Refined Simulation of Near-Surface Wind Field of Atmospheric Boundary Layer Based on WRF-LES Model

被引:0
|
作者
Liu D. [1 ]
Tao T. [2 ]
Cao Y. [1 ]
Zhou D. [1 ]
Han Z. [1 ]
机构
[1] School of Naval Architecture, Ocean and Civil Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai
[2] School of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Anhui Polytechnic University, Anhui, Wuhu
关键词
mesh resolution; spatial difference scheme; subfilter-scale stress model; weather research and forecating (WRF)-largy-eddy simulation (LES);
D O I
10.16183/j.cnki.jsjtu.2022.415
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Extreme meteorological disasters such as typhoons pose a serious threat to the safety of engineering structures. Therefore, the refined simulation on the near-surface atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) is valuable for civil engineering. Large-eddy simulation (LES) implemented in the weather research and forecating (WRF) model has the advantages of multiple options of numerical schemes and high accuracy. It is generally suitable for the refined simulation of the near-surface wind field, although the performance of simulation results is closely related to the numerical methods. This paper assesses the impacts of vital parameters regarding subfilter-scale (SFS) stress models, mesh size, and spatial difference schemes within WRF-LES to simulate the ideal ABL in order to figure out appropriate numerical schemes for the refined simulation of the near-surface wind field. The wind field characteristics are addressed and analyzed such as mean wind speed profile, turbulence intensity profile, and power of spectrum. Comparisons of simulation results among different SFS stress models indicate that the nonlinear backscatter and anisotropy one (NBA1) SFS stress model can effectively improve the accuracy of simulation in the near-surface wind profiles. Investigations of mesh resolution effects indicate that the nonuniformly refined vertical grid near the surface agrees much better with the expected profiles and reduces the expenditure of computational resources. Furthermore, the results show that the even-order spatial difference schemes produce more small-scale turbulent structures than the odd-order difference schemes. The numerical methods of WRF-LES proposed can provide a technical reference for refined simulation of the near-surface wind field and typhoon boundary layer. © 2024 Shanghai Jiaotong University. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:220 / 231
页数:11
相关论文
共 32 条
  • [21] MUNOZ-ESPARZA D, KOSOVIC B, MIROCHA J, Et al., Bridging the transition from mesoscale to microscale turbulence in numerical weather prediction models, Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 153, 3, pp. 409-440, (2014)
  • [22] JIMENEZ P A, DUDHIA J, GONZALEZ-ROUCO J F, Et al., A revised scheme for the WRF surface layer formulation, Monthly Weather Review, 140, 3, pp. 898-918, (2012)
  • [23] GIBBS J A, FEDOROVICH E., Comparison of convective boundary layer velocity spectra retrieved from Large-Eddy-Simulation and Weather Research and Forecasting model data, Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, 53, 2, pp. 377-394, (2014)
  • [24] LI Jianhua, Revised dictionary of environmental science and engineering[M], (2005)
  • [25] LIU Peng, Numerical study of urbanization effects on water vapor transport cloud and precipitation, (2016)
  • [26] MASON P J, THOMSON D J., Stochastic backscatter in large-eddy simulations of boundary layers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 242, pp. 51-78, (1992)
  • [27] KOSOVIC B., Subgrid-scale modelling for the large-eddy simulation of high-Reynolds-number boundary layers, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 336, pp. 151-182, (1997)
  • [28] BOER G J, SHEPHERD T G., Large-scale two-dimensional turbulence in the atmosphere, Journal of the Atmospheric Science, 40, 1, pp. 164-184, (1983)
  • [29] SKAMAROCK W C., Evaluating mesoscale NWP models using kinetic energy spectra, Monthly Weather Review, 132, 12, pp. 3019-3032, (2004)
  • [30] RAI R K, BERG L K, KOSOVIC B, Et al., Comparison of measured and numerically simulated turbulence statistics in a convective boundary layer over complex terrain, Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 163, 1, pp. 69-89, (2017)