4.7 Article

Modelling the flow within forests: the canopy-related terms in the Reynolds-averaged formulation

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 910, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2020.927

关键词

atmospheric flows; turbulence modelling

资金

  1. European Commission
  2. Foundation for Science and Technology through the ERA-NET PLUS NEWA - 2014, New European Wind Atlas Joint Programme [NEWA/0001/2014]
  3. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [NEWA/0001/2014] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study utilized a perturbative expansion to describe canopy-related terms in transport equations, analyzing the quality of the series and comparing results with large-eddy simulations to determine the highest order necessary for accurate evaluation of canopy effects. Additionally, a mathematical formulation for canopy-related terms in Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations was provided, enhancing consistency in turbulence modeling of canopy flows across different frameworks.
The canopy-related terms in the transport equations for momentum, Reynolds stresses, turbulent kinetic energy and its dissipation rate were described by a perturbative expansion around a velocity scale based on the mean total kinetic energy. The quality of the series and the relative magnitude of the first orders were analysed through comparison with the results of large-eddy simulation of three canopy flows representative of real-life applications. The flows in question were those over a horizontally homogeneous forest, a sequence of forest stands and clearings, and a forested hill. The analysis gave both the highest order required for an accurate evaluation of the canopy effects and a mathematical formulation for the canopy-related terms in a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes formulation. This offers a sounder basis and assured consistency for the turbulence modelling of canopy flows between Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes and large-eddy simulation frameworks.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据