Resolving urban canopy flows: Scales, turbulence and boundary conditions in obstacle-resolving numerical models
Authors: Seitzer Benedikt , Leitl Bernd , Harms Frank 
Published: December 2021

&lt;p&gt;Large-eddy simulations are increasingly used for studying the atmospheric boundary layer. With increasing computational resources even obstacle-resolving Large-eddy simulations became possible and will be used in urban climate studies more frequently. In these applications, grid sizes are in the order of a few meters. Whereas major urban structures can be resolved in general, details like aerodynamically rough surface structures can not be resolved explicitly. Based on the original fields of application, boundary conditions in Large-eddy simulations were initially formulated for surfaces of homogeneous roughness and for wall-distances much larger than the roughness sublayer height (Hultmark et al., 2013). The height of the roughness sublayer depends on the size of small-scale obstacles present on the surface exposed to the flow (Raupach et al., 1991). Typically, boundary conditions are evaluated between the surface and the first grid level. Thus, grid resolution in obstacle-resolved Large-Eddy simulations should also be a question of scales and therefore has to be chosen carefully (Basu and Lacser, 2017; Maronga et al., 2020).&amp;#160;&lt;br /&gt;In several wind tunnel experiments presented here, we measured the near-wall influence of differently scaled and shaped objects on a flow and its turbulence characteristics. Experimental setups were replicated numerically using the PALM model (Maronga et al. 2019). In a first, more generic experiment, the flow over horizontally homogeneous surfaces of different roughness was investigated. In a second experiment, the spatial separation of the turbulence scales was investigated in a more complex flow case. These experiments lead to considerations on model grid sizes in urban type Large-eddy simulations. The limitations of interpreting simulation results within the urban canopy layer are highlighted. There is an urgent need to reconsider how near-wall results of urban large-eddy simulations are generated and interpreted in the context of practical applications like flow and transport modelling in urban canopies.&amp;#160;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;&lt;strong&gt;References&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;em&gt;Basu, S. and Lacser, A. (2017). A Cautionary Note on the Use of Monin&amp;#8211;Obukhov Similarity Theory in Very High-Resolution Large-Eddy Simulations. Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 163(2):351&amp;#8211;355.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Hultmark, M., Calaf, M., and Parlange, M. B. (2013). A new wall shearstress model for atmospheric boundary layer simulations. J Atmos Sci,70(11):3460&amp;#8211;3470.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Maronga, B., et al. (2020). Overview of the PALM model system 6.0. Geosci Model Dev Discussions, 06(June):1&amp;#8211;63.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Maronga, B., Knigge, C., and Raasch, S. (2020). An Improved Surface Boundary Condition for Large-Eddy Simulations Based on Monin&amp;#8211;Obukhov Similarity Theory: Evaluation and Consequences forGrid Convergence in Neutral and Stable Conditions. Boundary-Layer Meteorol, 174(2):297&amp;#8211;325.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;Raupach, M. R., Antonia, R. A., and Rajagopalan, S. (1991). Rough-wall turbulent boundary layers. Appl Mech Rev, 44(1):1&amp;#8211;25&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;