Browsing by Author "Pal, S"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluation of the boundary layer dynamics of the TM5 model over Europe
    (Copernicus Publications, 2016-09-14) Koffi, EN; Bergamaschi, P; Karstens, U; Krol, M; Segers, A; Schmidt, M; Levin, I; Vermeulen, AT; Fisher, RE; Kazan, V; Klein Baltink, H; Lowry, D; Manca, G; Meijer, HAJ; Moncrieff, J; Pal, S; Ramonet, M; Scheeren, HA; Williams, AG
    We evaluate the capability of the global atmospheric transport model TM5 to simulate the boundary layer dynamics and associated variability of trace gases close to the surface, using radon (222Rn). Focusing on the European scale, we compare the boundary layer height (BLH) in the TM5 model with observations from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admnistration (NOAA) Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive (IGRA) and also with ceilometer and lidar (light detection and ranging) BLH retrievals at two stations. Furthermore, we compare TM5 simulations of 222Rn activity concentrations, using a novel, process-based 222Rn flux map over Europe (Karstens et al., 2015), with harmonised 222Rn measurements at 10 stations. The TM5 model reproduces relatively well the daytime BLH (within 10–20 % for most of the stations), except for coastal sites, for which differences are usually larger due to model representation errors. During night, however, TM5 overestimates the shallow nocturnal BLHs, especially for the very low observed BLHs (< 100 m) during summer. The 222Rn activity concentration simulations based on the new 222Rn flux map show significant improvements especially regarding the average seasonal variability, compared to simulations using constant 222Rn fluxes. Nevertheless, the (relative) differences between simulated and observed daytime minimum 222Rn activity concentrations are larger for several stations (on the order of 50 %) than the (relative) differences between simulated and observed BLH at noon. Although the nocturnal BLH is often higher in the model than observed, simulated 222Rn nighttime maxima are actually larger at several continental stations. This counterintuitive behaviour points to potential deficiencies of TM5 to correctly simulate the vertical gradients within the nocturnal boundary layer, limitations of the 222Rn flux map, or issues related to the definition of the nocturnal BLH. At several stations the simulated decrease of 222Rn activity concentrations in the morning is faster than observed. In addition, simulated vertical 222Rn activity concentration gradients at Cabauw decrease faster than observations during the morning transition period, and are in general lower than observed gradients during daytime. Although these effects may be partially due to the slow response time of the radon detectors, they clearly point to too fast vertical mixing in the TM5 boundary layer during daytime. Furthermore, the capability of the TM5 model to simulate the diurnal BLH cycle is limited by the current coarse temporal resolution (3 h/6 h) of the TM5 input meteorology. © Author(s) 2016.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Neutron residual stress measurements in rails
    (Taylor & Francis, 2013-07-09) Luzin, V; Prask, HJ; Gnaëpel-Herold, T; Gordon, J; Wexler, D; Rathod, C; Pal, S; Daniel, W; Atrens, A
    Rails were among the first objects of study by neutron diffraction strain measurement and the first experiments were done as early as the late 1980s [1, 2]. This interest is easy to explain: the problem of rail fracturing is critical from the public safety point of view and the penetrating ability of neutrons suggested the possibility of breakthrough experiments and fast progress in this field. It was well-established that residual stresses, both near-surface and interior, played a signifi cant role in the development of defects which led to rail failure. This suggested three distinct approaches of neutron diffraction strain measurement that could contribute to various problems of the rail industry. The first method was to map the complete triaxial stress distribution non-destructively in the interior of an intact rail, ideally before and after significant service. Another approach was to use slices, for example to characterize how different processing methods produce favourable or detrimental stress distributions in rails. A third technique was to make non-destructive measurements, but in critical and not very deep portions of rails, for example, to examine defects and their relation to rail failure in the top running surface of rails, e.g. "white layer" formation. © 2013, Taylor & Francis.