- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Fluids

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Scalewise invariant analysis of the anisotropic Reynolds stress tensor for atmospheric surface layer and canopy sublayer turbulent flows

Peter Brugger1,*, Gabriel G. Katul2,3,1, Frederik De Roo1, Konstantin Kröniger1, Eyal Rotenberg4, Shani Rohatyn4, and Matthias Mauder1

  • 1Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research - Atmospheric Environmental Research (IMK-IFU), Kreuzeckbahnstraße 19, 82467 Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany
  • 2Nicholas School of the Environment, Box 80328, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
  • 3Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina 27708, USA
  • 4Weizmann Institute of Science (WIS), Faculty of Chemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 234 Herzl Street, Rehovot 7610001, Israel

  • *peter.brugger@kit.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 054608 – Published 24 May, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.3.054608

Abstract

Anisotropy in the turbulent stress tensor, which forms the basis of invariant analysis, is conducted using velocity time series measurements collected in the canopy sublayer (CSL) and the atmospheric surface layer (ASL). The goal is to assess how thermal stratification and surface roughness conditions simultaneously distort the scalewise relaxation towards isotropic state from large to small scales when referenced to homogeneous turbulence. To achieve this goal, conventional invariant analysis is extended to allow scalewise information about relaxation to isotropy in physical (instead of Fourier) space to be incorporated. The proposed analysis shows that the CSL is more isotropic than its ASL counterpart at large, intermediate, and small (or inertial) scales irrespective of the thermal stratification. Moreover, the small (or inertial) scale anisotropy is more prevalent in the ASL when compared to the CSL, a finding that cannot be fully explained by the intensity of the mean velocity gradient acting on all scales. Implications to the validity of scalewise Rotta and Lumley models for return to isotropy as well as advantages to using barycentric instead of anisotropy invariant maps for such scalewise analysis are discussed.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (82)

  1. A. S. Monin and A. M. F. Obukhov, Basic laws of turbulent mixing in the surface layer of the atmosphere, Contrib. Geophys. Inst. Acad. Sci. USSR 24, 163 (1954) [151, e187 (1954)].
  2. A. J. Dyer, A review of flux-profile relationships, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 7, 363 (1974).
  3. J. R. Garratt, Surface influence upon vertical profiles in the atmospheric near-surface layer, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 106, 803 (1980).
  4. M. R. Raupach and A. S. Thom, Turbulence in and above plant canopies, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 13, 97 (1981).
  5. M. R. Raupach, J. J. Finnigan, and Y. Brunet, Coherent eddies and turbulence in vegetation canopies: The mixing-layer analogy, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 25, 351 (1996).
  6. J. J. Finnigan, Turbulence in plant canopies, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 32, 519 (2000).
  7. T. Foken, 50 years of the Monin–Obukhov similarity theory, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 119, 431 (2006).
  8. I. N. Harman and J. J. Finnigan, A simple unified theory for flow in the canopy and roughness sublayer, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 123, 339 (2007).
  9. G. G. Katul, A. G. Konings, and A. Porporato, Mean Velocity Profile in a Sheared and Thermally Stratified Atmospheric Boundary Layer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 268502 (2011).
  10. J. C. Wyngaard and O. R. Coté, The budgets of turbulent kinetic energy and temperature variance in the atmospheric surface layer, J. Atmos. Sci. 28, 190 (1971).
  11. H. A. Panofsky and J. A. Dutton, Atmospheric Turbulence: Models and Methods for Engineering Applications (Wiley, New York, 1984).
  12. B. A. Kader and A. M. Yaglom, Mean fields and fluctuation moments in unstably stratified turbulent boundary layers, J. Fluid Mech. 212, 637 (1990).
  13. J. R. Garratt et al., The Atmospheric Boundary Layer, Cambridge Atmospheric and Space Science Series, Vol. 416 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1994).
  14. J. C. Kaimal and J. J. Finnigan, Atmospheric Boundary Layer Flows: Their Structure and Measurement (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994).
  15. J. J. Finnigan, R. H. Shaw, and E. G. Patton, Turbulence structure above a vegetation canopy, J. Fluid Mech. 637, 387 (2009).
  16. T. Banerjee and G. G. Katul, Logarithmic scaling in the longitudinal velocity variance explained by a spectral budget, Phys. Fluids 25, 125106 (2013).
  17. T. Banerjee, G. G. Katul, S. T. Salesky, and M. Chamecki, Revisiting the formulations for the longitudinal velocity variance in the unstable atmospheric surface layer, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 141, 1699 (2015).
  18. T. Banerjee, D. Li, J.-Y. Juang, and G. G. Katul, A spectral budget model for the longitudinal turbulent velocity in the stable atmospheric surface layer, J. Atmos. Sci. 73, 145 (2016).
  19. E. G. Patton, P. P. Sullivan, R. H. Shaw, J. J. Finnigan, and J. C. Weil, Atmospheric stability influences on coupled boundary layer and canopy turbulence, J. Atmos. Sci. 73, 1621 (2016).
  20. R. A. Antonia, J. Kim, and L. W. B. Browne, Some characteristics of small-scale turbulence in a turbulent duct flow, J. Fluid Mech. 233, 369 (1991).
  21. H. S. Shafi and R. A. Antonia, Anisotropy of the Reynolds stresses in a turbulent boundary layer on a rough wall, Exp. Fluids 18, 213 (1995).
  22. K. S. Choi and J. L. Lumley, The return to isotropy of homogeneous turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 436, 59 (2001).
  23. P.-Å. Krogstad and L. E. Torbergsen, Invariant analysis of turbulent pipe flow, Flow, Turbul. Combust. 64, 161 (2000).
  24. R. A. Antonia and P.-Å. Krogstad, Turbulence structure in boundary layers over different types of surface roughness, Fluid Dyn. Res. 28, 139 (2001).
  25. R. Smalley, S. Leonardi, R. Antonia, L. Djenidi, and P. Orlandi, Reynolds stress anisotropy of turbulent rough wall layers, Exp. Fluids 33, 31 (2002).
  26. H. Liu, R. Yuan, J. Mei, J. Sun, Q. Liu, and Y. Wang, Scale properties of anisotropic and isotropic turbulence in the urban surface layer, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 165, 277 (2017).
  27. S. Sarkar and C. G. Speziale, A simple nonlinear model for the return to isotropy in turbulence, Phys. Fluids A 2, 84 (1990).
  28. P. K. Yeung and James G. Brasseur, The response of isotropic turbulence to isotropic and anisotropic forcing at the large scales, Phys. Fluids A 3, 884 (1991).
  29. T. Jongen and T. B. Gatski, General explicit algebraic stress relations and best approximation for three-dimensional flows, Int. J. Eng. Sci. 36, 739 (1998).
  30. F. G. Schmitt, Direct test of a nonlinear constitutive equation for simple turbulent shear flows using DNS data, Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul. 12, 1251 (2007).
  31. J. P. Panda, H. V. Warrior, S. Maity, A. Mitra, and K. Sasmal, An improved model including length scale anisotropy for the pressure strain correlation of turbulence, J. Fluids Eng. 139, 044503 (2017).
  32. S. Banerjee, R. Krahl, F. Durst, and C. Zenger, Presentation of anisotropy properties of turbulence, invariants versus eigenvalue approaches, J. Turbul., doi: 10.1080/14685240701506896.
  33. J. L. Lumley and G. R. Newman, The return to isotropy of homogeneous turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 82, 161 (1977).
  34. J. L. Lumley, Computational modeling of turbulent flows, Adv. Appl. Mech. 18, 213 (1979).
  35. T.-H. Shih, J. Zhu, and J. L. Lumley, A new Reynolds stress algebraic equation model, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 125, 287 (1995).
  36. D. B. Taulbee, An improved algebraic Reynolds stress model and corresponding nonlinear stress model, Phys. Fluids A 4, 2555 (1992).
  37. T. Rung, F. Thiele, and S. Fu, On the realizability of nonlinear stress–strain relationships for Reynolds stress closures, Flow Turbul. Combust. 60, 333 (1998).
  38. U. Schumann, Realizability of Reynolds-stress turbulence models, Phys. Fluids 20, 721 (1977).
  39. D. Poggi, A. Porporato, L. Ridolfi, J. D. Albertson, and G. G. Katul, The effect of vegetation density on canopy sub-layer turbulence, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 111, 565 (2004).
  40. J. M. Chacin and B. J. Cantwell, Dynamics of a low Reynolds number turbulent boundary layer, J. Fluid Mech. 404, 87 (2000).
  41. S. B. Pope, A more general effective-viscosity hypothesis, J. Fluid Mech. 72, 331 (1975).
  42. G. I. Taylor, The spectrum of turbulence, Proc. R. Soc. London A 164, 476 (1938).
  43. C.-I. Hsieh and G. G. Katul, Dissipation methods, taylor's hypothesis, and stability correction functions in the atmospheric surface layer, J. Geophys. Res. 102, 16391 (1997).
  44. E. Rotenberg and D. Yakir, Distinct patterns of changes in surface energy budget associated with forestation in the semiarid region, Glob. Change Biol. 17, 1536 (2011).
  45. F. Eder, F. De Roo, E. Rotenberg, D. Yakir, H. P. Schmid, and M. Mauder, Secondary circulations at a solitary forest surrounded by semi-arid shrubland and their impact on eddy-covariance measurements, Agric. For. Meteorol. 211, 115 (2015).
  46. A. M. Obukhov, The local structure of atmospheric turbulence, Dokl. Akad. Nauk. SSSR 67, 643 (1949).
  47. U. Högström and A.-S. Smedman, Accuracy of sonic anemometers: laminar wind-tunnel calibrations compared to atmospheric in situ calibrations against a reference instrument, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 111, 33 (2004).
  48. R. G. Barry and R. J. Chorley, Atmosphere, Weather and Climate, 8th ed. (Routledge, New York, 2003).
  49. U. Dayan and J. Rodnizki, The temporal behavior of the atmospheric boundary layer in Israel, J. Appl. Meteorol. 38, 830 (1999).
  50. T. Foken and B. Wichura, Tools for quality assessment of surface-based flux measurements, Agric. For. Meteorol. 78, 83 (1996).
  51. M. Mauder, M. Cuntz, C. Drüe, A. Graf, C. Rebmann, H. P. Schmid, M. Schmidt, and R. Steinbrecher, A strategy for quality and uncertainty assessment of long-term eddy-covariance measurements, Agric. For. Meteorol. 169, 122 (2013).
  52. J. C. Isaza and L. R. Collins, On the asymptotic behaviour of large-scale turbulence in homogeneous shear flow, J. Fluid Mech. 637, 213 (2009).
  53. I. Marusic, J. P. Monty, M. Hultmark, and A. J. Smits, On the logarithmic region in wall turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 716, R3 (2013).
  54. C. Meneveau and I. Marusic, Generalized logarithmic law for high-order moments in turbulent boundary layers, J. Fluid Mech. 719, R1-1 (2013).
  55. R. J. A. M. Stevens, M. Wilczek, and C. Meneveau, Large-eddy simulation study of the logarithmic law for second-and higher-order moments in turbulent wall-bounded flow, J. Fluid Mech. 757, 888 (2014).
  56. T. Banerjee, P. Brugger, F. De Roo, K. Kröniger, D. Yakir, E. Rotenberg, and M. Mauder, Turbulent transport of energy across a forest and a semi-arid shrubland, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., doi: 10.5194/acp-2017-159.
  57. G. G. Katul and W.-H. Chang, Principal length scales in second-order closure models for canopy turbulence, J. Appl. Meteorol. 38, 1631 (1999).
  58. B. A. Kader, A. M. Yaglom, and S. L. Zubkovskii, Spatial correlation functions of surface-layer atmospheric turbulence in neutral stratification, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 47, 233 (1989).
  59. Y. Pan and M. Chamecki, A scaling law for the shear-production range of second-order structure functions, J. Fluid Mech. 801, 459 (2016).
  60. P. Drobinski, P. Carlotti, R. K. Newsom, R. M. Banta, R. C. Foster, and J.-L. Redelsperger, The structure of the near-neutral atmospheric surface layer, J. Atmos. Sci. 61, 699 (2004).
  61. P. A. Davidson, T. B. Nickels, and P.-Å. Krogstad, The logarithmic structure function law in wall-layer turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 550, 51 (2006).
  62. P. A. Davidson and P.-Å. Krogstad, A simple model for the streamwise fluctuations in the log-law region of a boundary layer, Phys. Fluids 21, 055105 (2009).
  63. G. G. Katul, A. Porporato, and V. Nikora, Existence of k−1 power-law scaling in the equilibrium regions of wall-bounded turbulence explained by Heisenberg's eddy viscosity, Phys. Rev. E 86, 066311 (2012).
  64. G. G. Katul, T. Banerjee, D. Cava, M. Germano, and A. Porporato, Generalized logarithmic scaling for high-order moments of the longitudinal velocity component explained by the random sweeping decorrelation hypothesis, Phys. Fluids 28, 095104 (2016).
  65. P. A. Davidson and P.-Å. Krogstad, A universal scaling for low-order structure functions in the log-law region of smooth-and rough-wall boundary layers, J. Fluid Mech. 752, 140 (2014).
  66. C. M. de Silva, I. Marusic, J. D. Woodcock, and C. Meneveau, Scaling of second-and higher-order structure functions in turbulent boundary layers, J. Fluid Mech. 769, 654 (2015).
  67. R. A. Antonia and M. R. Raupach, Spectral scaling in a high Reynolds number laboratory boundary layer, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 65, 289 (1993).
  68. Marcelo Chamecki, Nelson L. Dias, Scott T. Salesky, and Ying Pan, Scaling laws for the longitudinal structure function in the atmospheric surface layer, J. Atmos. Sci. 74, 1127 (2017).
  69. J. C. Kaimal, J. C. Wyngaard, Y. Izumi, and O. R. Coté, Spectral characteristics of surface-layer turbulence, Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 98, 563 (1972).
  70. G. G. Katul, C.-I. Hsieh, and J. Sigmon, Energy-inertial scale interactions for velocity and temperature in the unstable atmospheric surface layer, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 82, 49 (1997).
  71. J. C. Wyngaard and S. F. Clifford, Taylor's hypothesis and high-frequency turbulence spectra, J. Atmos. Sci. 34, 922 (1977).
  72. F. Toschi, E. Leveque, and G. Ruiz-Chavarria, Shear Effects in Nonhomogeneous Turbulence, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1436 (2000).
  73. D. Poggi, A. Porporato, and L. Ridolfi, Analysis of the small-scale structure of turbulence on smooth and rough walls, Phys. Fluids 15, 35 (2003).
  74. G. G. Katul, A. Porporato, C. Manes, and C. Meneveau, Co-spectrum and mean velocity in turbulent boundary layers, Phys. Fluids 25, 091702 (2013).
  75. T. Ishihara, K. Yoshida, and Y. Kaneda, Anisotropic Velocity Correlation Spectrum at Small Scales in a Homogeneous Turbulent Shear Flow, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 154501 (2002).
  76. J. W. Deardorff, Stratocumulus-capped mixed layers derived from a three-dimensional model, Bound.-Lay. Meteorol. 18, 495 (1980).
  77. C.-H. Moeng and J. C. Wyngaard, Spectral analysis of large-eddy simulations of the convective boundary layer, J. Atmos. Sci. 45, 3573 (1988).
  78. B. Maronga, M. Gryschka, R. Heinze, F. Hoffmann, F. Kanani-Sühring, M. Keck, K. Ketelsen, M. O. Letzel, M. Sühring, and S. Raasch, The parallelized large-eddy simulation model (PALM) version 4.0 for atmospheric and oceanic flows: Model formulation, recent developments, and future perspectives, Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 2515 (2015).
  79. T. B. Gatski and C. G. Speziale, On explicit algebraic stress models for complex turbulent flows, J. Fluid Mech. 254, 59 (1993).
  80. L. Marstorp, G. Brethouwer, O. Grundestam, and A. V. Johansson, Explicit algebraic subgrid stress models with application to rotating channel flow, J. Fluid Mech. 639, 403 (2009).
  81. K. A. McColl, G. G. Katul, P. Gentine, and D. Entekhabi, Mean-velocity profile of smooth channel flow explained by a cospectral budget model with wall-blockage, Phys. Fluids 28, 035107 (2016).
  82. G. L. Mellor and T. Yamada, Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems, Rev. Geophys. 20, 851 (1982).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 054608– Published 24 May, 2018
  • Received 21 December 2017
Article part of CHORUS
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2018 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation