5 Kumar Higgins

LES of turbulent wind flows in the
Atmospheric Boundary Layer
Vijayant Kumar1
Chad Higgins2
Marc Parlange2
Charles Meneveau3
1 Macquarie Holdings, Austin, Texas, USA

2 Ecole Polytechnique Federal de Lausanne, Switzerland
3 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA
Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 1 / 40

Wind Resource Assessment: The Process
Atmospheric
Boundary Layer

Atmospheric
Boundary Layer
•Turbulence
•Vertical structure / Wind shear
•Diurnal variability
•Spatial variability (heterogeneity)
•Land-atmosphere interactions
•Flow – structure interactions/ Wake

Atmospheric
Boundary Layer
•Turbulence
Wind Resource •Diurnal variability
Assessment

Atmospheric
Boundary Layer
•Turbulence
Wind Resource •Diurnal variability / Stability
Assessment

Atmospheric Boundary Layer: Spatial Complexity
Buildings Forest Terrain

Atmospheric Boundary Layer: Temporal Complexity
FREE TROPOSPHERE
Entrainment
CONVECTIVE
RESIDUAL (UNSTABLE) LAYER RESIDUAL
LAYER LAYER
Eddies/Plumes
STABLE LAYER STABLE LAYER

Understanding the ABL: Methods

Observational/
Experimental

Observational/
Experimental
+
•“Truth”
• Code / model
validation
-
• Height limitations
• Lack of spatial info
• Sensitivities
• Expensive
• Not comprehensive

Observational/ Theoretical/
Experimental Analytical
+
•“Truth”
• Code / model
validation
-
• Height limitations
• Lack of spatial info
• Sensitivities
• Expensive

Observational/ Theoretical/
Experimental Analytical
+ +
•“Truth” • Physics
• Code / model • Modeling hotbed
validation
- -
• Height limitations • Simplified
• Lack of spatial info • Often non-universal
• Sensitivities
• Expensive

Observational/ Theoretical/ Numerical/

Experimental Analytical Computational
+ +
•“Truth” • Physics
• Code / model • Modeling hotbed
validation
- -
• Height limitations • Simplified
• Lack of spatial info • Often non-universal
• Sensitivities
• Expensive

Observational/ Theoretical/ Numerical/

Experimental Analytical Computational
+ + +
•“Truth” • Physics • Complex flows
• Code / model • Modeling hotbed • Repeatability
validation • Test models
- - -
• Height limitations • Simplified • Infrastructure
• Lack of spatial info • Often non-universal • Accuracy / Validation
• Sensitivities • Over-tweaking
• Expensive • GIGO

CFD: Microscale ABL flow (DNS, LES, RANS)
DNS: Direct Numerical Simulation
LES: Large Eddy Simulation
RANS: Reynolds Averaged Navier-
Stokes Model

Level of Detail: DNS>LES>>RANS LES: Large Eddy Simulation
Computational cost: DNS>>>LES>>RANS RANS: Reynolds Averaged Navier-
Stokes Model

Stokes Model
Direct Numerical Resolve

Simulation (DNS) all scales

Stokes Model
Direct Numerical Resolve Computationally impossible

Simulation (DNS) all scales for realistic ABL flows

Stokes Model
Direct Numerical Resolve Computationally impossible

Simulation (DNS) all scales for realistic ABL flows
Large Eddy Simulation (LES)

•Predict instantaneous flow characteristics (+)
•A large portion of the turbulence spectrum is completely
resolved (+)
•Represent complex flow regimes such as separation, wakes,
stability transitions & stable boundary layers (+)
• Subgrid scale models can be universally applied (+)
• High computational cost: Parallel (-)
• Quality of results = ƒ(us e r) => GIGO (-)

Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
Incompressible Navier-Stokes, Re ~ 108
Filtering
Subgrid scale modeling

LES: SGS Modeling
Eddy Vis cos ity (νt) type mode ls :
Static Smagorinsky Dynamic Model
Constant value Cs,∆ • C s ,∆ de te rmine d dyna mica lly from

impos e d e ve rywhe re the re s olve d s ca le s
• C s ,∆ is s pa tia lly a ve ra ge d
RES OLVED S GS

Dynamic SGS model formulation

SGS modeling: The Dynamic model
Energy cascade
•Does not hold in near- Scale Dependence

Scale invariance
surface region
• Results in incorrect
energy dissipation

SGS modeling: Lagrangian averaging
Averaging of S pa tia l Re move s
Cs,∆ a ve ra ging s pa tia l /loca l
e ffe cts
Ne w Ave ra ging La gra ngia n

a ve ra ging ove r fluid Dyna mic
me thod pa thline s Mode l (LASI)
• P hys ica lly motiva te d a ve ra ging

• Ide a l for comple x topogra phy
• P oint-wis e unique S ca le -
• 3D loca l va ria bility pre s e rve d de pe nde nce
• Ca n ha ndle uns te a dy flows
Lagrangian Dynamic
scale-dependent
SGS model (LASD)

LES code
• Modular Fortran 90/95

• Parallel with FFTW solver
– Independently verified to be the most efficient parallel code on the
NCAR supercomputing clusters
• Lagrangian scale-invariant (LASI) and scale-dependent (LASD)
SGS models
• Stability effects => Potential Temperature, Humidity
– Surface boundary conditions : Flux or Temperature
• Derivatives: Pseudo-spectral (x,y), finite difference (z)
• Pressure forcing: Geostrophic wind (Ug,Vg)
• Terrain: Level set method, Immersed boundary method
LES of Unstable ABL
Good agreement:
“ Large structures”
Moeng and Sullivan, Schmidt and Schumann,

JAS, 1994 JFM, 1989

LES of Nocturnal Stable ABL
SGS models become

important
Beare et al., Beare et al.,

BLM, 2006 BLM, 2006

LES of Quasi-steady ABLs: A review
Unstable ABL (Schmidt & Schumann, 1989; Nieuwstadt et al., 1991)

• Suited for LES: Large-scale structures e.g. plumes, thermals
• Energy spectra: Over-dissipative SGS models
Stable ABL (Kosovic & Curry, 2000; Beare et al., 2006)

• Small-scale structures: Burden on SGS model
• Poor SGS models: Numerical instabilities
• Poor representation of energy spectra
• High resolution required with non-dynamic SGS models

SGS model performance: Energy spectra
Unstable (0.2 Km/s) and Stable (-0.02 Km/s) simulations:
Lagrangian Dynamic Scale-invariant and Scale-dependent models
LASI LASD
Unstable
Under-dissipative
Stable

LES of Diurnal ABL
FREE TROPOSPHERE
Entrainment
CONVECTIVE
RESIDUAL (UNSTABLE) LAYER RESIDUAL
LAYER LAYER
Eddies/Plumes
STABLE LAYER STABLE LAYER

Results: Diurnal ABL characteristics
Evolution of the stable and unstable ABL
Evolution of the nocturnal low-level jet

Results: Diurnal ABL characteristics
Sensible Heat Flux (resolved+SGS): w ′θ ′ + π 3
S ma gorins ky coe fficie nt, Cs

LES: Impact of Pressure forcing/BC



LES: Representation of structures and topography
Methodology:
1. Describe surface using the level set
method & Fluid-structure interaction
represented through immersed
boundary method
2. Define a band just outside the surface
3. Pick a point define the surface normal
4. Define a tangential velocity and apply a
log law to obtain the sheer stress
5. Extrapolate the stress field into the body
6. Smooth the stress profile inside the
body using iterative over-relaxation of
the Laplace equation in stress, τ

LES: Simulation setup for flow over terrain
Precursor run:
LES over flat
terrain
t=t+1
Buffer region at the end

LES over
Inflow fields of domain:
topographic
for LES Buffers outflow to inflow
features
field for next time step
LES Results

LES study: Flow over a Gaussian Hill
<w>
3
2
z/H
0
-2.5 -1.25 0 1.25 2.5 3.75 5
x/H
<u>
3
2
z/H
0
-2.5 -1.25 0 1.25 2.5 3.75 5
x/H
Data from Iwamura et al, 1991

LES study: Flow over a steep real-world Hill
• Gaudergrat ridge, Switzerland

• Dimensions: 1.5kmx1kmx250m
• Slopes of about 45 degrees
• Results to be compared with extensive
observations, RANS and mesoscale models

LES study: Flow over a steep Alpine Hill
SIDE VIEW
TOP VIEW



Cross ridge flow
• Cross ridge flows have been observed even when

the mean wind direction is along the ridge*
• Also seen in mesoscale simulation of Gaudergradt
ridge (Courtesy: Rebecca Mott)
• In LES results, we observe cross-ridge flows with
~20% strength of the predominant flow along the
ridge.
* Lewis et al. (2008), QJRMS

LES study: Flow over a steep real-world Hill

Additional Slides

Comparison with ARPS simulation (courtesy of Rebecca Mott): LES

shows more spatial variability

Computational Methods
Why the need?
• Standard wind assessment tools (WAsP / WindPro etc) not suited for
complex flow situations:
• Use models meant for simple terrain
• Deficient in flow physics e.g. turbulence & atmospheric stability
• Wind assessment in complex terrain requires:
• Correct boundary conditions and forcing (pressure, flux)
• Detailed understanding of atmospheric stability
• Appropriate modeling/representation of turbulence
• Accurate representation of fluid-structure/topography interactions
Options:
 Me s os ca le mode ls => Not s uite d for micro-s iting
 Loca l/Micros ca le => Computa tiona l Fluid Dyna mics
 Dire ct Nume rica l S imula tion (DNS ), La rge Eddy S imula tion (LES ),
Re ynolds Ave ra ge d Na vie r S toke s (RANS ) mode ling
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
Fluid flow problem
• Navier-Stokes equations
• Mass conservation
Governing PDEs • Energy conservation
• Scalar transport
B.C.+
I.C. •••
Algebraic • Finite Difference

equations • Finite Volume
on a grid • Spectral Methods
•••
Numerical • Explicit Methods

Integration • Implicit Methods
•••
Fluid flow solution

5 Kumar Higgins

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 Kumar Higgins

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LES of turbulent wind flows in the

Atmospheric Boundary Layer

1 Macquarie Holdings, Austin, Texas, USA

3 Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 1 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 2 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 3 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 4 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 5 / 40

Buildings Forest Terrain

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 6 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 7 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 8 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 9 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 10 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 11 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 12 / 40

Observational/ Theoretical/ Numerical/

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 13 / 40

Observational/ Theoretical/ Numerical/

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 14 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 15 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 16 / 40

Direct Numerical Resolve

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 17 / 40

Direct Numerical Resolve Computationally impossible

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 18 / 40

Direct Numerical Resolve Computationally impossible

Large Eddy Simulation (LES)

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 19 / 40

Subgrid scale modeling

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 20 / 40

Eddy Vis cos ity (νt) type mode ls :

Static Smagorinsky Dynamic Model

Constant value Cs,∆ • C s ,∆ de te rmine d dyna mica lly from

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 21 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 22 / 40

•Does not hold in near- Scale Dependence

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 23 / 40

Ne w Ave ra ging La gra ngia n

• P hys ica lly motiva te d a ve ra ging

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 24 / 40

• Modular Fortran 90/95

Moeng and Sullivan, Schmidt and Schumann,

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 26 / 40

SGS models become

Beare et al., Beare et al.,

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 27 / 40

Unstable ABL (Schmidt & Schumann, 1989; Nieuwstadt et al., 1991)

Stable ABL (Kosovic & Curry, 2000; Beare et al., 2006)

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 28 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 29 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 30 / 40

Evolution of the nocturnal low-level jet

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 31 / 40

S ma gorins ky coe fficie nt, Cs

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 32 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 33 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 34 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 35 / 40

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 36 / 40

Buffer region at the end

Bolund Workshop: Dec 4, 2009 37 / 40