Evaluation of Surface Layer Stability Functions and Their Extension to First Order Turbulent Closures for Weakly and Strongly Stratified Stable Boundary Layer

In this study, we utilize a generalization of Monin–Obukhov similarity theory to construct first order turbulent closures for single-column models of the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). A set of widely used universal functions for dimensionless gradients is evaluated. Two test cases based on Large...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBoundary-layer meteorology Vol. 187; no. 1-2; pp. 73 - 93
Main Authors Debolskiy, Andrey V., Mortikov, Evgeny V., Glazunov, Andrey V., Lüpkes, Christof
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Dordrecht Springer Netherlands 01.05.2023
Springer
Springer Nature B.V
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:In this study, we utilize a generalization of Monin–Obukhov similarity theory to construct first order turbulent closures for single-column models of the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). A set of widely used universal functions for dimensionless gradients is evaluated. Two test cases based on Large-Eddy Simulations (LES) experimental setups are considered – weakly stable ABL (GABLS1; Beare et al. in Bound Layer Meteorol 118(2):247–272, 2006), and very strongly stratified ABL (van der Linden et al. in Bound Layer Meteorol 173(2):165–192, 2019). The comparison shows that approximations obtained using a linear dimensionless velocity gradient tend to match the LES data more closely. In particular, the EFB (Energy- and Flux- Budget) closure proposed by Zilitinkevich et al. (Bound Layer Meteorol 146(3):341–373, 2013) has the best performance for the tests considered here. We also test surface layer “bulk formulas” based on these universal functions. The same LES data are utilized for comparison. The setup showcases the behavior of surface scheme, when one assumes that the velocity and temperature profiles in ABL are represented correctly. The advantages and disadvantages of different surface schemes are revealed.
ISSN:0006-8314
1573-1472
DOI:10.1007/s10546-023-00784-3