4.4 Article

Intra-City Variation in Urban Morphology and Turbulence Structure in Helsinki, Finland

期刊

BOUNDARY-LAYER METEOROLOGY
卷 146, 期 3, 页码 469-496

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10546-012-9773-y

关键词

Drag; Eddy covariance; Roughness; Turbulence; Urban site

资金

  1. Academy of Finland through its Centre of Excellence program [1118615, 138328]
  2. ICOS project [263149]
  3. EU-ICOS
  4. EU

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Most atmospheric boundary-layer theories are developed over vegetative surfaces and their applicability at urban sites is questionable. Here, we study the intra-city variation of turbulence characteristics and the applicability of boundary-layer theory using building-morphology data across Helsinki, and eddy-covariance data from three sites: two in central Helsinki (400 m apart) and one 4 km away from the city centre. The multi-site measurements enable the analysis of the horizontal scales at which quantities that characterize turbulent transport vary: (i) Roughness characteristics vary at a 10-m scale, and morphometric estimation of surface-roughness characteristics is shown to perform better than the often used rule-of-thumb estimates (average departures from the logarithmic wind profile are 14 and 44%, respectively). (ii) The drag coefficient varies at a 100-m scale, and we provide an updated parametrization of the drag coefficient as a function of z/zH (the ratio of the measurement height to the mean building height). (iii) The transport efficiency of heat, water vapour and CO2 is shown to be weaker themore heterogeneous the site is, in terms of sources and sinks, and strong scalar dissimilarity is observed at all sites. (iv) Atmospheric stability varies markedly even within 4 km across the city: the median difference in nocturnal sensible heat fluxes between the three sites was over 50 W m(-2). Furthermore, (v) normalized power spectra and cospectra do not vary between sites, and they follow roughly the canonical theory as developed over vegetated terrain.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据