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

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
Revised manuscript has not been submitted
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
Observations of wind farm wake recovery at an operating wind farm
Raghavendra Krishnamurthy, Rob Newsom, Colleen Kaul, Stefano Letizia, Mikhail Pekour, Nicholas Hamilton, Duli Chand, Donna M. Flynn, Nicola Bodini, and Patrick Moriarty
Wind Energ. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-29,https://doi.org/10.5194/wes-2024-29, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for WES
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
LIMA (v2.0): A full two-moment cloud microphysical scheme for the mesoscale non-hydrostatic model Meso-NH v5-6
Marie Taufour, Jean-Pierre Pinty, Christelle Barthe, Benoît Vié, and Chien Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8773–8798, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8773-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8773-2024, 2024
Short summary
SLUCM+BEM (v1.0): a simple parameterisation for dynamic anthropogenic heat and electricity consumption in WRF-Urban (v4.3.2)
Yuya Takane, Yukihiro Kikegawa, Ko Nakajima, and Hiroyuki Kusaka
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8639–8664, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8639-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8639-2024, 2024
Short summary
NAQPMS-PDAF v2.0: a novel hybrid nonlinear data assimilation system for improved simulation of PM2.5 chemical components
Hongyi Li, Ting Yang, Lars Nerger, Dawei Zhang, Di Zhang, Guigang Tang, Haibo Wang, Yele Sun, Pingqing Fu, Hang Su, and Zifa Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8495–8519, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8495-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8495-2024, 2024
Short summary
Source-specific bias correction of US background and anthropogenic ozone modeled in CMAQ
T. Nash Skipper, Christian Hogrefe, Barron H. Henderson, Rohit Mathur, Kristen M. Foley, and Armistead G. Russell
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8373–8397, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8373-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8373-2024, 2024
Short summary
Observational operator for fair model evaluation with ground NO2 measurements
Li Fang, Jianbing Jin, Arjo Segers, Ke Li, Ji Xia, Wei Han, Baojie Li, Hai Xiang Lin, Lei Zhu, Song Liu, and Hong Liao
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 8267–8282, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8267-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-8267-2024, 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.