English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In this paper a five-beam wind profiler and a collocated meteorological tower are used to estimate the accuracy of four-beam and three-beam wind profiler techniques in measuring horizontal components of the wind. In the traditional three-beam technique, the horizontal components of wind are derived from two orthogonal oblique beams and the vertical beam. In the less used four-beam method, the horizontal winds are found from the radial velocities measured with two orthogonal sets of opposing coplanar beams. In this paper the observations derived from the two wind profiler techniques are compared with the tower measurements using data averaged over 30 min. Results show that, while the winds measured using both methods are in overall agreement with the tower measurements, some of the horizontal components of the three-beam-derived winds are clearly spurious when compared with the tower-measured winds or the winds derived from the four oblique beams. These outliers are partially responsible for a larger 30-min, threebeam standard deviation of the profiler/tower wind speed differences (2. 2ms 1 ), as opposed to that from the four-beam method (1.2 m s 1 ). It was also found that many of these outliers were associated with periods of transition between clear air and rain, suggesting that the three-beam technique is more sensitive to small-scale variability in the vertical Doppler velocity because of its reliance on the point measurement from the vertical beam, while the four-beam method is surprisingly robust. Even after the removal of the rain data, the standard deviation of the wind speed error from the three-beam method (1.5 m s 1 ) is still much larger than that from the four-beam method. Taken together, these results suggest that the spatial variability of the vertical airflow in nonrainy periods or hydrometeor fall velocities in rainy periods makes the vertical beam velocities significantly less representative over the area across the three beams, and decreases the precision of the three-beam method. It is concluded that profilers utilizing the four-beam wind profiler technique have better reliability than wind profilers that rely on the three-beam wind profiler technique.

Evaluation of Three-Beam and Four-Beam Profiler Wind Measurement Techniques Using a Five-Beam Wind Profiler and Collocated Meteorological Tower