Evaluation of WRF planetary boundary layer parameterization schemes for simulation of monsoon depressions over India

  • Deepika Rai
  • Sandeep PattnaikEmail author
Original Paper


This study evaluates the fidelity of five planetary boundary layer (PBL) parameterization schemes in the advanced weather research and forecasting model for simulating monsoon depressions (MDs) over India. Five PBL schemes include; nonlocal first-order medium-range forecasting (MRF) and Yonsei University (YSU); hybrid first-order Asymmetric Convective Model version 2 (ACM2), and local one-and-a-half-order Bougeault–Lacarrére (BouLac) and Mellor–Yamada–Nakanishi–Niino (MYNN2). PBL schemes show significant impact on rainfall along with dynamical and thermodynamical parameters associated with MDs at the surface as well as at the upper levels. MRF simulates a relatively shallower, warmer and drier boundary layer compared to others. Results reveal that strong upper-level divergence and high moisture content within the lower levels are favorable for the occurrence of heavy rain associated with MDs. However, stronger wind shear within the mid-troposphere weakens the system and reduces the rain intensity. Based on the results and keeping the rainfall product in view, it is found that nonlocal PBL schemes (MRF and ACM2) have better forecast skills score than local PBL schemes (BouLac and MYNN2) over the Indian region.



The authors want to express their gratitude to the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)-Precipitation Measurement Mission (GPM) for providing the daily rainfall data, National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)–National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for initial and boundary condition, European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) for providing high resolution reanalysis data (i.e., ERA5) for validation (Contains modified Copernicus Climate Change Service Information), and National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) for using their WRF–ARW model for carrying out this study. We are thankful for the support of Indian Institute of Technology Bhubaneswar, Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India (RP-132) and  Ministry of Earth Sciences (MoES), Government of India (RP088) for carrying out this research work. Figures are created with MATLAB (Version 2015a).

Supplementary material

703_2019_656_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.7 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 3761 kb)


  1. Avolio E, Federico S, Miglietta MM et al (2017) Sensitivity analysis of WRF model PBL schemes in simulating boundary-layer variables in southern Italy: an experimental campaign. Atmos Res 192:58–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Basu S, Raman S, Mohanty UC, Rajagopal EN (1999) Influence of the planetary boundary layer physics on medium-range prediction of monsoon over India. Pure Appl Geophys 155:33–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Basu S, Iyenger GR, Mitra AK (2002) Impact of a nonlocal closure scheme in a simulation of a monsoon system over India. Mon Weather Rev 130:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bougeault P, Lacarrere P (1989) Parameterization of orography-induced turbulence in a Mesobeta-Scale Model. Mon Weather Rev 117:1872–1890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bryan GH, Morrison H (2012) Sensitivity of a simulated squall line to horizontal resolution and parameterization of microphysics. Mon Weather Rev 140:202–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cha D-H, Lee D-K, Hong S-Y (2008) Impact of boundary layer processes on seasonal simulation of the East Asian summer monsoon using a Regional Climate Model. Meteorol Atmos Phys 100:53–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen AE, Cavallo SM, Coniglio MC, Brooks HE (2015) A review of planetary boundary layer parameterization schemes and their sensitivity in simulating southeastern US cold season severe weather environments. Weather Forecast 30:591–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dang R, Li H, Liu Z, Yang Y (2016) Statistical analysis of relationship between daytime lidar-derived planetary boundary layer height and relevant atmospheric variables in the semiarid region in Northwest China. Adv Meteorol 2016:5375918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Deshpande NR, Kulkarni A, Kumar KK (2012) Characteristic features of hourly rainfall in India. Int J Climatol 32:1730–1744CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dimri AP, Chevuturi A, Niyogi D et al (2017) Cloudbursts in Indian Himalayas: a review. Earth Sci Rev 168:1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Efstathiou GA, Zoumakis NM, Melas D et al (2013) Sensitivity of WRF to boundary layer parameterizations in simulating a heavy rainfall event using different microphysical schemes. Effect on large-scale processes. Atmos Res 132–133:125–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Emery C, Tai E, Yarwood G (2001) Enhanced meteorological modeling and performance evaluation for two Texax ozone episodes. Prepared for the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. ENVIRON International Corporation, NovatoGoogle Scholar
  13. Flaounas E, Bastin S, Janicot S (2011) Regional climate modelling of the 2006 West African monsoon: sensitivity to convection and planetary boundary layer parameterisation using WRF. Clim Dyn 36:1083–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fletcher JK, Parker DJ, Hunt KMR et al (2018) The interaction of Indian monsoon depressions with northwesterly midlevel dry intrusions. Mon Weather Rev 146:679–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goswami BN (1987) A mechanism for the west-north-west movement of monsoon depressions. Nature 326:376–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gunwani P, Mohan M (2017) Sensitivity of WRF model estimates to various PBL parameterizations in different climatic zones over India. Atmos Res 194:43–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill KA, Lackmann GM (2009) Analysis of idealized tropical cyclone simulations using the weather research and forecasting model: sensitivity to turbulence parameterization and grid spacing. Mon Weather Rev 137:745–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holton JR (2004) An introduction to dynamic meteorology, 4th edn. Elsevier Academic Press, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  19. Hong S-Y, Pan H-L (1996) Nonlocal boundary layer vertical diffusion in a medium-range forecast model. Mon Weather Rev 124:2322–2339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hong S-Y, Noh Y, Dudhia J (2006) A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Mon Weather Rev 134:2318–2341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hou AY, Kakar RK, Neeck S et al (2014) The global precipitation measurement mission. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 95:701–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hunt KMR, Turner AG (2017) The effect of horizontal resolution on Indian monsoon depressions in the Met Office NWP model. Q J R Meteorol Soc 143:1756–1771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hunt KMR, Turner AG, Inness PM et al (2016) On the structure and dynamics of Indian monsoon depressions. Mon Weather Rev 144:3391–3416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. IMD (2015) Monsoon 2014: a report. In: Pai DS, Bhan SC (eds) IMD Met. Monograph, ESSO Document No. ESSO/IMD/SYNOPTIC MET/01(2015)/17, National Climate Centre; India Meteorological Department, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  25. Krishnamurthy V, Ajayamohan RS (2010) Composite structure of monsoon low pressure systems and its relation to Indian rainfall. J Clim 23:4285–4305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Krishnamurti TN, Pattnaik S, Bhaskar Rao DV (2007) Mesoscale moisture initialization for monsoon and hurricane forecasts. Mon Weather Rev 135:2716–2736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ma Y, Lu M, Chen H et al (2018) Atmospheric moisture transport versus precipitation across the Tibetan Plateau: a mini-review and current challenges. Atmos Res 209:50–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nakanishi M, Niino H (2004) An improved Mellor-Yamada level-3 model with condensation physics: its design and verification. Bound Layer Meteorol 112:1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nakanishi M, Niino H (2009) Development of an improved turbulence closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. J Meteorol Soc Jpn 87:895–912CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Patil MN, Patil SD, Waghmare RT, Dharmaraj T (2013) Planetary boundary layer height over the Indian subcontinent during extreme monsoon years. J Atmos Sol Terrest Phys 92:94–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pleim JE (2007a) A combined local and nonlocal closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. part I: model description and testing. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46:1383–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pleim JE (2007b) A combined local and nonlocal closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer. part II: application and evaluation in a mesoscale meteorological model. J Appl Meteorol Climatol 46:1396–1409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Potty KVJ, Mohanty UC, Raman S (1997) Effect of three different boundary-layer parameterizations in a regional atmospheric models on the simulation of summer monsson circulation. Bound Layer Meteorol 84:363–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rajesh PV, Pattnaik S, Rai D et al (2016) Role of land state in a high resolution mesoscale model for simulating the Uttarakhand heavy rainfall event over India. J Earth Syst Sci 125:475–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Roeckner E, Brokopf R, Esch M et al (2006) Sensitivity of simulated climate to horizontal and vertical resolution in the ECHAM5 atmosphere model. J Clim 19:3771–3791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sandeep A, Rao TN, Ramkiran CN, Rao SVB (2014) Differences in atmospheric boundary-layer characteristics between wet and dry episodes of the Indian summer monsoon. Bound Layer Meteorol 153:217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sathyanadh A, Prabha TV, Balaji B et al (2017a) Evaluation of WRF PBL parameterization schemes against direct observations during a dry event over the Ganges valley. Atmos Res 193:125–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sathyanadh A, Prabhakaran T, Patil C, Karipot A (2017b) Planetary boundary layer height over the Indian subcontinent: variability and controls with respect to monsoon. Atmos Res 195:44–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sikka DR (1977) Some aspects of the life history, structure, and movement of monsoon depressions. Pure Appl Geophys 115:1501–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singh KS, Bonthu S, Purvaja R et al (2018) Prediction of heavy rainfall over Chennai Metropolitan City, Tamil Nadu, India: impact of microphysical parameterization schemes. Atmos Res 202:219–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J et al (2008) A description of the advanced research WRF Version 3. Technical report NCAR/TN-475 + STR, National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  42. Srinivas CV, Yesubabu V, Prasad DH et al (2018) Simulation of an extreme heavy rainfall event over Chennai, India using WRF: sensitivity to grid resolution and boundary layer physics. Atmos Res 210:66–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Strachan J, Vidale PL, Hodges K et al (2013) Investigating global tropical cyclone activity with a hierarchy of AGCMs: the role of model resolution. J Clim 26:133–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Willmott CJ (1981) On the validation of models. Phys Geogr 2:184–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wisse JSP, Arellano VGD (2004) Annales geophysicae analysis of the role of the planetary boundary layer schemes during a severe convective storm. Ann Geophys 22:1861–1874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang D-L, Zheng W-Z (2004) Diurnal cycles of surface winds and temperatures as simulated by five boundary layer parameterizations. J Appl Meteorol 43:157–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. ZiQian W, AnMin D, GuoXiong WU (2014) Impacts of boundary layer parameterization schemes and air-sea coupling on WRF simulation of the East Asian summer monsoon. Sci China Earth Sci 57:1480–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Austria, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Earth Ocean and Climate SciencesIndian Institute of Technology BhubaneswarBhubaneswarIndia

Personalised recommendations