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
- 300 Downloads
Large-eddy simulations (LES) and Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) computations of pollutant dispersion are reported for the Mock Urban Setting Test (MUST) field experiment flow. In particular we address the effects of incident wind angle deviation on the mean velocity and on the mean concentration fields. Both computational fluid dynamical methods are assessed by comparing the simulation results with experimental field data. The comparative analysis proposes to relate the plume deflection with the flow channelling effects. The results show that the plume deflection angle varies with the altitude. As the ground is approached the plume is shown to be almost aligned with the street canyon direction and independent of the incident wind directions considered. At higher altitudes well above the obstacles, the plume direction is aligned with the mean wind direction as in dispersion over flat terrain. The near-ground plume deflection is the consequence of a strong channelling effect in the region near the ground. The mean concentration profiles predicted by LES and RANS are both in good qualitative agreement with experimental data but exhibit discrepancies that can be partly explained by the influence of small incident wind angle deviation effects. Compared to RANS, LES predicts a higher channelling and thus a higher deflection of the plume. Results on the fluctuating intensity of the concentration obtained from LES show a satisfactory agreement with experiments. This information is not available from RANS for which only the mean concentration modelling is considered.
KeywordsChannelling effects Large-eddy simulation MUST experiment Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes Plume deflection
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bezpalcova K (2007) Physical modelling of flow and dispersion in an urban canopy. PhD thesis, Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, Charles University, Prague, 193 ppGoogle Scholar
- Biltoft CA (2001) Customer report for Mock Urban Setting Test (MUST). DPG document WDTC-TP-01-028, West Desert Test Center, U.S. Army Dugway Porving Ground, Dugway, Utah, 58 ppGoogle Scholar
- Camelli FE, Lohner R, Hanna SR (2005) VLES Study of MUST experiment. In: 43rd AIAA Aerospace Meeting and Exhibit, January 10–13, Reno, Nevada, paper 1279Google Scholar
- Cole T, Li X, Eising C, Princevac M (2006) Turbulence and channeling in a simple urban environment. In: AMS 17th symposium on boundary layer and turbulence, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- Jasak H (1996) Error analysis and estimation for the finite volume method with applications to fluid flow. PhD thesis, Imperial College, University of London, 394 ppGoogle Scholar
- Leitl B, Bezpalcova K, Harms F (2007) Wind tunnel modelling of the MUST experiment. In: 11th international conference on harmonisation within atmospheric dispersion modelling for regulatory purposes, Cambridge, July 2–5, UK, 5 ppGoogle Scholar
- Santiago JL, Dejoan A, Martilli A, Martin F, Pinelli A (2010) Comparison between large-eddy simulation and Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes computations for the MUST field experiment. Part I: study of the flow for an incident wind directed perpendicularly to the front array of the containers. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. doi:10.1007/s10546-010-9466-3