Comparing triple and single Doppler lidar wind measurements with sonic anemometer data based on a new filter strategy for virtual tower measurements

IF 1.8 4区 地球科学 Q3 GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Geoscientific Instrumentation Methods and Data Systems Pub Date : 2024-07-08 DOI:10.5194/gi-13-205-2024
Kevin Wolz, Christopher Holst, Frank Beyrich, Eileen Päschke, Matthias Mauder
{"title":"Comparing triple and single Doppler lidar wind measurements with sonic anemometer data based on a new filter strategy for virtual tower measurements","authors":"Kevin Wolz, Christopher Holst, Frank Beyrich, Eileen Päschke, Matthias Mauder","doi":"10.5194/gi-13-205-2024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. In this study, we compare the wind measurements of a virtual tower triple Doppler lidar setup to those of a sonic anemometer located at a height of 90 m above ground on an instrumented tower and with those of two single Doppler lidars to evaluate the effect of the horizontal homogeneity assumption used for single Doppler lidar applications on the measurement accuracy. The triple lidar setup was operated in a 90 m stare and a step–stare mode at six heights between 90 and 500 m above ground, while the single lidars were operated in a continuous scan velocity–azimuth display (VAD) mode where one of them had a zenith angle of 54.7° and the other one of 28.0°. The instruments were set up at the boundary-layer field site of the German Meteorological Service (DWD) in July and August of 2020 during the FESST@MOL (Field Experiment on sub-mesoscale spatiotemporal variability at the Meteorological Observatory Lindenberg) 2020 campaign. Overall, we found good agreement of the lidar methods for the whole study period for different averaging times and scan modes compared to the sonic anemometer. For the step–stare mode wind speed measurements, the comparability between the triple lidar and the sonic anemometer was 0.47 m s−1 at an averaging time of 30 min with a bias value of −0.34 m s−1. For wind speed measured by one single lidar setup for the same period with an averaging time of 30 min, we found a comparability of 0.32 m s−1 at an averaging time of 30 min and a bias value of −0.07 m s−1 as well as values of 0.47 and −0.34 m s−1 for the other one, respectively. We also compared the wind velocity measurements of the single and triple lidars at different heights and found decreasing agreement between them with increasing measurement height up to 495 m above ground for the single lidar systems. We found that the single Doppler lidar with the increased zenith angle produced poorer agreement with the triple Doppler lidar setup than the one with the lower zenith angle, especially at higher altitudes. At a height of 495 m above ground and with an averaging time of 30 min the comparability and bias for the larger zenith angle were 0.71 and −0.50 m s−1, respectively, compared to values of 0.57 and −0.28 m s−1 for the smaller zenith angle. Our results confirm that a single Doppler lidar provides reliable wind speed and direction data over heterogeneous but basically flat terrain in different scan configurations. For the virtual tower scanning strategies, we developed a new filtering approach based on a median absolute deviation (MAD) filter combined with a relatively relaxed filtering criterion for the signal-to-noise ratio output by the instrument.","PeriodicalId":48742,"journal":{"name":"Geoscientific Instrumentation Methods and Data Systems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Geoscientific Instrumentation Methods and Data Systems","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5194/gi-13-205-2024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract. In this study, we compare the wind measurements of a virtual tower triple Doppler lidar setup to those of a sonic anemometer located at a height of 90 m above ground on an instrumented tower and with those of two single Doppler lidars to evaluate the effect of the horizontal homogeneity assumption used for single Doppler lidar applications on the measurement accuracy. The triple lidar setup was operated in a 90 m stare and a step–stare mode at six heights between 90 and 500 m above ground, while the single lidars were operated in a continuous scan velocity–azimuth display (VAD) mode where one of them had a zenith angle of 54.7° and the other one of 28.0°. The instruments were set up at the boundary-layer field site of the German Meteorological Service (DWD) in July and August of 2020 during the FESST@MOL (Field Experiment on sub-mesoscale spatiotemporal variability at the Meteorological Observatory Lindenberg) 2020 campaign. Overall, we found good agreement of the lidar methods for the whole study period for different averaging times and scan modes compared to the sonic anemometer. For the step–stare mode wind speed measurements, the comparability between the triple lidar and the sonic anemometer was 0.47 m s−1 at an averaging time of 30 min with a bias value of −0.34 m s−1. For wind speed measured by one single lidar setup for the same period with an averaging time of 30 min, we found a comparability of 0.32 m s−1 at an averaging time of 30 min and a bias value of −0.07 m s−1 as well as values of 0.47 and −0.34 m s−1 for the other one, respectively. We also compared the wind velocity measurements of the single and triple lidars at different heights and found decreasing agreement between them with increasing measurement height up to 495 m above ground for the single lidar systems. We found that the single Doppler lidar with the increased zenith angle produced poorer agreement with the triple Doppler lidar setup than the one with the lower zenith angle, especially at higher altitudes. At a height of 495 m above ground and with an averaging time of 30 min the comparability and bias for the larger zenith angle were 0.71 and −0.50 m s−1, respectively, compared to values of 0.57 and −0.28 m s−1 for the smaller zenith angle. Our results confirm that a single Doppler lidar provides reliable wind speed and direction data over heterogeneous but basically flat terrain in different scan configurations. For the virtual tower scanning strategies, we developed a new filtering approach based on a median absolute deviation (MAD) filter combined with a relatively relaxed filtering criterion for the signal-to-noise ratio output by the instrument.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于新的虚拟塔测量滤波策略,比较三重和单重多普勒激光雷达风力测量与声波风速计数据
摘要在这项研究中,我们将虚拟塔式三重多普勒激光雷达装置的风力测量结果与位于仪器塔上距地面 90 米高处的声波风速计的测量结果以及两个单一多普勒激光雷达的测量结果进行了比较,以评估单一多普勒激光雷达应用中使用的水平均匀性假设对测量精度的影响。三重激光雷达装置在离地面 90 米和 500 米之间的六个高度以 90 米凝视和步距模式运行,而单重激光雷达则以连续扫描速度方位角显示(VAD)模式运行,其中一个的天顶角为 54.7°,另一个为 28.0°。2020 年 7 月和 8 月,在 FESST@MOL(林登堡气象观测站亚中尺度时空变率现场实验)2020 年活动期间,在德国气象局(DWD)的边界层现场安装了这些仪器。总体而言,我们发现在整个研究期间,在不同的平均时间和扫描模式下,激光雷达方法与声波风速计相比具有良好的一致性。对于步进扫描模式的风速测量,在平均时间为 30 分钟时,三重激光雷达与声波风速计的可比性为 0.47 m s-1,偏差值为 -0.34 m s-1。在同一时期,用一个激光雷达装置测量的风速(平均时间为 30 分钟),在平均时间为 30 分钟时的可比性为 0.32 m s-1,偏差值为 -0.07 m s-1,而另一个装置的可比性值分别为 0.47 和 -0.34 m s-1。我们还比较了单激光雷达和三激光雷达在不同高度上的风速测量结果,发现随着测量高度的增加,它们之间的一致性在降低,单激光雷达系统的测量高度最高可达距地面 495 米。我们发现,天顶角增大的单多普勒激光雷达与三多普勒激光雷达的一致性要差于天顶角较小的激光雷达,尤其是在较高的高度。在离地面 495 米的高度和 30 分钟的平均时间内,较大天顶角的可比性和偏差分别为 0.71 和-0.50 米/秒,而较小天顶角的可比性和偏差分别为 0.57 和-0.28 米/秒。我们的结果证实,在不同的扫描配置下,单个多普勒激光雷达可在异质但基本平坦的地形上提供可靠的风速和风向数据。针对虚拟塔扫描策略,我们开发了一种新的滤波方法,该方法基于中位绝对偏差(MAD)滤波器,并结合了对仪器输出信噪比相对宽松的滤波标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Geoscientific Instrumentation Methods and Data Systems
Geoscientific Instrumentation Methods and Data Systems GEOSCIENCES, MULTIDISCIPLINARYMETEOROLOGY-METEOROLOGY & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
23
审稿时长
37 weeks
期刊介绍: Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems (GI) is an open-access interdisciplinary electronic journal for swift publication of original articles and short communications in the area of geoscientific instruments. It covers three main areas: (i) atmospheric and geospace sciences, (ii) earth science, and (iii) ocean science. A unique feature of the journal is the emphasis on synergy between science and technology that facilitates advances in GI. These advances include but are not limited to the following: concepts, design, and description of instrumentation and data systems; retrieval techniques of scientific products from measurements; calibration and data quality assessment; uncertainty in measurements; newly developed and planned research platforms and community instrumentation capabilities; major national and international field campaigns and observational research programs; new observational strategies to address societal needs in areas such as monitoring climate change and preventing natural disasters; networking of instruments for enhancing high temporal and spatial resolution of observations. GI has an innovative two-stage publication process involving the scientific discussion forum Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems Discussions (GID), which has been designed to do the following: foster scientific discussion; maximize the effectiveness and transparency of scientific quality assurance; enable rapid publication; make scientific publications freely accessible.
期刊最新文献
Comparing triple and single Doppler lidar wind measurements with sonic anemometer data based on a new filter strategy for virtual tower measurements Managing Data of Sensor-Equipped Transportation Networks using Graph Databases Airborne electromagnetic data levelling based on the structured variational method A multiplexing system for quantifying oxygen fractionation factors in closed chambers Development of an integrated analytical platform of clay minerals separation, characterization and 40K/40Ar dating
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1