1 / 24

Thermal stratification, organized motion, and the onset of counter-gradient flows within canopies

Thermal stratification, organized motion, and the onset of counter-gradient flows within canopies. Daniela Cava 1 , Gabriel Katul 2 , Antonio Scrimieri 1,3 , Davide Poggi 2,4 , Alessandro Cescatti 5 , and Umberto Giostra 6.

olaf
Download Presentation

Thermal stratification, organized motion, and the onset of counter-gradient flows within canopies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Thermal stratification, organized motion, and the onset of counter-gradient flows within canopies Daniela Cava1, Gabriel Katul2, Antonio Scrimieri1,3, Davide Poggi2,4, Alessandro Cescatti5, and Umberto Giostra6 1CNR - Institute of Atmosphere Sciences and Climate section of Lecce, Lecce, Italy. 2Nicholas School of the Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University, Durham, N.C., U.S.A. 3Material Science Department, University of Lecce, Lecce, Italy. 4Dipartimento di Idraulica, Trasporti ed Infrastrutture Civili, Politecnico di Torino, Torino, Italy. 5Centro di Ecologia Alpina, 38040 Viote del Monte Bondone (Trento), Italy 6Environmental Science Department, University of Urbino, Urbino, Italy

  2. Update on Daniela Out of the hospital And back to Lecce

  3. Historical Perspective In 1988, Raupach1 concluded his review by noting that the reasons for the failure of gradient-diffusion theory inside uniform canopy on flat terrain are now understood…. • “looking further ahead, several thorny problems await systematic investigation…., the problem of buoyancy effects …..” 1Raupach, M., 1988, Canopy Transport Processes, in Flow and Transport in the Natural Environment: Advances and Applications Ed. W.L. Steffen and O.T. Denmead, Springer Verlag, pp.95-127.

  4. A decade later In 1998, Mahrt2 ended his review on the Stable Boundary Layer by noting that: • “formulation of turbulence in the very stable boundary layer is uncertain and the stable boundary layer contains a number of physical influences not present in any of the existing models….” • “…even small future advances justify more work”. 2Mahrt, L., 1998, Stratified Atmospheric Boundary Layers and Breakdown of Models, Theoret. Comput. Fluid Dynamics, 11: 263–279.

  5. Introduction Failure of gradient-diffusion theory inside canopies is often linked to three inter-related factors: • Variable scalar source distribution within the canopy strongly impacts the apparent diffusivity (near-field effects). • Lack of local balance between turbulent production and dissipation. • Vertical transport occurs by organized eddy motion whose size is comparable to the canopy height.

  6. Objective • Investigate the interplay between ejections and sweeps (often used as signatures of large-scale organized motion) and local thermal stability in the onset of zero- or counter-gradient flows inside canopies. • A necessary first step towards a ‘small advance’.

  7. Mixed hardwood forest Lavarone, Italy Tower 33 m 25 m 17.5 m 11 m 4 m Aerial View of the Site

  8. Lavarone Experiments Near-neutral Stable Unstable

  9. Theory – 1:Budget Equations Mean Continuity Equation: Heat Flux – Budget Equation:

  10. ST Theory – 2:Closure Models Flux-Gradient Closure for Triple Moment: (e.g. Donaldson, 19731) Scalar-Pressure Interaction (Andre et al., 19792) 1Donaldson, C., 1973, Construction of a dynamic model for the production of atmospheric turbulence and the dispersal of atmospheric pollutants, in Workshop on Micrometeorology, American Meteorological Society, 313-392. 2Andre, J.C., G. De Moor, P. Lacarrere, G. Therry, and R. du Vachat, 1979, The clipping approximation and inhomogeneous turbulence simulations, Turbulent Shear Flows – I, Springer Verlag, 307-318.

  11. Result:Second-Order Closure Model Result ‘Near field’ Effects from canopy heat source vertical variations Buoyancy effects (+ve) Production Term Model is not explicit in terms of ejection-sweep cycle

  12. Organized Motion The interest in ejections and sweeps dates back to early experiments by Kline et al. (1967) who demonstrated via flow visualization that fluid motion near a wall is “far from being completely chaotic in nature” revealing a definite “sequence of ordered motion”.

  13. Conditional Sampling, Ejections- Sweeps & Quadrant Analysis Nakagawa and Nezu (1977) & Raupach (1981): Frenkiel and Klebanoff (1967), Lu and Willmarth (1973), Antonia (1981) – Conditional sampling and quadrant analysis Relative contribution of ejections and sweeps to Momentum flux: W’ Ejections Quadrant 2 U’ Sweeps Quadrant 4

  14. Connecting the Ejection-Sweep Cycle with the Flux-Transport • Using 3rd order cumulant expansion methods (CEM) in Nakagawa and Nezu (1977) and Raupach (1981), and a sensitivity analysis in Katul et al. (1997), an ‘Incomplete CEM’ (or ICEM) was proposed by Poggi et al. (2004).

  15. Validation of ICEM From Katul, G.G., D. Poggi, D. Cava, and and J.J. Finnigan, 2005, BLM, in Press

  16. Further Simplification *Value from a Pine Forest experiment

  17. From Cava et al. (2006) Equate Gradient-Diffusion Model and ICEM representation of Sweeps dominate heat flux Ejections dominate heat flux

  18. 2 Nightime Daytime z/hc 1 Sweeps Ejections All Sweeps 0 0 Canonical Profiles From Kaimal and Finnigan (1994)

  19. Prognostic Equations From triple moments From Poggi et al. (2006) – Flume experiments From Katul et al. (2001) – IREX [rice] and Siqueria and Katul (2002) - pine

  20. Three Variants on the Model K-theory [Dummy model] No buoyancy Full Model

  21. Lavarone Experiments Unstable Data g=0 K-theory Neutral Full model Stable

  22. Thorny issue1: Very Stable Conditions DUKE FOREST 1) Flow is not high Reynolds # (and Peclet #..) 2) Flow is not stationary 3) Standard turbulence closure scheme that assume independence of Reynolds number need not apply. 4) Flow may not be independent of transients in the upper boundary conditions 1From Cava et al. (2004)

  23. Conclusions • Two analytical expressions relating • For neutral to slightly stable flows, neglecting the buoyancy contribution is preferred given that the temperature variance is always finite. Prognostic Diagnostic

  24. Publications • Cava et al., 2004, Organized motion and radiative perturbations in the nocturnal canopy sublayer above an even-aged pine forest, Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 112, 129-15 • Cavaet al. , 2006, Buoyancy and the sensible heat flux budget within dense canopies, Boundary Layer Meteorology, to appear. • Katul, G.G., D. Poggi, D. Cava, and J.J. Finnigan, 2006, The relative importance of ejections and sweeps to momentum transfer in the atmospheric boundary layer. Boundary Layer Meteorology, to appear. • Poggi, et al. 2006, Scalar Dispersion within a Model Canopy: Measurements and Three-Dimensional Lagrangian Models, Advances in Water Resources , to appear

More Related