Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 170, Issue 1, pp 45–68 | Cite as

Numerical Study of Turbulent Flow Fields Over Steep Terrain by Using Modified Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulations

  • Takeshi Ishihara
  • Yihong QiEmail author
Research Article


Turbulent flow fields over a two-dimensional steep ridge and three-dimensional steep hill with rough and smooth surfaces are investigated by using a delayed detached-eddy simulation (DDES) with the specified height as a new control parameter. The applicability of typical turbulence models in previous studies is evaluated by using validation metrics. While all turbulence models simulate the turbulent flow fields over the steep rough terrain well, the k − ε model overestimates the mean wind speed and underestimates the turbulent kinetic energy over steep, smooth terrain. The large-eddy simulation captures the large-scale vortices and improves the mean wind speed, but overestimates the turbulent kinetic energy due to the inaccurate specification of the surface roughness. The detached-eddy simulation considering the surface roughness shows further improvement, but still overestimates the turbulent kinetic energy, since the region using the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes model is too thin. The modified DDES model with a new control parameter is suitable for the prediction of the mean wind speed and turbulence as demonstrated by the visualization of instantaneous flow fields through vortex cores, and a quadrant analysis to examine the organized motion, with strong organized motions identified in the wake region of smooth terrain. Roller vortices are significant on the lee side of the two-dimensional smooth ridge, while horseshoe vortices appear in the wake region of the three-dimensional smooth hill.


Delayed detached-eddy simulation Quadrant analysis Steep terrain Turbulent flow fields Validation metrics 


  1. Balogh M, Parente A, Benocci C (2012) RANS simulation of ABL flow over complex terrain applying an enhanced k − ε model and wall function formulation: implementation and comparison for Fluent and OpenFOAM. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 104:360–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechmann A, Sørensen NN (2010) Hybrid RANS/LES method for wind flow over complex terrain. Wind Energy 13(1):36–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blocken B, Stathopoulos T, Carmeliet J (2007) CFD simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer: wall function problems. Atmos Environ 41(2):238–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blocken B, Hout AVD, Dekker J, Weiler Q (2015) CFD simulation of wind flow over natural complex terrain: case study with validation by field measurements for Ria de Ferrol, Galicia, Spain. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 147:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dupont S, Brunet Y, Finnigan JJ (2008) Large-eddy simulation of turbulent flow over a forested hill: validation and coherent structure identification. Q J R Meteorol Soc 134(636):1911–1929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Enoki K, Ishihara T, Yamaguchi A (2009) A generalized canopy model for the wind prediction in the forest and the urban area. In: Proceedings of the European Wind Energy Conference, 16–19 March 2009, Marseille, FranceGoogle Scholar
  7. Fernando H (2010) Fluid dynamics of urban atmospheres in complex terrain. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 42:365–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferreira AD, Lopes AMG, Viegas DX, Sousa ACM (1995) Experimental and numerical simulation of flow around two-dimensional hills. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 54:173–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferziger J, Peric M (2002) Computational method for fluid dynamics, 3rd edn. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fluent Theory Guide (2012) Ansys Inc., Canonsburg, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  11. Fröhlich J, Terzi DV (2008) Hybrid LES/RANS methods for the simulation of turbulent flows. Prog Aerospace Sci 44(5):349–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grimmond C, Oke TR (1999) Aerodynamic properties of urban areas derived from analysis of surface form. J Appl Meteorol 38(9):1262–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gritskevich MS, Garbaruk AV, Schütze J, Menter FR (2012) Development of DDES and IDDES formulations for the k − ω shear stress transport model. Flow Turbul Combust 88(3):431–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Iizuka S, Kondo H (2004) Performance of various sub-grid scale models in large-eddy simulations of turbulent flow over complex terrain. Atmos Environ 38(40):7083–7091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Iizuka S, Kondo H (2006) Large-eddy simulations of turbulent flow over complex terrain using modified static eddy viscosity models. Atmos Environ 40(5):925–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ishihara T, Hibi K (2002) Numerical study of turbulent wake flow behind a three-dimensional steep hill. Wind Struct 5(2–4):317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ishihara T, Hibi K, Oikawa S (1999) A wind tunnel study of turbulent flow over a three-dimensional steep hill. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 83(1):95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ishihara T, Fujino Y, Hibi K (2001) A wind tunnel study of separated flow over a two-dimensional ridge and a circular hill. J Wind Eng 89:573–576Google Scholar
  19. Jeong J, Hussain F (1995) On the identification of a vortex. J Fluid Mech 285:69–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kida S, Miura H (1998) Identification and analysis of vortical structures. Eur J Mech B Fluids 17(4):471–488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kobayashi MH, Pereira JCF, Siqueira MBB (1994) Numerical study of the turbulent flow over and in a model forest on a 2D hill. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 53(3):357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu ZQ, Ishihara T, Tanaka T, He XH (2016a) LES study of turbulent flow fields over a smooth 3-D hill and a smooth 2-D ridge. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 153:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Liu ZQ, Ishihara T, He XH, Niu HW (2016b) LES study on the turbulent flow fields over complex terrain covered by vegetation canopy. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 155:60–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oettl D (2015) Quality assurance of the prognostic, microscale wind-field model GRAL 14.8 using wind-tunnel data provided by the German VDI guideline 3783-9. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 142:104–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ohba R, Hara T, Nakamura S, Ohya Y, Uchida T (2002) Gas diffusion over an isolated hill under neutral, stable and unstable conditions. Atmos Environ 3:5697–5707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Oikawa S, Meng Y (1995) Turbulence characteristics and organized motion in a suburban roughness sublayer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 74(3):289–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oka S, Ishihara T (2009) Numerical study of aerodynamic characteristics of a square prism in a uniform flow. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 97(11):548–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Palma JMLM, Castro FA, Ribeiro LF, Rodrigues AH, Pinto AP (2008) Linear and nonlinear models in wind resource assessment and wind turbine micro-siting in complex terrain. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 96(12):2308–2326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rajagopalan S, Antonia RA (1982) Use of a quadrant analysis technique to identify coherent structures in a turbulent boundary layer. Phys Fluids 25:949–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ruck B, Adams E (1991) Fluid mechanical aspects of the pollutant transport to coniferous trees. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 56(1–2):163–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schatzmann M, Olesen H, Franke J (2010) COST 732 model evaluation case studies: approach and results. COST Office Brussels, 121 ppGoogle Scholar
  32. Shih TH, Zhu J, Lumley JL (1995) A new Reynolds stress algebraic equation model. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 125:287–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shur M, Spalart P R, Strelets M, Travin A (1999) Detached-eddy simulation of an airfoil at high angle of attack. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on engineering turbulence modelling and measurements, 24–26 May 1999, Ajaccio, Corscia, FranceGoogle Scholar
  34. Smagorinsky J (1963) General circulation experiments with the primitive equations: I. The basic experiment. Mon Weather Rev 91(3):99–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Song M, Chen K, He ZY, Zhang X (2013) Bionic optimization for micro-siting of wind farm on complex terrain. Renew Energy 50:551–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spalart PR, Deck S, Shur ML, Squires KD, Strelets MKH, Travin A (2006) A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn 20(3):181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tamura T, Cao S, Okuno A (2007) LES study of turbulent boundary layer over a smooth and a rough 2D hill model. Flow Turbul Combust 79(4):405–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. VDI (2005) Environmental meteorology—prognostic microscale windfield models—evaluation for flow around buildings and obstacles. Tech. Rep., VDI guideline 3783, Part 9. Beuth Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  39. Watanabe F, Uchida T (2015) Micro-siting of wind turbine in complex terrain: simplified fatigue life prediction of main bearing in direct drive wind turbines. Wind Eng 39(4):349–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Xue X, Wang T, Sun QW, Zhang WM (2002) Field and wind-tunnel studies of aerodynamic roughness length. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 104(1):151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, School of EngineeringThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations