It has often been remarked that turbulence is a subject of great scientific and technological importance, and yet one of the least understood (e.g. McComb 1990). To an outsider this may seem strange, since the basic physical laws of fluid mechanics are well established, an excellent mathematical model is available in the Navier-Stokes equations, and the results of well over a century of increasingly sophisticated experiments are at our disposal. One major difficulty, of course, is that the governing equations are nonlinear and little is known about their solutions at high Reynolds number, even in simple geometries. Even mathematical questions as basic as existence and uniqueness are unsettled in three spatial dimensions (cf Temam 1988). A second problem, more important from the physical viewpoint, is that experiments and the available mathematical evidence all indicate that turbulence involves the interaction of many degrees of freedom over broad ranges of spatial and temporal scales. One of the problems of turbulence is to derive this complex picture from the simple laws of mass and momentum balance enshrined in the NavierStokes equations. It was to this that Ruelle & Takens (1971) contributed with their suggestion that turbulence might be a manifestation in physical

/pdf/the-proper-orthogonal-decomposition-in-the-analysis-of-44vs42u998.pdf

The Proper Orthogonal Decomposition in the Analysis of Turbulent Flows

The science of the total environment

The complexity of flow and wide variety of depositional processes operating in subaqueous density flows, combined with post-depositional consolidation and soft-sediment deformation, often make it difficult to interpret the characteristics of the original flow from the sedimentary record. This has led to considerable confusion of nomenclature in the literature. This paper attempts to clarify this situation by presenting a simple classification of sedimentary density flows, based on physical flow properties and grain-support mechanisms, and briefly discusses the likely characteristics of the deposited sediments. Cohesive flows are commonly referred to as debris flows and mud flows and defined on the basis of sediment characteristics. The boundary between cohesive and non-cohesive density flows (frictional flows) is poorly constrained, but dimensionless numbers may be of use to define flow thresholds. Frictional flows include a continuous series from sediment slides to turbidity currents. Subdivision of these flows is made on the basis of the dominant particle-support mechanisms, which include matrix strength (in cohesive flows), buoyancy, pore pressure, grain-to-grain interaction (causing dispersive pressure), Reynolds stresses (turbulence) and bed support (particles moved on the stationary bed). The dominant particle-support mechanism depends upon flow conditions, particle concentration, grain-size distribution and particle type. In hyperconcentrated density flows, very high sediment concentrations (>25 volume%) make particle interactions of major importance. The difference between hyperconcentrated density flows and cohesive flows is that the former are friction dominated. With decreasing sediment concentration, vertical particle sorting can result from differential settling, and flows in which this can occur are termed concentrated density flows. The boundary between hyperconcentrated and concentrated density flows is defined by a change in particle behaviour, such that denser or larger grains are no longer fully supported by grain interaction, thus allowing coarse-grain tail (or dense-grain tail) normal grading. The concentration at which this change occurs depends on particle size, sorting, composition and relative density, so that a single threshold concentration cannot be defined. Concentrated density flows may be highly erosive and subsequently deposit complete or incomplete Lowe and Bouma sequences. Conversely, hydroplaning at the base of debris flows, and possibly also in some hyperconcentrated flows, may reduce the fluid drag, thus allowing high flow velocities while preventing large-scale erosion. Flows with concentrations <9% by volume are true turbidity flows (sensuBagnold, 1962), in which fluid turbulence is the main particle-support mechanism. Turbidity flows and concentrated density flows can be subdivided on the basis of flow duration into instantaneous surges, longer duration surge-like flows and quasi-steady currents. Flow duration is shown to control the nature of the resulting deposits. Surge-like turbidity currents tend to produce classical Bouma sequences, whose nature at any one site depends on factors such as flow size, sediment type and proximity to source. In contrast, quasi-steady turbidity currents, generated by hyperpycnal river effluent, can deposit coarsening-up units capped by fining-up units (because of waxing and waning conditions respectively) and may also include thick units of uniform character (resulting from prolonged periods of near-steady conditions). Any flow type may progressively change character along the transport path, with transformation primarily resulting from reductions in sediment concentration through progressive entrainment of surrounding fluid and/or sediment deposition. The rate of fluid entrainment, and consequently flow transformation, is dependent on factors including slope gradient, lateral confinement, bed roughness, flow thickness and water depth. Flows with high and low sediment concentrations may co-exist in one transport event because of downflow transformations, flow stratification or shear layer development of the mixing interface with the overlying water (mixing cloud formation). Deposits of an individual flow event at one site may therefore form from a succession of different flow types, and this introduces considerable complexity into classifying the flow event or component flow types from the deposits.

The physical character of subaqueous sedimentary density flows and their deposits

The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow By Dr. A. A. Townsend. Pp. xii + 315. 8¾ in. × 5½ in. (Cambridge: At the University Press.) 40s.

/pdf/the-structure-of-turbulent-shear-flow-2yf3szhaqb.pdf

The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow

This paper reviews methods to evaluate the performance of air quality models, which are tools that predict the fate of gases and aerosols upon their release into the atmosphere. Because of the large economic, public health, and environmental impacts often associated with the use of air quality model results, it is important that these models be properly evaluated. A comprehensive model evaluation methodology makes use of scientific assessments of the model technical algorithms, statistical evaluations using field or laboratory data, and operational assessments by users in real-world applications. The focus of the current paper is on the statistical evaluation component. It is important that a statistical model evaluation exercise should start with clear definitions of the evaluation objectives and specification of hypotheses to be tested. A review is given of a set of model evaluation methodologies, including the BOOT and the ASTM evaluation software, Taylor’s nomogram, the figure of merit in space, and the CDF approach. Because there is not a single best performance measure or best evaluation methodology, it is recommended that a suite of different performance measures be applied. Suggestions are given concerning the magnitudes of the performance measures expected of “good” models. For example, a good model should have a relative mean bias less than about 30% and a relative scatter less than about a factor of two. In order to demonstrate some of the air quality model evaluation methodologies, two simple baseline urban dispersion models are evaluated using the Salt Lake City Urban 2000 field data. The importance of assumptions concerning details such as minimum concentration and pairing of data are shown. Typical plots and tables are presented, including determinations of whether the difference in the relative mean bias between the two models is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.

Air quality model performance evaluation

Conditions for thermal circulation in urban street canyons

Simulations of the dispersion of reactive pollutants in a street canyon, considering different chemical mechanisms and micromixing

The transfer processes within and above a simulated urban street canyon were investigated in a generic manner. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) was used to aid understanding and to produce some simple operational parameterisations. In this study we addressed specifically the commonly met situation where buoyancy effects arising from elevated surface temperatures are not important, i.e. when mechanical forces outweigh buoyancy forces. In a geophysical context this requires that some suitably defined Richardson number is small. From an engineering perspective this is interpreted as the important case when heat transfer within and above urban street canyons is by forced convection. Surprisingly, this particular scenario (for which the heat transfer coefficient between buildings and the flow is largest), has been less well studied than the situation where buoyancy effects are important. The CFD technique was compared against wind-tunnel experiments to provide model evaluation. The height-to-width ratio of the canyon was varied through the range 0.5–5 and the flow was normal to the canyon axis. By setting the canyon’s facets to have the same or different temperatures or to have a partial temperature distribution, simulations were carried out to investigate: (a) the influence of geometry on the flow and mixing within the canyon and (b) the exchange processes within the canyon and across the canyon top interface. Results showed that the vortex-type circulation and turbulence developed within the canyon produced a temperature distribution that was, essentially, spatially uniform (apart from a relatively thin near-wall thermal boundary layer) This allowed the temperatures within the street canyon to be specified by just one value Tcan, the canyon temperature. The variation of Tcan with wind speed, surface temperatures and geometry was extensively studied. Finally, the exchange velocity uE across the interface between the canyon and the flow above was calculated based on a heat flux balance within the canyon and between the canyon and the flow above. Results showed that uE was approximately 1% of a characteristic wind velocity above the street canyon. The problem of radiative exchange is not addressed but it can, of course, be introduced analytically, or computationally, when necessary.

Rex Britter

Papers

Conditions for thermal circulation in urban street canyons

Simulations of the dispersion of reactive pollutants in a street canyon, considering different chemical mechanisms and micromixing

Transfer processes in a simulated urban street canyon

Effect of stable stratification on dispersion within urban street canyons: A large-eddy simulation

Model evaluation guidance and protocol document