A comparison of errors in the turbulence kinetic energy dissipation-rate estimations through different methods in the atmospheric boundary layer
Keywords:Dissipation rate, Monte Carlo, ogive, spectrum, structure function
AbstractThe dissipation rate of the turbulence kinetic energy (") in the atmosphere can be indirectly obtained from high-frequency measurements of streamwise wind velocity, when using the inertial subrange theory predicted by Kolmogorov for the spectrum, second order structure function or ogive. To estimate the error intrinsic to these estimations, a series of synthetic spectra was constructed from the theoretical spectrum combined with random rrors, which were then used to obtain structure functions and ogive. The " estimation from spectra or structure functions presented a root mean square value of approximately 2% of the expected value of ", whereas the estimation from ogives had errors of approximately 1:3%. A correction factor is needed in the estimations using the ogive and the structure function in order to remove the bias caused by the finite Nyquest frequency. Due to
the smaller error, the ogive provides the best approach for indirect estimation of " in the atmospheric boundary layer.
Chamecki, M., Dias, N. L. (2004). The local isotropy hypothesis and the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate in the atmospheric surface layer. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 130(603), 2733–2752.
Chamecki, M., Dias, N. L., Salesky, S. T., Pan, Y. (2017). Scaling laws for the longitudinal structure function in the atmospheric surface layer. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 74(4), 1127–1147.
Davidson, P. (2004). Turbulence, an Introduction for scientists and engineerers. Oxford University Press.
Davidson, P., Krogstad, P. Å. (2014). A universal scaling for low-order structure functions in the log-law region of smooth and rough-wall boundary layers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 752, 140–156.
Dias, N. L. (2017). Smoothed spectra, ogives, and error estimates for atmospheric turbulence data. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, (n/a), n/a–n/a.
Katul, G., Mahrt, L., Poggi, D., Sanz, C. (2004). One and two-equation models for canopy turbulence. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 113(1), 81–109.
Moeng, C. H., Wyngaard, J. C. (1989). Evaluation of turbulent transport and dissipation closures in second-order modeling. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 46(14), 2311–2330.
Pan, Y., Chamecki, M. (2016). A scaling law for the shear-production range of second-order structure functions. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 801, 459–474.
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.