Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparison of dynamic subgrid-scale models for simulations of neutrally buoyant shear-driven atmospheric boundary layer flows

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Fluid Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Several non-dynamic, scale-invariant, and scale-dependent dynamic subgrid-scale (SGS) models are utilized in large-eddy simulations of shear-driven neutral atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) flows. The popular Smagorinsky closure and an alternative closure based on Kolmogorov’s scaling hypothesis are used as SGS base models. Our results show that, in the context of neutral ABL regime, the dynamic modeling approach is extremely useful, and reproduces several establised results (e.g., the surface layer similarity theory) with fidelity. The scale-dependence framework, in general, improves the near-surface statistics from the Smagorinsky model-based simulations. We also note that the local averaging-based dynamic SGS models perform significantly better than their planar averaging-based counterparts. Lastly, we find more or less consistent superiority of the Smagorinsky-based SGS models (over the corresponding Kolmogorov’s scaling hypothesis-based SGS models) for predicting the inertial range scaling of spectra.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ABL:

Atmospheric boundary layer

LAD:

Locally averaged (scale-invariant) dynamic

LASDD:

Locally averaged scale-dependent dynamic

LES:

Large-eddy simulation

NBL:

Neutral boundary layer

PAD:

Planar averaged (scale-invariant) dynamic

PASDD:

Planar averaged scale-dependent dynamic

SGS:

Subgrid-scale

TKE:

Turbulence kinetic energy

References

  1. Germano M, Piomelli U, Moin P and Cabot WH (1991). A dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model. Phys Fluids A 3: 1760–1765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pope SB (2004). Ten questions concerning the large-eddy simulation of turbulent flows. New J Phys 6: 1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Meyers J, Geurts BJ and Baelmans M (2005). Optimality of the dynamic procedure for large-eddy simulations. Phys Fluids 17: 045108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Porté-Agel F, Meneveau C and Parlange MB (2000). A scale-dependent dynamic model for large-eddy simulation: application to a neutral atmospheric boundary layer. J Fluid Mech 415: 261–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Porté-Agel F (2004). A scale-dependent dynamic model for scalar transport in LES of the atmospheric boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 112: 81–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Basu S and Porté-Agel F (2006). Large-eddy simulation of stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer turbulence: a scale-dependent dynamic modeling approach. J Atmos Sci 63: 2074–2091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Basu S, Porté-Agel F, Foufoula-Georgiou E, Vinuesa J-F, Pahlow M (2006) Revisiting the local scaling hypothesis in stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer turbulence: an integration of field and laboratory measurements with large-eddy simulations. Boundary-Layer Meteorol DOI: 10.1007/s10546-005-9036-2

  8. Bou-zeid E, Meneveau C and Parlange M (2006). A scale-dependent Lagrangian dynamic model for large eddy simulation of complex turbulent flows. Phys Fluids 17: 025105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Stoll R and Porté-Agel F (2006). Dynamic subgrid-scale models for momentum and scalar fluxes in large-eddy simulations of neutrally stratified atmospheric boundary layers over heterogeneous terrain. Water Resour Res 42: W01409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Smagorinsky J (1963). General circulation experiments with the primitive equations. Mon Weath Rev 91: 99–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Wong V and Lilly D (1994). A comparison of two dynamic subgrid scale closure methods for turbulent thermal convection. Phys Fluids 6: 1016–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Chow FK, Street RL, Xue M and Ferziger JH (2005). Explicit filtering and reconstruction turbulence modeling for large-eddy simulation of neutral boundary layer flow. J Atmos Sci 62: 2058–2077

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lilly DK (1967) The representation of small-scale turbulence in numerical simulation experiments. In: Proc. IBM scientific computing symp. on environmental sciences, Yorktown Heights, NY, IBM DP Division, pp 195–210

  14. Andrén A, Brown AR, Graf J, Mason PJ, Moeng C-H, Nieuwstadt FTM and Schumann U (1994). Large-eddy simulation of a neutrally stratified boundary layer: a comparison of four codes. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc 120: 1457–1484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brown AR, Derbyshire SH and Mason PJ (1994). Large-eddy simulation of stable atmospheric boundary layers with a revised stochastic subgrid model. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc 120: 1485–1512

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Kosović B (1997). Subgrid-scale modelling for the large-eddy simulation of high-Reynolds-number boundary layers. J Fluid Mech 336: 151–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Mason PJ and Thomson DJ (1992). Stochastic backscatter in large-eddy simulations of boundary layers. J Fluid Mech 242: 51–78

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Sullivan PP, McWilliams JC and Moeng C-H (1994). A subgrid-scale model for large-eddy simulation of planetary boundary-layer flows. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 71: 247–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Esau I (2004). Simulation of Ekman boundary layers by large eddy model with dynamic mixed subfilter closure. Environ Fluid Mech 4: 273–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Businger JA, Wyngaard JC, Izumi Y and Bradley EF (1971). Flux-profile relationships in the atmospheric surface layer. J Atmos Sci 28: 181–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Kader BA and Yaglom AM (1990). Mean field and fluctuation moments in unstably stratified turbulent boundary layers. J Fluid Mech 212: 637–662

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Warhaft Z (2000). Passive scalars in turbulent flows. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 32: 203–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Shraiman BI and Siggia ED (2000). Scalar turbulence. Nature 405: 639–646

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Mason P (1989). Large-eddy simulation of the convective atmospheric boundary layer. J Atmos Sci 46: 1492–1516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Grant ALM (1992). The structure of turbulence in the near-neutral atmospheric boundary layer. J Atmos Sci 49: 226–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Grant ALM (1986). Observations of boundary layer structure made during the KONTUR experiment. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc 112: 825–841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Porté-Agel F, Parlange MB, Meneveau C and Eichinger WE (2001). A priori field study of the subgrid-scale heat fluxes and dissipation in the atmospheric surface layer. J Atmos Sci 58: 2673–2698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mason PJ and Thomson DJ (1987). Large-eddy simulations of the neutral-static-stability planetary boundary layer. Quart J Roy Meteorol Soc 113: 413–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Moeng C-H and Sullivan PP (1994). A comparison of shear- and buoyancy-driven planetary boundary layer flows. J Atmos Sci 51: 999–1022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ding F, Arya SP and Lin Y-L (2001). Large-eddy simulations of the atmospheric boundary layer using a new subgrid-scale model. Part I: slightly unstable and neutral cases. Environ Fluid Mech 1: 29–47

    Google Scholar 

  31. Carlotti P (2002). Two-point properties of atmospheric turbulence very close to the ground: comparison of a high resolution LES with theoretical models. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 104: 381–410

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hutchins N and Marusic I (2007). Evidence of very long meandering features in the logarithmic region of turbulence boundary layers. J Fluid Mech 579: 1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sullivan PP, Horst TW, Lenschow DH, Moeng C-H and Weil JC (2003). Structure of subfilter-scale fluxes in the atmospheric surface layer with application to large-eddy simulation modelling. J Fluid Mech 482: 101–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ghosal S, Lund TS, Moin P and Akselvoll K (1995). A dynamic localization model for large eddy simulation of turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 286: 229–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kim W-K and Menon S (1999). An unsteady incompressible Navier-Stokes solver for large eddy simulation of turbulent flows. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 31: 983–1017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lilly DK (1992). A proposed modification of the Germano subgridscale closure method. Phys Fluids A 4: 633–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Wind Science and Engineering Research Center, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA

    William C. Anderson & Chris W. Letchford

  2. Atmospheric Science Group, Department of Geosciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA

    Sukanta Basu

Authors
  1. William C. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sukanta Basu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chris W. Letchford
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sukanta Basu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, W.C., Basu, S. & Letchford, C.W. Comparison of dynamic subgrid-scale models for simulations of neutrally buoyant shear-driven atmospheric boundary layer flows. Environ Fluid Mech 7, 195–215 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-007-9023-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-007-9023-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation