A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF OBSTRUCTIONS THE SUBMESO FLOW IN THE CONVECTIVE BOUNDARY LAYER
Keywords:Submeso. Convective boundary layer. Transmission factor.
The equations built over the years in the study of planetary boundary layer, although often based on experimental level, were created to idealized situations like, homogeneous surfaces flat, free from obstacles and steady state conditions. However such homogeneity situation is far from reality, because the earth’s surface features a large variability in topography, ground cover and urban areas. This paper presents a proposal to show the influence of the variability of the local surface as the obstacle effect on the flow in the timescale still small known, the Submeso in Convective Boundary Layer. To prove this effect was found a Transmission Factor for each wind sector in the eight micrometeorological stations present in the experimental site of Pedras Altas in the Pampa region in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Such Transmission Factor confirm the local influence of obstacles in filtering flow enabling identification of which quadrant the wind is more or less obstructed and even check in climbing time to osbtrução exerts greater impact.
Acevedo, O. C., Costa, F. D., Oliveira, P. E. S., Puhales,F. S., Degrazia, G. A., Roberti, D. R. (2014). The influence of submeso processo on the stable boundary layer similarity relationships. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 71, 207–225.
Howell, J. F., Mahrt, L. (1997). Multiresolution flux decomposition. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 81, 117–137.
Mahrt, L. (2009). Characteristics of submeso winds in the stable boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 130, 1–14.
Mallat, S. (1989). Multiresolution flux decomposition. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Machine Intell, 11(7), 674–693.
Vikers, D., Mahrt, L. (2003). The cospectral gap and turbulent flux calculations. journal Atmospheric and oceanic technology, 20, 660–672.
Vikers, D., Mahrt, L. (2007). Observations of the crosswind velocity variance in the stable boundary layer. Journal of Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 7, 55–71.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.