3rd AIAA Atmospheric Space Environments Conference AIAA 2011-3199

27 - 30 June 2011, Honolulu, Hawaii

Correlation of the Temporal Variability in the Crosswind

and the Observation Lifetime of Vortices Measured with a
Pulsed Lidar

Matthew J. Pruis1 and Donald D. Delisi2

NorthWest Research Associates, Redmond, WA,98052

The length of time over which a vortex pair behind a generating aircraft is observed with
a pulsed lidar is compared with the observed temporal variability of the local crosswind.
Multiple aircraft types and a broad range of atmospheric conditions are examined. It is
found that the observed variability of the crosswind is a strong predictor of the observation
lifetime. The magnitude of the variability of the crosswind varies as a function of time,
measurement sites and altitude, but the relationship between the observation lifetime and
temporal crosswind variability appears to be robust in the out-of-ground effect region. The
focus of this paper is on results from a 2006 measurement campaign at Denver International
Airport; however the methodology is applicable at other airports. We compare these results
with EDR estimates obtained using tower measurements and also describe a new
methodology for estimating EDR using the velocity estimates obtained from the same pulsed
lidar that is used to track the vortices.

Nomenclature
ATPG = AVOSS Turbulence Profile Generator
bo = initial vortex separation distance
Cv = Kolmogorov constant, = 2
Draw = raw estimate of the azimuthal velocity structure function
Dwgt = velocity structure function of the mean Doppler lidar velocity estimates
Dwgt = structure function for Gaussian transmitted lidar pulse
E = unbiased correction for the contribution from the velocity estimation error
EDR = eddy dissipation rate
EDR* = nondimensional eddy dissipation rate, = ( bo)1/3 / Vo
L0 = outer scale of turbulence
LMCT = Lockheed Martin Coherent Technologies
number of velocity estimates for a given height interval
p = range gate length
PDL - Pulsed Doppler lidar
r = full pulse width at half maximum
s = spacing between velocity estimates
SNR = signal to noise ratio, dB
T* = nondimensional time, where To = bo / Vo
Vo = initial vortex descent rate
v = Doppler lidar velocity fluctuations
= eddy dissipation rate
= variance of the velocity

1
Research Scientist, NWRA, 4118 148th Ave NE, Redmond, WA 98052. Member, AIAA.
2
Senior Research Scientist, NWRA, 4118 148th Ave NE, Redmond, WA 98052. Senior Member, AIAA.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. The U.S. Government has a royalty-free license to exercise all rights under the copyright claimed herein for Go
 I. Introduction

A MBIENT turbulence has been shown with numerical models, field data, and laboratory experiments to affect
wake vortex behavior. The primary effect of increasing levels of ambient turbulence is a decrease in the time to
linking and an increase in the rate of circulation decay. Even though the importance of turbulence on wake vortex
behavior is well established, vertical profiles of the eddy dissipation rate (EDR) are rarely obtained in the field at the
heights where wake vortices are observed with lidar. Typically, only point observations of the EDR are available
and are near the surface (less than 30 meters height above ground). Extrapolation of these observations to height is
possible, but the accuracy of these methods is poorly quantified. Other methods used to estimate EDR at height
range from purely statistical models, which incorporate as much other meteorological data as possible 1, to the use of
dedicated wind lidars2 or a SODAR/RASS3, to calculating EDR from aircraft obtained wind data4.
Here we propose an alternative technique to estimate an EDR that is relevant to aircraft wake vortex studies. We
have found that there is a strong correlation between the temporal variability of the crosswind profile at the heights
where the vortices are observed and the length of time that a vortex pair is observed using the Lockheed Martin
Coherent Technologies (LMCT) pulsed lidar. We postulate that the temporal variability of the crosswinds over the
vortex observation period may therefore be used as an indirect proxy for EDR; since EDR is correlated with the
maximum time that a vortex is observed with lidar.
To test this hypothesis we compared this new proxy method with EDR profile data obtained using the AVOSS
Turbulence Profile Generator (ATPG) code which uses tower measurements of temperature and wind speed at two
altitudes5,6. We also describe a new methodology to estimate EDR from the LMCT pulsed lidar data that is used to
track the wake vorties. This paper is the first comparison between these two different methodologies for estimating
EDR, and also provides the first detailed comparison of maximum wake observation time with LMCT pulsed lidar
EDR estimates.
The purpose of this paper is to determine whether temporal variability in lidar observed crosswind profiles can
be used as a simple proxy for EDR and to determine the approximate accuracy of this proxy method. The benefit of
this method is that it is simple and utilizes data already available. The method can be used with archival data sets
and also future field campaigns.

II. Factors Affecting the Observed Lifetime of a Vortex Pair

The avoidance of wake vortices is one of the principal motivations for the separation distances established for
following aircraft on arrival and departure at airports. Many field campaigns have been performed since the late
1960s with the goal of improving the knowledge base about the strength, duration and movement of wake vortices
using a variety of different observation sensors. In this paper, we examine measurements obtained using a LMCT
pulsed lidar; however, we believe many of the conclusions are applicable to other studies. In a field campaign,
observations of a vortex pair may terminate due to (1) loss of tracking, (2) a gradual diminishing of the vortex
strength, or (3) sudden bursting7 or linking of vortices8,9. In this study, we attempt to attribute these potential
reasons for the disappearance of the wake vortices to individual landings; and thereby segregate out landings where
the disappearance of the vortices may result from vortex linking.
Loss of vortex tracking by the LMCT pulsed lidar can generally be attributed to the configuration parameters of
the vortex sensing instrument, the wake vortex tracking algorithm, the experimental set-up, or atmospheric
conditions which can cause poor observation performance. For example, the 2006 measurement campaign at
Denver International Airport was designed for the specific goal of obtaining measurements of long-lasting wake
vortices. However, to set-up the experiment to obtain a set of measurements on long-lasting vortices required
compromises. The algorithms used in processing pulsed lidar data currently use a pre-specified region of interest
(ROI) and the data within this region is processed through the wake vortex algorithm. To obtain observations of
long-lasting vortices, the Denver field experiment was laid out such that the glide path intersected the ROI near one
edge. This set-up enabled the tracking of vortices for an extended period of time when the wind was blowing gently
toward the lidar; however, winds away from the lidar would quickly transport the vortex pair out of the observation
region. A schematic of the experimental set-up for the Denver 2006 campaign is shown in Figure 1. In this study, to
discriminate landings where the observation lifespan of the trailing vortices may have been impacted by the ROI, the
vortex trajectories were extrapolated one time step past the last observation time; if the vortex position at that
extrapolated time or any other time during the observation interval was within 15 meters of the edge of the ROI then
the run was flagged as potentially having an early termination due to the ROI.
Another factor that may cause the loss of tracking of a wake vortex with a pulsed Doppler lidar is a low signal-
to-noise ratio (SNR). We find that for an SNR < 0 dB, tracking of wake vortices is generally only possible for a
short time. In this study, the mean SNR was calculated along the vortex trajectories and if the mean SNR was less
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 1. General layout of the Denver field campaign. Since the glide path intersection region is offset in the ROI,
negative in-plane winds (winds toward the lidar) are favored for long observation times.

than 0 dB, the run was flagged as potentially having an early termination time due to low SNR. This does not
indicate that 0 dB represents an absolute limit for obtaining reliable vortex tracking, only that the tracking
performance for this dataset significantly deteriorated when the SNR was very low.
Vortices can also disappear when the circulation strength diminishes to a value that cannot be tracked with the
current generation wake vortex algorithms. This value depends on environmental conditions, lidar configuration
parameters, and the wake vortex algorithm used10. For the Denver 2006 dataset some vortices were tracked to
minimum circulation intensities of 110 m2/s. However, we chose to flag landings where the circulation intensities
dipped below 150 m2/s as potentially terminating early due to approaching a minimum detectable circulation
threshold.
Observations of wake vortices may also terminate due to sudden bursting or vortex linking 7,8,9. Sarpkaya9
proposed in 1998 a functional relationship predicting the nondimensional wake observation time T*, where To =
bo/Vo, as a function of the nondimensional eddy dissipation rate, EDR* = ( bo)1/3 / Vo, where bo is the initial vortex
separation distance, Vo is the initial vortex descent rate and is the local eddy dissipation rate. This relationship
depends only on the ambient turbulence and the aircraft parameters, and is applicable in the out-of-ground effect
region. Other relationships that include stratification have also been proposed11; and it should be noted that the
crosswind shear gradient, which tends to increase separation of the vortex pair12,13, may also be important. Figure 2
compares Sarpkayas functional relationship9 to field observations of nondimensional EDR and the nondimensional
observation lifetime. The wake vortex field observations in this example were obtained using a continuous wave
lidar at the Memphis and Dallas-Fort Worth airports in 1995 and 1997, respectively. The EDR was estimated using
two sonic anemometers and temperature measurements on a 106 ft tower and the ATPG algorithm5,6. The figure also
compares with laboratory experiments14 where the nondimensional time to linking is plotted. The scatter in the
laboratory measurements provide some indication of the stochastic nature of the process, and indicates the potential
importance of slight differences in initial conditions to the far-field behavior of the trailing vortex pair.
Figure 3 shows a one-week period of the Denver 2006 field campaign and again highlights the importance of
ambient turbulence on the wake observation lifetimes. A proxy for the intensity of the ambient turbulence can be
obtained by simply plotting the observed wind variance along the vortex trajectory obtained using the lidar
horizontal in-plane winds. In the upper panel of Figure 3, the standard deviation of the winds over the time interval
that spans plus and minus one minute of the initial vortex observation time and is along the vortex trajectory is
shown. The general trends of this simple proxy agree well with more sophisticated estimates of local eddy
dissipation rate (panels d and e of Figure 3). There are two different estimates of EDR shown in Figure 3. One
estimate was derived from EDR profiles that were calculated for the Denver 2006 experiment using the ATPG
algorithm by David Hamilton. Also shown are EDR estiamtes from profiles obtained directly from the LMCT
pulsed lidar data; we will describe how the lidar-based profiles were generated later in this paper.
Turbulence levels during this study period vary throughout the day in a predictable pattern. Turbulence levels are
at a minimum in the early morning and late evening hours. This leads to a pronounced time of day effect on the
wake observation times. In this study, the crosswind direction and magnitude is also important for the wake
observation time intervals because of the experimental set-up and the offset location of the ROI to preferentially
study long lasting vortices when the horizontal in-plane wind was toward the lidar. SNR does not have a large effect

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 2. (a) Nondimensional time of the last vortex observation using a continuous wave lidar plotted versus the
observed nondimensional EDR at Memphis and Dallas Fort-Worth. Also shown is the relationship proposed by
Sarpkaya (1998). (b) Nondimensional time of linking from laboratory data versus the nondimensional EDR. 14

on wake observation times when SNR is sufficiently high; however when the SNR < 0 dB, tracking times tend to be
limited in duration.
The results shown in Figure 3 include all the vortex tracks observed during this time interval regardless of how
the vortex tracking terminated. Applying the criterion mentioned above for ROI effects, minimum detection
circulation threshold and low SNR, greatly reduces the amount of data where the vortex tracks are believed to
terminated naturally within the observation region. The criteria were applied in the following order,

Vortices leave ROI Minimum Circulation Threshold Low SNR Natural Termination,

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 3. Nondimensional maximum time a vortex was observed plotted for one week with color-coding showing
important environmental parameters. (a) The variability of the local wind near the vortex pair shows a strong
correlation with the observed lifetime. Large variability in the wind at the vortex height is indicated by the warm
colors. Cooler colors indicate lower variability of the winds. Landings when the observation lifetime was short and
the variability of the wind was low, generally correspond to low SNR (see panel b) or positive winds which blow the
vortices away from the lidar and out of the ROI (see panel c). Variability in the local winds near the vortices also
generally corresponds to (d) the nondimensional EDR estimated using the lidar, with notable exceptions in the early
evening on the 28th. (e) The nondimensional ATPG EDR also correlates well with the nondimensional lidar estimated
EDR and the variability of the local wind. There are fewer ATPG EDR estimates due to temporary failures of the
sonic anemometers on the tower.

and the fraction of the landings which were flagged by the different criteria is shown in Figure 4. A large fraction of
this data set is not tracked until a natural termination because they drift out of the region of interest. This is not
surprising since the experimental set-up was optimized for winds blowing toward the lidar, and this condition only
occurs for part of the day. A smaller number of tracks have shortened observation intervals due to low SNR,
however this may be an underestimate of the importance of SNR (when SNR is very low) because it may also be
difficult to initiate tracking in low SNR conditions. The results shown in Figure 4 are specific to this data set and
cannot be generalized to other data sets. The reason that a vortex track terminates will be different for different
experimental set-ups, different time intervals, and different environmental conditions. These results highlight the
importance that care be taken when interpreting distributions of wake observation times.

III. Estimating EDR from the LMCT Lidar Velocity Estimates

Since ATPG turbulence profiles were produced for the Denver 2006 experiment, this dataset provides a good test
bed to compare with estimates of the atmospheric turbulence profiles that can be calculated directly from the lidar
5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 4. Expected reason for the disappearance of the vortex pair for each observation for the one week period
shown in Figure 3. During this time interval, the most common reason for the loss of vortex tracking was the vortex
pair leaving the region of interest. Other time intervals or other experimental set-ups would show different results.
During this time interval, it was also common that the minimum circulation threshold of 150 m2/s was reached. The
minimum circulation threshold was chosen to be a value large enough that the wake algorithm should still be tracking
the vortices. In this dataset wakes were sometimes tracked down to circulations as low at 110 m2/s.
velocity estimates. To estimate EDR from the LCMT lidar we extended the methodology described by Ref. 17
where azimuthal structure function estimates are used to estimate the parameters of the turbulent wind field after
correcting for the spatial averaging of the lidar pulse and the contribution from the estimation error of the velocity
estimates.
The structure function for a Gaussian transmitted lidar pulse assuming a von Krmn model16 for the turbulent
wind field17 is
Dwgt (s, , Lo ) 2 2 G(s / p, p / r , (2 ln 2)1 / 2 p / r ), (1)
where G is given by Eq. 46 in Ref. 15, s is the spacing between velocity estimates, 2 is the variance of the velocity,
Lo is the outer scale of turbulence, p is the range gate length and r is the full pulse width at half maximum. When
the estimation error is uncorrelated with the pulse-weighted velocity estimate an unbiased estimate for the velocity
structure function of the mean Doppler lidar velocity estimates is

D wgt (s) D raw (s) E (s) , (2)

where
NT k

{v'[( j 1)s] v'[( j k 1)s]}

1
D raw(ks) 2
(3)
( NT k ) j 1
is the raw estimate of the azimuth velocity structure function, and NT is the number of velocity estimate bins for a
given height interval. This is analogous to the focused continuous wave lidar technique described by Ref. 18 and
later extended to pulsed lidar measuremnts19,20 and assumes Taylers frozen turbulence hypothesis21 is valid. To
estimate the unbiased correction E(s) for the contribution from the velocity estimation error for the separation
distance ks we used the covariance technique described in Ref. 22, where E(ks)=2e(ks) because the velocity
estimation error is uncorrelated with the pulse-weighted velocity because each estimate is produced with different
lidar pulses15. The azimuthal structure functions are computed by binning the pulsed lidar horizontal in-plane
velocity estimates in both height and azimuthal distance. For this study, a 13.5 meter bin size was used in both
directions. Since the spatial structure functions may vary substantially from scan to scan due to the stochastic nature
of turbulence, 15 minutes of averaging was done for each estimate.
The parameters of the wind field and L0 are then estimated by minimizing the between the structure function
estimates and the model predictions; that is
1 T [ D wgt (ks) D wgt (ks, , L0 )]
N 2

2

N T k 1 2
D wgt (ks, , L0 )
. (4)

If the azimuthal separation distance is small compared to the outer scale of turbulence (s << L0) and the turbulence is
isotropic then the energy dissipation rate can be estimated 23,24 for each height bin as

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 5. EDR estimated using the ATPG algorithm plotted against the EDR estimated from the pulsed Doppler lidar
(PDL). The EDR values are nondimensionalized assuming elliptical wing loading. The open circles represent a
comparison of each value from the seven day period shown in Figure 3. The filled circles represent only those times
when the vortex did not leave the ROI, had a vortex strength that remained greater than 150 m2/s, and when the mean
SNR was greater than 0 db. The color-coding indicates the nondimensional time when the vortex was last observed.
The EDR estimates from the ATPG tend to be greater than the estimates from the lidar. While there is substantial
scatter, a strong correlation of EDR* with the nondimensional time of the last vortex observation is observed.

3
0.933668 , (5)
L0
assuming the Kolmogorov contant Cv = 2.
A comparison of the EDR estimates obtained using LMCT lidar and the ATPG turbulence estimates is shown in
Figure 5. The ATPG turbulence estimates were computed over a longer averaging time of 30 minutes, whereas the
averaging time for the lidar turbulence estimates was 15 minutes. Each profile was interpolated to the landing time
using nearest neighbor interpolation, with a maximum interpolation time of 1 hour. The comparison shown in
Figure 5 is for the EDR profiles for each method averaged over the heights where the vortices were observed during
that landing. In general the comparison between the EDR estimates is reasonable. Both methods show a strong
correlation with the wake observation lifetime when the data is sorted such that runs where the vortices left the ROI,
or where the minimum circulation detection threshold is approached, or where the SNR is less than 0 dB, are
removed. The ATPG EDR estimates are biased high in comparison to the lidar estimates. It is not known at this
time if this is a general result or specific to this dataset.
Figure 6 shows a comparison of the nondimensional EDR estimates from the lidar to the last nondimensional
time that a vortex was observed. The comparison is similar to those shown in Figure 2, and similar trend and spread
is seen in this dataset as is seen in the previous field and laboratory measurements. Only landings where the vortices
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 6. Nondimensional time of the last vortex observation using a LMCT pulsed lidar plotted versus the observed
nondimensional EDR at Denver International Airport for the one week shown in Figure 3. Also shown is the
relationship proposed by Sarpkaya (1998).
remained in the ROI, where the observed circulation intensities remained above 150 m2/s, and where the mean SNR
was greater than 0 dB are plotted.
Although there is substantial scatter in the observation lifetime when plotted versus estimates of the ambient
turbulence, it is clear that increased levels of atmospheric turbulence diminishes the observation time interval.
Figure 7 shows the percentage of landings which are still observed as a function of the nondimensional time for
different bins of the nondimensional dissipation rate estimated from the lidar. Low levels of atmospheric turbulence
correspond to longer observation intervals, while vortices are only observed for a short time when atmospheric
turbulence levels are high. The relationship proposed by Sarpkaya 9 roughly approximates the median observation
interval for a given nondimensional eddy dissipation rate. The simple proxy for EDR of the variance of the local
winds at the vortex height interval also shows a strong correlation with the observation time interval. This proxy is
much simpler to estimate and shows a high degree of predictive capability.

IV. Summary
There are multiple reasons that the observation of vortices may terminate. These reasons are generally related to
experimental set-up, lidar configuration, wake vortex tracking algorithms, or environmental conditions. One factor
that consistently limits the observation lifetime of tracked vortices is the ambient turbulence. Multiple field
campaigns have confirmed the importance of ambient turbulence levels on wake observation lifetimes at airports,
and laboratory experiments have shown a correlation of this observation time with the time to vortex linking.
Unfortunately, estimates of ambient turbulence levels are frequently not available at the heights where the wake
vortices are observed and tracked. In this paper, we described two new methods for estimating local turbulence
levels; both methods have potential to improve the knowledge base on the wake vortex behavior dependence on
environmental condtions.
The LMCT pulsed Doppler lidar is currently the sensor of choice for making wake vortex observations at
airports, and has been used on many field campaigns. We have therefore looked to expand the utility of this sensor,
by extending previously developed techniques to estimate the eddy dissipation rate directly from the lidar velocity
estimates. Results for estimating EDR profiles from the LCMT pulsed lidar using spatial structure functions is
constistent with EDR profiles predicted using NASAs AVOSS Turbulence Profile Generator algorithm. The pulsed

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 7. Percent observation rate for the one week period shown in Figure 4, after removing landings where the
vortices left the ROI, or the minimum circulation threshold was reached, or the mean SNR was less than 0 db. The
panel on the left shows the observation rate as a function of nondimensional time and nondimensional EDR, where the
EDR was estimated from the lidar. n is the number of observations for that EDR*. The gray line corresponds to the
relationship proposed by Sarpkaya (1998). The panel on the right shows the observation rate as a function of the local
wind variability near the vortices. Each panel shows a strong correlation of the observation rate with the strength of
the local ambient turbulence.
Doppler lidar EDR estimation technique shows great promise for estimating a wake relevant EDR for use in wake
vortex studies. The benefit of this method is that it utilizes data collected as part of the wake vortex field program
and does not require additional sensors or a tower to be installed at the experiment site. The method can also be
used with archival data sets to increase the amount of environmental data available for numerical wake vortex
modeling studies.
We also have found that there exists a strong correlation of the temporal variability in observed crosswind at the
vortex observation heights and the time period over which the vortex is observed with the LMCT pulsed lidar.
Comparisons with two different methods for estimating EDR profiles at height show that the temporal variability of
the observed crosswind may be used as an indirect proxy for EDR. Thus we believe that it is possible to use lidar
measured wind profiles to obtain a simple proxy for the level of ambient turbulence in the atmosphere that is
relevant for wake vortex studies. The benefit of this proxy method is that it is very simple and can provide wake
relevant estimates of the local ambient turbulence in real-time.
This study focused on results in the out-of-ground effect region. Additional study is needed in the in-ground
effect region to better understand the importance of environmental conditions on the observation lifetimes in this
region. Also it would be valuable to better understand the relative importance of other environmental factors, such
as stratification and crosswind shear gradient, on the observation lifetimes. To accomplish these objectives requires
additional study of archival and new field datasets, as well as careful laboratory experiments.

Acknowledgments
This work was sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Air Space Systems Program.
The work was completed under the NASA NRA Enabling Super-Dense Operations by Advancing the State of the
Art of Fast-Time Wake Vortex Modeling. Neil OConnor and Dr. Fred Proctor are the technical monitors. David
Hamilton processed the ATPG turbulence profiles. The lidar data was processed through the wake vortex algorithm
by Frank Wang at the DOT Volpe Center. The lidar data shown in this study was provided by NASA.

References
1
Plassman, G. E., Mall, G. H., and Quagliano, J. R., Linear Multivariable Regression Models for Prediction of Eddy
Dissipation Rate from Available Meteorological Data, NASA/CR-2005-213504, 2005.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 2
OConnor, E. J., Illingworth, A. J., Brooks, I. M., Westbrook, C. D., Hogan, R. J., Davies, F., and B. J. Brooks, A method
for estimating the turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate from a vertically-pointing Doppler lidar, and independent evaluation
from balloon-borne in-situ measurements, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, doi: 10.1175/2010JTECHA1455.1,
2010.
3
Chan, P. W., "Measurement of turbulence intensity profile by a mini-sodar. Meteorological Applications, Vol. 15, No. 2,
doi: 10.1002/met.66, 2008, pp. 249-258.
4
De Bruin, A. C., and H. Haverdings, Validation of an Eddy Dissipation Rate Calculation Method, Based on Flight Data
Recording Data, NLRCR-2007-540, National Aerospace Laboratory, 2007.
5
Campbell, S. D., T. J. Dasey, R. E. Freehart, R. M. Heinrichs, M. P. Mathews, G. H. Perras, and G. S. Rowe, Wake Vortex
Field Measurement Program at Memphis, TN Data Guide, NASA/L-2, 1997.
6
Dasey, T. J., R. E. Cole, R. M. Heinrichs, M. P. Matthews, and G. H. Perras, Aircraft Vortex Spacing System (AVOSS)
Initial 1997 System Deployment at Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) Airport, NASA/L-3, 1998.
7
Spalart, P. R., Airplane Trailing Vortices, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., Vol. 30, 1998, pp. 107-138.
8
Crow, S. C., and Bate, E. R., Lifespan of Trailing Vortices in a Turbulent Atmosphere, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 13, No. 7,
1976, pp. 2172-2179.
9
Sarpkaya, T., Decay of Wake Vortices of Large Aircraft, AIAA Journal, Vol. 36, No. 9, 1998, pp. 1671-1679.
10
Jacobs, D., D. Y. Lai, D. P. Delisi, K. S. Barr, D. A. Hutton, S. Shald, S. M. Hannon, and P. Gatt, Assessment of
Lockheed Martins Aircraft Wake Vortex Circulation Estimation Algorithms Using Simulated Lidar Data, 3rd AIAA
Atmospheric Space Environments Conference, Honolulu, HI (submitted for publication).
11
T. Leweke and S. Le Diz`es, Analysis of F/T-1 and F/T-2 LIDAR measurements and smoke visualisations. AWIATOR
research project, Technical Report D1.1.4-3 & D1.1.4-11, IRPHE-CNRS, 2007.
12
Proctor, F. H., Hamilton, D. W., Rutishauser, D. K., and G. F. Switzer, Meteorology and Wake Vortex Influence on
American Airlines FL-587 Accident. History, NASA TM-2004-213018, 2004, 60 pp.
13
Proctor, F., and N Ahmad, Crosswind Shear Gradient Affect on Wake Vortices, 3rd AIAA Atmospheric Space
Environments Conference, Honolulu, HI (submitted for publication).
14
Delisi, D., Laboratory measurements of the effect of ambient turbulence on trailing vortex evolution,, AIAA
Atmospheric Space Environments Conference, AIAA-2006-1078, Reno, NV, 2006.
15
Frehlich, R., Meillier, Y., Jensen, M. L., Balsley, B., and R. Sharman, Measurements of Boundary Layer Profiles in an
Urban Environment, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, Vol. 45, No. 6, doi: 10.1175/JAM2368.1, 2006, pp. 821-
837.
16
von Krmn, T., Progress in the statistical theory of turbulence, Proc. National Academy of Science, Vol. 34, 1948, pp.
530-539.
17
Frehlich, R. O. D., Hannon, S. M., and S. W. Henderson, Coherent doppler lidar measurements of wind field statistics,
Boundary-Layer Meteorology, Vol. 86, 1998, pp. 233-256.
18
Banakh, V. a, Smalikho, I. N., Kpp, F., and C. Werner, Measurements of Turbulent Energy Dissipation Rate with a CW
Doppler Lidar in the Atmospheric Boundary Layer, Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Vol. 16, No. 8, 1999,
1044. doi: 10.1175/1520-0426(1999)016<1044:MOTEDR>2.0.CO;2.
19
Smalikho, I., Kpp, F., & Rahm, S. (2005). Measurement of Atmospheric Turbulence by 2- m Doppler Lidar. Journal of
Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Vol. 22, No. 11, 1733-1747. doi: 10.1175/JTECH1815.1.
20
Banakh, V. a, Smalikho, I. N., Pichugina, E. L., and W. a. Brewer, Representativeness of measurements of the dissipation
rate of turbulence energy by scanning Doppler lidar, Atmospheric and Oceanic Optics, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2010, pp. 48-54. doi:
10.1134/S1024856010010100.
21
Taylor, G. I., The spectrum of turbulence, Proc. Roy. Soc. London, A132, 1938, pp. 476490.
22
Frehlich, R., and L. Cornman,Estimating Spatial Velocity Statistics with Coherent Doppler Lidar, Journal of
Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, 2001, pp. 355-356.
23
Kolmogorov, A. N., The local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluid for very large Reynolds numbers,
Royal Society, Proceeding, Series A Mathematical and Physical Sciences,Vol. 434, No. 1890, pp. 913. Translation.
24
Monin, A. S. and A. M. Yaglom, Statistical Fluid Mechanics: Mechanics of Turbulence, Volume 2, MIT Press, 1975,
874 pp.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics