Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 149, Issue 1, pp 43–63 | Cite as

How to Parametrize Urban-Canopy Drag to Reproduce Wind-Direction Effects Within the Canopy

Article

Abstract

The mean wind direction within an urban canopy changes with height when the incoming flow is not orthogonal to obstacle faces. This wind-turning effect is induced by complex processes and its modelling in urban-canopy (UC) parametrizations is difficult. Here we focus on the analysis of the spatially-averaged flow properties over an aligned array of cubes and their variation with incoming wind direction. For this purpose, Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations previously compared, for a reduced number of incident wind directions, against direct numerical simulation results are used. The drag formulation of a UC parametrization is modified and different drag coefficients are tested in order to reproduce the wind-turning effect within the canopy for oblique wind directions. The simulations carried out for a UC parametrization in one-dimensional mode indicate that a height-dependent drag coefficient is needed to capture this effect.

Keywords

Direct numerical simulations (DNS) Drag coefficients  Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) Urban-canopy parametrization Wind direction 

References

  1. Bezpalcova K (2006) Physical modelling of flow and diffusion in urban canopy. PhD thesis, Charles University, PragueGoogle Scholar
  2. Biltoft CA (2001) Customer report for Mock Urban Setting Test (MUST). DPG document WDTC-TP-01-028, West Desert Test Center, S. Army Dugway Porving Ground, Dugway, Utah, p 58Google Scholar
  3. Branford S, Coceal O, Thomas TG, Belcher SE (2011) Dispersion of a point-source release of a passive scalar through an urban-like array for different wind directions. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 139:367–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Britter RE, Hanna SR (2003) Flow and dispersion in urban areas. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 35:469–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown M, Williams M (1998) An urban canopy parameterization for mesoscale meteorological models. In: AMS 2nd urban environment symposium, Albuquerque, NM, pp 144–147Google Scholar
  6. Carissimo B, Macdonald RW (2004) A porosity/drag approach for the modeling of flow and dispersion in the urban canopy. In: Borrego C, Schayes G (eds) Air pollution modelling and its applications XV. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. CD-adapco (2012) User Guide STAR-CCM+ Version 7.04.011. Cd-adapco, p 11448Google Scholar
  8. Cheng H, Castro IP (2002) Near wall flow over urban-like roughness. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 104:229–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng H, Hayden P, Robins AG, Castro IP (2007) Flow over cube array of different packing densities. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 95:715–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Claus J, Coceal O, Thomas TG, Branford S, Belcher SE, Castro IP (2012) Wind-direction effects on urban-type flows. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 142:265–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coceal O, Belcher SE (2004) A canopy model of mean winds through urban areas. Q J R Meteorol Soc 130:1349–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coceal O, Thomas TG, Castro IP, Belcher SE (2006) Mean flow and turbulence statistics over groups of urban-like cubical obstacles. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 121:491–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dejoan A, Santiago JL, Martilli A, Martin F, Pinelli A (2010) Comparison between large-eddy simulation and Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes computations for the MUST field experiment. Part II: effects of incident wind angle deviation on the mean flow and plume dispersion. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 135:133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dupont S, Otte TL, Ching JKS (2004) Simulation of meteorological fields within and above urban and rural canopies with a mesoscale model (MM5). Boundary-Layer Meteorol 113:111–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Finnigan J (200) Turbulence in plant canopies. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 32:519–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Grimmond CSB, Oke TR (1999) Aerodynamic properties of urban areas derived from analysis of surface form. J Appl Meteorol 38:1262–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Harman IN, Barlow JF, Belcher SE (2004) Scalar fluxes from urban street canyons. Part II: model. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 113:387–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanda M, Kawai T, Kanega M, Moriwaki R, Narita K, Hagishima A (2005) A simple energy balance model for regular building arrays. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 116:423–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim J, Baik J (2004) A numerical study of the effects of ambient wind direction on flow and dispersion in urban street canyons using the RNG \(k-\varepsilon \) model. Atmos Environ 38:3039–3048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kondo H, Genchi Y, Kikegawa Y, Ohashi Y, Yoshikado H, Komiyama H (2005) Development of a multi-layer urban canopy model for the analysis of energy consumption in a Big City: structure of the urban canopy model and its basic performance. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 116:395–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kono T, Ashie Y, Tamura T (2010) Mathematical derivation of spatially-averaged momentum equations for an urban canopy model using underlying concepts of the immersed boundary method. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 135:185–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kusaka H, Kondo H, Kikegawa Y, Kimura F (2001) A simple single-layer urban canopy model for atmospheric models: comparison with multi-layer and slab models. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 101:329–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lien FS, Yee E, Wilson JD (2005) Numerical modelling of the turbulent flow developing within and over a 3-D building array, part II: a mathematical foundation for a distributed drag force approach. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 114:243–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Martilli A (2007) Current research and future challenges in urban mesoscale modelling. Int J Climatol 27:1909–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martilli A, Santiago JL (2007) CFD simulation of airflow over a regular array of cubes. Part II: analysis of spatial average properties. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 122:635–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Martilli A, Clapier A, Rotach MW (2002) An urban surface exchange parameterization for mesoscale models. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 104:261–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Masson V (2000) A physically based scheme for the urban energy budget in atmospheric models. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 94:357–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milliez M, Carissimo B (2007) Numerical simulations of pollutant dispersion in an idealised urban area, for different meteorological conditions. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 122:321–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Raupach MR, Shaw RH (1982) Averaging procedures for flow within vegetation canopies. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 22:79–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ryu YH, Baik JJ, Lee SH (2011) A new single-layer urban canopy model for use in mesoscale atmospheric models. J Appl Meteorol Clim 50:1773–1794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Santiago JL, Martilli A (2010) A dynamic urban canopy parameterization for mesoscale models based on computational fluid dynamics Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes mocroscale simulations. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 137:417–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Santiago JL, Martilli A, Martin F (2007) CFD simulation of airflow over a regular array of cubes. Part I: three-dimensional simulation of the flow and validation with wind-tunnel measurements. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 122:609–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Santiago JL, Coceal O, Martilli A, Belcher SE (2008) Variation of the sectional drag coefficient of a group of buildings with packing densities. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 128:445–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Uno I, Ueda H, Wakamatsu S (1989) Numerical modelling of the nocturnal urban boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 49:77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Vu TC, Ashie Y, Asaeda T (2002) A \(k\)\(\varepsilon \) turbulence closure model for the atmospheric boundary layer including urban canopy. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 102:459–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yee E, Biltoft C (2004) Concentration fluctuation measurements in a plume dispersing through a regular array of obstacles. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 111:363–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Atmospheric Pollution Division, Environmental DepartmentCIEMATMadridSpain
  2. 2.Department of Meteorology, National Centre for Atmospheric Science (NCAS)University of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations