–2, pp 105–128 | Cite as

The impact of the PBL scheme and the vertical distribution of model layers on simulations of Alpine foehn



This paper investigates the influence of the planetary boundary-layer (PBL) parameterization and the vertical distribution of model layers on simulations of an Alpine foehn case that was observed during the Mesoscale Alpine Programme (MAP) in autumn 1999. The study is based on the PSU/NCAR MM5 modelling system and combines five different PBL schemes with three model layer settings, which mainly differ in the height above ground of the lowest model level (z1). Specifically, z1 takes values of about 7 m, 22 m and 36 m, and the experiments with z1 = 7 m are set up such that the second model level is located at z = 36 m. To assess if the different model setups have a systematic impact on the model performance, the simulation results are compared against wind lidar, radiosonde and surface measurements gathered along the Austrian Wipp Valley. Moreover, the dependence of the simulated wind and temperature fields at a given height (36 m above ground) on z1 is examined for several different regions.

Our validation results show that at least over the Wipp Valley, the dependence of the model skill on z1 tends to be larger and more systematic than the impact of the PBL scheme. The agreement of the simulated wind field with observations tends to benefit from moving the lowest model layer closer to the ground, which appears to be related to the dependence of lee-side flow separation on z1. However, the simulated 2 m-temperatures are closest to observations for the intermediate z1 of 22 m. This is mainly related to the fact that the simulated low-level temperatures decrease systematically with decreasing z1 for all PBL schemes, turning a positive bias at z1 = 36 m into a negative bias at z1 = 7 m. The systematic z1-dependence is also observed for the temperatures at a fixed height of 36 m, indicating a deficiency in the self-consistency of the model results that is not related to a specific PBL formulation. Possible reasons for this deficiency are discussed in the paper. On the other hand, a systematic z1-dependence of the 36-m wind speed is encountered only for one out of the five PBL schemes. This turns out to be related to an unrealistic profile of the vertical mixing coefficient.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arya, SP 1988Introduction to micrometeorologyAcademic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. de Arellano JV-G, Vellinga OS, Holtslag AAM, Bosveld FC, Klein-Baltink H (2001) Observational evaluation of PBL parameterizations modeled by MM5. Proc. 11th PSU/NCAR MM5 Users Workshop, Boulder, CO, NCAR, pp 102–105Google Scholar
  3. Ayotte, KW, Sullivan, PP, Andren, A, Doney, SC, Holtslag, AAM, Large, WG, McWilliams, JC, Moeng, H-H, Otte, MJ, Tribbia, JJ, Wyngaard, JC 1996An evaluation of neutral and convective planetary boundary-layer parameterizations relative to large eddy simulationsBound Layer Meteor79131175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ballard, SP, Golding, BW, Smith, RNB 1991Mesoscale model experimental forecasts of the Haar of northeast ScotlandMon Wea Rev11921072123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg, LK, Zhong, S 2005Sensitivity of MM5-simulated boundary layer characteristics to turbulence parameterizationsJ Appl Meteor4414671483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braun, SA, Tao, WK 2000Sensitivity of high-resolution simulations of hurricane Bob (1991) to planetary boundary layer parameterizationsMon Wea Rev12839413961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bright, DR, Mullen, SL 2002The sensitivity of the numerical simulations of the southwest monsoon boundary layer to the choice of PBL turbulence parameterization in MM5Wea Forecasting1799114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burk, SD, Thompson, WT 1989A vertically nested regional numerical weather prediction model with second-order closure physicsMon Wea Rev11723052324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delage, Y 1997Parameterising sub-grid scale vertical transport in atmospheric models under statically stable conditionsBound Layer Meteor822348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dudhia, J 1989Numerical study of convection observed during the Winter Monsoon Experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional modelJ Atmos Sci4630773107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dudhia J, Gill D, Manning K, Wang W, Bruyere C (2005) PSU/NCAR Mesoscale Modeling System tutorial class notes and users’ guide (MM5 Modeling System Version 3). Online document, available from
  12. Gohm, A, Zängl, G, Mayr, GJ 2004South Foehn in the Wipp Valley on 24 October 1999 (MAP IOP 10): verification of high-resolution numerical simulations with observationsMon Wea Rev13278102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Grell, GA 1993Prognostic evaluation of assumptions used by cumulus parameterizationsMon Wea Rev121764787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grell GA, Dudhia J, Stauffer DR (1995) A description of the fifth-generation Penn State/NCAR mesoscale model (MM5). NCAR Tech. Note NCAR/TN-398+STR, 122 ppGoogle Scholar
  15. Holt, T, Raman, S 1988A review and comparative evaluation of multilevel boundary layer parameterizations for furst-order and turbulence kinetic energy closure schemesRev Geophys26761780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hong, S-Y, Pan, H-L 1996Nonlocal boundary-layer vertical diffusion in a medium-range forecast modelMon Wea Rev12423222339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Janjić, ZI 1990The step-mountain eta coordinate model: Further developments of the convection, viscous sublayer and turbulence closure schemesMon Wea Rev122927945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Janjić, ZI 1994The step-mountain coordinate: physical packageMon Wea Rev11814291443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kain, JS 2004The Kain-Fritsch convective parameterization: an updateJ Appl Meteor43170181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kain, JS, Fritsch, JM 1990A one-dimensional entraining/detraining plume model and its application in convective parameterizationJ Atmos Sci4727842802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Keil, C, Cardinali, C 2004The ECMWF re-analysis of the MAP special observing periodQuart J Roy Met Soc13028272849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Klemp, JB, Durran, DR 1983An upper boundary condition permitting internal gravity wave radiation in numerical mesoscale modelsMon Wea Rev111430444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis HW (2006) The dynamics of the atmospheric boundary layer over steep terrain. Ph.D. thesis, University of Leeds, 305 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. Louis, JF 1979A parametric model of vertical eddy fluxes in the atmosphereBound Layer Meteor17187202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mahfouf, JF, Richard, E, Mascart, P, Nickerson, EC, Rosset, R 1987A comparative study of various parameterizations of the planetary boundary layer in a numerical mesoscale modelJ Clim Appl Meteor2616711695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mellor, GL, Yamada, T 1974A hierarchy of turbulence closure models for planetary boundary layersJ Atmos Sci3117911806CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mlawer, EJ, Taubman, SJ, Brown, PD, Iacono, MJ, Clough, SA 1997Radiative transfer for inhomogeneous atmosphere: RRTM, a validated correlated-k model for the longwaveJ Geophys Res1021666316682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pan, Z, Benjamin, SG, Brown, JM, Smirnova, T 1994Comparative experiments with MAPS on different parameterization schemes for surface moisture flux and boundary-layer processesMon Wea Rev122449470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Post, MJ, Cupp, RE 1990Optimizing a pulsed Doppler lidarAppl Optics2941454158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Poulos, GS, Burns, SP 2003An evaluation of bulk Ri-based surface layer flux formulas for stable and very stable conditions with intermittent turbulenceJ Atmos Sci6025232537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reisner, J, Rasmussen, RM, Bruintjes, RT 1998Explicit forecasting of supercooled liquid water in winter storms using the MM5 mesoscale modelQuart J Roy Met Soc12410711107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shafran, PC, Seaman, NL, Gayno, GA 2000Evaluation of numerical predictions of boundary layer structure during the Lake Michigan Ozone Study (LMOS)J Appl Meteorol39412426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zängl, G 2002aStratified flow over a mountain with a gap. Linear theory and numerical simulationsQuart J Roy Met Soc128927949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zängl, G 2002bAn improved method for computing horizontal diffusion in a sigma-coordinate model and its application to simulations over mountainous topographyMon Wea Rev13014231432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zängl, G 2003aA generalized sigma coordinate system for the MM5Mon Wea Rev13128752884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zängl, G 2003bDeep and shallow south foehn in the region of Innsbruck: typical features and semi-idealized numerical simulationsMeteorol Atmos Phys83237261Google Scholar
  37. Zängl, G 2004The sensitivity of simulated orographic precipitation to model components other than cloud microphysicsQuart J Roy Met Soc13018571875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zängl, G, Gohm, A, Geier, G 2004South foehn in the Wipp Valley – Innsbruck region: numerical simulations of the 24 October 1999 case (MAP-IOP 10)Meteorol Atmos Phys86213243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zängl, G, Gohm, A 2006Small-scale dynamics of the foehn in the lower Wipp ValleyMeteorol Atmos Phys937995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhang, D, Anthes, RA 1982A high-resolution model of the planetary boundary layer – sensitivity tests and comparisons with SESAME-79 dataJ Appl Meteor2115941609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang, D-L, Zheng, W-Z 2004Diurnal cycles of surface winds and temperatures as simulated by five boundary layer parameterizationsJ Appl Meteor43157169CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Meteorologisches Institut der Universitat MünchenMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Institut für Meteorologie und GeophysikUniversität InnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations