Particle transport in a turbulent boundary layer: Non-local closures for particle dispersion tensors accounting for particle-wall interactions

2012 ◽  
Vol 24 (10) ◽  
pp. 103304 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Bragg ◽  
D. C. Swailes ◽  
R. Skartlien
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 2205-2220
Author(s):  
Matthias Faust ◽  
Ralf Wolke ◽  
Steffen Münch ◽  
Roger Funk ◽  
Kerstin Schepanski

Abstract. Trajectory models are intuitive tools for airflow studies. But in general, they are limited to non-turbulent, i.e. laminar flow, conditions. Therefore, trajectory models are not particularly suitable for investigating airflow within the turbulent atmospheric boundary layer. To overcome this, a common approach is handling the turbulent uncertainty as a random deviation from a mean path in order to create a statistic of possible solutions which envelops the mean path. This is well known as the Lagrangian particle dispersion model (LPDM). However, the decisive factor is the representation of turbulence in the model, for which widely used models such as FLEXPART and HYSPLIT use an approximation. A conceivable improvement could be the use of a turbulence parameterisation approach based on the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) at high temporal resolution. Here, we elaborated this approach and developed the LPDM Itpas, which is coupled online to the German Weather Service's mesoscale weather forecast model COSMO. It benefits from the prognostically calculated TKE as well as from the high-frequency wind information. We demonstrate the model's applicability for a case study on agricultural particle emission in eastern Germany. The results obtained are discussed with regard to the model's ability to describe particle transport within a turbulent boundary layer. Ultimately, the simulations performed suggest that the newly introduced method based on prognostic TKE sufficiently represents the particle transport.


Author(s):  
Michael W. Reeks

Comparisons are made between the Advection-Diffusion Equation (ADE) approach for particle transport and the two fluid model approach based on the PDF method. In principal the ADE approach offers a simpler way of calculating the inertial deposition of particles in a turbulent boundary layer than that based on the PDF approach. However the ADE equations that have recently been used are only strictly valid for a simple Gaussian process when particle inertia is small. Using a prescribed but in general non-Gaussian random particle velocity field, it is shown that the net particle mass flux contains an extra drift term to that from the mean velocity of the particle velocity field, associated with the compressibility of the velocity field. Furthermore the diffusive flux in general depends not only upon the gradient of the mean concentration (true only for a Gaussian random flow field) but also upon higher order derivatives whose relative contribution depends on diffusion coefficients Dijk... etc. These coefficients depend upon the statistical moments associated with random displacements and compressibility of the particle flow field along particle trajectories which in turn depend upon particle inertia. In contrast the PDF approach offers the advantage of using a simple gradient (Gaussian) approximation in particle phase space which can lead to a non-Gaussian spatial dispersion process when particle inertia is important. Conditions based on the particle mean free path are derived for which a simple ADE is appropriate. Some of the features of particle transport in an inhomogeneous turbulent flow are illustrated by examining particle dispersion in a random flow field composed of pairs of counter rotating vortices which has an rms velocity which increase linearly from a stagnation point.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Faust ◽  
Ralf Wolke ◽  
Steffen Münch ◽  
Roger Funk ◽  
Kerstin Schepanski

Abstract. Trajectory models are intuitive tools for airflow studies. But in general, they are limited to non-turbulent, i.e. laminar flow conditions. Therefore, trajectory models are not particularly suitable for investigating airflow within the turbulent atmospheric boundary layer. To overcome this, a common approach is handling the turbulent uncertainty as a random deviation from a mean path in order to create a statistic of possible solutions which envelops the mean path. This is well known as Lagrangian particle dispersion model (LPDM). However, the decisive factor is the representation of turbulence in the model, for which widely used models such as FLEXPART and HYSPLIT use an approximation. A conceivable improvement can be using a turbulence parameterisation approach based on the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) on high temporal resolution. Here, we elaborated this approach and developed the LPDM Itpas, which is online coupled to the German Weather Service's mesoscale weather forecast model COSMO. It allows for benefiting from the prognostically calculated TKE as well as from the high-frequent wind information. We exemplary demonstrate the model's applicability for a case study on agricultural particle emission in Eastern Germany. The results obtained are discussed with regard to the model's ability to describe particle transport within a turbulent boundary layer. Ultimately, the simulations performed suggest that the newly introduced method based on prognostic TKE sufficiently represents the particle transport.


2016 ◽  
Vol 797 ◽  
pp. 549-563 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arvind Singh ◽  
Kevin B. Howard ◽  
Michele Guala

The distribution of temporal scale-dependent streamwise velocity increments is investigated in turbulent boundary layer flows at laboratory and atmospheric Reynolds numbers, using the St. Anthony Falls Laboratory wind tunnel and the Surface Layer Turbulence and Environmental Science Test dataset, respectively. The third-order moments of velocity increments, or asymmetry index $A(a,z)$, is computed for varying wall distance $z$ and time scale separation $a$, where it was observed to leave a robust, distinct signature in the form of a hump, independent of Reynolds number and located across the inertial range. The hump is observed in wall region limited to $z^{+}<5\times 10^{3}$, with a tendency to shift towards smaller time scales as the surface is approached ($z^{+}<70$). Comparing the two datasets, the hump, and its location, are found to obey inner wall scaling and is regarded as a genuine feature of the canonical turbulent boundary layer. The magnitude cumulant analysis of the scale-dependent velocity increments further reveals that intermittency is also enhanced near the wall, in the same flow region where the asymmetry signature was observed. The combination of asymmetry and intermittency is inferred to point at non-local energy transfer and scale coupling across a range of scales. From a turbulent structure perspective, such non-local energy transfer can be seen as the result of strong scale-interaction processes between outer scale motions in the logarithmic layer impacting and distorting smaller scales at the wall, through abrupt energy transfer across scales bypassing the typical energy cascade of the inertial range.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document