Advertisement

Experiments in Fluids

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 309–318 | Cite as

A comparison of PIV measurements of canopy turbulence performed in the field and in a wind tunnel model

  • W. Zhu
  • R. van Hout
  • L. Luznik
  • H. S. Kang
  • J. Katz
  • C. Meneveau
Research Article

Abstract

Particle image velocimetry (PIV) has been used to compare between turbulence characteristics just within and above a mature corn canopy and those of a model canopy setup in a wind tunnel (WT). The laboratory normalized mean velocity profile is adjusted using variable mesh screens to match the normalized mean shear of the corn field (CF) data. The smallest resolved scale in the field is about 15 times the Kolmogorov length scale (ηCF ≈ 0.4 mm), whereas in the WT it is 5 times ηWTWT ≈ 0.15 mm). In both cases, the mean velocity and turbulence statistics are consistent with those measured using single point sensors. However, the profiles of normalized Reynolds shear stress in the field and the laboratory differ. Turbulent spectral densities calculated from PIV spatial and time series in the field display an inertial range spanning three decades. In the laboratory due to lower Reynolds numbers, the inertial range shrinks to two decades. Quadrant-Hole analysis is applied to Reynolds shear stress, vorticity magnitude and dissipation rates. In quadrants 1–3, the WT and field conditionally sampled stresses show similar trends. However, a conflicting trend is found in the sweep quadrant. The analysis confirms that sweep and ejections dominate the momentum flux and dissipation rate.

Keywords

Particle Image Velocimetry Wind Tunnel Canopy Height Particle Image Velocimetry Measurement Reynolds Shear Stress 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Mike Embry of the Wye Research and Education Center of the University of Maryland for his help in finding a proper location to conduct the field experiments, and Mac Farms Inc., for generously granting us access to their corn field. We are also grateful to Y. Ronzhes and S. King for their technical expertise in developing and maintaining the equipment, as well as J. Kleissl and M. Parlange for providing us with the sonic anemometer data. This research was funded by the Bio-Complexity Program of the National Science Foundation under grant 0119903. The experiments presented in this paper comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed.

References

  1. Brunet Y, Finnigan JJ, Raupach MR (1994) A wind tunnel study of air flow in waving wheat: single point velocity statistics. Bound-Layer Meteorol 70:95–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fincham AM, Maxworthy T, Spedding GR (1996) Energy dissipation and vortex structure in freely decaying, stratified grid turbulence. Dyn Atmos Oceans 23:155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Finnigan JJ (1979) Turbulence in waving wheat. I. Mean statistics and honami. Bound-Layer Meteorol 16:181–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Finnigan JJ (2000) Turbulence in plant canopies. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 32:519–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Goodman AM, Ennos AR (1999) The effects of soil bulk density on the morphology and anchorage mechanics of the root systems of sunflower and maize. Ann Bot 83:293–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jacobson MZ (1999) Fundamentals of atmospheric modeling. Cambridge University Press, 205 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Kang HS, Chester S, Meneveau C (2003) Decaying turbulence in an active-grid-generated flow and comparisons with large-eddy simulation. J Fluid Mech 480:129–160zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Karnik U, Tavoularis S (1987) Generation and manipulation of uniform shear with the use of screens. Exp Fluids 5:247–254Google Scholar
  9. Nimmo Smith WAM, Atsavapranee P, Katz J, Osborn TR (2002) PIV measurements in the bottom boundary layer of the coastal ocean. Exp Fluids 33:962–971Google Scholar
  10. Nimmo Smith WAM, Katz J, Osborn TR (2005) On the structure of turbulence in the bottom boundary layer of the coastal ocean. J Phys Oceanogr 35:72–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Poggi D, Porporato A, Ridolfi L, Albertson JD, Katul GG (2004) The effect of vegetation density on canopy sub-layer turbulence. Bound-layer Meteorol 111:565–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Raupach MR (1981) Conditional statistics of Reynolds stress in rough-wall and smooth-wall turbulent boundary layers. J Fluid Mech 108:363–382zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Raupach MR, Antonia RA, Rajagopalan S (1991) Rough-wall turbulent boundary layers. Appl Mech Rev 44:1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Roth GI, Katz J (1999) Parallel truncated multiplication and other methods for improving the speed and accuracy of PIV calculations. Proceedings of the 3rd ASME/JSME joint fluids engineering conference, July 18–23, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  15. Roth GI, Katz J (2001) Five techniques for increasing the speed and accuracy of PIV interrogation. Meas Sci Technol 16:1568–1579Google Scholar
  16. Shaw RH, Silversides RH, Thurtell GW (1974a) Some observations of turbulence and turbulent transport within and above plant canopies. Bound-Layer Meteorol 5:429–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shaw RH, Den Hartog G, King KM, Thurtell GW (1974b) Measurements of mean wind flow and three-dimensional turbulence intensity within a mature corn canopy. Agric Meteorol 13:419–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Shaw RH, Tavangar J, Ward DP (1983) Structure of the Reynolds stress in a canopy layer. J Clim Appl Meteorol 22:1922–1931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tennekes H, Lumley JL (1972) A first course in turbulence. MIT, Cambridge, 88 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Willmarth WW, Lu SS (1972) Structure of the Reynolds stress near the wall. J Fluid Mech 55:65–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wilson JD, Ward DP, Thurtell GW, Kidd GE (1982) Statistics of atmospheric turbulence within and above a corn canopy. Bound-Layer Meteorol 24:495–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Zeff BW, Lanterman DD, McAllister R, Roy R, Kostelich EJ, Lathrop DP (2003) Measuring intense rotation and dissipation in turbulent flows. Nature 421:146–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Zhu Y, Antonia RA (1997) On the correlation between enstrophy and energy dissipation rate in a turbulent wake. Appl Sci Res 57:337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. Zhu
    • 1
  • R. van Hout
    • 1
  • L. Luznik
    • 1
  • H. S. Kang
    • 1
  • J. Katz
    • 1
  • C. Meneveau
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringThe Johns Hopkins UniversityBaltimoreUSA

Personalised recommendations