ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE LETTERS
Atmos. Sci. Let. 14: 112–117 (2013)
Published online in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/asl2.426
Soil-layer configuration requirement for large-eddy
atmosphere and land surface coupled modeling
Shaofeng Liu1,2,* and Yaping Shao1
1 Institute
2 Institute
for Geophysics and Meteorology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
of Atmospheric Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
*Correspondence to:
S. Liu, Institute for Geophysics
and Meteorology, University of
Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
E-mail: [email protected]
Received: 25 July 2012
Revised: 3 December 2012
Accepted: 19 January 2013
Abstract
To investigate the soil-layer configuration requirement for numerical studying large-eddy
scale atmosphere and land surface interactions, we conduct two experiments with an
atmosphere and land surface coupled large-eddy model, one with the ‘usual’ soil-layer
configuration and the other with a finer one. It is found that the former configuration
prevents the soil to respond to atmospheric large eddies and the soil acts solely as a fixed
external condition to the atmospheric turbulence, and is thus inadequate for large-eddy
atmosphere and land surface coupled modeling. It is shown that soil-layer configuration has
a profound impact on the simulated atmospheric boundary layer dynamics. Copyright 
2013 Royal Meteorological Society
Keywords:
atmosphere–land interaction; large-eddy simulation; soil-layer configuration
1. Introduction
Land surface mass, energy and momentum fluxes are
important quantities to determine in weather and climate models. These fluxes can be strongly affected by
land surface heterogeneity (Shao et al ., 2001; Heinemann and Kerschgens, 2005). To better understand
heterogeneous atmosphere and land surface interactions, three-dimensional atmospheric and land surface
data are needed. Such data are difficult to obtain
from field or laboratory measurements, but can be
synthetically generated using large-eddy atmosphere
and land surface coupled models (LES-ALMs).
Large-eddy simulation (LES) models have been
under development since the 1960s (Smagorinsky,
1963; Deardorff, 1970; Moeng, 1984), and are now
widely used for atmospheric turbulent flow simulations (Sullivan et al ., 1998; Beare et al ., 2004; Kleissl
et al ., 2006; Kumar et al ., 2006). Earlier LES models
were not coupled with land surface schemes, and the
simulations were mostly done with prespecified land
surface forcing (Hechtel et al ., 1990; Avissar and
Schmidt, 1998; Albertson et al ., 2001; Letzel and
Raasch, 2003; Huang et al . 2008). More recently,
LES-ALMs have been developed and applied to the
simulation of boundary layer flows over synthetic
(Patton et al ., 2005; Courault et al ., 2007) and
natural (Huang and Margulis, 2010; Brunsell et al .,
2011) heterogeneous land surfaces. However, the
land surface schemes used in these studies are almost
the same as those designed for weather and climate
modeling, in which the soil layers are configured to
represent the atmosphere and land surface exchanges
on diurnal and longer time scales. Table I summarizes
the soil-layer configurations used in some of the
recent LES-ALM studies, with the typical thickness
of the top soil layer being about 0.1 m. Given that
such thick soil layers are used, one must ask whether
the atmosphere and land surface interactions on
large-eddy time scale were realistically represented,
and more generally whether the impact of land surface
heterogeneity on the atmospheric boundary layer can
be correctly represented. For example, Brunsell et al .
(2011) concluded that land surface heterogeneity has
little impact on the dynamics of the atmospheric
boundary layer. The validity of this statement requires
rigorous testing, because it may be a model artifact
arising from the use of a thick top-layer soil which
prohibits the atmosphere and land surface from interaction on large-eddy time scales. Our own experience
shows that soil-layer configuration is of fundamental importance to the simulation of large-eddy
atmosphere – land surface interactions, especially
over heterogeneous areas, which deserves careful
consideration.
In this paper, we examine the soil-layer configuration requirement for LES-ALM. The soil-layer
configurations summarized in Table I are tested. They
are found to be inadequate in that they do not permit
the response of the land surface to the effects of
atmospheric large eddies. As a consequence of the
thick soil-layers used, the land surface only exerts
a quasi-stationary force on the atmosphere, rather
than interacts with it. Sensitivity experiments are
carried out using a LES-ALM (Shao et al ., 2013)
for different soil-layer configurations, and the model
results are compared with field measurements. Guidelines for soil-layer configuration for LES-ALM are
proposed.
Copyright  2013 Royal Meteorological Society
Soil-layer configuration requirement in LES
113
Table I. A review on the soil-layer configuration used in recent LES-ALM studies.
Reference
LES-LSM
coupled?
Patton et al. (2005)
Yes
Courault et al. (2007)
Yes
Huang and Margulis (2010)
Yes
Huang et al. (2011)
Brunsell et al. (2011)
Same as above
Same as above
LSM model
Soil layers
Study description
Noah LSM (Chen and Dudhia,
2001)
ISBA (Noilhan and Mahfouf
1996), some kind of
force-restore LSM
A force-restore LSM (Noilhan
and Planton 1989)
4 layers: 0.1, 0.3,
0.6, 1 m
2 layer: 0.1 and
1m
Influence of idealized surface
heterogeneity
Impact of synthetic surface
heterogeneity on the boundary layer
Same as above
Land and atmosphere feedbacks for
natural heterogeneous surface
On particular land use: urban
On the impacts of the scales of surface
heterogeneity on boundary layer
dynamics
Table II. Settings of the model simulations.
Characteristic
Exp 1
Exp 2
Simulation Domain A 7.5 × 6.0 × 2.2 km3 domain in
western Germany, covered with
nine land use types, i.e. bare soil,
settlement, bog, water, harvested
rapeseed and grain, beet, pasture
and forest. Detailed distribution
refers to Shao et al. 2013
Spatial resolution
Horizontal: x = y = 60 m; vertical:
logarithmically stretched with z
varying between 2 m near the
surface to 24 m for z ≥ 80 m
Grids
125 × 100 × 100
Time step
0.2 s
Same as Exp 1
Simulation period 0800–2000 UTC, 5 August 2009
Lateral BCs
Periodic
Upper BCs
Constant pressure with zero vertical
velocity
Soil layers
Default 4 layers, 0.1, 0.3, 0.6, 1 m
4 layers, 0.01,
0.03, 0.06,
0.1 m
2. Model and numerical experiments
The LES-ALM model used in this study is as
described in Shao et al . (2013). It is based on the
WRF (Weather Research and Forecast) large-eddy
flow model and the land surface scheme is based
on the Noah land surface model (LSM) (Chen and
Dudhia, 2001). Several developments are made to
the land surface scheme to ensure its adequacy for
large-eddy simulation of atmosphere and land surface
processes. Here, we only give a brief description of
the techniques for computing surface sensible- and
latent-heat fluxes and the related soil processes.
Surface sensible heat flux, H , and latent heat flux,
LE, can be expressed as
H = −ρcp
LE = −ρLβ
(Ta − Ts )
rh
(qa − qs (Ts ))
rq
Copyright  2013 Royal Meteorological Society
(1)
(2)
where ρ, Ta and q a are air density, air temperature
and specific humidity at the lowest model level; cp
and L are the air specific heat capacity and latent heat
of vaporization; T s the surface skin temperature and
q s (T s ) the saturation specific humidity at T s . The β
parameter is assumed to be a linear function of the
soil moisture in the top-layer soil. The calculations
of the resistances r h and r q are as described in Shao
et al . (2013).
Soil temperature obeys the heat diffusion equation
∂
∂Ts
∂Ts
=
νG
+ sT
(3)
∂t
∂z
∂z
where Ts is soil temperature, ν G the soil thermal
diffusivity and sT a temperature source. The soil
moisture θ obeys the Richards equation
∂
∂θ
∂ (ψθ + z )
=
KW
+ sθ
(4)
∂t
∂z
∂z
Here, ψ θ is the hydraulic suction head, KW the
hydraulic conductivity and s θ a moisture source.
In LSMs used for weather predictions, it is
appropriate to select relatively thick soil layers. For
example, in Noah LSM, the default thicknesses of the
four soil layers from top to bottom are 0.1, 0.3, 0.6 and
1.0 m, respectively, as used in Patton et al . (2005). In
a force-restore scheme, the soil layers are typically set
to 0.1 m for the top-layer soil and 1 m for the bulk soil
layer, as is the case in Courault et al . (2007), Huang
and Margulis (2010), Huang et al . (2011) and Brunsell
et al . (2011). However, for large-eddy modeling, much
thinner layers must be selected to allow the land surface to respond to the effects of large eddies. Suppose
the typical time scale of the atmospheric system is tA .
Then, because the soil thermal diffusivity, ν G , is of the
order of magnitude of 10−6 to 10−7 m2 s−1 , the corresponding thickness of the soil layer, s, must satisfy
√
s ∼ vG · tA
(5)
For tA = 1 day, s is about 0.2 m; for tA = 10 min,
s is about 0.01 m. To allow for soil response to the
large eddy fluctuations, we set the thickness of the
first soil layer as 0.01 m. To examine the sensitivity of
the LES-ALM simulations on soil-layer configuration,
Atmos. Sci. Let. 14: 112–117 (2013)
114
S. Liu and Y. Shao
Figure 1. (a) Comparison of the simulated soil temperature for Exp 1 (dashed line) and Exp 2 (solid line) with observation (dots);
(b) as (a), but for soil moisture; (c) 60-min average of top-layer soil temperature (thick dashed line for Exp 1 and thick solid line
for Exp 2, left axis) and deviation (thin dashed line for Exp 1 and thin solid line for Exp 2, right axis); (d) as (c), but for top-layer
soil moisture.
Figure 2. Comparison of the simulated and observed surface H and LE for a harvested wheat surface. (a) 30-min averages over
a period of 12 h; (b) instantaneous values for a 1-h time interval. Solid lines are for Exp 2, dashed for Exp 1 and full dots for
observations.
experiments with two different soil-layer configurations, as shown in Table II, are carried out for a heterogeneous land surface in Germany. The simulations are
done for 5 August 2009, a day with weak south easterly winds of 3–4 m s−1 in the entire boundary layer
and no clouds except for some thin cirrus in the afternoon. The simulation domain is a flat area of roughly
10 × 10 km2 about 100 m above mean sea level and
the landscape dominated by field crops of sugar beet
and two grain species (winter wheat and winter barley). For details of the land use distribution and related
surface characteristics refer to Shao et al . (2013).
Copyright  2013 Royal Meteorological Society
3. Results
3.1. Response of soil
The two simulations use the same initial conditions
for the atmosphere and soil temperature/moisture as in
Shao et al . (2013). In Exp 1, in comparison with the
measurements, the (top layer 5 cm) soil temperature
increase was too slow in the morning (Figure 1(a)),
as well as the soil moisture decreases (Figure 1(c)). In
Exp 2, the 5-cm soil temperature and moisture vary
more rapidly with time (Figure 1(a) and (c)). For the
Atmos. Sci. Let. 14: 112–117 (2013)
Soil-layer configuration requirement in LES
115
5-cm soil temperature, Exp 2 reaches its peak earlier in
better accordance with the observations. On the other
hand, in Exp 2, the 5-cm soil moisture decreases more
quickly leading to a drier top-layer soil (Figure 1(d)).
On turbulent time scales, the top-layer soil temperature
in Exp 2 has much stronger variations (Figure 1(b)),
although such strong variations are absent in the toplayer soil moisture (Figure 1(d)).
3.2. Response of fluxes
As Equation ([2]) shows, the top-layer soil moisture
is a key parameter in determining the partition of net
radiation into sensible and latent heat fluxes. Lower
top-layer soil moisture means less evaporation. Consequently, Exp 1 and Exp 2 have different flux partitions. For a harvested wheat land surface, both Exp
1 and Exp 2 show a reasonable agreement between
the simulated and observed H and LE fluxes on diurnal time scale (Figure 2(a)). However, compared to
Exp1, Exp 2 obtained a higher H but lower LE for
most of the time. Figure 2 also compares the simulated instantaneous H and LE fluxes. Exp 2 shows
much stronger variations in H (Figure 2(b)), consistent with the instantaneous soil temperature variations
seen in Figure 1(b). For example, Exp 2 has high H
values just before 1310 UTC, in correspondence with
the low top-layer soil temperature values; the low H
values between 1330 and 1340 UTC correspond well
with the high top-layer soil temperature values. The
simulation thus clearly shows that there is a significant coupling between atmosphere and land surface
processes on the large-eddy scale. On average, LE simulated in Exp 1 is almost twice that simulated in Exp
2, which is apparently related to their difference in the
top-layer soil moisture. The difference in the variations
of LE is not striking, as the difference in the top-layer
soil moisture on large-eddy time scales (Figure 1(d)).
This is because, for the case we studied, the top-layer
soil is rather dry and the evaporation is limited by soil
moisture supply.
Figure 3 shows the comparison of the profiles of
the time-and-domain averaged H and LE between the
two simulations. Both H profiles are typical for a
convective boundary layer, i.e. H linearly decreases
with height until the inversion layer (Figure 3(a)).
Both LE profiles show that LE increases with height
to the inversion layer (Figure 3(b)). These latter
results are consistent with those of Deardorff (1974).
However, the near-surface H from Exp 2 is about
50 W m−2 (˜20%) higher than that from Exp 1, while
LE is lower by the same margin. The quantitative
differences between Exp 1 and Exp 2 in the H and
LE profiles persist through almost the entire boundary
layer. For the present case studied, the thin soillayer configuration resulted in a more convective
atmospheric boundary layer.
Copyright  2013 Royal Meteorological Society
Figure 3. Profiles of H (a) and LE (b) averaged over the
simulation domain and the time period of 1300–1400 UTC.
Solid lines are Exp 2 and dashed Exp 1.
Figure 4. Comparison of the energy spectra of the 2-m air
temperature over a bare soil surface. Solid curve is for Exp 2
and red dashed Exp 1.
3.3. Response of large eddies
We have shown in Sections on Response of Soil and
Response of Fluxes that the thin soil-layer configuration allows the land surface to respond to the atmospheric large eddies. Then, conversely, how do large
eddies respond to the fluctuations of land surface quantities? Figure 4 shows the energy spectrum of 2-m
air temperature fluctuations over a bare soil surface.
In the range of energy-containing eddies, distinct differences between Exp 1 and Exp 2 are seen in the
frequency range between 0.001 and 0.004 s−1 . Exp 2
shows weaker temperature variations on 10 min time
scales. Spectral differences appear for the frequency
smaller than 0.001 s−1 . On 20 min and longer time
scales, Exp 2 has stronger variation. This is due to
the larger H in Exp 2, which makes the atmospheric
boundary thermally more unstable, as a consequence
of the drier top-layer soil. The LES-ALM model simulation suggests the rapid land–atmosphere exchanges
due to the thinner soil-layer configuration weakens the
atmospheric large eddies.
To better understand this phenomenon, we reexamine Figures 1(b) and 2(b). In Exp 2, when
a cool large eddy approaches (a little before 1310
UTC), it fosters the surface H (Figure 2(b)) and
thereby cools the top-layer soil (Figure 1(b)). After the
passage of cool eddy, the atmosphere should resume
its relatively warm state, but the cooled land surface
Atmos. Sci. Let. 14: 112–117 (2013)
116
S. Liu and Y. Shao
Figure 5. (a) Spectra of sensible heat fluxes of SP1 in logarithm for the fine soil-layer configuration; (b) spectral differences
between SP2 and SP1 in linear scale; (c) as (b), but between SP3 and SP1; (d), (e) and (f) are the same as (a), (b) and (c), but for
the thick soil-layer configuration; (g) PDF distribution of heterogeneity length scale.
continues to cool the atmosphere above and prohibits
the recovery. On the other hand, when a warm large
eddy approaches (between 1330 and 1340 UTC), it
suppresses the surface H (Figure 2(b)) and warms the
top-layer soil (Figure 1(b)). After the passage of the
warm eddy, the warmed soil continues to warm the air
above and again, prohibits the recovery. There is thus
a negative feedback which weakens the large eddies.
Such a feedback mechanism between land surface and
large eddies can only be seen by using a fine soil-layer
configuration.
3.4. Discussion
As discussed in Section Response of Large Eddies, in
large-eddy modeling a distinct feedback mechanism
can be found between land surface and large eddies
only if the fine soil-layer configuration is used. It is
perceivable, that very different, if not entirely opposite,
conclusions with respective to the atmospheric boundary layer dynamics may be obtained if the soil-layer
configuration is not carefully chosen. To better understand this, several LES-ALM simulations are carried
out in addition to those listed in Table II. In the
simulation domain, three artificial land use patterns
are generated by keeping the total vegetation fraction
unchanged: in SP1, vegetation is randomly distributed
and heterogeneity occurs on very small length scales;
in SP2, the dominant heterogeneity scales is 6–20
times model grid spacing (dx ); in SP3, the dominant
heterogeneity scale is 46–115 times dx (Figure 5(g)).
Thus, in SP1, SP2 and SP3, land surface heterogeneity
occurs on different scales. Combining these three land
Copyright  2013 Royal Meteorological Society
surface patterns with the two soil-layer configurations,
six experiments are done. The spectral differences of
the simulated sensible heat fluxes between SP2 and
SP1 and between SP3 and SP1 clearly show the impact
of surface heterogeneities. The scales at which the difference peaks of sensible heat fluxes occur reasonably
well correspond to the typical scales of land surface
heterogeneity, as seen in Figure 5. For SP1, the differences of the spectral levels between the two kinds of
soil-layer configuration are insignificant (Figure 5(a)
and (c)). By comparing Figure 5(b) and (c) (fine soillayer configuration) with Figure 5(e)–(g) (thick soillayer configuration), however, it is found that the thin
soil-layer configuration allows the impact of surface
heterogeneity to propagate to much higher levels in
the atmospheric boundary layer. It is conclusive from
our simulation, that in modeling atmosphere and land
surface interaction on large-eddy scales, the soil-layer
configuration must be sufficiently fine. Otherwise, the
model results can be misleading.
4. Conclusions
The sensitivity of large-eddy simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer to soil-layer configuration is
investigated by using a LES-ALM. Two simulations
are conducted, one with the conventional soil-layer
configuration and the other with a finer soil-layer configuration. The results show that the latter configuration allows the land surface to respond to, and to
influence, the atmospheric large eddies.
Atmos. Sci. Let. 14: 112–117 (2013)
Soil-layer configuration requirement in LES
The conventional soil-layer configuration designed
for weather and climate models, but widely used for
LES-ALM, does not allow the feedbacks between
the atmosphere and land surface on large-eddy time
scales. Thus, in LES-ALM, if the conventional soillayer configurations are used, the land surface mainly
acts as a quasi-stationary external forcing to the
atmospheric turbulence, even though a surface skin
layer is applied in the LSM. This is because the
skin layer has no capacity for heat and moisture
storage, and the characteristic of the land-surface
response to turbulent fluctuations is determined by the
thickness of the soil layers. Using the fine soil-layer
configurations, we have demonstrated that a negative
feedback between the atmosphere and land surface
exists on the large-eddy scale, which cannot be seen
from the conventional soil-layer configurations.
Our study shows that the requirement on soil-layer
configuration depends on the nature of the problems
under investigation. If the goal is to study the structure
of the boundary layer and the land surface’s forcing
on it on diurnal or longer time scales, or only the
impacts of prescribed surface heterogeneity on the
boundary layer, as for the first four papers listed in
Table I, the conventional soil-layer configuration might
be adequate. But if the goal is to study atmosphere
and land surface interactions on the large-eddy scales,
then soil-layer configuration must be sufficiently fine.
Using additional experiments, we have demonstrated
that the fine-soil layer configuration is also important
for studying the impact of land surface heterogeneity.
The soil-layer configuration used in this study can be
used as a reference for LES-ALM.
Acknowledgements
This work is jointly supported by the DFG Transregional
Cooperative Research Centre 32 ‘Patterns in Soil-VegetationAtmosphere-Systems: Monitoring, Modelling and Data Assimilation’ and the 863 project (Grant 2010AA012304).
References
Albertson JD, Kustas WP, Scanlon TM. 2001. Large-eddy simulation
over heterogeneous terrain with remotely sensed land surface
conditions. Water Resources Research 37: 1939–1953.
Avissar R, Schmidt T. 1998. An evaluation of the scale at which
ground-surface heat flux patchiness affects the convective boundary
layer using large-eddy simulation model. Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences 55: 2666–2689.
Beare RJ, Macvean MK, Holtslag AAM, Cuxart J, Esau I, Golaz J-C,
Jimenez MA, Khairoutdinov M, Kosovic B, Lewellen D, Lund TS,
Lundquist JK, McCabe A, Moene AF, Noh Y, Raasch S, Sullivan
PP. 2004. An intercomparison of large-eddy simulations of the stable
boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 118: 247–272.
Brunsell NA, Mechem DB, Anderson MC. 2011. Surface heterogeneity
impacts on boundary layer dynamics via energy balance partitioning.
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 11: 3403–3416.
Chen F, Dudhia J. 2001. Coupling an advanced land surface-hydrology
model with the Penn State-NCAR MM5 Modeling System. Part I:
model implementation and sensitivity. Monthly Weather Review 129:
569–585.
Copyright  2013 Royal Meteorological Society
117
Courault D, Drobinski P, Brunet Y, Lacarrère P, Talbot C. 2007. Impact
of surface heterogeneity on a buoyancy-driven convective boundary
layer in light winds. Boundary-Layer Meteorology 124: 383–403.
Deardorff JW. 1970. A numerical study of three-dimensional turbulent
channel flow at large Reynolds numbers. Journal of Fluid Mechanics
41: 453–480.
Deardorff JW. 1974. On the entrainment rate of a stratocumulus-topped
mixed layer. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society
102: 563–582.
Hechtel LM, Moeng CH, Stull RB. 1990. The effects of nonhomogeneous surface fluxes on the convective boundary layer: a case study
using large-eddy simulation. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
47: 1721–1741.
Heinemann G, Kerschgens M. 2005. Comparison of methods for
area-averaging surface energy fluxes over heterogeneous land surfaces using high-resolution non-hydrostatic simulations. International Journal of Climatology 25: 379–403, DOI: 10.1002/joc.1123.
Huang HY, Stevens B, Margulis SA. 2008. Application of dynamic
subgrid-scale models for large-eddy simulation of the daytime
convective boundary layer over heterogeneous surfaces. BoundaryLayer Meteorology 126: 327–348.
Huang HY, Margulis SA. 2010. Evaluation of a fully coupled largeeddy simulation-land surface model and its diagnosis of landatmosphere feedbacks. Water Resources Research 46: W06512, DOI:
10.1029/2009WR008232.
Huang HY, Margulis SA, Chu CR, Tsai HC. 2011. Investigation of
the impacts of vegetation distribution and evaporative cooling on
synthetic urban daytime climate using a coupled LES-LSM model.
Hydrological Processes 25: 1574–1586.
Kleissl J, Kumar V, Meneveau C, Parlange MB. 2006. Numerical study of dynamic Smagorinsky models in large-eddy simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer: validation in stable and
unstable conditions. Water Resources Research 42: W06D10, DOI:
10.1029/2005WR004685.
Kumar V, Kleissl J, Meneveau C, Parlange MB. 2006. Large-eddy
simulation of a diurnal cycle of the atmospheric boundary layer:
atmospheric stability and scaling issues. Water Resources Research,
DOI: 10.1029/2005WR004651.
Letzel MO, Raasch S. 2003. Large eddy simulation of thermally
induced oscillation in the convective boundary layer. Journal of the
Atmospheric Sciences 60: 2328–2341.
Moeng CH. 1984. A large-eddy simulation model for the study of
planetary boundary-layer turbulence. Journal of the Atmospheric
Sciences 41: 2052–2062.
Noilhan J, Mahfouf JF. 1996. The ISBA land surface parameterization
scheme. Global and Planetary Change 13: 145–159.
Noilhan J, Planton S. 1989. A simple parameterization of land surface
processes for meteorological models. Monthly Weather Review 117:
536–549.
Patton EG, Sullivan PP, Moeng CH. 2005. The influence of idealized
heterogeneity on wet and dry planetary boundary layers coupled
to the land surface. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences 62:
2078–2097.
Shao Y, Sogalla M, Kerschgens M, Brücher W. 2001. Effects of landsurface heterogeneity upon surface fluxes and turbulent conditions.
Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics 78: 157–181.
Shao Y, Liu S, Schween J, Crewell S. 2013. Large-Eddy Atmosphere
– Land Surface Modeling over Heterogeneous Surfaces: Model
Development and Comparison with Measurements. Boundary-Layer
Meteorology, in press.
Smagorinsky J. 1963. General circulation experiments with the primitive equations, part I: the basic experiment. Monthly Weather Review
91: 99–164.
Sullivan PP, Moeng CH, Stevens B, Lenschow DH, Mayor SD.
1998. Structure of the entrainment zone capping the convective
atmospheric boundary layer. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences
55: 3042–3064.
Atmos. Sci. Let. 14: 112–117 (2013)