Hostname: page-component-cd4964975-96cn4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-29T15:34:25.619Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Exponential roughness layer and analytical model for turbulent boundary layer flow over rectangular-prism roughness elements

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2016

Xiang I. A. Yang
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
Jasim Sadique
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
Rajat Mittal
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
Charles Meneveau*
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA
Email address for correspondence:


We conduct a series of large-eddy simulations (LES) to examine the mean flow behaviour within the roughness layer of turbulent boundary layer flow over rough surfaces. We consider several configurations consisting of arrays of rectangular-prism roughness elements with various spacings, aspect ratios and height distributions. The results provide clear evidence for exponential behaviour of the mean flow with respect to the wall normal distance. Such behaviour has been proposed before (see, e.g., Cionco, 1966 Tech. Rep. DTIC document), and is represented as $U(z)/U_{h}=\exp [a(z/h-1)]$, where $U(z)$ is the spatially/temporally averaged fluid velocity, $z$ is the wall normal distance, $h$ represents the height of the roughness elements and $U_{h}$ is the velocity at $z=h$. The attenuation factor $a$ depends on the density of the roughness element distribution and details of the roughness distribution on the wall. Once established, the generic velocity profile shape is used to formulate a fully analytical model for the effective drag exerted by turbulent flow on a surface covered with arrays of rectangular-prism roughness elements. The approach is based on the von Karman–Pohlhausen integral method, in which a shape function is assumed for the mean velocity profile and its parameters are determined based on momentum conservation and other fundamental constraints. In order to determine the attenuation parameter $a$, wake interactions among surface roughness elements are accounted for by using the concept of flow sheltering. The model transitions smoothly between ‘$k$’ and ‘$d$’ type roughness conditions depending on the surface coverage density and the detailed geometry of roughness elements. Comparisons between model predictions and experimental/numerical data from the existing literature as well as LES data from this study are presented. It is shown that the analytical model provides good predictions of mean velocity and drag forces for the cases considered, thus raising the hope that analytical roughness modelling based on surface geometry is possible, at least for cases when the location of flow separation over surface elements can be easily predicted, as in the case of wall-attached rectangular-prism roughness elements.

© 2016 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Akins, R. E., Peterka, J. A. & Cermak, J. E. 1977 Mean force and moment coefficients for buildings in turbulent boundary layers. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 2 (3), 195209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnfield, A. J. 2003 Two decades of urban climate research: a review of turbulence, exchanges of energy and water, and the urban heat island. Intl J. Climatol. 23 (1), 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barlow, J. F. & Coceal, O.2009 A review of urban roughness sublayer turbulence. Met Office Research and Development – Technical Report 1 (527).Google Scholar
Bhardwaj, R. & Mittal, R. 2012 Benchmarking a coupled immersed-boundary–finite-element solver for large-scale flow-induced deformation. AIAA J. 50 (7), 16381642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro, I. P. 2007 Rough-wall boundary layers: mean flow universality. J. Fluid Mech. 585, 469485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, H. & Castro, I. P. 2002 Near wall flow over urban-like roughness. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 104 (2), 229259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, H., Hayden, P., Robins, A. G. & Castro, I. P. 2007 Flow over cube arrays of different packing densities. J. Wind Engng Indust. Aerodyn. 95 (8), 715740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cionco, R. M.1966 A mathematical model for air flow in a vegetative canopy. Tech. Rep. DTIC Document.Google Scholar
Coceal, O. & Belcher, S. E. 2004 A canopy model of mean winds through urban areas. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 130 (599), 13491372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colebrook, C. F. 1939 Turbulent flow in pipes, with particular reference to the transition region between the smooth and rough pipe laws. J. ICE 11 (4), 133156.Google Scholar
Coleman, S. E., Nikora, V. I., McLean, S. R. & Schlicke, E. 2007 Spatially averaged turbulent flow over square ribs. J. Engng Mech. 133 (2), 194204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coles, D. 1956 The law of the wake in the turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 1 (02), 191226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Counehan, J 1971 Wind tunnel determination of the roughness length as a function of the fetch and the roughness density of three-dimensional roughness elements. Atmos. Environ. 5 (8), 637642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cui, J., Patel, V. C., Lin, C.-l. & Patel, V. C. 2000 Large-Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Flow over Rough Surfaces. Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, College of Engineering, University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Curley, A. & Uddin, M.2015 Direct numerical simulation of turbulent flow around a surface mounted cube. AIAA Paper 3431.Google Scholar
Di Sabatino, S., Solazzo, E., Paradisi, P. & Britter, R. 2008 A simple model for spatially-averaged wind profiles within and above an urban canopy. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 127 (1), 131151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flack, K. A. & Schultz, M. P. 2010 Review of hydraulic roughness scales in the fully rough regime. J. Fluids Engng 132 (4), 041203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flack, K. A., Schultz, M. P. & Shapiro, T. A. 2005 Experimental support for Townsend’s Reynolds number similarity hypothesis on rough walls. Phys. Fluids 17 (3), 035102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimmond, C. & Oke, T. R. 1999 Aerodynamic properties of urban areas derived from analysis of surface form. J. Appl. Meteorol. 38 (9), 12621292.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagishima, A., Tanimoto, J., Nagayama, K. & Meno, S. 2009 Aerodynamic parameters of regular arrays of rectangular blocks with various geometries. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 132 (2), 315337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, D., Macdonald, R. & Walker, S. 1996 Measurements of Dispersion within Simulated Urban Arrays: A Small Scale Wind Tunnel Study. Building Research Establishment.Google Scholar
Harman, I. N. & Finnigan, J. J. 2007 A simple unified theory for flow in the canopy and roughness sublayer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 123 (2), 339363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussain, M. & Lee, B. E. 1980 A wind tunnel study of the mean pressure forces acting on large groups of low-rise buildings. J. Wind Engng Indust. Aerodyn. 6 (3), 207225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ikeda, T. & Durbin, P. A. 2007 Direct simulations of a rough-wall channel flow. J. Fluid Mech. 571, 235263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P. S. 1981 On the displacement height in the logarithmic velocity profile. J. Fluid Mech. 111, 1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiang, D., Jiang, W., Liu, H. & Sun, J. 2008 Systematic influence of different building spacing, height and layout on mean wind and turbulent characteristics within and over urban building arrays. Wind Struct. 11 (4), 275289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jiménez, J. 2004 Turbulent flows over rough walls. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 36, 173196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanda, M. 2006 Progress in the scale modeling of urban climate: review. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 84 (1–3), 2333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanda, M., Moriwaki, R. & Kasamatsu, F. 2004 Large-eddy simulation of turbulent organized structures within and above explicitly resolved cube arrays. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 112 (2), 343368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, B.-G., Lee, C., Joo, S., Ryu, K.-C., Kim, S., You, D. & Shim, W.-S. 2011 Estimation of roughness parameters within sparse urban-like obstacle arrays. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 139 (3), 457485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonardi, S. & Castro, I. P. 2010 Channel flow over large cube roughness: a direct numerical simulation study. J. Fluid Mech. 651, 519539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonardi, S., Orlandi, P. & Antonia, R. A. 2007 Properties of $d$ - and $k$ -type roughness in a turbulent channel flow. Phys. Fluids 19 (12), 125101.Google Scholar
Leonardi, S., Orlandi, P., Smalley, R. J., Djenidi, L. & Antonia, R. A. 2003 Direct numerical simulations of turbulent channel flow with transverse square bars on one wall. J. Fluid Mech. 491, 229238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lettau, H. 1969 Note on aerodynamic roughness-parameter estimation on the basis of roughness-element description. J. Appl. Meteorol. 8 (5), 828832.2.0.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, R., Griffiths, R. & Hall, D. 1998 An improved method for the estimation of surface roughness of obstacle arrays. Atmos. Environ. 32 (11), 18571864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macdonald, R. W. 2000 Modelling the mean velocity profile in the urban canopy layer. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 97 (1), 2545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millward-Hopkins, J. T., Tomlin, A. S., Ma, L., Ingham, D. & Pourkashanian, M. 2011 Estimating aerodynamic parameters of urban-like surfaces with heterogeneous building heights. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 141 (3), 443465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittal, R., Dong, H., Bozkurttas, M., Najjar, F. M., Vargas, A. & von Loebbecke, A. 2008 A versatile sharp interface immersed boundary method for incompressible flows with complex boundaries. J. Comput. Phys. 227 (10), 48254852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moody, L. F. 1944 Friction factors for pipe flow. Trans. ASME 66 (8), 671684.Google Scholar
Napoli, E., Armenio, V. & De Marchis, M. 2008 The effect of the slope of irregularly distributed roughness elements on turbulent wall-bounded flows. J. Fluid Mech. 613, 385394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikuradse, J. 1950 Laws of Flow in Rough Pipes. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Washington.Google Scholar
Placidi, M. & Ganapathisubramani, B. 2015 Effects of frontal and plan solidities on aerodynamic parameters and the roughness sublayer in turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 782, 541566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pohlhausen, K. 1921 On the approximate integration of the differential equations of laminar shear layers. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 1 (4), 252290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raupach, M. 1992 Drag and drag partition on rough surfaces. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 60 (4), 375395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raupach, M., Finnigan, J. J. & Brunei, Y. 1996 Coherent eddies and turbulence in vegetation canopies: the mixing-layer analogy. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 78 (3–4), 351382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raupach, M. R., Antonia, R. A. & Rajagopalan, S. 1991 Rough-wall turbulent boundary layers. Appl. Mech. Rev. 44 (1), 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santiago, J. L., Coceal, O., Martilli, A. & Belcher, S. E. 2008 Variation of the sectional drag coefficient of a group of buildings with packing density. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 128 (3), 445457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, M., Schatzmann, M. & Leitl, B. 2005 Effect of roughness inhomogeneities on the development of the urban boundary layer. Intl J. Environ. Pollut. 25 (1–4), 105117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schultz, M. P. & Flack, K. A. 2009 Turbulent boundary layers on a systematically varied rough wall. Phys. Fluids 21 (1), 015104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shao, Y. & Yang, Y. 2005 A scheme for drag partition over rough surfaces. Atmos. Environ. 39 (38), 73517361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shao, Y. & Yang, Y. 2008 A theory for drag partition over rough surfaces. J. Geophys. Res. 113, F02S05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, R. L. 1973 A generalized correlation of roughness density effects on the turbulent boundary layer. AIAA J. 11 (2), 242244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanderwel, C. & Ganapathisubramani, B. 2015 Effects of spanwise spacing on large-scale secondary flows in rough-wall turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 774, R2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vardoulakis, S., Fisher, B. E., Pericleous, K. & Gonzalez-Flesca, N. 2003 Modelling air quality in street canyons: a review. Atmos. Environ. 37 (2), 155182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vedula, V., Fortini, S., Seo, J. H., Querzoli, G. & Mittal, R. 2014 Computational modeling and validation of intraventricular flow in a simple model of the left ventricle. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 28 (6), 589604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vreman, A. W. 2004 An eddy-viscosity subgrid-scale model for turbulent shear flow: algebraic theory and applications. Phys. Fluids 16 (10), 36703681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, X. I. A & Meneveau, C. 2016 Recycling inflow method for simulations of spatially evolving turbulent boundary layers over rough surfaces. J. Turbul. 17 (1), 7593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, X. I. A., Sadique, J., Mittal, R. & Meneveau, C. 2015 Integral wall model for large eddy simulations of wall-bounded turbulent flows. Phys. Fluids 27 (2), 025112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You, D. & Moin, P. 2007 A dynamic global-coefficient subgrid-scale eddy-viscosity model for large-eddy simulation in complex geometries. Phys. Fluids 19 (6), 065110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaki, S. A., Hagishima, A., Tanimoto, J. & Ikegaya, N. 2011 Aerodynamic parameters of urban building arrays with random geometries. Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 138 (1), 99120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zheng, L., Hedrick, T. L. & Mittal, R. 2013 A multi-fidelity modelling approach for evaluation and optimization of wing stroke aerodynamics in flapping flight. J. Fluid Mech. 721, 118154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar