the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 16 Jun 2023
Examining the dynamics of a Borneo vortex using a balance approximation tool
Abstract. Cyclonic vortices that are weaker than tropical storm category can bring heavy precipitation as they propagate across the South China Sea and across surrounding countries. Here we investigate the structure and dynamics responsible for the intensification of a Borneo vortex that moved from the north of Borneo across the South China Sea and impacted Vietnam and Thailand in late October 2018. This case study is examined using Met Office Unified Model (MetUM) simulations and an idealised semi-geotriptic (SGT) balance approximation tool. Satellite observations and a MetUM simulation with 4.4 km grid initialised at 12 UTC on 21 October 2018, show that the westward-moving vortex is characterised by a coherent maximum in total column water, and by a comma-shaped precipitation structure with the heaviest rainfall to the northwest of the circulation centre. The Borneo vortex is comprised of a low-level cyclonic circulation and a mid-level wave embedded in the background easterly shear flow, which strengthens with height up to around 7 km. Despite being in the Tropics at 6º N, the low-level vortex and mid-level wave are well represented by SGT balance dynamics. The mid-level wave propagates along a vertical gradient in moist stability, i.e., the product between the specific humidity and the static stability, at 4.5 to 5 km and is characterised by a coherent signature in the potential vorticity, meridional wind, and balanced vertical velocity fields. The vertical motion is dominated by coupling with diabatic heating and in quadrature with the potential vorticity so that the diabatic wave propagates westwards, relative to the flow, at a rate consistent with prediction from moist semi-geostrophic theory. Initial vortex development at low levels is consistent with baroclinic growth initiated by the mid-level diabatic Rossby wave, which propagates on baroclinic shear flow on the southern flank of a large-scale cold surge.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(9246 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(9246 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1312', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Jul 2023
The paper reports on a case study of Borneo vortex that affected Vietnam and Thailand. Simulations of the vortex with the UM are analysed conventionally and with a semi-geotriptic code. This code is used to partition the vertical motion into that forced by latent heating, geostrophic forcing and friction. The study concludes that the case examined comprised a mid-level diabatic Rossby wave and presumably a Rossby edge wave on the lower boundary, part of which developed into the Borneo vortex. These counter-propagating Rossby waves temporarily affected each other, but did not phase lock. The conclusions are supported very nicely with some idealised theory for diabatic Rossby waves.
I enjoyed reading the paper and recommend that it is accepted. The paper makes a strong contribution to the field. In my view, the insights from the semi-geotriptic code and the application of some diabatic Rossby wave theory are the most novel and important contributions. I have only one major comment, but quite a few minor comments.
Major comment
The semi-geotriptic tools is an important part of the study and appears to be very effective. Although the basic idea of making a semi-geostophic and Ekman balance approximation is qualitatively easy to imagine the details are not. Given the theory is not well known, the code not widely used, and the semi-geotriptic tool of central importance to the paper, I feel the paper requires a clearer, expanded summary of the semi-geotriptic tool.
Minor comments
Line 8. “comprised of” should be “comprises”.
Line 13. Should be “… is in quadrature …”.
Line 121. “… with reduced air-sea drag at high wind speeds.” What’s the point you’re making here? It sounds like this is change would be of real significance to tropical vortices. Expand.
Line 128. Perhaps spell out explicitly what the geostrophic momentum approximation is (advection by the full wind but the advected momentum approximated by its geostrophic value.) This approximation is familiar to those working in the midlatitudes, but possibly not so familiar to tropical researchers.
Line 135. This sentence is a bit cryptic. Explain exactly what you mean by “… can be deduced from the pressure field using the notion of “balanced dynamics”. The details matter.
Line 145. Sentence structure problem. “… , with geostrophic and diabatic forcing.” What about the geostrophic and diabatic forcing?
Line 149. What’s the “convexity condition”? Is the condition that the equation is elliptic? Is it related to the sign of the PV as in midlatitude semigeostrophic theory? Spell out what you mean.
Line 149-150. “This discrepancy is particularly the case near the equator. Therefore, the data passed to the SGT tool has reduced horizontal resolution.” Why “therefore”? How does the second sentence follow from the first?
Line 159. What’s the difference between the “full meridional wind” and the “total meridional wind”? How are they defined? This is an example of where the SGT tool is not sufficiently well explained for the reader to comfortably follow the arguments in the paper.
Line 165. “… the SGT tool mostly captures the large-scale flow …”. “Mostly” is a bit subjective. Could you make this statement more quantitative? Perhaps calculate the pattern correlation or something similar.
Line 171. What is the “unbalanced residual”? It isn’t defined. I can probably guess, but it needs to be clearly defined. This is another example of the SGT tool not being properly explained. I don’t think the reader should have to shift though the original paper to find these definitions.
Line 172. True, the SGT tool partitions the flow into a diabatic part and a geostrophic forcing, but there’s no assessment of how accurate or meaningful the association with diabatic and geostrophic forcing is. So, I’m unconvinced by the statement “Figure 2 demonstrates the ability of the SGT tool to partition the 3D ageostrophic flow …”.
Figure 3. Define the white circle in the figure caption.
Figure 3. It appears to me the only one panel is needed. What do the other two panels really add to the story?
Figures 4 and 5. Mark the vortex center on these plots.
Figures 4 and 5. There are 8 panels in total, which seems too many to me given we don’t learn much from them. We learn only that the vortex propagates to the west (which we learn again in Figs. 7-9) and that the N768 MetUM accumulated rain field is too smooth. I’d delete one of these figures.
Lines 233-234. Either expand on these recent developments or delete the sentence. As it is now the sentence doesn’t convey much.
Figures 7 – 9, panel b. Why plot potential temperature? It isn’t referenced anywhere in the text.
Line 254. Grammatical error: “comprised of”.
Line 276. Why is it important that the “moist stability gradient occurs with the region of large-scale vertical shear”?
Line 279 – 28 . Panels 11a (diabatic heating in the global MetUM) and 11b (w from the MetUM diagnosed with the SGT tool) are similar. Then the paper says that this “shows that the region of ascent identified by the SGT tool are representative of the flow in the MetUM”. I don’t understand what’s meant here by “are representative of the flow”. Wouldn’t this claim require you to compare w from the MetUM against that diagnosed with the SGT tool, which is Fig. 11b?
Lines 291 – 292. “The wave is large amplitude in the sense that it is obvious in the velocity vectors of the full flow”. I don’t think you can simply claim that it’s obvious – it needs some quantification. What makes it obviously large amplitude?
Figure 12. Point out that panels c and d are the same as Figs. 1a and 1b.
Lines 295 – 296. The shift is very slight. Is it more than a grid space or two? Some how significant is this shift really?
Line 304. “Also” and “too” mean the same thing. Delete one.
Line 307. Expression problem: “… this choice … is chosen …”.
Line 328. “oth” should presumably be “both”.
Lines 336 – 338. Punctuation problems that affect the meaning. Insert comma after first “that”. Insert comma after “precisely”. Delete second “that”. Insert comma after “flow”.
Lines 364 and 485. What does “home-base” mean exactly? Don’t make the reader wade through the references.
Lines 416 – 417. The effects of gradients in the basic state PV have been omitted in the calculation of the phase speeds. I think there needs to be some assessment of the plausible size of these terms and how their omission affects the calculation. These are potentially large terms.
Line 458. ‘… varies more quickly in the vertical than vertical velocity does at some “moist stability interface” … ‘. What exactly does this mean? What is the mathematical expression? And why is the moist stability interface in quotes? What additional idea are you trying to convey?
Line 462. “ … where G … schematically represents …”. What does “schematically represents” mean, especially in the context of a mathematical expression?
Lines 483 and 484. The notation c_1^2 is a bit misleading as the 2 doesn’t mean the phase speed is squared. Perhaps c_12 would be better. Likewise, c_21 might be better than c_2^1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1312-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1312', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Aug 2023
The paper performed case studies of Borneo Vortices (BV) using multiple sources of data, including satellite imagery and the MetUM experiments combined with an SGT scheme. The paper is interesting to read and is valuable for understanding the dynamical mechanism behind the extreme BV as such a high-impact system is not well understood and not adequately studied. However, I suggest the authors carefully check whether the key information of the experiment designs has been provided. Particularly, information on the experiment types of the used MetUM experiments is missing and should be supplemented. Major Revision is suggested. Specific comments are as follows:
- Section 2.2: The authors state that the SGT scheme is coupled with the MetUM model to simulate the geostrophic wind components. Could you clarify whether the SGT scheme applied in this paper is run offline or online and why? Also, please specify what variables the SGT scheme produces and which the paper has used. Does it just extract the geostrophic components from the winds? Why can't it be driven by any existent numerical products like reanalysis data? This information needs more clarity as the readers may doubt why the MetUM is necessary for such a study.
- The reasons for the use of the MetUM are not clear in the abstract and the methodology section. Please clarify.
- Lines 10-16: The description of the physical processes needs more information, i.e. what are the dominant/secondary factors?
- Figure 11: One of the critical perspectives of the decomposition of the geostrophic/ageostrophic winds is to examine the role of atmosphere-topography interaction while this is not sufficiently discussed in the paper.
- Figure 1a, c, e: Seems there is a pronounced southward extension of the mid-latitude high-pressure surge across the upstream of BV. Many studies have discussed the importance of such a synoptic signal to the occurrences of BVs, while such signals are not well discussed in this paper. The authors are suggested to show more information about the upstream, particularly the location of the southward extending Siberian High (or Mongolian High in mainland China) that has been considered an essential source of wave-propagation. Analyses of the geostrophic/geostrophic components of the high-pressure will also be interesting.
- Figure 1, 7-10: For the vertical profile of BVs, it is suggested to use storm-relative coordinates instead of geographical coordinates.
- All figures: I suggest the authors show and discuss the full lifetime track of the selected BV case and the central point (eye) corresponding to the time step focused.
- All figures: Analyses of flows at different time steps are and it is difficult to find which time step corresponds to the developing/mature/weakening stage of BV. I suggest the authors supplement why these time steps are selected in the figure captions and the corresponding descriptions.
- Line 187: Please clarify why the TRACK-based dataset based on ERA5 is not used.
- Section 2.1 and Figure 6: The purpose of comparing the global simulation with the limited-area simulation is not clear. Please clarify in the methodology section. Please also clarify whether the global simulation provides LBCs to the limited-area simulation.
- Section 2.1: Please clarify the types of the used MetUM simulations. Are they historical analyses or forecast experiments?
Recommended reference:
Liang, J., J. L. Catto, M. K. Hawcroft, M. L. Tan, K. I. Hodges, and J. M. Haywood, 2023: Borneo Vortices in a warmer climate. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 6, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-023-00326-1.
Pang, B., and R. Lu, 2017: The identification of Borneo vortex and its synoptic features in boreal winter. 19th EGU General Assembly, EGU2017, Vol. 19 of, Vienna, 2457–2457 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017EGUGA..19.2457P/abstract.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1312-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1312', Sam Hardy, 05 Oct 2023
Please find attached our response to comments from both reviewers. We thank the reviewers and the editor for all the time and effort that they have put into the review process.
-
EC1: 'Reply on AC1', Peter Knippertz, 07 Oct 2023
Thanks for the thorough revision of the paper, which appears to have led to many improvements.
A few points I would like to highlight looking through your reply:
1) Typo in your reply to L135: "As"->"An"2) Data and software: You don't seem to plan to publish either of the two and make only the data available on request. This runs somewhat against modern ideas of open science and I would like to ask the authors to reconsider this. In particular the code may well be useful for other scientists and could be published on GitHub for example.
3) Figures 4 and 5: I am not convinced by your counter-argument and would ask you to re-consider here, too. Maybe you can move unnecessary panels to an Appendix and keep only the key ones in the full manuscript.
4) Pang & Lu 2017: I would refrain from citing a 6-year-old EGU abstract. There is very little information content in it and for some reason the work was not followed by a full article.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1312-EC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on EC1', Sam Hardy, 16 Oct 2023
Hi Peter,
Many thanks for these comments, which we have addressed. The revised manuscript contains a comprehensive Code and data availability statement. As part of this, we have created a GitHub repository containing Jupyter notebooks that allows users to reproduce some of the paper figures. Just one minor point on this - we have been unable to register a DOI for this repository because the recommended site (Zenodo) is having technical issues, so have included the URL in the data availability statement instead.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1312-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on EC1', Sam Hardy, 16 Oct 2023
-
EC1: 'Reply on AC1', Peter Knippertz, 07 Oct 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1312', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Jul 2023
The paper reports on a case study of Borneo vortex that affected Vietnam and Thailand. Simulations of the vortex with the UM are analysed conventionally and with a semi-geotriptic code. This code is used to partition the vertical motion into that forced by latent heating, geostrophic forcing and friction. The study concludes that the case examined comprised a mid-level diabatic Rossby wave and presumably a Rossby edge wave on the lower boundary, part of which developed into the Borneo vortex. These counter-propagating Rossby waves temporarily affected each other, but did not phase lock. The conclusions are supported very nicely with some idealised theory for diabatic Rossby waves.
I enjoyed reading the paper and recommend that it is accepted. The paper makes a strong contribution to the field. In my view, the insights from the semi-geotriptic code and the application of some diabatic Rossby wave theory are the most novel and important contributions. I have only one major comment, but quite a few minor comments.
Major comment
The semi-geotriptic tools is an important part of the study and appears to be very effective. Although the basic idea of making a semi-geostophic and Ekman balance approximation is qualitatively easy to imagine the details are not. Given the theory is not well known, the code not widely used, and the semi-geotriptic tool of central importance to the paper, I feel the paper requires a clearer, expanded summary of the semi-geotriptic tool.
Minor comments
Line 8. “comprised of” should be “comprises”.
Line 13. Should be “… is in quadrature …”.
Line 121. “… with reduced air-sea drag at high wind speeds.” What’s the point you’re making here? It sounds like this is change would be of real significance to tropical vortices. Expand.
Line 128. Perhaps spell out explicitly what the geostrophic momentum approximation is (advection by the full wind but the advected momentum approximated by its geostrophic value.) This approximation is familiar to those working in the midlatitudes, but possibly not so familiar to tropical researchers.
Line 135. This sentence is a bit cryptic. Explain exactly what you mean by “… can be deduced from the pressure field using the notion of “balanced dynamics”. The details matter.
Line 145. Sentence structure problem. “… , with geostrophic and diabatic forcing.” What about the geostrophic and diabatic forcing?
Line 149. What’s the “convexity condition”? Is the condition that the equation is elliptic? Is it related to the sign of the PV as in midlatitude semigeostrophic theory? Spell out what you mean.
Line 149-150. “This discrepancy is particularly the case near the equator. Therefore, the data passed to the SGT tool has reduced horizontal resolution.” Why “therefore”? How does the second sentence follow from the first?
Line 159. What’s the difference between the “full meridional wind” and the “total meridional wind”? How are they defined? This is an example of where the SGT tool is not sufficiently well explained for the reader to comfortably follow the arguments in the paper.
Line 165. “… the SGT tool mostly captures the large-scale flow …”. “Mostly” is a bit subjective. Could you make this statement more quantitative? Perhaps calculate the pattern correlation or something similar.
Line 171. What is the “unbalanced residual”? It isn’t defined. I can probably guess, but it needs to be clearly defined. This is another example of the SGT tool not being properly explained. I don’t think the reader should have to shift though the original paper to find these definitions.
Line 172. True, the SGT tool partitions the flow into a diabatic part and a geostrophic forcing, but there’s no assessment of how accurate or meaningful the association with diabatic and geostrophic forcing is. So, I’m unconvinced by the statement “Figure 2 demonstrates the ability of the SGT tool to partition the 3D ageostrophic flow …”.
Figure 3. Define the white circle in the figure caption.
Figure 3. It appears to me the only one panel is needed. What do the other two panels really add to the story?
Figures 4 and 5. Mark the vortex center on these plots.
Figures 4 and 5. There are 8 panels in total, which seems too many to me given we don’t learn much from them. We learn only that the vortex propagates to the west (which we learn again in Figs. 7-9) and that the N768 MetUM accumulated rain field is too smooth. I’d delete one of these figures.
Lines 233-234. Either expand on these recent developments or delete the sentence. As it is now the sentence doesn’t convey much.
Figures 7 – 9, panel b. Why plot potential temperature? It isn’t referenced anywhere in the text.
Line 254. Grammatical error: “comprised of”.
Line 276. Why is it important that the “moist stability gradient occurs with the region of large-scale vertical shear”?
Line 279 – 28 . Panels 11a (diabatic heating in the global MetUM) and 11b (w from the MetUM diagnosed with the SGT tool) are similar. Then the paper says that this “shows that the region of ascent identified by the SGT tool are representative of the flow in the MetUM”. I don’t understand what’s meant here by “are representative of the flow”. Wouldn’t this claim require you to compare w from the MetUM against that diagnosed with the SGT tool, which is Fig. 11b?
Lines 291 – 292. “The wave is large amplitude in the sense that it is obvious in the velocity vectors of the full flow”. I don’t think you can simply claim that it’s obvious – it needs some quantification. What makes it obviously large amplitude?
Figure 12. Point out that panels c and d are the same as Figs. 1a and 1b.
Lines 295 – 296. The shift is very slight. Is it more than a grid space or two? Some how significant is this shift really?
Line 304. “Also” and “too” mean the same thing. Delete one.
Line 307. Expression problem: “… this choice … is chosen …”.
Line 328. “oth” should presumably be “both”.
Lines 336 – 338. Punctuation problems that affect the meaning. Insert comma after first “that”. Insert comma after “precisely”. Delete second “that”. Insert comma after “flow”.
Lines 364 and 485. What does “home-base” mean exactly? Don’t make the reader wade through the references.
Lines 416 – 417. The effects of gradients in the basic state PV have been omitted in the calculation of the phase speeds. I think there needs to be some assessment of the plausible size of these terms and how their omission affects the calculation. These are potentially large terms.
Line 458. ‘… varies more quickly in the vertical than vertical velocity does at some “moist stability interface” … ‘. What exactly does this mean? What is the mathematical expression? And why is the moist stability interface in quotes? What additional idea are you trying to convey?
Line 462. “ … where G … schematically represents …”. What does “schematically represents” mean, especially in the context of a mathematical expression?
Lines 483 and 484. The notation c_1^2 is a bit misleading as the 2 doesn’t mean the phase speed is squared. Perhaps c_12 would be better. Likewise, c_21 might be better than c_2^1.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1312-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1312', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Aug 2023
The paper performed case studies of Borneo Vortices (BV) using multiple sources of data, including satellite imagery and the MetUM experiments combined with an SGT scheme. The paper is interesting to read and is valuable for understanding the dynamical mechanism behind the extreme BV as such a high-impact system is not well understood and not adequately studied. However, I suggest the authors carefully check whether the key information of the experiment designs has been provided. Particularly, information on the experiment types of the used MetUM experiments is missing and should be supplemented. Major Revision is suggested. Specific comments are as follows:
- Section 2.2: The authors state that the SGT scheme is coupled with the MetUM model to simulate the geostrophic wind components. Could you clarify whether the SGT scheme applied in this paper is run offline or online and why? Also, please specify what variables the SGT scheme produces and which the paper has used. Does it just extract the geostrophic components from the winds? Why can't it be driven by any existent numerical products like reanalysis data? This information needs more clarity as the readers may doubt why the MetUM is necessary for such a study.
- The reasons for the use of the MetUM are not clear in the abstract and the methodology section. Please clarify.
- Lines 10-16: The description of the physical processes needs more information, i.e. what are the dominant/secondary factors?
- Figure 11: One of the critical perspectives of the decomposition of the geostrophic/ageostrophic winds is to examine the role of atmosphere-topography interaction while this is not sufficiently discussed in the paper.
- Figure 1a, c, e: Seems there is a pronounced southward extension of the mid-latitude high-pressure surge across the upstream of BV. Many studies have discussed the importance of such a synoptic signal to the occurrences of BVs, while such signals are not well discussed in this paper. The authors are suggested to show more information about the upstream, particularly the location of the southward extending Siberian High (or Mongolian High in mainland China) that has been considered an essential source of wave-propagation. Analyses of the geostrophic/geostrophic components of the high-pressure will also be interesting.
- Figure 1, 7-10: For the vertical profile of BVs, it is suggested to use storm-relative coordinates instead of geographical coordinates.
- All figures: I suggest the authors show and discuss the full lifetime track of the selected BV case and the central point (eye) corresponding to the time step focused.
- All figures: Analyses of flows at different time steps are and it is difficult to find which time step corresponds to the developing/mature/weakening stage of BV. I suggest the authors supplement why these time steps are selected in the figure captions and the corresponding descriptions.
- Line 187: Please clarify why the TRACK-based dataset based on ERA5 is not used.
- Section 2.1 and Figure 6: The purpose of comparing the global simulation with the limited-area simulation is not clear. Please clarify in the methodology section. Please also clarify whether the global simulation provides LBCs to the limited-area simulation.
- Section 2.1: Please clarify the types of the used MetUM simulations. Are they historical analyses or forecast experiments?
Recommended reference:
Liang, J., J. L. Catto, M. K. Hawcroft, M. L. Tan, K. I. Hodges, and J. M. Haywood, 2023: Borneo Vortices in a warmer climate. npj Clim. Atmos. Sci., 6, 1–8, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41612-023-00326-1.
Pang, B., and R. Lu, 2017: The identification of Borneo vortex and its synoptic features in boreal winter. 19th EGU General Assembly, EGU2017, Vol. 19 of, Vienna, 2457–2457 https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017EGUGA..19.2457P/abstract.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1312-RC2 -
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1312', Sam Hardy, 05 Oct 2023
Please find attached our response to comments from both reviewers. We thank the reviewers and the editor for all the time and effort that they have put into the review process.
-
EC1: 'Reply on AC1', Peter Knippertz, 07 Oct 2023
Thanks for the thorough revision of the paper, which appears to have led to many improvements.
A few points I would like to highlight looking through your reply:
1) Typo in your reply to L135: "As"->"An"2) Data and software: You don't seem to plan to publish either of the two and make only the data available on request. This runs somewhat against modern ideas of open science and I would like to ask the authors to reconsider this. In particular the code may well be useful for other scientists and could be published on GitHub for example.
3) Figures 4 and 5: I am not convinced by your counter-argument and would ask you to re-consider here, too. Maybe you can move unnecessary panels to an Appendix and keep only the key ones in the full manuscript.
4) Pang & Lu 2017: I would refrain from citing a 6-year-old EGU abstract. There is very little information content in it and for some reason the work was not followed by a full article.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1312-EC1 -
AC2: 'Reply on EC1', Sam Hardy, 16 Oct 2023
Hi Peter,
Many thanks for these comments, which we have addressed. The revised manuscript contains a comprehensive Code and data availability statement. As part of this, we have created a GitHub repository containing Jupyter notebooks that allows users to reproduce some of the paper figures. Just one minor point on this - we have been unable to register a DOI for this repository because the recommended site (Zenodo) is having technical issues, so have included the URL in the data availability statement instead.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1312-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on EC1', Sam Hardy, 16 Oct 2023
-
EC1: 'Reply on AC1', Peter Knippertz, 07 Oct 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 272 | 75 | 17 | 364 | 6 | 5 |
- HTML: 272
- PDF: 75
- XML: 17
- Total: 364
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Sam Hardy
John Methven
Juliane Schwendike
Ben Harvey
Mike Cullen
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(9246 KB) - Metadata XML