Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 135, Issue 2, pp 243–268 | Cite as

Stereoscopic Particle Image Velocimetry Measurements in an Urban-Type Boundary Layer: Insight into Flow Regimes and Incidence Angle Effect

  • Bruno Monnier
  • Brian Neiswander
  • Candace Wark


An experimental investigation of the three-dimensional flow through an urban-type array (four rows of three cuboid Plexiglas blocks) in a laboratory modelled neutrally stratified atmospheric boundary layer is presented. We concentrate on the effect of the streamwise spacing between adjacent rows defining two different flow regimes (wake interference and skimming flow) as well as the effect of the incident angle of the approaching boundary layer. Stereoscopic particle image velocimetry measurements provide all three components of the velocity field in closely spaced two-dimensional planes in a region located in the middle row downstream of the centre block. It is found that the maximal exchange rate between the fluid within the street and the flow above is for the wake interference regime. Two regions are apparent: one influenced by streamwise velocity fluctuations, the other by spanwise fluctuations. In addition, the incidence angle of the incoming flow has a much more dramatic effect for the wake interference regime that would greatly favour dispersion. Coherent-structure identification tools are applied to obtain information on the shape, extent and localisation of vortical structures.


Atmospheric boundary layer Coherent structures Laboratory flow Skimming flow regime Stereoscopic particle image velocimetry Urban-type flow Wake interference regime 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baik J, Kim J (1999) A numerical study of flow and pollutant dispersion characteristics in urban street canyons. J Appl Meteorol 38: 1576–1589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker S, Lienhart H, Durst F (2002) Flow around three-dimensional obstacles in boundary layers. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 90: 265–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belcher S (2005) Mixing and transport in urban areas. Philos Trans Roy Soc A 363: 2947–2968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Belcher S, Coceal O (2001) Scaling the urban boundary layer. In: COST 715 workshop on urban boundary layer parameterisations, Zurich, 10 ppGoogle Scholar
  5. Berkooz G, Holmes P, Lumley J (1993) The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 25: 539–575. doi: 10.1146/annurev.fl.25.010193.002543 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Biltoft CA (2001) Customer report for Mock Urban Setting Test. DPG Document No WDTC- FR-01-121, West Desert Test Center, US Army Dugway Proving Ground, Dugway, Utah, 58 ppGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown M, Pardyjak E, Zajic D, Princevac M, Streit G, Biltoft C (2002) The MUST field experiment: mean and turbulent wind fields at the upstream edge of a building array. Los Alamos Natl Lab, Los Alamos, 3 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Camelli F, Lohner R, Hanna S (2006) VLES study of flow and dispersion patterns in heterogeneous urban areas. In: 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 14 ppGoogle Scholar
  9. Castro I, Cheng H, Reynolds R (2006) Turbulence over urban-type roughness: deductions from wind-tunnel measurements. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 118: 109–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng H, Castro IP (2002) Near wall flow over urban-like roughness. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 104(2): 229–259. doi: 10.1023/A:1016060103448 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chong M, Perry A, Cantwell B (1990) A general classification of three-dimensional flow fields. Phys Fluids A: Fluid Dyn 2(5): 765–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coceal O, Belcher S (2004) A canopy model of mean winds through urban areas. Q J Roy Meteorol Soc 130: 1349–1372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Davenport AG (1965) The relationship of wind structures to wind loading. Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures. In: Proceedings of the conference held at the National Physical Laboratory, Symposium No. 16, Teddington, Middlesex, pp 54–102Google Scholar
  14. Dobre A, Arnold S, Smalley R, Boddy J, Barlow JF, Tomlin AS, Belcher SE (2005) Flow field measurements in the proximity of an urban intersection in London, UK. Atmos Environ 39: 4647–4657CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Everson R, Sirovich L (1995) The Karhunen-Loève procedure for gappy data. J Opt Soc Am A 12(8): 1657–1664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fang C, Sill B (1992) Aerodynamic rougness length: Correlation with roughness elements. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 41(44): 449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gailis R (2004) Wind tunnel simulations of the Mock Urban Setting Test—experiment procedures and data analysis. Australian Government—Department of Defence, DSTOTR1532, 63 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Gunes H, Sirisup S, Karniadakis G (2006) Gappy data: to krig or not to krig. J Comput Phys 212: 358–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gunnarsson T (1974) Implementation of the counter-jet technique for modeling of atmospheric surface layers in the IIT environmental wind tunnel. Master Thesis, IIT, 104 ppGoogle Scholar
  20. Hunt J, Wray A, Moin P (1988) Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows. In: Its studying turbulence using numerical simulation databases, 2 proceedings of the 1988 Summer program, pp 193–208 (SEE N89-24538 18-34)Google Scholar
  21. Hussein H, Martinuzzi R (1996) Energy balance for turbulent flow around a surface mounted cube placed in a channel. Phys Fluids 8(March): 764–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeong J, Hussain F, Schoppa W, Kim J (1997) Coherent structures near the wall in a turbulent channel flow. J Fluid Mech 332: 185–214Google Scholar
  23. Kastner-Klein P, Fedorovich E, Rotach M (2001) A wind tunnel study of organised and turbulent air motions in urban street canyons. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 89: 849–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Krajnovic S, Davidson L (2000) Flow around a three-dimensional bluff body. In: 9th international symposium on flow visualization, Heriot-Watt Univeristy, Edinburgh, 10 ppGoogle Scholar
  25. Louka P, Belcher S, Harrison R (1998) Modified street canyon flow. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 74–76: 485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Louka P, Belcher S, Harrison R (2000) Coupling between air flow in streets and the well-developed boundary layer aloft. Atmos Environ 34: 2613–2621CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacDonald R, Schofield SC, Slawson P (2002) Physical modelling of urban roughness using arrays of regular roughness elements. Water Air Soil Pollut: Fours 2: 541–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martinuzzi R, Havel B (2000) Turbulent flow around two interfering surface-mounted cubic obstacles in tandem arrangement. J Fluids Eng 122: 24–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Martinuzzi RJ, Tropea C (1993) The flow around surface-mounted, prismatic obstacles placed in a fully developed channel flow. J Fluids Eng 115: 85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mokhasi P, Rempfer D (2004) Optimized sensor placement for urban flow measurement. Phys Fluids 1758–1764Google Scholar
  31. Murray N, Ukeiley L (2007) An application of Gappy POD. Exp Fluids 42: 79–91. doi: 10.1007/s00348-006-0221-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Nagib H, Morkovin M, Yung J, Tan-Atichat J (1974) On modeling of atmospheric surface layers by the counter-jet technique. AIAA J 14(2): 185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oke TR (1988) Street design and urban canopy layer climate. Energy Build 11: 103–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Plate EJ (1971) Aerodynamic characteristics of atmospheric boundary layer. United States Atomic Energy Commission, New York, 192 ppGoogle Scholar
  35. Raffel M, Willert CE, Kompenhans J (1998) Particle image velocimetry: a practical guide, 3rd edn. Springer, Berlin, pp 448Google Scholar
  36. Reynolds RT, Castro IP (2008) Measurements in an urban-type boundary layer. Exp Fluids 45(1): 141–156. doi: 10.1007/s00348-008-0470-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sousa J (2002) Turbulent flow around a surface-mounted obstacle using 2D-3C DPIV. Exp Fluids 33: 854–862Google Scholar
  38. Stull R (1988) An introduction to boundary layer meteorology, 1st edn. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 670Google Scholar
  39. Tan B (2003) Orthogonal decomposition extensions and their applications in steady aerodynamics. Master Thesis, Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology, Vietnam, 97 ppGoogle Scholar
  40. Venturi D, Karniadakis G (2004) Gappy data and reconstruction procedures for flow past a cylinder. J Fluid Mech 519: 315–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wang Z, Plate E, Rau M, Keiser R (1996) Scale effects in wind tunnel modelling. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 61: 113–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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
  43. Yee E, Gailis RM, Hill A, Hilderman T, Kiel D (2006) Comparison of wind-tunnel and water-channel simulations of plume dispersion through a large array of obstacles with a scaled field experiment. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 121: 389–432. doi: 10.1007/s10546-006-9084-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MMAE Department Engineering 1 BldgChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations