Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

You seem to have javascript disabled. Please note that many of the page functionalities won't work as expected without javascript enabled.
 
 
Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Article Types

Countries / Regions

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Search Results (881)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = atmospheric boundary layer

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
16 pages, 4791 KiB  
Article
Wind Turbine Aerodynamics Simulation Using the Spectral/hp Element Framework Nektar++
by Hamidreza Abedi and Claes Eskilsson
Wind 2025, 5(1), 6; https://doi.org/10.3390/wind5010006 - 18 Feb 2025
Abstract
Wind power plays an increasingly vital role in sustainable energy development. However, accurately simulating wind turbine aerodynamics, particularly in offshore wind farms, remains challenging due to complex environmental factors such as the marine atmospheric boundary layer. This study investigates the integration and assessment [...] Read more.
Wind power plays an increasingly vital role in sustainable energy development. However, accurately simulating wind turbine aerodynamics, particularly in offshore wind farms, remains challenging due to complex environmental factors such as the marine atmospheric boundary layer. This study investigates the integration and assessment of the Actuator Line Model (ALM) within the high-order spectral/hp element framework, Nektar++, for wind turbine aerodynamic simulations. The primary objective is to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the ALM by analyzing aerodynamic loads, wake behavior, and computational demands. A three-bladed NREL-5MW turbine is modeled using the ALM in Nektar++, with results compared against established computational fluid dynamics (CFD) tools, including SOWFA and AMR-Wind. The findings demonstrate that Nektar++ effectively captures velocity and vorticity fields in the turbine wake while providing aerodynamic load predictions that closely align with finite-volume CFD models. Furthermore, the spectral/hp element framework exhibits favorable scalability and computational efficiency, indicating that Nektar++ is a promising tool for high-fidelity wind turbine and wind farm aerodynamic research. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>Left</b>) Schematic of rotor blades with actuator lines. The red dots (actuator points) represent the discretization of the actuator line, where forces are applied along the rotor blades. (<b>Right</b>) Two-dimensional blade section at local radius <span class="html-italic">r</span> and corresponding forces and velocities with respect to the rotor plane. The line AB represents a cross-sectional plane through a rotor blade. Adopted from [<a href="#B21-wind-05-00006" class="html-bibr">21</a>,<a href="#B26-wind-05-00006" class="html-bibr">26</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Schematic of the computational domain and the turbine’s positioning: (<b>a</b>) Side view. (<b>b</b>) Front view. <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>U</mi> <mo>∞</mo> </msub> </semantics></math> and D denote the undisturbed inflow velocity and rotor diameter, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Comparison of different Nektar++ simulations with varying polynomial orders (<span class="html-italic">p</span>) and smearing factors (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ϵ</mi> </semantics></math>) for the (<b>a</b>) normal force per blade span and (<b>b</b>) tangential force per blade span along the rotor blades.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Comparison of different simulation tools for the (<b>a</b>) normal and (<b>b</b>) tangential forces per blade span along the rotor blades.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Time-averaged velocity magnitude obtained from Nektar++ (left), SOWFA (middle), and AMR-Wind (right). (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) the velocity magnitude at hub height in the horizontal (xy) plane, while (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) the velocity magnitude in the rotor’s vertical (yz) plane.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Time-averaged vorticity magnitude obtained from Nektar++ (left), SOWFA (middle), and AMR-Wind (right). (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) the vorticity magnitude at hub height in the horizontal (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>x</mi> <mi>y</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) plane, while (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) the vorticity magnitude in the rotor’s vertical (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>y</mi> <mi>z</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) plane.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Time-averaged axial velocity (<span class="html-italic">U</span>) profiles along the normalized vertical axis (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>z</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mi>D</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) at various streamwise locations (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>x</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mi>D</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math>) are compared across Nektar++, SOWFA, and AMR-Wind simulations, where <span class="html-italic">D</span> denotes the turbine diameter. Each subfigure corresponds to a specific downstream location relative to the turbine: (<b>a</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>x</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mi>D</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>0</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>, (<b>b</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>x</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mi>D</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>1</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>, (<b>c</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>x</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mi>D</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>2</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>, and (<b>d</b>) <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>x</mi> <mo>/</mo> <mi>D</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>3</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math>.</p>
Full article ">
16 pages, 9079 KiB  
Article
Study on the Wake Characteristics of the Loess Plateau Terrain Based on Wind Tunnel Experiment
by Yulong Ma, Shoutu Li, Deshun Li, Zhiteng Gao, Xingduo Guo and Qingdong Ma
Energies 2025, 18(4), 958; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18040958 - 17 Feb 2025
Abstract
The northwest region of China’s loess plateau is an important area for wind power development. However, the unclear understanding of the evolution mechanism of the near-ground atmospheric boundary layer (ABL), which is influenced by its unique geomorphological features, has compromised the safety and [...] Read more.
The northwest region of China’s loess plateau is an important area for wind power development. However, the unclear understanding of the evolution mechanism of the near-ground atmospheric boundary layer (ABL), which is influenced by its unique geomorphological features, has compromised the safety and stability of wind turbine operations. To address this challenge, wind tunnel experiments were conducted to investigate the mean and turbulent characteristics of wake flow generated by mountains in the loess plateau. The results indicate that the terrain significantly affects both the average velocity deficit and turbulence intensity distribution within the wake. Specifically, topographic features dominate turbulent energy transfer and modulate coherent structures in the inertial subrange. Additionally, the scale of these features enhances turbulence energy input at corresponding scales in the fluctuating wind speed spectrum, leading to a non-decaying energy interval within the inertial subregion. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section A3: Wind, Wave and Tidal Energy)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>New installed capacity in China in 2023: (<b>a</b>) new installed capacity in various regions of China from 2022 to 2023; (<b>b</b>) the proportion of new additions in various regions of China (NE for Northeast China; NC for North China; EC for East China; NW for Northwest China; SW for Southwest China; MS for Central South China).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Landform and atmospheric boundary layer characteristics of the loess plateau: (<b>a</b>) wind farm in loess plateau; (<b>b</b>) boundary layer of the loess plateau.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Experimental model: (<b>a</b>) Terrain Model of the Loess Plateau (TMLP); (<b>b</b>) Standard Three-dimensional Mountain Model (STMM).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Experiment scheme and experiment environment: (<b>a</b>) experiment scheme; (<b>b</b>) dimensionless mean velocity profile; (<b>c</b>) turbulence intensity profile; (<b>d</b>) photograph of wind tunnel experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Mean velocity distribution of vertical cross-section at different spanwise positions: (<b>a</b>) TMLP; (<b>b</b>) STMM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Recovery of mean velocity per unit distance at different heights: (<b>a</b>) recovery of mean velocity at different positions of cross-section Y = 0 H; (<b>b</b>) recovery of mean velocity at different positions of cross-section Y = 1 H.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Turbulence distribution of vertical cross-sections at different spanwise positions: (<b>a</b>) TMLP; (<b>b</b>) STMM.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Time–frequency plot of fluctuating wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>The fluctuating velocity power density spectra of the incoming flow, TMLP wake, and STMM wake at three height positions: (<b>a</b>) at a height of 0.1 H; (<b>b</b>) at a height of 0.5 H; (<b>c</b>) at a height of 1 H.</p>
Full article ">
15 pages, 19055 KiB  
Technical Note
Ground-Based MAX-DOAS Observations of Tropospheric Ozone and Its Precursors for Diagnosing Ozone Formation Sensitivity
by Yuanyuan Qian, Dan Wang, Zhiyan Li, Ge Yan, Minjie Zhao, Haijin Zhou, Fuqi Si and Yuhan Luo
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(4), 658; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17040658 - 14 Feb 2025
Abstract
Diagnosing ozone (O3) formation sensitivity using tropospheric observations of O3 and its precursors is important for formulating O3 pollution control strategies. Photochemical reactions producing O3 occur at the earth’s surface and in the elevated layers, indicating the importance [...] Read more.
Diagnosing ozone (O3) formation sensitivity using tropospheric observations of O3 and its precursors is important for formulating O3 pollution control strategies. Photochemical reactions producing O3 occur at the earth’s surface and in the elevated layers, indicating the importance of diagnosing O3 formation sensitivity at different layers. Synchronous measurements of tropospheric O3 and its precursors nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and formaldehyde (HCHO) were performed in urban Hefei to diagnose O3 formation sensitivity at different atmospheric layers using multi-axis differential optical absorption spectroscopy observations. The retrieved surface NO2 and O3 were validated with in situ measurements (correlation coefficients (R) = 0.81 and 0.80), and the retrieved NO2 and HCHO vertical column densities (VCDs) were consistent with TROPOMI results (R = 0.81 and 0.77). The regime transitions of O3 formation sensitivity at different layers were derived using HCHO/NO2 ratios and O3 profiles, with contributions of VOC-limited, VOC-NOx-limited, and NOx-limited regimes of 74.19%, 7.33%, and 18.48%, respectively. In addition, the surface O3 formation sensitivity between HCHO/NO2 ratios and O3 (or increased O3, ΔO3) had similar regime transitions of 2.21–2.46 and 2.39–2.71, respectively. Moreover, the O3 formation sensitivity of the lower planetary boundary layer on polluted and non-polluted days was analyzed. On non-polluted days, the contributions of the VOC-limited regime were predominant in the lower planetary boundary layer, whereas those of the NOx-limited regime were predominant in the elevated layers during polluted days. These results will help us understand the evolution of O3 formation sensitivity and formulate O3 mitigation strategies in the Yangtze River Delta region. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Multi-axis differential optical absorption spectroscopy (MAX-DOAS) instrument and the measurement site.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Diurnal variations of NO<sub>2</sub> at the AIOFM site from MAX-DOAS measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Diurnal variations of HCHO at the AIOFM site from MAX-DOAS measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Vertical O<sub>3</sub> profiles at the AIOFM site from MAX-DOAS measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Linear fittings of surface NO<sub>2</sub> (<b>a</b>) and O<sub>3</sub> (<b>b</b>) between CNEMC in situ and MAX-DOAS measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Linear fittings of tropospheric NO<sub>2</sub> (<b>a</b>) and HCHO (<b>b</b>) VCDs between MAX-DOAS and TROPOMI measurements.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>) Third-order fitting curve between surface HCHO/NO<sub>2</sub> ratios and O<sub>3</sub>; (<b>b</b>) third-order fitting curve between surface HCHO/NO<sub>2</sub> ratios and ΔO<sub>3</sub>. The red and blue areas denote the 95% prediction interval and regime transition, respectively. The red and blue lines denote the fitting curve and the peak of the fitting curve, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>The regime transitions (blue shaded area), binned statistics of HCHO/NO<sub>2</sub> ratios (boxes), averaged values (triangles), and the calculated HCHO/NO<sub>2</sub> profile (red line).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Average diurnal variations of O<sub>3</sub>, HCHO, NO<sub>2</sub>, and HCHO/NO<sub>2</sub> ratios on non-polluted (<b>a</b>) and polluted days (<b>b</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Diurnal variations of O<sub>3</sub> (<b>a</b>), HCHO (<b>b</b>), NO<sub>2</sub> (<b>c</b>), and HCHO/NO<sub>2</sub> ratios (<b>d</b>) in a typical O<sub>3</sub> pollution episode.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 1634 KiB  
Article
A New Method for Determining the Wave Turbopause Based on SABER/TIMED Data
by Zewei Wang, Cunying Xiao, Xiong Hu, Junfeng Yang, Xuan Cheng, Kuan Li, Luo Xiao, Xiaoqi Wu, Yang Yu and Hao Li
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(4), 623; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17040623 - 12 Feb 2025
Abstract
The determination of the wave turbopause is vital for understanding the dynamics of atmospheric processes in the Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere (MLT). In this study, we introduce a novel approach for identifying the wave turbopause, using SABER/TIMED temperature data and number density data, [...] Read more.
The determination of the wave turbopause is vital for understanding the dynamics of atmospheric processes in the Mesosphere and Lower Thermosphere (MLT). In this study, we introduce a novel approach for identifying the wave turbopause, using SABER/TIMED temperature data and number density data, addressing the limitations associated with traditional linear fitting methods that can lead to ambiguities in results. Our approach is grounded in the conservation-of-energy principle, which facilitates the introduction of an energy index to effectively delineate the boundaries of the turbopause layer. This method allows us to define several key parameters: the lower boundary height, upper boundary height, turbopause height, and turbopause layer thickness. Analyzing long-term SABER data specifically over Beijing, we observed that the turbopause layer exhibited significant seasonal and inter-annual variations. Our findings indicated that the average height of the lower boundary was approximately 69.17 km, while the average height of the upper boundary was around 93.85 km. The energy index provided a comprehensive assessment of atmospheric wave activity, revealing periodic variations at different altitudes within the turbopause layer. The proposed method not only offers a more precise and applicable characterization of the turbopause but also enhances our capacity for atmospheric modeling and empirical investigations. Future work will focus on extending this methodology, to analyze the comprehensive SABER data collected globally. We aim to uncover insights into the seasonal characteristics of the turbopause across various geographic regions, allowing for a more detailed understanding of its behavior under different climatic conditions, ultimately contributing to a deeper understanding of MLT dynamics. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>The picture on the right is the daily mean temperature profile at 40°N on 15 September 2002, and the picture on the left is the temperature standard deviation profile and fitted lines for different height segments. The solid black line shows the temperature standard deviation for the 40°N latitude circle and the dashed black line shows the temperature standard deviation for the Beijing grid (40° ± 2.5°, 120° ± 10°). The colored lines represent the results of fitting the standard deviation of the temperature of the latitude circle at 40°N with different altitude segments.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Energy index and its slope change with the height of the Beijing grid on 21 March, 21 June, 21 September, and 15 December 2006 for different colors. The black line represents the annual average at 50 km of the energy index.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>In the graph above, the solid line represents the slope of the energy index, and the dashed line represents the fit slope of the energy index from its current height to its apex. The chart below shows the difference between the two.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Temperature standard deviation(blue) and energy index(red) change with height on 15 September 2002. The two colored straight lines are fitted to 30–65 km and 91–110 km, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The energy index of the Beijing grid varied with season and height.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Normalized spectral graphs of energy indices at different altitudes. The black lines represent areas with confidence levels above 0.99.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>The position of the upper boundary of the turbopause layer, the position of the lower boundary of the turbopause layer, the position of turbopause, and the thickness of the turbopause layer change with months. The values for each month are the average of approximately 21 years for each month.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Lomb–Scargle diagram of the upper boundary of the turbopause layer, the lower boundary of the turbopause layer, and the position of the turbopause. These straight lines represent their respective positions with 99% confidence.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Variation of zonal wind with height and season. The black line means the zonal wind is zero. The red line represents the upper boundary and the blue line represents the lower boundary.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 9300 KiB  
Article
Correcting Forecast Time Biases in CMA-MESO Using Himawari-9 and Time-Shift Method
by Xingtao Song, Wei Han, Haofei Sun, Hao Wang and Xiaofeng Xu
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(4), 617; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17040617 - 11 Feb 2025
Abstract
The accurate forecasting of time, intensity, and spatial distribution is fundamental to weather prediction. However, the limitations of numerical weather prediction (NWP) models, as well as uncertainties in inital conditions, often lead to temporal biases in forecasts. This study addresses these biases by [...] Read more.
The accurate forecasting of time, intensity, and spatial distribution is fundamental to weather prediction. However, the limitations of numerical weather prediction (NWP) models, as well as uncertainties in inital conditions, often lead to temporal biases in forecasts. This study addresses these biases by employing visible reflectance data from the Himawari-9/AHI satellite and RTTOV (TOVS radiation transfer) simulations derived from CMA-MESO model outputs. The time-shift method was applied to analyze two precipitation events—20 October 2023 and 30 April 2024—in order to assess its impact on precipitation forecasts. The results indicate the following: (1) the time-shift method improved cloud simulations, necessitating a 30 min advance for Case 1 and a 3.5 h delay for Case 2; (2) time-shifting reduced the standard deviation of observation-minus-background (OMB) bias in certain regions and enhanced spatial uniformity; (3) the threat score (TS) demonstrated an improvement in forecast accuracy, particularly in cases exhibiting significant movement patterns. The comparative analysis demonstrates that the time-shift method effectively corrects temporal biases in NWP models, providing forecasters with a valuable tool to optimize predictions through the integration of high-temporal- and spatial-resolution visible light data, thereby leading to more accurate and reliable weather forecasts. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Schematic of CMA-MESO numerical weather prediction model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Radar composite reflectivity.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The spatial distribution of 1 h accumulated observed precipitation (<b>up</b>) and simulated precipitation (<b>down</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>The correlations between the measured albedo at the fixed times of 0000 UTC on 20 October 2023 and 0220 UTC on 30 April 2024 and the simulated albedo at various times. Due to the unavailability of satellite observation data, the data for 0240 UTC on 20 October 2023 and 0240 UTC on 30 April 2024 were excluded from the analysis.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Spatial distribution of observed reflectance data and modeled data before and after time shifts.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Spatial and PDF distribution of OMB (reflectance) before and after time shifts.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>Spatial and PDF distribution of OMB (reflectance) before and after time shifts.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Threat scores for three-hour accumulated precipitation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Spatial distribution of three-hour accumulated precipitation.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 5015 KiB  
Article
Dissipation Scaling with a Variable Cϵ Coefficient in the Stable Atmospheric Boundary Layer
by Marta Wacławczyk, Jackson Nzotungishaka, Paweł Jędrejko, Joydeep Sarkar and Szymon P. Malinowski
Atmosphere 2025, 16(2), 188; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16020188 - 7 Feb 2025
Abstract
This work concerns the Taylor formula for the turbulence kinetic energy dissipation rate in the stable atmospheric boundary layer. The formula relates the turbulence kinetic energy dissipation rate to statistics at large scales, namely, the turbulence kinetic energy and the integral length scale. [...] Read more.
This work concerns the Taylor formula for the turbulence kinetic energy dissipation rate in the stable atmospheric boundary layer. The formula relates the turbulence kinetic energy dissipation rate to statistics at large scales, namely, the turbulence kinetic energy and the integral length scale. In parameterization schemes for atmospheric turbulence, it is usually assumed that the dissipation coefficient Cϵ in the Taylor formula is constant. However, a series of recent theoretical works and laboratory experiments showed that Cϵ depends on the local Reynolds number. We calculate turbulence statistics, including the dissipation rate, the standard deviation of fluctuating velocities and integral length scales, using observational data from the MOSAiC (Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate) expedition. We show that the dissipation coefficient Cϵ varies considerably and is a function of the Reynolds number, however, the functional form of this dependency in the stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer is different than in previous studies. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Time series of <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>σ</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="script">L</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> and <math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>ϵ</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> for January 2020.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Integral length scales, Equations (<a href="#FD28-atmosphere-16-00188" class="html-disp-formula">28</a>) and (<a href="#FD32-atmosphere-16-00188" class="html-disp-formula">32</a>), as functions of the standard deviations of velocity fluctuations estimated from the time series of the longitudinal (top plot), horizontal transverse (middle plot) and vertical components (bottom plot) measured at <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>z</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>10</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> m.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Standard deviations of fluctuating velocity as functions of the stability parameter <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>ξ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mi>z</mi> <mo>/</mo> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mi>O</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, estimated from the time series measured at <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>z</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>10</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> m.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Integral length scales as functions of the stability parameter <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>ξ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mi>z</mi> <mo>/</mo> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mi>O</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>, estimated from the time series of longitudinal, transverse and vertical velocity measured at <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>z</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>10</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> m, Equations (<a href="#FD28-atmosphere-16-00188" class="html-disp-formula">28</a>) and (<a href="#FD32-atmosphere-16-00188" class="html-disp-formula">32</a>), compared with the parameterization (<a href="#FD33-atmosphere-16-00188" class="html-disp-formula">33</a>) (solid line).</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>The energy dissipation rate <math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ϵ</mi> </semantics></math> as a function of the stability parameter <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>ξ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mi>z</mi> <mo>/</mo> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mi>O</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> (cf. Equation (<a href="#FD19-atmosphere-16-00188" class="html-disp-formula">19</a>)), estimated from the time series measured at <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>z</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>10</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> m.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p><math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>C</mi> <mi>ϵ</mi> </msub> </semantics></math> estimated from Equation (<a href="#FD1-atmosphere-16-00188" class="html-disp-formula">1</a>) as a function of the stability parameter <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>ξ</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mi>z</mi> <mo>/</mo> <msub> <mi>L</mi> <mi>O</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>. Calculations were based on the time series of the longitudinal, horizontal transverse and vertical velocity measured at <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>z</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>10</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> m.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Slopes of frequency spectra for the interval <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>f</mi> <mo>∈</mo> <mo>[</mo> <mn>0.1</mn> <mo>,</mo> <mn>1</mn> <mo>]</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> Hz. Calculations were based on the time series of longitudinal (left panel), horizontal transverse (middle panel) and vertical (right panel) velocity measured at <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>z</mi> <mo>=</mo> <mn>10</mn> </mrow> </semantics></math> m.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p><math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi>C</mi> <mi>ϵ</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msubsup> </semantics></math> as a function of the Reynolds number <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>R</mi> <msubsup> <mi>e</mi> <mi>λ</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>. Classical scaling <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>C</mi> <mi>ϵ</mi> </msub> <mo>≈</mo> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>t</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> is denoted by the red line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p><math display="inline"><semantics> <msubsup> <mi>C</mi> <mi>ϵ</mi> <mi>w</mi> </msubsup> </semantics></math> as a function of the Reynolds number <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>R</mi> <msubsup> <mi>e</mi> <mi>λ</mi> <mi>w</mi> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>. Classical scaling <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>C</mi> <mi>ϵ</mi> </msub> <mo>≈</mo> <mi>c</mi> <mi>o</mi> <mi>n</mi> <mi>s</mi> <mi>t</mi> </mrow> </semantics></math> is denoted by the red line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>The ratio <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>λ</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> <mo>/</mo> <msub> <mi mathvariant="script">L</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> as a function of the Reynolds number <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>R</mi> <msubsup> <mi>e</mi> <mi>λ</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>. Classical scaling <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>λ</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> <mo>/</mo> <msub> <mi mathvariant="script">L</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msub> <mo>∝</mo> <mn>1</mn> <mo>/</mo> <mi>R</mi> <msubsup> <mi>e</mi> <mi>λ</mi> <mi>t</mi> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> is denoted by the red line.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>The ratio <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>λ</mi> <mi>w</mi> </msub> <mo>/</mo> <msub> <mi mathvariant="script">L</mi> <mi>w</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math> as a function of the Reynolds number <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mi>R</mi> <msubsup> <mi>e</mi> <mi>λ</mi> <mi>w</mi> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math>. Classical scaling <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>λ</mi> <mi>w</mi> </msub> <mo>/</mo> <msub> <mi mathvariant="script">L</mi> <mi>w</mi> </msub> <mo>∝</mo> <mn>1</mn> <mo>/</mo> <mi>R</mi> <msubsup> <mi>e</mi> <mi>λ</mi> <mi>w</mi> </msubsup> </mrow> </semantics></math> is denoted by the red line.</p>
Full article ">
18 pages, 4893 KiB  
Article
A Rapid Computational Method for Quantifying Inter-Regional Air Pollutant Transport Dynamics
by Luoqi Yang, Guangjie Wang, YeGui Wang, Yibai Wang, Yongjing Ma and Xi Zhang
Atmosphere 2025, 16(2), 163; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16020163 - 31 Jan 2025
Abstract
A novel atmospheric pollutant transport quantification model (APTQM) has been developed to analyze and quantify cross-regional air pollutant transport pathways and fluxes. The model integrates high-resolution numerical simulations, Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities, and advanced statistical evaluation metrics with boundary pixel decomposition methods [...] Read more.
A novel atmospheric pollutant transport quantification model (APTQM) has been developed to analyze and quantify cross-regional air pollutant transport pathways and fluxes. The model integrates high-resolution numerical simulations, Geographic Information System (GIS) capabilities, and advanced statistical evaluation metrics with boundary pixel decomposition methods to effectively characterize complex pollutant transport dynamics while ensuring computational efficiency. To evaluate its performance, the model was applied to a representative winter pollution event in Beijing in December 2021, using fine particulate matter (PM2.5) as the target pollutant. The results underscore the model’s capability to accurately capture spatial and temporal variations in pollutant dispersion, effectively identify major transport pathways, and quantify the contributions of inter-regional sources. Cross-validation with established methods reveals strong spatial and temporal correlations, further substantiating its accuracy. APTQM demonstrates unique strengths in resolving dynamic transport processes within the boundary layer, particularly in scenarios involving complex cross-regional pollutant exchanges. However, the model’s reliance on a simplified chemical framework constrains its applicability to pollutants significantly influenced by secondary chemical transformations, such as ozone and nitrate. Consequently, APTQM is currently optimized for the quantification of primary pollutant transport rather than modeling complex atmospheric chemical processes. Overall, this study presents APTQM as a reliable and computationally efficient tool for quantifying inter-regional air pollutant transport, offering critical insights to support regional air quality management and policy development. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Operational framework for atmospheric pollutant transport quantification model (APTQM).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Simplification of the actual boundary and illustration of the grid division. (<b>a</b>) Actual irregular boundary; (<b>b</b>) simplification of boundaries; (<b>c</b>) border gridding.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Grid mapping and regional airflow analysis. (<b>a</b>) Three-dimensional representation of hierarchical grid structures with irregular boundary mapping; (<b>b</b>) spatial distribution of pressure gradients and associated airflow patterns.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>A</b>) Conceptual diagram of unit-level transport model construction and (<b>B</b>) schematic diagram of cross-unit flow of atmospheric pollutants. Blue grids are relatively low values, oranges are high values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Temporal variations in PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations observed in Beijing during 8–13 December 2021.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>WRF nested domain and study area profiles. (<b>a</b>) The WRF nested domain setting; (<b>b</b>) the topography of Beijing; (<b>c</b>) the spatial location and extent of Beijing.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Beijing city area division and simulated meteorological element validation of the Taylor diagram. (<b>a</b>) is a schematic illustration of the regional division of Beijing for the northwest (yanqing and changping), northeast (shandianzi, miyun, huairou, and pinggu), southwest (zhaitang, xiayunling, mentougou, haidian, fengtai, and fangshan), and southeast (shunyi, chaoyang, beijing, daxing and tongzhou); (<b>b</b>) is a simulation-observation Taylor diagram, where azimuth denotes the correlation coefficient and radius denotes the standard deviation ratio between simulation and observation.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Comparison of near-surface simulated and observed wind speeds and directions on 9 (<b>a</b>), 10 (<b>b</b>) and 11 (<b>c</b>) December at 12:00 (UTC) (black arrows are simulated values, and red indicates the major deviations of the observed values from the simulated values).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Migration volume per unit grid (5 km <math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <mo>×</mo> </mrow> </semantics></math> 5 km) and regional transmission distribution. (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>): 8–13 December.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Validation of simulated values of ATPQM by comparing with the 4D flux method. (<b>a</b>) The comparison of grid quantification results between ATPQM and 4D flux methods. (<b>b</b>) The histogram of the relative bias (rBias) of the ATPQM values. (<b>c</b>) The histogram of the relative root-mean-square error (rRMSE) for ATPQM-simulated values.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Potential contribution from WRF-FLEXPART simulation for the unit grid (6 km × 6 km) from 8 to 13 December (<b>a</b>–<b>f</b>), where the filled in colors are the results of the contribution calculations.</p>
Full article ">
17 pages, 3902 KiB  
Article
Determining an Optimal Combination of Meteorological Factors to Reduce the Intensity of Atmospheric Pollution During Prescribed Straw Burning
by Luyan He, Lingjian Duanmu, Li Guo, Yang Qin, Bowen Shi, Lin Liang and Weiwei Chen
Agriculture 2025, 15(3), 279; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture15030279 - 28 Jan 2025
Abstract
Currently, large-scale burning is an important straw disposal method in most developing countries. To execute prescribed burning while mitigating air pollution, it is crucial to explore the maximum possible range of meteorological changes. This study conducted a three-year monitoring program in Changchun, a [...] Read more.
Currently, large-scale burning is an important straw disposal method in most developing countries. To execute prescribed burning while mitigating air pollution, it is crucial to explore the maximum possible range of meteorological changes. This study conducted a three-year monitoring program in Changchun, a core agricultural area in Northeast China severely affected by straw burning. The data included ground-level pollutant monitoring, ground-based polarized LiDAR observations, and ground meteorological factors such as planetary boundary layer height (PBLH), relative humidity (RH), and wind speed (WS). Using response surface methodology (RSM), this study analyzed key weather parameters to predict the optimal range for emission reduction effects. The results revealed that PM2.5 was the primary pollutant during the study period, particularly in the lower atmosphere from March to April, with PM2.5 rising sharply in April due to the exponential increase in fire points. Furthermore, during this phase, the average WS and PBLH increased, whereas the RH decreased. Univariate analysis confirmed that these three factors significantly impacted the PM2.5 concentration. The RSM relevance prediction model (MET-PM2.5) established a correlation equation between meteorological factors and PM2.5 levels and identified the optimal combination of meteorological indices: WS (3.00–5.03 m/s), RH (30.00–38.30%), and PBLH (0.90–1.45 km). Notably, RH (33.1%) emerged as the most significant influencing factor, while the PM2.5 value remained below 75 μg/m3 when all weather indicators varied by less than 20%. In conclusion, these findings could provide valuable meteorological screening schemes to improve planned agricultural residue burning policies, with the aim of minimizing pollution from such activities. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Ecosystem, Environment and Climate Change in Agriculture)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>Locations of (<b>a</b>) Northeast China and (<b>b</b>) Changchun city in Jilin Province, China. Note: the red-lined area indicates Changchun city; red dots represent environmental monitoring stations; orange triangles denote meteorological stations; and black flags signify ground-based polarized LiDAR systems.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Distribution of daily PM<sub>2.5</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub> concentrations in Changchun during (<b>a</b>) February, (<b>b</b>) March, and (<b>c</b>) April from 2021–2023 (the red area represents the reference range of China’s air quality standards, the orange circle depicts the primary high-concentration area for PM<sub>10</sub>, whereas the gray circle indicates the main high-concentration area for PM<sub>2.5</sub>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Vertical structure and diurnal variation in the aerosol optical extinction coefficient in (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) February, (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) March, and (<b>e</b>,<b>f</b>) April 2023 in Changchun city.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Variations in (<b>a</b>) the number of fire points in Changchun from February to April 2021–2023 and the special distributions of fire radiative power (Frp) in (<b>b</b>) March and (<b>c</b>) April.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Backward trajectory analysis (6 clusters) was conducted for the Changchun Environmental Monitoring Station in April of each year during 2021 (<b>a</b>), 2022 (<b>b</b>), and 2023 (<b>c</b>). The numbers on each trajectory indicate the frequency of occurrence throughout the month.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Monthly variations in (<b>a</b>) wind speed (WS), (<b>b</b>) planetary boundary layer height (PBLH), and (<b>c</b>) relative humidity (RH) in Changchun from February to April 2021–2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Correlations between various factors (i.e., wind speed (WS), relative humidity (RH), and planetary boundary layer height (PBLH)) and the PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentration during straw burning periods when the fire points are below (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) and above (<b>d</b>–<b>f</b>) the average level.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Interactive effects of (<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) meteorological conditions (i.e., wind speed (WS), relative humidity (RH), and planetary boundary layer height (PBLH)) on PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations in response surface methodology (RSM) in Changchun city from February, March, and April 2021–2023.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>c</b>) Sensitivity test of daily average PM<sub>2.5</sub> concentrations to changes in dominant meteorological factors (i.e., wind speed (WS), relative humidity (RH), and planetary boundary layer height (PBLH)).</p>
Full article ">
23 pages, 6814 KiB  
Article
Advancing Data Quality Assurance with Machine Learning: A Case Study on Wind Vane Stalling Detection
by Vincent S. de Feiter, Jessica M. I. Strickland and Irene Garcia-Marti
Atmosphere 2025, 16(2), 129; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16020129 - 25 Jan 2025
Viewed by 241
Abstract
High-quality observational datasets are essential for climate research and models, but validating and filtering decades of meteorological measurements is an enormous task. Advances in machine learning provide opportunities to expedite and improve quality control while offering insight into non-linear interactions between the meteorological [...] Read more.
High-quality observational datasets are essential for climate research and models, but validating and filtering decades of meteorological measurements is an enormous task. Advances in machine learning provide opportunities to expedite and improve quality control while offering insight into non-linear interactions between the meteorological variables. The Cabauw Experimental Site for Atmospheric Research in the Netherlands, known for its 213 m observation mast, has provided in situ observations for over 50 years. Despite high-quality instrumentation, measurement errors or non-representative data are inevitable. We explore machine-learning-assisted quality control, focusing on wind vane stalling at 10 m height. Wind vane stalling is treated as a binary classification problem as we evaluate five supervised methods (Logistic Regression, K-Nearest Neighbour, Random Forest, Gaussian Naive Bayes, Support Vector Machine) and one semi-supervised method (One-Class Support Vector Machine). Our analysis determines that wind vane stalling occurred 4.54% of the time annually over 20 years, often during stably stratified nocturnal conditions. The K-Nearest Neighbour and Random Forest methods performed the best, identifying stalling with approximately 75% accuracy, while others were more affected by data imbalance (more non-stalling than stalling data points). The semi-supervised method, avoiding the effects of the inherent data imbalance, also yielded promising results towards advancing data quality assurance. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Atmospheric Boundary Layer Observation and Meteorology)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Overview of the Cabauw Experimental Site for Atmospheric Research, located in Lopik, the Netherlands. (<b>a</b>) Map indicating location of Cabauw site, courtesy of Knoop et al. 2021 [<a href="#B14-atmosphere-16-00129" class="html-bibr">14</a>]. (<b>b</b>) Side-view of the A-mast (main tower) indicating the levels where measurements are conducted: 10, 20, 40, 80, 140, and 200 m. (<b>c</b>) Top-view of sub-sites: Baseline Surface Radiation (BSRN), Profiling Site (PS), Automatic Weather Station (AWS), Energy Balance (EB) terrain, and Remote Sensing. Satellite imagery sourced from Google Earth. (<b>d</b>) Photo of the installed KNMI-manufactured wind vane and cup anemometer combination.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>(<b>a</b>) Ten-minute averaged wind speed (U, blue) and wind direction (<math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="normal">W</mi> <mi>dir</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>, green) in situ measurements at 10 m during a wind vane stalling event (red) on 13–15 June 2012. The dashed horizontal line indicates low wind speeds (&lt;0.5 m s<sup>−1</sup>). (<b>b</b>) Synpotic situation above Europe during the wind vane stalling event, showcasing the extended high-pressure system over Central Europe and the approaching low-pressure system above the British Isles. The red/white circular marker indicates the location of the Netherlands, where Cabauw is located (refer to <a href="#atmosphere-16-00129-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>a).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>The frequency of wind vane stalling at Cabauw. (<b>a</b>) Average percentage (markers) and standard deviation (shaded) of time the stalling at each vertical level from 2001 to 2022. Average relative time the wind vane at 10 m stalled each (<b>b</b>) year, (<b>c</b>) month, and (<b>d</b>) hourly. Figures (<b>a</b>,<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) exclude the outlier years: 2011, 2012, and 2022. Mean (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>μ</mi> </semantics></math>) and standard deviation (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>σ</mi> </semantics></math>) values of the yearly, monthly, and hourly distributions are displayed within the plots.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Average vertical profile of meteorological variables at each height during (black) and six hours before (red) wind vane stalling events at 10 m throughout 2001–2022 (excluding 2011, 2012, 2022): (<b>a</b>) wind speed (<span class="html-italic">U</span>), (<b>b</b>) wind direction (<math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>W</mi> <mrow> <mi>d</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>r</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math>), (<b>c</b>) lapse rate of potential temperature (<math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi mathvariant="normal">Γ</mi> <mi>θ</mi> </msub> </semantics></math>), (<b>d</b>) potential temperature (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>θ</mi> </semantics></math>), (<b>e</b>) dew point depression (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mrow> <msub> <mi>T</mi> <mi>a</mi> </msub> <mo>−</mo> <msub> <mi>T</mi> <mi>d</mi> </msub> </mrow> </semantics></math>), and (<b>f</b>) Fog Stability Index (FSI). The grey shaded areas and red dotted lines indicate the standard deviation during and preceding the stalling event, respectively.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Ten highest-ranked features based on calculated Mutual Information (MI) score. The features evaluated are those listed in <a href="#atmosphere-16-00129-t001" class="html-table">Table 1</a>. The MI-scores are presented alongside the mean, median, standard deviation, and inter-quartile range (Q3–Q1) of the MI-score of all evaluated features.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>(<b>a</b>) Ten-minute averaged wind speed (U) and wind direction (<math display="inline"><semantics> <msub> <mi>W</mi> <mrow> <mi>d</mi> <mi>i</mi> <mi>r</mi> </mrow> </msub> </semantics></math>) at 10 m on 9 July 2015, showcasing a wind vane stalling event (red). (<b>b</b>) Identified instances of wind vane stalling by five supervised multi-class machine-learning methods shown for incrementally balanced data by n-points before and after the wind vane stalling event. The five methods are Logistic Regression (LR), K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN), Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Performance metrics (Accuracy, Precision, Recall, and F1-score) of supervised multi-class machine-learning methods which are incrementally balanced by n-points before and after the wind vane stalling event at 10 m. The five methods include Logistic Regression (LR), K-Nearest Neighbour (KNN), Gaussian Naive Bayes (GNB), Random Forest (RF), and Support Vector Machine (SVM), which are evaluated based on their ability to classify (<b>a</b>) non-stalling and (<b>b</b>) stalling events. Additionally, the number of classified test cases (bars) is displayed on the right y-axis (×10<sup>3</sup>). The solid markers represents the average result while varying the training and test dataset sizes. The partitioning varies between 10 and 90%, and the range of the results is represented by the shaded area.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Evaluation of the One-Class SVM (OCSVM) classifier, showing the relative classification error for the stalling data points depending on varied (<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>ν</mi> </semantics></math>,<math display="inline"><semantics> <mi>γ</mi> </semantics></math>)-parameter combinations. The shaded area represents the range resulting from different training sizes between 10 and 90%, while the solid line represents the mean error.</p>
Full article ">
25 pages, 44250 KiB  
Article
Air Quality-Driven Traffic Management Using High-Resolution Urban Climate Modeling Coupled with a Large Traffic Simulation
by Janek Laudan, Sabine Banzhaf, Basit Khan and Kai Nagel
Atmosphere 2025, 16(2), 128; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16020128 - 25 Jan 2025
Viewed by 186
Abstract
This study presents a framework for integrating traffic simulation with high-resolution air pollution modeling to design adaptive traffic management policies aimed at reducing urban air pollution. Building on prior work that establishes the coupling of the MATSim traffic model with the PALM-4U urban [...] Read more.
This study presents a framework for integrating traffic simulation with high-resolution air pollution modeling to design adaptive traffic management policies aimed at reducing urban air pollution. Building on prior work that establishes the coupling of the MATSim traffic model with the PALM-4U urban climate model, this second part focuses on implementing a feedback loop to inform traffic management decisions based on simulated air pollution concentration levels. The research explores how traffic volumes and atmospheric conditions, such as boundary layer dynamics, influence air quality throughout the day. In an artificial case study of Berlin, a time-based toll is introduced, aimed at mitigating concentration peaks in the morning hours. The toll scheme is tested in two simulation scenarios and evaluated regarding the effectiveness of reducing air pollution levels, particularly NO2 during the morning hours. The case study results serve to illustrate the framework’s capabilities and highlight the potential of integrating traffic and environmental models for adaptive policy design. The presented approach provides a model for responsive urban traffic management, effectively aligning transportation policies with environmental goals to improve air quality in urban settings. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>City boundaries of Berlin (blue), inner-city boundaries of Berlin (yellow), PALM-4U domain boundaries (red), and road network of traffic simulation setup (gray) [<a href="#B48-atmosphere-16-00128" class="html-bibr">48</a>].</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>PALM-4U simulation results for the base case. (<b>a</b>) NO<sub>2</sub> concentration in the simulation domain between 8 and 9 am, (<b>b</b>) NO<sub>2</sub> concentrations between 8 and 9 pm. Numbers in (<b>a</b>) refer to emission hotspots investigated in <a href="#sec3dot3-atmosphere-16-00128" class="html-sec">Section 3.3</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Aggregate NO<sub>x</sub>, NO, NO<sub>2</sub>, and particulate matter concentrations over the course of the day for the base case. The aggregation is performed for the entire PALM-4U model domain. The box plot shows median values and 25th and 75th percentiles, as well as 1.58 IQR as whiskers. The scale for particulate matter concentrations is located on the right side of the plot.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>(<b>a</b>) Distance-based toll charged for different hours of the day. (<b>b</b>) Number of car trips within the city of Berlin (blue area, <a href="#atmosphere-16-00128-f001" class="html-fig">Figure 1</a>) for the different policy cases.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Comparison of aggregate NO<sub>2</sub>, concentrations simulated with PALM-4U over the course of the day differentiated by scenario. The aggregation is performed for the entire PALM-4U model domain. The box plot shows median values and 25th and 75th percentiles, as well as 1.58 IQR as whiskers. Scenario B (red) is most effective in reducing NO<sub>2</sub> concentrations during the morning peak, when the atmospheric boundary layer is still shallow.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Differences in traffic load between scenario A and the base case for (<b>a</b>) 8–9 am and (<b>b</b>) 8–9 pm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Differences in NO<sub>2</sub> concentrations between scenario A and the base case for (<b>a</b>) 8–9 am and (<b>b</b>) 8–9 pm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Difference in traffic volumes compared between scenario B and the base case for (<b>a</b>) 8–9 am and (<b>b</b>) 8–9 pm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Differences in NO<sub>2</sub> concentrations between scenario B and the base case for (<b>a</b>) 8–9 am and (<b>b</b>) 8–9 pm.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>NO<sub>2</sub> levels in the base case and in scenario B. The sections depicted correspond to the numbers 1, 2, and 3 in <a href="#atmosphere-16-00128-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a>a.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Hourly concentrations from the MATSim baseline scenario distributed across the grid of the PALM-4U simulation domain (x-axis). A Gaussian blur was applied to distribute the emissions. In comparison, hourly concentrations from the corresponding PALM-4U run (y-axis). A linear regression for each hour is shown in blue.</p>
Full article ">
21 pages, 5861 KiB  
Article
Deviations of Boundary Layer Height and Meteorological Parameters Between Ground-Based Remote Sensing and ERA5 over the Complex Terrain of the Mongolian Plateau
by Yiming Wei, Yankun Sun, Yongjing Ma, Yulong Tan, Xinbing Ren, Kecheng Peng, Simin Yang, Zhong Lin, Xingjun Zhou, Yuanzhe Ren, Masroor Ahmed, Yongli Tian and Jinyuan Xin
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(3), 393; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17030393 - 23 Jan 2025
Viewed by 434
Abstract
This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the vertical accuracy of ERA5 reanalysis data for boundary layer height and key meteorological variables, based on high-precision observational data from Baotou, located on the Mongolian Plateau, during the winter (January–March) and summer (July–August) months of [...] Read more.
This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of the vertical accuracy of ERA5 reanalysis data for boundary layer height and key meteorological variables, based on high-precision observational data from Baotou, located on the Mongolian Plateau, during the winter (January–March) and summer (July–August) months of 2021. Results indicate that ERA5 exhibits significant biases in horizontal wind speed, with deviations ranging from −5 to 8 m/s at 50 m, primarily driven by sandstorms in winter and convective weather in summer. The most pronounced errors occur below 500 m. Vertical wind speeds are consistently underestimated in both seasons, with biases reaching up to 1 m/s, particularly during active summer convection. ERA5 also struggles to reproduce low-level wind directions accurately. In winter, correlation coefficients range from 0.43 to 0.64 below 200 m and improve to above 0.7 at 500 m. In summer, correlation coefficients are lower, ranging from 0.3 to 0.5 below 200 m, with reduced accuracy at 500 m compared to winter. Temperature deviations increase above 2000 m, with a relative overestimation of 3% at 3000 m. Relative humidity is generally overestimated by 5–20% between 1000 and 2000 m in winter and by 10–30% in summer. For boundary layer heights, ERA5 overestimates daytime mixed-layer heights by up to 2000 m in summer and 500–800 m in winter. In contrast, ERA5 captures nocturnal stable boundary layer heights well during winter. This comprehensive evaluation of the vertical structure accuracy of ERA5 reanalysis data, conducted in a heavily industrialized city on the Mongolian Plateau, offers essential insights for improving meteorological studies and refining climate models in the region. The findings provide valuable reference data for enhancing weather forecasting and supporting climate change research, particularly in complex terrain areas. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section Atmospheric Remote Sensing)
Show Figures

Graphical abstract

Graphical abstract
Full article ">Figure 1
<p>The observation locations and major instrument placements used in this study. Panels (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) depict the surrounding terrain of the observation sites, with the red dots indicating the locations of the observation points. Panel (<b>c</b>) shows the Windcube 100S Doppler wind lidar (Windcube 100S) (left) and the RPG-HATPRO-G5 microwave radiometer (MWR) (right) placed at the observation sites.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Absolute and relative deviations of horizontal wind speed at various heights. (<b>a</b>) Absolute deviations of horizontal wind speed (ERA5 reanalysis data minus Doppler wind lidar observations) for January, February, and March; (<b>b</b>) absolute deviations for July and August; (<b>c</b>) relative deviations (ERA5 reanalysis data minus Doppler wind lidar observations, divided by Doppler wind lidar observations) for January, February, and March; (<b>d</b>) relative deviations for July and August. Red circles and blue dots indicate the distribution of deviation data, with deeper colors indicating denser areas. Blue dots represent outliers, and the light green box plot shows the interquartile range (75th percentile, median, and 25th percentile).</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Absolute and relative deviations of vertical wind speed at various heights. (<b>a</b>) Absolute deviations of vertical wind speed (ERA5 reanalysis data minus Doppler wind lidar observations) for January, February, and March; (<b>b</b>) absolute deviations for July and August; (<b>c</b>) relative deviations (ERA5 reanalysis data minus Doppler wind lidar observations, divided by Doppler wind lidar observations) for January, February, and March; (<b>d</b>) relative deviations for July and August. Red circles and blue dots indicate the distribution of deviation data, with deeper colors indicating denser areas. Blue dots represent outliers, and the light green box plot shows the interquartile range (75th percentile, median, and 25th percentile).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Wind rose plots and scatter plots comparing wind speed and wind direction at various heights. (<b>a</b>–<b>l</b>) Wind rose plots comparing mean wind speed observations in 16 directions at different heights with ERA5 reanalysis data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>l</b>) Scatter plots comparing wind direction observations at various heights with ERA5 reanalysis data.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Absolute and relative deviations of temperature at various heights. (<b>a</b>) Absolute deviations of temperature (ERA5 reanalysis data minus MWR observations) for January, February, and March; (<b>b</b>) absolute deviations for July and August; (<b>c</b>) relative deviations (ERA5 reanalysis data minus MWR observations, divided by MWR observations) for January, February, and March; (<b>d</b>) relative deviations for July and August. Red circles and blue dots indicate the distribution of deviation data, with deeper colors representing denser areas. Blue dots represent outliers, and the light green box plot shows the interquartile range (75th percentile, median, and 25th percentile).</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>(<b>a</b>–<b>i</b>) Scatter plots of temperature comparisons for January, February, and March.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Absolute and relative deviations of relative humidity at various heights. (<b>a</b>) Absolute deviations of relative humidity (ERA5 reanalysis data minus MWR observations) for January, February, and March; (<b>b</b>) absolute deviations for July and August; (<b>c</b>) relative deviations (ERA5 reanalysis data minus MWR observations, divided by MWR observations) for January, February, and March; (<b>d</b>) relative deviations for July and August. Red circles and blue dots indicate the distribution of deviation data, with deeper colors representing denser areas. Blue dots represent outliers, and the light green box plot shows the interquartile range (75th percentile, median, and 25th percentile).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>A comparison of observed (JFM OBS) and ERA5 (JFM ERA5) values for January, February, and March, and observed (JA OBS) and ERA5 (JA ERA5) values for July and August, at various heights for horizontal wind speed (<b>a</b>), vertical wind speed (<b>b</b>), wind direction (<b>c</b>), temperature (<b>d</b>), and humidity (<b>e</b>).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Time series and scatter plots comparing boundary layer heights observed by the microwave radiometer (MWR) with those from ERA5 reanalysis data. Panels (<b>a</b>,<b>b</b>) illustrate comparisons for January, February, and March (winter), with scatter plots overlaid by the temperature difference between surface ERA5 data and observations, while panels (<b>c</b>,<b>d</b>) present the corresponding comparisons for July and August (summer). In (<b>b</b>), the blue points circled in red represent the scatter points under heavy pollution conditions. In (<b>d</b>), the blue points circled in red represent the scatter points under strong convective weather conditions. The red fitted line represents the fit for temperature differences greater than 0, while the blue fitted line represents the fit for temperature differences less than 0.</p>
Full article ">
35 pages, 10328 KiB  
Article
Aerosols in the Mixed Layer and Mid-Troposphere from Long-Term Data of the Italian Automated Lidar-Ceilometer Network (ALICENET) and Comparison with the ERA5 and CAMS Models
by Annachiara Bellini, Henri Diémoz, Gian Paolo Gobbi, Luca Di Liberto, Alessandro Bracci and Francesca Barnaba
Remote Sens. 2025, 17(3), 372; https://doi.org/10.3390/rs17030372 - 22 Jan 2025
Viewed by 326
Abstract
Aerosol vertical stratification significantly influences the Earth’s radiative balance and particulate-matter-related air quality. Continuous vertically resolved observations remain scarce compared to surface-level and column-integrated measurements. This work presents and makes available a novel, long-term (2016–2022) aerosol dataset derived from continuous (24/7) vertical profile [...] Read more.
Aerosol vertical stratification significantly influences the Earth’s radiative balance and particulate-matter-related air quality. Continuous vertically resolved observations remain scarce compared to surface-level and column-integrated measurements. This work presents and makes available a novel, long-term (2016–2022) aerosol dataset derived from continuous (24/7) vertical profile observations from three selected stations (Aosta, Rome, Messina) of the Italian Automated Lidar-Ceilometer (ALC) Network (ALICENET). Using original retrieval methodologies, we derive over 600,000 quality-assured profiles of aerosol properties at the 15 min temporal and 15 metre vertical resolutions. These properties include the particulate matter mass concentration (PM), aerosol extinction and optical depth (AOD), i.e., air quality legislated quantities or essential climate variables. Through original ALICENET algorithms, we also derive long-term aerosol vertical layering data, including the mixed aerosol layer (MAL) and elevated aerosol layers (EALs) heights. Based on this new dataset, we obtain an unprecedented, fine spatiotemporal characterisation of the aerosol vertical distributions in Italy across different geographical settings (Alpine, urban, and coastal) and temporal scales (from sub-hourly to seasonal). Our analysis reveals distinct aerosol daily and annual cycles within the mixed layer and above, reflecting the interplay between site-specific environmental conditions and atmospheric circulations in the Mediterranean region. In the lower troposphere, mixing processes efficiently dilute particles in the major urban area of Rome, while mesoscale circulations act either as removal mechanisms (reducing the PM by up to 35% in Rome) or transport pathways (increasing the loads by up to 50% in Aosta). The MAL exhibits pronounced diurnal variability, reaching maximum (summer) heights of >2 km in Rome, while remaining below 1.4 km and 1 km in the Alpine and coastal sites, respectively. The vertical build-up of the AOD shows marked latitudinal and seasonal variability, with 80% (30%) of the total AOD residing in the first 500 m in Aosta-winter (Messina-summer). The seasonal frequency of the EALs reached 40% of the time (Messina-summer), mainly in the 1.5–4.0 km altitude range. An average (wet) PM > 40 μg m−3 is associated with the EALs over Rome and Messina. Notably, 10–40% of the EAL-affected days were also associated with increased PM within the MAL, suggesting the entrainment of the EALs in the mixing layer and thus their impact on the surface air quality. We also integrated ALC observations with relevant, state-of-the-art model reanalysis datasets (ERA5 and CAMS) to support our understanding of the aerosol patterns, related sources, and transport dynamics. This further allowed measurement vs. model intercomparisons and relevant examination of discrepancies. A good agreement (within 10–35%) was found between the ALICENET MAL and the ERA5 boundary layer height. The CAMS PM10 values at the surface level well matched relevant in situ observations, while a statistically significant negative bias of 5–15 μg m−3 in the first 2–3 km altitude was found with respect to the ALC PM profiles across all the sites and seasons. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Location and naming of the ALICENET stations (<b>left</b>) and composite zooms over the three selected stations (<b>right</b>) showing the topography (inset legend) and urbanised areas (reddish shaded areas). Background map credits: (<b>left</b>) NASA/NOAA Suomi-NPP VIIRS; and (<b>right</b>) NASA Worldview combining the Global Digital Elevation Model colour index and colour-shaded relief (inset legend) from the ASTER and urban land cover (red overlaid areas) from the Terra and Aqua combined MODIS Land Cover Type.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>ALICENET aerosol products derived from measurements performed in Rome Tor Vergata, 14–21 October 2022: (<b>a</b>) aerosol extinction profiles at 1064 nm, (<b>b</b>) PM profiles, (<b>c</b>) hourly averaged ALICENET-derived AOD (blue) and AERONET L2 AOD (black) from the co-located sunphotometer, and associated uncertainties (error bars), and (<b>d</b>) aerosol layering mask derived by the ALICENET-ALADIN tool, discriminating the continuous aerosol layer (CAL), mixed aerosol layer (MAL), elevated aerosol layers (EALs), aerosol-free (i.e., molecular, MOL) and cloud-screened (CLOUD) regions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>CAMS data of (<b>a</b>) the total PM<sub>10</sub> and (<b>b</b>) the dust PM<sub>10</sub> for the same site and period as presented in <a href="#remotesensing-17-00372-f002" class="html-fig">Figure 2</a>.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>ALICENET-derived vertical profiles (0–5 km, y-axis) of the median (2016–2022) PM resolved by month (top x-axis) and time of day (bottom x-axis) in (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina. The grey dashed lines indicate the ground level at each station.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Monthly and daily resolved median (2016–2022) horizontal winds from the (<b>a</b>) MERIDA and (<b>b</b>,<b>c</b>) ERA5 reanalysis, plus surface wind from meteorological measurements at the first vertical level. Note the different wind speed colour scale in Aosta with respect to Rome and Messina.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Seasonal median values (lines) and interquartile ranges (shaded area) of the wet (light blue) and dry (green) ALICENET PM estimates and the CAMS PM<sub>10</sub> data (red) in (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina. The relevant statistics of the surface PM<sub>10</sub> concentrations measured by the nearest EPA station (black dots) are also reported. The addressed period is 2018–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Median differences between the CAMS PM<sub>10</sub> data and the ALICENET dry PM estimates in (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina. The addressed period is 2018–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Median value (2016–2022) of the ALICENET-derived AOD (at 1064 nm, black dots, right y-axis) and relevant vertical build-up from ground level to a 5 km altitude (in percentage, colour scale) in (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina.</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Monthly median values and interquartile ranges (bars) of the diurnal (orange dots) and nocturnal (blue dots) ALICENET-retrieved AOD in (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina during 2016–2022. The corresponding AOD statistics from the nearest AERONET or SKYNET sunphotometer are also displayed (black dots).</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Median values (2016–2022) and interquartile ranges (shaded areas) of the CAL and MAL in (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Monthly and altitude-resolved frequency of occurrence (left panels) and average contribution to the PM concentrations (right panels) of the EALs detected by ALICENET over (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina (2016–2022).</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>The mean (2016–2022) 500 hPa geopotential anomalies (ERA5 fields) relative to the mean seasonal conditions during the ALICENET-detected EAL events in winter (<b>left column</b>) and summer (<b>right column</b>) over (from top to bottom) Aosta, Rome, and Messina (red dots).</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Monthly resolved frequency of days with EALs detected by ALICENET (green bars) and subset statistics (red bars) of those EAL impacting the MAL PM loads (see text) over (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina during 2016–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Monthly and altitude-resolved statistics (2018–2022) of the dominant aerosol type (desert dust, wildfires, others) identified through CAMS data in correspondence to the EALs detected by ALICENET in (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina. Dark blue indicates regions not statistically significant (NS) for EAL classification.</p>
Full article ">Figure A1
<p>Monthly and daily resolved median percentage of cloud-screened data points in (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina over 2016–2022. The grey dashed lines indicate the ground level.</p>
Full article ">Figure A2
<p>Monthly and daily resolved median wind speeds and wind directions at the surface level from the anemometric measurements and ERA5 reanalysis in (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina during 2016–2022.</p>
Full article ">Figure A3
<p>Monthly median values (points) and interquartile ranges (bars) of the ALICENET PM estimates (‘real atmospheric condition’ (wet) and corrected to dry PM) during 2016–2022 in (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina. The corresponding statistics of the (dry) surface PM<sub>10</sub> concentrations measured by the nearest EPA station are also included (black points).</p>
Full article ">Figure A4
<p>Mean geopotential field at 500 hPa from ERA5 during the winter (<b>left column</b>) and summer (<b>right column</b>) EAL events over (from top to bottom) Aosta, Rome, and Messina (red dots), as derived from the 2016–2022 ALICENET dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure A5
<p>Mean geopotential field at 500 hPa from ERA5 during winter days with elevated aerosol layers below (<b>left</b>) and above (<b>right</b>) 2.5 km a.s.l. over Aosta (red dot), as derived from the 2016–2022 ALC dataset.</p>
Full article ">Figure A6
<p>Difference between the CAMS PM<sub>10</sub> and ALICENET PM estimates within the EALs in (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina (2018–2022).</p>
Full article ">Figure A7
<p>Seasonal median (2018–2022) vertical profiles of the CAMS PM<sub>10</sub> components: dust (PM<sub>10</sub>DUST, red), wildfire (PM<sub>10</sub>WF, green), and other components (PM<sub>10</sub>OTHER = PM<sub>10</sub>TOT − PM<sub>10</sub>DUST − PM<sub>10</sub>WF, light blue) over (<b>a</b>) Aosta, (<b>b</b>) Rome, and (<b>c</b>) Messina. The shaded areas represent the interquartile ranges. Note the log scale on the x-axis.</p>
Full article ">
19 pages, 4884 KiB  
Article
Investigation of Vertical Profiles of Particulate Matter and Meteorological Variables up to 2.5 km in Altitude Using a Drone-Based Monitoring System
by Woo Young Kim, Sang Gu Lee, Handol Lee and Kang-Ho Ahn
Atmosphere 2025, 16(1), 93; https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos16010093 - 16 Jan 2025
Viewed by 385
Abstract
In this study, a drone-based measurement system equipped with miniaturized optical and condensation particle counters was deployed to investigate the vertical distribution of particulate matter and meteorological variables up to 2.5 km in altitude. Measurements captured at various altitudes demonstrated notable vertical variations [...] Read more.
In this study, a drone-based measurement system equipped with miniaturized optical and condensation particle counters was deployed to investigate the vertical distribution of particulate matter and meteorological variables up to 2.5 km in altitude. Measurements captured at various altitudes demonstrated notable vertical variations in particle concentration and significant correlations with meteorological factors, particularly relative humidity (RH). Near the surface, within a well-mixed boundary layer, particle concentrations remained stable despite RH changes, indicating both anthropogenic and natural influences. At higher altitudes, a clear positive relationship between RH and particle number concentration emerged, particularly for smaller particles, while temperature inversions and distinct wind patterns influenced aerosol dispersion. The unmanned aerial vehicle system’s robust performance, validated against standard meteorological tower data, underscores its potential for high-resolution atmospheric profiling. These insights are crucial for understanding particle behavior in diverse atmospheric layers and have implications for refining air quality monitoring and climate models. Future work should incorporate chemical analysis of aerosols to further expand these findings and assess their environmental impact. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Cutting-Edge Developments in Air Quality and Health)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>UAV system equipped with various sensors, including a particle counter, wind speed and direction sensors, and temperature and relative humidity sensors.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Comparison of meteorological parameters measured using the UAV system (colored symbols) and the Boseong meteorological tower (black symbol) at various altitudes: (<b>a</b>) Temperature, (<b>b</b>) relative humidity, (<b>c</b>) wind direction, and (<b>d</b>) wind speed.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Meteorological parameters and particle number concentrations measured in Anmyeondo: (<b>a</b>) Temperature (T, red), relative humidity (RH, blue), wind direction (WD, magenta), and wind speed (WS, black) up to 1000 m a.s.l.; (<b>b</b>) particle concentrations for different size ranges (PM<sub>0.3–0.5</sub> in black, PM<sub>0.5–1.0</sub> in brown, and PM<sub>1.0–2.5</sub> in green).</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Relationship between relative humidity and particle concentration at different altitude ranges.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Diurnal variations in temperature (red), relative humidity (blue), wind speed (black), and wind direction (magenta) with altitude from (<b>a</b>) 1:00 to (<b>k</b>) 22:00.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5 Cont.
<p>Diurnal variations in temperature (red), relative humidity (blue), wind speed (black), and wind direction (magenta) with altitude from (<b>a</b>) 1:00 to (<b>k</b>) 22:00.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Diurnal variations in temperature (red), relative humidity (blue), and particle concentrations for different size ranges (0.3–0.5 μm in black, 0.5–1.0 μm in brown, and 1.0–2.5 μm in green) with altitude from (<b>a</b>) 1:00 to (<b>r</b>) 23:00.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6 Cont.
<p>Diurnal variations in temperature (red), relative humidity (blue), and particle concentrations for different size ranges (0.3–0.5 μm in black, 0.5–1.0 μm in brown, and 1.0–2.5 μm in green) with altitude from (<b>a</b>) 1:00 to (<b>r</b>) 23:00.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Relationship between relative humidity and particle concentrations for different size ranges (0.3–0.5 μm in black, 0.5–1.0 μm in brown, and 1.0–2.5 μm in green) from (<b>a</b>) 1:00 to (<b>r</b>) 23:00.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7 Cont.
<p>Relationship between relative humidity and particle concentrations for different size ranges (0.3–0.5 μm in black, 0.5–1.0 μm in brown, and 1.0–2.5 μm in green) from (<b>a</b>) 1:00 to (<b>r</b>) 23:00.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>Relationship between relative humidity and PM<sub>0.3–0.5</sub> number concentrations at different altitudes at (<b>a</b>) 9:00 and (<b>b</b>) 19:00.</p>
Full article ">
20 pages, 7184 KiB  
Article
Non-Stationary Wind Loading Identification for Large Transmission Tower Based on Dynamic Finite-Element Model Updating
by Nai-Long Zhang, Chao Gao, Gang Qiu, Jing-Gang Yang, Bai-Jian Wu and Xiao-Xiang Cheng
Energies 2025, 18(2), 357; https://doi.org/10.3390/en18020357 - 15 Jan 2025
Viewed by 393
Abstract
An effective approach to deal with the structural failures of transmission towers in tornadic events is to develop good structural health monitoring (SHM) systems for them. However, the strategy for SHM of transmission towers against tornados should be different from the conventional atmospheric [...] Read more.
An effective approach to deal with the structural failures of transmission towers in tornadic events is to develop good structural health monitoring (SHM) systems for them. However, the strategy for SHM of transmission towers against tornados should be different from the conventional atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) winds oriented ones, as the non-stationary nature of the tornados significantly differentiates them from the ABL winds. To satisfy the need of obtaining the highly time-varying whole-field stress on the structure in the course of the tornadic event for effective SHM, an innovative transient tornadic load distribution identification method is proposed for use, which is based on the field structural mode shape measurement and dynamic finite-element (FE) model updating. Via a numerical case study, it is noted that good effectiveness is achieved for the new load distribution identification method. Employing the Modal Assurance Criteria based FE model updating technique, the new method has the advantage of being easily embraced in practical SHM systems. It is found that when the transient tornadic velocity profile to be identified is noticeably different from the mode shape of the structure without undertaking external loads, the identified load pattern is very accurate for the new approach. Full article
(This article belongs to the Section F: Electrical Engineering)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>Dimensions of the 131-m high tower and sensors arrangement (unit: m).</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>FE model of the large transmission tower.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>1st~8th mode shapes calculated for the tower. (<b>a</b>) 1st mode; (<b>b</b>) 2nd mode; (<b>c</b>) 3rd mode; (<b>d</b>) 4th mode; (<b>e</b>) 5th mode; (<b>f</b>) 6th mode; (<b>g</b>) 7th mode; (<b>h</b>) 8th mode.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>View of technical personnel undertaking field modal test.</p>
Full article ">Figure 5
<p>Two directional time-histories and auto-spectra measured at 2nd measuring point (modified based on Ref. [<a href="#B9-energies-18-00357" class="html-bibr">9</a>]): (<b>a</b>) time-history in longitudinal direction; (<b>b</b>) PSD in longitudinal direction; (<b>c</b>) time-history in lateral direction; (<b>d</b>) PSD in lateral direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 6
<p>Two directional time-histories and auto-spectra measured at 6th measuring point (modified based on Ref. [<a href="#B9-energies-18-00357" class="html-bibr">9</a>]): (<b>a</b>) time-history in longitudinal direction; (<b>b</b>) PSD in longitudinal direction; (<b>c</b>) time-history in lateral direction; (<b>d</b>) PSD in lateral direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 7
<p>Cross-spectra between time-histories measured at 2nd and 6th measuring points (modified based on Ref. [<a href="#B9-energies-18-00357" class="html-bibr">9</a>]): (<b>a</b>) real part of longitudinal cross-spectrum; (<b>b</b>) real part of lateral cross-spectrum; (<b>c</b>) imaginary part of longitudinal cross-spectrum; (<b>d</b>) imaginary part of lateral cross-spectrum.</p>
Full article ">Figure 8
<p>1st~3rd (fundamental lateral and longitudinal bending and 1st torsional) modes identified from field modal test (re-produced from Ref. [<a href="#B9-energies-18-00357" class="html-bibr">9</a>]).</p>
Full article ">Figure 9
<p>Convergence of the objective function for ABL wind case.</p>
Full article ">Figure 10
<p>Diagram of parameters describing a tornadic velocity field.</p>
Full article ">Figure 11
<p>Diagram of a F3 grade tornado approaching a free-standing transmission tower.</p>
Full article ">Figure 12
<p>Displacement responses calculated at the tower top.</p>
Full article ">Figure 13
<p>Time-frequency energy spectra for acceleration responses calculated at the tower top via wavelet analysis. (<b>a</b>) Lateral response. (<b>b</b>) Longitudinal response.</p>
Full article ">Figure 14
<p>Acceleration samples employed for modal experiment.</p>
Full article ">Figure 15
<p>1st singular values of the PSD matrixes. (<b>a</b>) Lateral direction; (<b>b</b>) Longitudinal direction.</p>
Full article ">Figure 16
<p>Lateral and longitudinal modes identified for the tower subjected to tornado and calculated for the tower without undertaking wind actions.</p>
Full article ">Figure 17
<p>Convergence of the objective function for tornado case.</p>
Full article ">Figure 18
<p>Tornadic velocity profiles identified using the approach based on mode shape measurement in comparison to accurate profiles.</p>
Full article ">Figure 19
<p>Diagram for the approach based on wind measurement and empirical velocity model.</p>
Full article ">Figure 20
<p>Tornadic velocity profiles identified using the approach based on wind measurement and empirical velocity model in comparison to proposed method.</p>
Full article ">Figure 21
<p>Relative errors of the identified tornadic velocity profiles.</p>
Full article ">
13 pages, 2473 KiB  
Article
Semiarid Coastal Ecosystems—Atmospheric Interactions: A Seasonal Analysis of Turbulence and Stability
by Lidia Irene Benítez-Valenzuela, Zulia M. Sánchez-Mejía and Enrico A. Yepez
Meteorology 2025, 4(1), 2; https://doi.org/10.3390/meteorology4010002 - 7 Jan 2025
Viewed by 382
Abstract
Coastal lagoons play an essential role in the energy balance and heat exchange to the atmosphere. Furthermore, at mesoscale Monsoon systems and at local scales, sea breeze influences surface processes; however, there is a lack of information on such processes in arid and [...] Read more.
Coastal lagoons play an essential role in the energy balance and heat exchange to the atmosphere. Furthermore, at mesoscale Monsoon systems and at local scales, sea breeze influences surface processes; however, there is a lack of information on such processes in arid and semiarid regions. We aimed to characterize the atmospheric conditions during sea and land breeze in different seasons and analyze at different temporal scales the variation of atmospheric stability, turbulent fluxes, lifting condensation level, and atmospheric boundary layer height. The study site is a subtropical semiarid coastal lagoon, Estero El Soldado, located in Northwestern Mexico (27°57.248′ N, 110°58.350′ W). Measurements were performed from January 2019 to September 2020 with an Eddy Covariance system (EC) and micrometeorological instruments over the water surface. Results show that there is a strong seasonality that enhances sea–land breeze dominance; sea breeze was 83% more frequent during the Monsoon, and the land breeze was 55% more frequent in the Post-Monsoon. Specific humidity (23.32 ± 3.84 g kg−1, q), potential temperature (307 ± 2.98 K, θp), latent heat (135 W m−2, LE), and turbulent kinetic energy (0.81 m2 s−2, TKE) were significantly higher during the Monsoon season at sea breeze events. Atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) and lifting condensation level (LCL) were higher in the Pre-Monsoon season (3250 ± 71 m and 1142 ± 565 m, respectively). During the Monsoon, surface conditions lead to lower LCL (~800 m) due to the amount of water vapor (q = 23.3 g kg−1). Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1
<p>(<b>a</b>) Study site location in Northwestern Mexico, (<b>b</b>) Above view of the Natural Protected Area Estero El Soldado, (<b>c</b>) Eddy covariance contour line footprint, and (<b>d</b>) Eddy covariance system. Black triangle indicates location of study site.</p>
Full article ">Figure 2
<p>Seasonal wind roses during the (<b>a</b>) Pre-Monsoon, (<b>b</b>) Monsoon, and (<b>c</b>) Post-Monsoon.</p>
Full article ">Figure 3
<p>Typical atmospheric profiles of moisture (mixing ratio, <span class="html-italic">q</span>) and potential temperature (θ<sub>p</sub>) during the Pre-Monsoon, Monsoon, and Post-Monsoon.</p>
Full article ">Figure 4
<p>Relative frequency (RF) of seasonal diurnal cycle for Pasquill classes under land (left column) and sea (right column) breeze. A—Extremely unstable, B—Moderately unstable, C—Slightly unstable, D—Neutral, E—Slightly stable, F—Moderately stable, G—Extremely stable.</p>
Full article ">
Back to TopTop