Articles | Volume 13, issue 9
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4271-2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-4271-2020
Development and technical paper
 | 
16 Sep 2020
Development and technical paper |  | 16 Sep 2020

Can machine learning improve the model representation of turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate in the boundary layer for complex terrain?

Nicola Bodini, Julie K. Lundquist, and Mike Optis

Related authors

The effects of wind farm wakes on freezing sea spray in the mid-Atlantic offshore wind energy areas
David Rosencrans, Julie K. Lundquist, Mike Optis, and Nicola Bodini
Wind Energ. Sci., 10, 59–81, https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-59-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-10-59-2025, 2025
Short summary
Operational wind plants increase planetary boundary layer height: An observational study
Aliza Abraham, Matteo Puccioni, Arianna Jordan, Emina Maric, Nicola Bodini, Nicholas Hamilton, Stefano Letizia, Petra M. Klein, Elizabeth Smith, Sonia Wharton, Jonathan Gero, Jamey D. Jacob, Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Rob K. Newsom, Mikhail Pekour, and Patrick Moriarty
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-148,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-148, 2024
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
Performance of wind assessment datasets in United States coastal areas
Lindsay M. Sheridan, Jiali Wang, Caroline Draxl, Nicola Bodini, Caleb Phillips, Dmitry Duplyakin, Heidi Tinnesand, Raj K. Rai, Julia E. Flaherty, Larry K. Berg, Chunyong Jung, and Ethan Young
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-115,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-115, 2024
Revised manuscript under review for WES
Short summary
Meteorological Impacts of Offshore Wind Turbines as Simulated in the Weather Research and Forecasting Model
Daphne Quint, Julie K. Lundquist, Nicola Bodini, and David Rosencrans
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-53,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-53, 2024
Preprint under review for WES
Short summary
The 2023 National Offshore Wind data set (NOW-23)
Nicola Bodini, Mike Optis, Stephanie Redfern, David Rosencrans, Alex Rybchuk, Julie K. Lundquist, Vincent Pronk, Simon Castagneri, Avi Purkayastha, Caroline Draxl, Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Ethan Young, Billy Roberts, Evan Rosenlieb, and Walter Musial
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 16, 1965–2006, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1965-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-16-1965-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Simulation of the heat mitigation potential of unsealing measures in cities by parameterizing grass grid pavers for urban microclimate modelling with ENVI-met (V5)
Nils Eingrüber, Alina Domm, Wolfgang Korres, and Karl Schneider
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 141–160, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-141-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-141-2025, 2025
Short summary
AI-NAOS: an AI-based nonspherical aerosol optical scheme for the chemical weather model GRAPES_Meso5.1/CUACE
Xuan Wang, Lei Bi, Hong Wang, Yaqiang Wang, Wei Han, Xueshun Shen, and Xiaoye Zhang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 117–139, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-117-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-117-2025, 2025
Short summary
Orbital-Radar v1.0.0: a tool to transform suborbital radar observations to synthetic EarthCARE cloud radar data
Lukas Pfitzenmaier, Pavlos Kollias, Nils Risse, Imke Schirmacher, Bernat Puigdomenech Treserras, and Katia Lamer
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 101–115, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-101-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-101-2025, 2025
Short summary
The Modular and Integrated Data Assimilation System at Environment and Climate Change Canada (MIDAS v3.9.1)
Mark Buehner, Jean-Francois Caron, Ervig Lapalme, Alain Caya, Ping Du, Yves Rochon, Sergey Skachko, Maziar Bani Shahabadi, Sylvain Heilliette, Martin Deshaies-Jacques, Weiguang Chang, and Michael Sitwell
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1–18, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1-2025, 2025
Short summary
Modeling of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from global to regional scales: model development (IAP-AACM_PAH v1.0) and investigation of health risks in 2013 and 2018 in China
Zichen Wu, Xueshun Chen, Zifa Wang, Huansheng Chen, Zhe Wang, Qing Mu, Lin Wu, Wending Wang, Xiao Tang, Jie Li, Ying Li, Qizhong Wu, Yang Wang, Zhiyin Zou, and Zijian Jiang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8885–8907, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8885-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8885-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Albertson, J. D., Parlange, M. B., Kiely, G., and Eichinger, W. E.: The average dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy in the neutral and unstable atmospheric surface layer, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 102, 13423–13432, 1997. a
Arcos Jiménez, A., Gómez Muñoz, C., and García Márquez, F.: Machine learning for wind turbine blades maintenance management, Energies, 11, 13, 2018. a
Babić, K., Bencetić Klaić, Z., and Večenaj, Ž.: Determining a turbulence averaging time scale by Fourier analysis for the nocturnal boundary layer, Geofizika, 29, 35–51, 2012. a
Barlow, R. J.: Statistics: a guide to the use of statistical methods in the physical sciences, vol. 29, John Wiley & Sons, 1989. a
Berg, L. K., Liu, Y., Yang, B., Qian, Y., Olson, J., Pekour, M., Ma, P.-L., and Hou, Z.: Sensitivity of Turbine-Height Wind Speeds to Parameters in the Planetary Boundary-Layer Parametrization Used in the Weather Research and Forecasting Model: Extension to Wintertime Conditions, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol., 170, 507–518, 2018. a
Download
Short summary
While turbulence dissipation rate (ε) is an essential parameter for the prediction of wind speed, its current representation in weather prediction models is inaccurate, especially in complex terrain. In this study, we leverage the potential of machine-learning techniques to provide a more accurate representation of turbulence dissipation rate. Our results show a 30 % reduction in the average error compared to the current model representation of ε and a total elimination of its average bias.