Numerical framework for the computation of urban flux footprints employing large-eddy simulation and Lagrangian stochastic modeling

Auvinen, Mikko; Järvi, Leena; Hellsten, Antti; Rannik, Üllar; Vesala, Timo

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4187-2017

Articles | Volume 10, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4187-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-10-4187-2017

© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 10, issue 11

Development and technical paper

|

17 Nov 2017

Development and technical paper |

| 17 Nov 2017

Numerical framework for the computation of urban flux footprints employing large-eddy simulation and Lagrangian stochastic modeling

Mikko Auvinen, Leena Järvi, Antti Hellsten, Üllar Rannik, and Timo Vesala

Download

Final revised paper (published on 17 Nov 2017)
Preprint (discussion started on 04 Jan 2017)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

AC1: 'Typo in acknowledgements', Mikko Auvinen, 05 Jan 2017
SC1: 'Executive Editor Comment on "Numerical Framework for the Computation of Urban Flux Footprints Employing Large-eddy Simulation and Lagrangian Stochastic Modeling"', Astrid Kerkweg, 20 Jan 2017
- AC2: 'Response to Executive Editor Comment (SC1)', Mikko Auvinen, 08 Jun 2017
SC2: 'Executive Editor comment - correct paper type?', Julia Hargreaves, 02 Feb 2017
- AC3: 'Response to Executive Editor Comment (SC2)', Mikko Auvinen, 09 Jun 2017
  - AC4: 'Code availability information improved', Mikko Auvinen, 09 Jun 2017
RC1: 'Referee Comment', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Feb 2017
- AC5: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #1', Mikko Auvinen, 26 Jun 2017
RC2: 'Review of ``Numerical framework for the computation of urban flux footprints employing large-eddy simulation and Lagrangian stochastic modelling"', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Mar 2017
- AC6: 'Response to Anonymous Referee #2', Mikko Auvinen, 26 Jun 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Mikko Auvinen on behalf of the Authors (26 Jun 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Jul 2017) by Simon Unterstrasser

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (27 Aug 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

General considerations
The authors have indeed made considerable efforts to address the review comments (from both reviewers). Some of these changes seem to have led to considerable changes (i.e., the limiting size of the sub-volume size corresponding to the LES resolution and corresponding discussion) have considerably improved the paper. I am still not too enthusiastic about the ‘application example’ (and in the revised version particularly with the discussion of the results). Clearly, the authors advocate their high-cpu, high effort LES-based footprint estimation procedure (and this is their right and ‘duty’). However, the astonishing similarities between the full-fledged LES and the analytical model should also be discussed.
Overall I only have a number of minor comments that should be addressed before the paper can be recommended for publication.
Major comments

Minor comments
(lines in modified manuscript)

P9, l.33 to represent
P11, l. 9 due to my comment the authors have delete ‘lth’ but this makes the following notation quite unclear I suggest: ‘each particle’s (identified as ‘l’) coordinate….’
P11, l. 30 particle entries
P12, l. 1 of particle l
P14,l.31 the individual sectional sectional (better: sectoral) footprints inadequately converge and thereby become
P16, l.3 is expected to fall…
P17, l.3 give rise to an error
P18, l. 34 such a result
Tab 3 measurement height: 55.1 m. However on P3, .l19: measurement height is 60 m agl and on p22, l. 13: displacement height is 14.9 m: this yields a measurement height of 45.1 m. First this needs to be made consistent and second, possibly, the KM simulation (in Fig. 8) needs to be redone.
P26, l. 6 depends on
P26, l. 21 leads to prohibitive computational costs

Hide

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (Editor review) (04 Sep 2017) by Simon Unterstrasser

AR by Mikko Auvinen on behalf of the Authors (14 Sep 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (21 Sep 2017) by Simon Unterstrasser

Short summary

Correct spatial interpretation of a micrometeorological measurement requires the determination of its effective source area, or footprint. In urban areas the use of analytical models becomes highly questionable. This work introduces a computational methodology that enables the generation of footprints for complex urban sites. The methodology is based on conducting high-resolution flow and particle analysis on a model that features a detailed topographic description of a real city environment.