Turbulent-Resistance Model for Organized Rough Walls

  • Zhuoqun LiEmail author
Research Article


A resistance model for organized rough walls of varying geometry in fully-developed turbulent boundary layers is proposed. For a given flow, the shear stress on rough walls varies with the surface geometry. The model normalizes the roughness shear stress by its theoretical maximum. Based on an analysis of measurable drag on individual roughness elements, the expression for the normalized roughness shear stress is deduced and expressed as a simple function of the roughness density with one empirical coefficient, which varies with the element geometry and array layout. Two reduction mechanisms for the drag on the roughness elements are distinguished, and three types of rough walls are categorized according to the effective ranges of the physical mechanisms. The resistance model is validated by comparison with existing measurements. The directly and indirectly measured drag on roughness elements from classical laboratory experiments and recent simulations are reproduced by this model, providing a convenient method for comparing distinctive experiments and simulations, which is important for the categorization of organized rough walls and the formulation of a unified roughness model.


Organized rough wall Resistance model Turbulent boundary layer Wall shear stress 



This research is supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Project Nos. 11490553, 11232006 and 11121202).


  1. Arya SPS (1975) A drag partition theory for determining the large-scale roughness parameter and wind stress on the Arctic pack ice. J Geophys Res 80(24):3447–3454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bai K, Katz J, Meneveau C (2015) Turbulent flow structure inside a canopy with complex multi-scale elements. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 155(3):435–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandyopadhyay PR (1987) Rough-wall turbulent boundary layers in the transition regime. J Fluid Mech 180:231–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow JF, Belcher SE (2002) A wind tunnel model for quantifying fluxes in the urban boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 104(1):131–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bechert DW, Bartenwerfer M (1989) The viscous flow on surfaces with longitudinal ribs. J Fluid Mech 206:105–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Castro IP (2007) Rough-wall boundary layers: mean flow universality. J Fluid Mech 585:469–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chan L, Macdonald M, Chung D, Hutchins N, Ooi A (2015) A systematic investigation of roughness height and wavelength in turbulent pipe flow in the transitionally rough regime. J Fluid Mech 771:743–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheng H, Hayden P, Robins AG, Castro IP (2007) Flow over cube arrays of different packing densities. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 95(8):715–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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(3):491–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coleman SE, Nikora VI, McLean SR, Schlicke E (2007) Spatially averaged turbulent flow over square ribs. J Eng Mech 133(2):194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Counihan J (1971) Wind tunnel determination of the roughness length as a function of the fetch and the roughness density of three-dimensional roughness elements. Atmos Environ 5:637–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crawley DM, Nickling WG (2003) Drag partition for regularly-arrayed rough surfaces. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 107(2):445–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Flack K, Schultz M (2010) Review of hydraulic roughness scales in the fully rough regime. J Fluids Eng 132(4):041–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gillies JA, Nickling WG, King J (2007) Shear stress partitioning in large patches of roughness in the atmospheric inertial sublayer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 122(2):367–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grimmond CSB, Oke TR (1999) Aerodynamic properties of urban areas derived from analysis of surface form. J Appl Meteorol 38(9):1262–1292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hagishima A, Tanimoto J, Nagayama K, Meno S (2009) Aerodynamic parameters of regular arrays of rectangular blocks with various geometries. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 132(2):315–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jiménez J (2004) Turbulent flows over rough walls. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 36(1):173–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kanda M, Moriwaki R, Kasamatsu F (2004) Large-eddy simulation of turbulent organized structures within and above explicity resolved cube arrays. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 112(2):343–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koloseus HJ, Davidian J (1966) Free-surface instability correlations, and roughness-concentration effects on flow over hydrodynamically rough surfaces. In: USGS water supply paper 1592-CDGoogle Scholar
  20. Leonardi S, Castro IP (2010) Channel flow over large cube roughness: a direct numerical simulation study. J Fluid Mech 651:519–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Macdonald RW, Griffiths RF, Hall DJ (1998) An improved method for the estimation of surface roughness of obstacle arrays. Atmos Environ 32(11):1857–1864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Macdonald RW, Schofield SC, Slawson PR (2002) Physical modelling of urban roughness using arrays of regular roughness elements. Water Air Soil Pollut Focus 2:541–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. MacDonald M, Hutchins N, Chung D (2019) Roughness effects in turbulent forced convection. J Fluid Mech 861:138–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Marshall JK (1971) Drag measurements in roughness arrays of varying density and distribution. Agric Meteorol 8:269–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martinuzzi R, Tropea C (1993) The flow around surface-mounted, prismatic obstacles placed in a fully developed channel flow. J Fluids Eng 115:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Marusic I, McKeon BJ, Monkewitz PA, Nagib HM, Smits AJ, Sreenivasan KR (2010) Wall-bounded turbulent flows at high Reynolds numbers: recent advances and key issues. Phys Fluids 22(6):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. May R (1976) Simple mathematical models with very complicated dynamics. Nature 261(5547):459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Millward-Hopkins JT, Tomlin AS, Ma L, Ingham D, Pourkashanian M (2011) Estimating aerodynamic parameters of urban-like surfaces with heterogeneous building heights. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 141(3):443–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Napoli E, Armenio V, Marchis MD (2008) The effect of the slope of irregularly distributed roughness elements on turbulent wall-bounded flow. J Fluid Mech 613:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nikuradse J (1950) Laws of flow in rough pipes. NACA Tech Mem 1292:1–62Google Scholar
  31. Orlandi P, Leonardi S (2006) DNS of turbulent channel flows with two- and three-dimensional roughness. J Turbul 7:N73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Perry AE, Schofield WH, Joubert PN (1969) Rough wall turbulent boundary layers. J Fluid Mech 37(2):383–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Placidi M, Ganapathisubramani B (2015) Effects of frontal and plan solidities on aerodynamic parameters and the roughness sublayer in turbulent boundary layers. J Fluid Mech 782:541–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Placidi M, Ganapathisubramani B (2018) Turbulent flow over large roughness elements: effect of frontal and plan solidity on turbulence statistics and structure. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 167(1):99–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Raupach MR (1992) Drag and drag partition on rough surfaces. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 60(4):375–395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Raupach MR (1994) Simplified expressions for vegetation roughness length and zero-plane displacement as functions of canopy height and area index. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 71(1–2):211–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raupach MR, Thom AS, Edwards I (1980) A wind-tunnel study of turbulent flow close to regularly arrayed rough surfaces. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 18(4):373–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Raupach MR, Antonia RA, Rajagopalan S (1991) Rough-wall turbulent boundary layers. Appl Mech Rev 44(1):1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sabatino SD, Solazzo E, Paradisi P, Britter R (2008) A simple model for spatially-averaged wind profiles within and above an urban canopy. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 127(1):131–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sadique J, Yang XI, Meneveau C, Mittal R (2017) Aerodynamic properties of rough surfaces with high aspect-ratio roughness elements: effect of aspect ratio and arrangements. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 163(2):203–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sau A, Hwang RR, Sheu TWH, Yang WC (2003) Interaction of trailing vortices in the wake of a wall-mounted rectangular cylinder. Phys Rev E 68:056303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Schlichting H (1936) Experimentelle Untersuchungen zum Rauhigkeitsproblem. Ing.-Arch. 7, 1–34; NACA Tech. Mem. 823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schultz MP, Flack KA (2009) Turbulent boundary layers on a systematically varied rough wall. Phys Fluids 21(015):104Google Scholar
  44. Simpson RL (1973) A generalized correlation of roughness density effects on the turbulent boundary layer. AIAA Journal 11(2):242–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Thom AS (1972) Momentum, mass and heat exchange of vegetation. Q J R Meteorol Soc 98:124–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Walter B, Gromke C, Lehning M (2012) Shear-stress partitioning in live plant canopies and modifications to Raupach’s model. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 144(2):217–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wooding RA, Bradley EF, Marshall JK (1973) Drag due to regular arrays of roughness elements of varying geometry. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 5(3):285–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yan C, Huang WX, Miao SG, Cui GX, Zhang ZS (2017) Large-eddy simulation of flow over a vegetation-like canopy modelled as arrays of bluff-body elements. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 165(2):233–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yang Y, Shao Y (2006) A scheme for scalar exchange in the urban boundary layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 120(1):111–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yang XIA, Sadique J, Mittal R, Meneveau C (2016) Exponential roughness layer and analytical model for turbulent boundary layer flow over rectangular-prism roughness elements. J Fluid Mech 789:127–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhu X, Anderson W (2019) Turbulent flow over urban-like fractals: prognostic roughness model for unresolved generations. J Turbul 19(11):995–1016Google Scholar
  52. Zhu X, Iungo GV, Leonardi S, Anderson W (2017) Parametric study of urban-like topographic statistical moments relevant to a priori modelling of bulk aerodynamic parameters. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 162(2):231–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Key Laboratory of Mechanics on Disaster and Environment in Western China, The Ministry of Education of China, Department of MechanicsLanzhou UniversityLanzhouPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations