AbstractMixing rates and biogeochemical fluxes are commonly estimated from the rate of dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy ε as measured with a single instrument and processing method. However, differences in measurements of ε between instruments/methods often vary by one order of magnitude. In an effort to identify error in computing ε, we have applied four common methods to data from the bottom boundary layer of Lake Erie. We applied the second-order structure function method (SFM) to velocity measurements from an acoustic Doppler current profiler, using both canonical and anisotropy-adjusted Kolmogorov constants, and compared the results with those computed from the law of the wall, Batchelor fitting to temperature gradient microstructure, and inertial subrange fitting to acoustic Doppler velocimeter data. The ε from anisotropy-adjusted constants in SFM increased by a factor of 6 or more at 0.2 m above the bed and showed a better agreement with microstructure and inertial method estimations. The maximum difference between SFM ε, computed using adjusted and canonical constants, and microstructure values was 25% and 50%, respectively. This difference was 30% and 55%, respectively, for those from inertial subrange fitting at times of high-intensity turbulence (Reynolds number at 1 m above the bed of more than 2 × 104). Comparison of the SFM ε to those from law of the wall was often poor, with errors as large as one order of magnitude. From the considerable improvement in ε estimates near the bed, anisotropy-adjusted Kolmogorov constants should be applied to compute dissipation in geophysical boundary layers.
Budgets of turbulent kinetic energy and scalar variance in the continental shelf bottom boundary layer
