Sonic anemometer data processing for comparison to optical turbulence theory and simulation

Joseph Coffaro; Joseph Coffaro; Martin Richardson; Martin Richardson; Martin Richardson; Robert Bernath; Robert Bernath; Robert Crabbs

doi:10.1364/JOSAA.441020

Journal of the Optical Society of America A
Vol. 39,
Issue 4,
pp. 643-654
(2022)
•https://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.441020

Sonic anemometer data processing for comparison to optical turbulence theory and simulation

Joseph Coffaro, Martin Richardson, Robert Bernath, and Robert Crabbs

Get PDF
Email
Share
Get Citation
Copy Citation Text
Joseph Coffaro, Martin Richardson, Robert Bernath, and Robert Crabbs, "Sonic anemometer data processing for comparison to optical turbulence theory and simulation," J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 39, 643-654 (2022)

Export Citation
- BibTex
- Endnote (RIS)
- HTML
- Plain Text
Citation alert
Save article

Check for updates

Related Topics
Table of Contents Category
- Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics
Optics & Photonics Topics
?

The topics in this list come from the Optics and Photonics Topics applied to this article.

About this Article
History
- Original Manuscript: September 3, 2021
- Revised Manuscript: November 29, 2021
- Manuscript Accepted: February 17, 2022
- Published: March 18, 2022

Accepted Manuscript
Download Accepted Manuscript
Access to this article is made available via and is subject to OSA Publishing Terms of Use.

Abstract

With appropriate processing techniques, sonic anemometry can provide useful insights into the strength and spectral shape of optical turbulence. Closed form propagation models and simulations require stationary optical turbulence statistics to make a meaningful comparison with experimental results. This work presents a new approach for examining the stationarity of data provided by sonic anemometry and by fitting optical turbulence parameters. Von Kármán, Greenwood–Tarazano, and one minus exponential spectral models are fitted to experimental data. Each model fit is evaluated using information criteria. The Greenwood–Tarazano model is shown to provide the best fit to experimental data. Optical turbulence parameters from the Greenwood–Tarazano model are compared with results from instruments at varying heights above the ground.

Full Article | PDF Article

More Like This

Optical timing jitter due to atmospheric turbulence: comparison of frequency comb measurements to predictions from micrometeorological sensors

Emily D. Caldwell, William C. Swann, Jennifer L. Ellis, Martha I. Bodine, Carter Mak, Nathan Kuczun, Nathan R. Newbury, Laura C. Sinclair, Andreas Muschinski, and Gregory B. Rieker
Opt. Express 28(18) 26661-26675 (2020)

Investigation of the anisotropy and scaling of the phase structure function of a spatially coherent light beam propagating through convective air turbulence

Saifollah Rasouli, Ebrahim Mohammadi Razi, and J. J. Niemela
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 39(9) 1641-1649 (2022)

Proposed form for the atmospheric turbulence spatial spectrum at large scales

Darryl P. Greenwood and Donald O. Tarazano
J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 25(6) 1349-1360 (2008)

Previous Article Next Article

Data availability

Data underlying the results presented in this paper are not publicly available at this time but may be obtained from the authors upon reasonable request.

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Figures (15)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Figure files are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Tables (6)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article tables are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

Equations (12)

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Equations are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an Optica member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access Optica Member Subscription

			Critical
Data Type	Time (UTC)	P-Value	Value	Result
Wind velocity	21:29:48	$3.19 \times 1 0^{- 03}$	0.05	Reject null
				(stationary)
Sonic	21:29:48	$6.66 \times 1 0^{- 05}$	0.05	Reject null
temperature				(stationary)

Model	Functional Form	Valid Range
Kolmogorov	$Φ (κ) = 0.033 C_{T}^{2} κ^{- \frac{11}{3}}$	$1 / L_{0} ≪ κ ≪ 1 / l_{0}$
Von Kármán	$Φ (κ) = \frac{0.033 C_{T}^{2}}{{(κ^{2} + κ_{0}^{2})}^{\frac{11}{6}}}$	$0 ≪ κ ≪ \infty κ_{0} = 2 π / L_{0}$
Greenwood–Tarazano	$Φ (κ) = \frac{0.033 C_{T}^{2}}{{(κ^{2} + κ * η_{0})}^{\frac{11}{6}}}$	$0 \leq κ ≪ \infty η_{o} = 2 π / L_{o}$
One minus exponential	$Φ (κ) = 0.033 C_{T}^{2} * [1 - \exp (\frac{- κ^{2}}{κ_{0}^{2}})] κ^{- \frac{11}{3}}$	$0 \leq κ ≪ \infty κ_{0} = 2 π / L_{0}$

Model	Functional Form	Valid Range
Kolmogorov	$W_{T} (f) = 0.7817 C_{T}^{2} v_{0}^{\frac{2}{3}} (2 π f)^{\frac{- 5}{3}}$	$\frac{1}{L_{0}} ≪ \frac{2 π f}{v_{0}} ≪ \frac{1}{l_{0}}$
Von Kármán	$W_{T} (f) = \frac{0.7817 C_{T}^{2} {v_{0}}^{\frac{2}{3}}}{{(2 π f^{2} + v_{0}^{2} k_{0}^{2})}^{5 / 6}}$	$0 ≪ \frac{2 π f}{v_{0}} ≪ \infty κ_{0} = 2 π / L_{0}$
Greenwood–Tarazano	$W_{T} (f) = 1.303 C_{T}^{2} {η_{0}}^{\frac{- 5}{3}} \int_{\frac{2 π f}{η_{0} v_{0}}}^{\infty} \frac{d u}{u^{\frac{5}{6}} {(1 + u)}^{\frac{11}{6}}}$	$0 \leq \frac{2 π f}{v_{0}} ≪ \infty η_{o} = 2 π / L_{o}$
One minus exponential^a	$W_{T} (f) = \frac{39.48 C_{T}^{2}}{v_{0} {(2 π f κ_{0})}^{\frac{11}{6}}}$ $* [0.1102 {(2 π f)}^{\frac{5}{3}} + 0.0198 {(v_{0} κ_{0})}^{\frac{5}{3}}$	$0 \leq \frac{2 π f}{v_{0}} ≪ \infty κ_{0} = 2 π / L_{0}$
	$- 0.0198 {(v_{0} κ_{0})}^{\frac{5}{3}}_{1}^{} F_{1} [\frac{- 11}{6}, \frac{5}{3}, \frac{{(2 π f)}^{2}}{v_{0}^{2} k_{0}^{2}}]]$

Analysis	Time	Von	Greenwood–	OneMinus
Method	(UTC)	Karman	Tarazano	Exponential
AIC	21:29:48	10396.914	10396.899	10396.917
MSE	21:29:48	33204295.00	33203499.02	33204455.21

Campaign and Instrument Height	ADF Fail Temperature	ADF Fail Wind	ADF Fail Wind and Temp	Stationary 120 s Data Segments
Campaign 1 May 18 13.75 m AGL	152	480	107	2014
Campaign 1 May 18 6.25 m AGL	124	488	85	2059
Campaign 1 May 18 3.0 m AGL	65	450	48	1775
Campaign 1 May 18 2.275 m AGL	120	503	68	1911
Campaign 2 Dec 18 13.75 m AGL	158	320	119	1993
Campaign 2 Dec 18 6.25 m AGL	100	324	64	2268
Campaign 2 Dec 18 3.0 m AGL	100	297	33	2328
Campaign 2 Dec 18 1.85 m AGL	148	218	42	2192
Campaign 2 Dec 18 1.32 m AGL	157	205	30	2182
Campaign 3 June 19 1.60 m AGL	169	177	46	960

Campaign and Instrument Height	Greenwood–Tarazano	One Minus Exponential	Von Kármán
Campaign 1 May 18 13.75 m AGL	1975	4	35
Campaign 1 May 18 6.25 m AGL	2033	4	22
Campaign 1 May 18 3.0 m AGL	1759	1	15
Campaign 1 May 18 2.275 m AGL	1888	1	22
Campaign 2 Dec 18 13.75 m AGL	1968	0	25
Campaign 2 Dec 18 6.25 m AGL	2252	1	15
Campaign 2 Dec 18 3.0 m AGL	2322	0	6
Campaign 2 Dec 18 1.85 m AGL	2177	0	15
Campaign 2 Dec 18 1.32 m AGL	2165	0	17
Campaign 3 June 19 1.60 m AGL	960	0	0

Abstract

Data availability

Cited By

Figures (15)

Tables (6)

Equations (12)

Journal of the Optical Society of America A