1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Assessing the effects of atmospheric stability on the fine structure of surface layer turbulence using local and global multiscale approaches
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.1897008
/content/aip/journal/pof2/17/5/10.1063/1.1897008
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pof2/17/5/10.1063/1.1897008

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

The comparison between Tsallis Maxent distribution (dash dot), the empirical distribution (dash), and Mallat’s model (solid) at the three finest scales of the discrete wavelet transformation. The left panel is the coarsest scale, while the finest scale is at the right panel. The fitted parameters for the three scales are , and , respectively, from the left to the right.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

The logarithms of the empirical density and Mallat’s model at different scales for a typical fBm having a Hurst exponent of . Four panels show the pdf analysis at the four finest scales in the DWT. The top-left panel is the coarsest scale while the bottom-right panel is the finest scale. The ’s at different scales are estimated from the data and are 1.7891, 1.9388, 1.9307, and 1.9242, respectively. Note that these pdfs are approximately normal.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

The plots of the measured and modeled random variables at different scales in the wavelet domain for a typical flow variable . The left panel shows the coarsest scale while the right panel shows the finest scale. The same turbulence measurement time series are used as in Fig. 6.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

Box plots of the shape coefficients in model across different stability regimes. The four rows correspond to , , , and , respectively, from the top to the bottom. The three finest scales of wavelet coefficients are used here. The results in the left panels are from the coarsest level of wavelet decomposition while the right panels refer to the finest level .

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Box plots of the quasi-Hurst exponents for four flow variables , , , and from the top left to the bottom right, respectively.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

The average logarithm pdfs associated with atmospheric stability conditions of the four flow variables at first three finest scales. The four rows are corresponding to measurement , , , and , respectively from the top to the bottom. Three finest scales of wavelet coefficients are used here. The results in the left panels are from the coarsest level of wavelet coefficients while the right panels refer to the finest level .

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Mean and standard deviations of the six runs for unstable, stable, and neutral wind speeds.

Generic image for table
Table II.

Mean and standard deviations of the quasi-Hurst exponent ’s for the four flow variables. The numbers in the brackets are the statistics for the selected six runs for each stability regime described in the experimental setup and are reported here for reference.

Generic image for table
Table III.

Mean and standard deviation of ’s for all four flow variables and stability classes. Recall that for a Gaussian process.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/pof2/17/5/10.1063/1.1897008
2005-04-26
2014-04-19
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Assessing the effects of atmospheric stability on the fine structure of surface layer turbulence using local and global multiscale approaches
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pof2/17/5/10.1063/1.1897008
10.1063/1.1897008
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM