Sensitivity Tests in the Dynamical and Thermal Part of the MRF-Urban PBL Scheme in the MM5 Model

  • Aggeliki DandouEmail author
  • Maria Tombrou


In the present study, sensitivity tests were carried out in the ‘dynamical’ and ‘thermal’ part of a meteorological model in urban environment. The numerical simulations were performed by the PSU/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5), by applying the non-local Medium-Range Forecast (MRF) Planetary Boundary Layer (PBL) parameterisation scheme, plus the MRF-urban scheme, whereby urban features are considered. An unrealistic run was also performed by the MRF scheme, where the city of Athens was replaced by dry cropland and pasture surface, as in the surrounding area. The model results were compared with sonic anemometer measurements of turbulence and routine meteorological data. Modifications in both the ‘dynamical’ and ‘thermal’ parts seem to play an important role and improve the model’s results. In addition, a delay in the sea breeze front was found, and a reasonable frictional retard concerning its penetration, as well as an inland displacement of the heat island, as the air moved over the city of Athens.



We are grateful to the COST Action 715 and 728 activities which actually inspired this study.


  1. Akylas, E., Tsakos, Y., Tombrou, M. and Lalas D. P. 2003. Considerations on minimum friction velocity. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 129, 1929–1943.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akylas, E. and Tombrou, M. 2005. Reconsidering and generalized interpolation between Kansas-type formulae and free convection forms. Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 115, 381–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Batchvarova, E. and Gryning, S.-E. 1998. Wind climatology, atmospheric turbulence and internal boundary-layer development in Athens during the MEDCAPHOT-TRACE experiment. Atmos Environ. 32(12), 2055–2069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, M., 2000. Urban parameterizations for mesoscale meteorological models. In Mesoscale Atmospheric Dispersion, Adv, Air Pollut. Ser., vol. 9, edited by Z. Boybey, WIT Press, Boston, pp. 193–255.Google Scholar
  5. Dandou, A., Tombrou, M., Akylas, E., Soulakellis, N. and Bossioli, E. 2005. Development and evaluation of an urban parameterization scheme in the Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model (MM5). J. Geophys. Res. 110, D10102, doi:10.1029/2004JD005192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dandou, A., Tombrou, M. and Soulakellis, N. 2009. The influence of the city of Athens on the evolution of the sea breeze front. Bound. Layer Meteorol., 131(1), 35–51, doi 10.1007/s10546-008-9306-x.Google Scholar
  7. Dudhia, J., 1989. Numerical study of convection observed during the winter monsoon experiment using a mesoscale two-dimensional model. J. Atmos. Sci., 46, 3077–3107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dudhia, J., 1996. A multi-layer soil temperature model for MM5. Preprints, the 6th PSU/NCAR Meso-scale Model users, Workshop, Boulder CO, July, National Centre for Atmospheric Research, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
  9. Fan, H. and Sailor, D. J. 2005. Modeling the impacts of anthropogenic heating on the urban climate of Philadelphia: a comparison of implementations in two PBL schemes. Atmos. Environ. 39, 73–84, doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.09.031.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grell, G. A. 1993. Prognostic evaluation of assumptions used by cumulus parameterizations. Mon. Wea. Rev. 121, 764–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grell, G. A., Dudhia, J. and Stauffer, D. 1994. A description of the fifth-generation pess state/NCAR mesoscale model (MM5). NCAR technical note, NCAR/TN-398+STR, 138 pp.Google Scholar
  12. Grimmond, C. S. B., Cleugh, H. A. and Oke, T. R. 1991. An objective urban heat storage model and its comparison with other schemes. Atmos. Environ., Part B, 25, 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hong, S.-Y. and Pan, H.-L. 1996. Nonlocal Boundary-Layer vertical diffusion in a medium-range forecast model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 124, 2322–2339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King, J. C., Connolley, W. M. and Derbyshire, S. H. 2001. Sensitivity of modeled Antarctic climate to surface and boundary-layer flux parameterizations. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., 127, 779–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Martilli, A., Clappier, A. and Rotach, M. W. 2002. An urban surface exchange parameterization for mesoscale models. Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 194, 261–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Seaman, N. L. 2000. Meteorological modelling for air-quality assessments. Atmos. Environ., 34, 2231–2259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Troen, I. and Mahrt, L. 1986. A simple model for the atmospheric Boundary-Layer: Sensitivity to surface evaporation. Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 37, 129–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ziomas, I. C. 1998. The Mediterranean campaign of photochemical tracers-transport and chemical evolution (MED-CAPHOT-TRACE): An outline. Atmos. Environ., 32, 2045–2053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental Physics and MeteorologyNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Physics and MeteorologyNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations