Advertisement

Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 169, Issue 3, pp 537–558 | Cite as

Effects of the Upstream-Flow Regime and Canyon Aspect Ratio on Non-linear Interactions Between a Street-Canyon Flow and the Overlying Boundary Layer

  • Karin Blackman
  • Laurent Perret
  • Eric Savory
Research Article

Abstract

Large-scale structures within a rough-wall boundary layer generated over a cube array have recently been linked to small-scale fluctuations close to the roughness through a dynamical mechanism similar to amplitude modulation. Demonstrating the existence of this mechanism for different roughness types is a crucial step towards the development of a generic model for wind fluctuations in the urban canopy. Here the influence of the upstream roughness geometry (two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D)) and planform packing density (\( \lambda_{p} \)) and street-canyon aspect ratio on the non-linear interactions between large-scale momentum regions and the small scales induced by the presence of the roughness is studied within a wind tunnel using combined particle-image velocimetry and hot-wire anemometry. A multi-time delay linear stochastic estimation is used to decompose the flow into large scales that participate in modulation and the remaining small scales. Using three different upstream roughness configurations composed of either 3D cubes or 2D rectangular blocks it is shown that the upstream roughness configuration has an influence on the non-linear interactions in the rough-wall boundary layer. Analysis of the turbulence skewness decomposition shows a change in the location of the maximum of the term \( \overline{{u_{L}^{\prime} u_{S}^{\prime 2}}} \), which represents the influence of the large-scale momentum regions on the small scales, whilst the temporal correlation shows a modification of the interaction located closer to the roughness with a change from 3D to 2D roughness. Furthermore, a two-point spatio–temporal correlation demonstrates that the non-linear relationship is significantly modified in the wake-interference-flow regime compared to the skimming-flow regime. Through skewness decomposition and temporal correlations the canyon aspect ratio is shown to have no influence on the non-linear interactions, indicating that the mechanism depends only on the flow developing upstream. Finally, although the upstream roughness configuration is shown to influence the non-linear interactions, the nature of the mechanism remains the same in all configurations.

Keywords

Boundary layer Particle-image velocimetry Scale interactions Urban canopy Wind tunnel 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors should like to thank Mr. Thibaut Piquet for his technical support during the experimental program. The authors also acknowledge the financial support of the French National Research Agency through the research Grant URBANTURB N° ANR-14-CE22-0012-01.

References

  1. Anderson W (2016) Amplitude modulation of streamwise velocity fluctuations in the roughness sublayer: evidence from large-eddy simulations. J Fluid Mech 789:567–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blackman K (2014) Influence of approach flow conditions on urban street canyon flow. M.E.Sc. Dissertation, University of Western Ontario, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  3. Blackman K, Perret L (2016) Non-linear interactions in a boundary layer developing over an array of cubes using stochastic estimation. Phys Fluids 28:095108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blackman K, Perret L, Savory E (2015) Effect of upstream flow regime on street canyon flow mean turbulence statistics. Environ Fluid Mech 15:823–849CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunet Y, Finnigan JJ, Raupach MR (1994) A wind tunnel study of airflow in waving wheat: single-point velocity statistics. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 70:95–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro I, Cheng H, Reynolds R (2006) Turbulence over urban-type roughness: deductions from wind-tunnel measurements. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 118:109–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coceal O, Dobre A, Thomas TG (2007) Unsteady dynamics and organized structures from DNS over an idealized building canopy. Int J Climatol 27:1943–1953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Guala M, Metzger M, McKeon BJ (2011) Interactions within the turbulent boundary layer at high Reynolds number. J Fluid Mech 666:573–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Huq P, Franzese P (2013) Measurements of turbulence and dispersion in three idealized urban canopies with different aspect ratios and comparisons with Gaussian plume model. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 147:103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hussain F (1983) Coherent structures – reality and myth. Phys Fluids 26:2816–2838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hussain F (1986) Coherent structures and turbulence. J Fluid Mech 173:303–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hutchins N, Marusic I (2007) Large-scale influences in near-wall turbulence. Phil Trans R Soc A 365:647–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Inagaki A, Kanda M (2008) Turbulent flow similarity over an array of cubes in near-neutrally stratified atmospheric flow. J Fluid Mech 615:101–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Inagaki A, Kanda M (2010) Organized structure of active turbulence over an array of cubes within the logarithmic layer of atmospheric flow. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 135:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Inoue M, Mathis R, Marusic I, Pullin DI (2012) Inner-layer intensities for the flat-plate turbulent boundary layer combining a predictive wall-model with large-eddy simulations. Phys Fluids 24:075102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lee JH, Hyung JS, Krogstad PA (2011) Direct numerical simulation of the turbulence boundary layer over a cube-roughened wall. J Fluid Mech 669:397–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lee JH, Abu S, Lee SH, Sung JH (2012) Turbulent boundary layers over rod- and cube-roughened walls. J Turb 13:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marusic I, Mathis R, Hutchins N (2011) A wall-shear stress predictive model. In: Proceedings of 13th European turbulence conference, Warsaw, Poland, 12–15 September 2011Google Scholar
  19. Mathis R, Hutchins N, Marusic I (2009) Large-scale amplitude modulation of the small-scale structures in turbulent boundary layers. J Fluid Mech 628:311–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mathis R, Hutchins N, Marusic I (2011a) A predictive inner–outer model for streamwise turbulence statistics in wall-bounded flows. J Fluid Mech 681:537–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mathis R, Marusic I, Hutchins N, Screenivasan KR (2011b) The relationship between the velocity skewness and the amplitude modulation of the small scale by the large scale in turbulent boundary layers. Phys Fluids 23:121702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nadeem M, Lee JH, Lee J, Sung HJ (2015) Turbulent boundary layers over sparsely-spaced rod-roughened walls. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 56:16–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oke TR (1988) The urban energy balance. Prog Phys Geogr 12:471–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Perret L, Rivet C (2013) Dynamics of a turbulent boundary layer over cubical roughness elements: insight from PIV measurements and POD analysis. In: Proceedings of eighth international symposium on turbulence and shear flow phenomena, Poitiers, France, 27–30 August 2013Google Scholar
  25. Perret L, Savory E (2013) Large-scale structures over a single street canyon immersed in an urban-type boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 148:111–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Perret L, Blackman K, Savory E (2016) Combining wind-tunnel and field measurements of street-canyon flow via stochastic estimation. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 16:491–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Perret L, Blackman K, Fernandes R, Savory E (2017) Relating street canyon vertical mass-exchange to upstream flow regime and canyon geometry. Sustain Cities Soc 30:49–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rotach MW, Vogt R, Bernhofer C, Batchvarova E, Christen A, Clappier A, Feddersen B, Gryning SE, Martucci G, Mayer H, Mitev V, Oke TR, Parlow E, Richner H, Roth M, Roulet YA, Ruffieux D, Salmond JA, Schatzmann M, Voogt JA (2005) BUBBLE—an urban boundary layer meteorology project. Theor Appl Climatol 81:231–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Salizzoni P, Marro M, Soulhac L, Grosjean N, Perkins R (2011) Turbulent transfer between street canyons and the overlying atmospheric boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 141:393–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Savory E, Perret L, Rivet C (2013) Modelling considerations for examining the mean and unsteady flow in a simple urban-type street canyon. Meteorol Atmos Phys 121:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schlatter P, Orlü R (2010) Quantifying the interaction between large and small scales in wall-bounded turbulent flows: a note of caution. Phys Fluids 22:051704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Squire DT, Baars WJ, Hutchins N, Marusic I (2016) Inner–outer interactions in rough-wall turbulence. J Turbul 17:1468–5248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Takimoto H, Sato A, Barlow JF, Moriwaki R, Inagaki A, Onomura S, Kanda M (2011) Particle image velocimetry measurements of turbulent flow within outdoor and indoor urban scale models and flushing motions in urban canopy layers. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 140:295–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Takimoto H, Inagaki A, Kanda M, Sato A, Michioka T (2013) Length-scale similarity of turbulent organized structures over surfaces with different roughness types. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 147:217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tinney CE, Coiffet F, Delville J, Hall AM, Jordan P, Glauser MN (2006) On spectral linear stochastic estimation. Exp Fluids 41:763–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Tropea C, Yarin A, Foss JF (2007) Springer handbook of experimental fluid mechanics. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Volino RJ, Schultz MP, Flack KA (2007) Turbulence structure in rough- and smooth-wall boundary layers. J Fluid Mech 592:263–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Volino RJ, Schultz MP, Flack KA (2009) Turbulence structure in a boundary layer with two-dimensional roughness. J Fluid Mech 635:75–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ecole Centrale de Nantes, LHEEA UMR CNRS 6598NantesFrance
  2. 2.Insitut de Recherche en Sciences et Techniques de la Ville (IRSTV), FR, CNRS 2488NantesFrance
  3. 3.Department of Mechanical and Materials EngineeringUniversity of Western OntarioLondonCanada

Personalised recommendations