john wilson, 22 august/06
DESCRIPTION
Status of component 4, “urbanLS”… testing the four optional configurations (forward/backward, 0 th /1 st order). John Wilson, 22 August/06. Context Random Displacement Model is it well-mixed? does it agree with standard dispersion data? - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Status of component 4, “urbanLS”… testing the four optional Status of component 4, “urbanLS”… testing the four optional configurations (forward/backward, 0configurations (forward/backward, 0thth/1/1stst order) order)
John Wilson, 22 August/06John Wilson, 22 August/06
• Context
• Random Displacement Model• is it well-mixed?• does it agree with standard dispersion
data?
• Performance of variants (0f, 0b, 1f, 1b) of urbanLS relative to standard dispersion data
• Performance of urbanLS for Oklahoma City
Context:Context:
High resolution weather analysis/prediction: “Urban GEM-LAM”
Building-resolving k- turbulence model: “urbanSTREAM”(steady state, no thermodynamic equation, control volumes congruent with walls)
Provides upwind and upper boundary conditionsProvides upwind and upper boundary conditions
Lagrangian stochastic model “urbanLS” to compute ensemble of paths from source(s); now offers four options 0f, 0b, 1f, 1bnow offers four options 0f, 0b, 1f, 1b
Provides computational mesh over flow domain and Provides computational mesh over flow domain and these gridded fields: these gridded fields:
,/'','', kjijij xuuuuu
• A zeroth-order Lagrangian stochastic model, also called the “Random Displacement Model” (RDM), does not explicitly model particle velocity, and (by some criteria) is equivalent to an eddy-diffusion treatment… however it is a Lagrangian method, thus grid free
• It is far less demanding, computationally, than the 1st-order LS model… and in the far field of a source, the RDM/eddy diffusion treatment is acceptable… as I will demonstrate here
Why is the RDM of interest?Why is the RDM of interest?
The complexity of a 1The complexity of a 1stst - order order LS algorithm… - order order LS algorithm…
dU a dt C dt G
dX U u dt
d t T
i i
i i i
L
0
aR
xC R U R
R
xU u U U
T T U T U U
ii
ij j ji
kj k j k
i ij j ijk j k
12
12 0
1 1
0 1 2
1
2
The T’s involve the mean velocity field, TKE dissipation rate , and the stress tensor Rij . They are computed and stored on the grid prior to computing the ensemble of paths. At each timestep, use T’s from gridpoint closest to particle (ie. no interpolation to particle position)
( G a standardized Gaussian random variate)
Relative simplicity of the 0Relative simplicity of the 0thth - order LS algorithm - order LS algorithm
dX uK
xdt K dt Gi i
i
ii
( )2
and no requirement that LTdt K R Ti ii L ( )
where
Attractive to use 0th-order LS for its speed. Criteria:
• is the algorithm well-mixed?• does it replicate standard experiments?
Will address these questions in context of simplest real world (atmospheric) regime of flow, viz., neutral surface layer
“Well-mixedWell-mixed”?
uniform initial density “p”
t = 0 t > 0
Still uniform?
Reference dispersion data traceable back to Project Prairie GrassReference dispersion data traceable back to Project Prairie Grass
Ideal neutral surface layer(no horiz. gradients)
zuS
kKzu
c
v*0* ,,
zsrc = 0.46 m
100 m
Detect crosswind-integrated concentration
9 min
Q
uz *0 universal function of
0z
z
x/z0
z/z0
Form of the RDM (0Form of the RDM (0thth-order LS) for neutral surface layer-order LS) for neutral surface layer
.const*
z
Kzu
S
kK
c
v
dZ mk u
Sdt K dt G
dXu
k
Z
zd t
v
c
v
*
* ln
2
0
*
0.constu
zdt
Forward model m=1
Do we reverse this (m = -1) in a backward model?
Analytical and numerical tests for well-mixed property (nb! Analytical and numerical tests for well-mixed property (nb! grid-free LS algorithm)grid-free LS algorithm)
L
zr
dzzpztzptzp 111 )0,()0,|,(),(
Chapman-Kolmogorov equation:
Upper and lower reflection boundaries
Initial state
(= 1 for present test)
Final state
“transition density”
Analytical and numerical tests for well-mixed propertyAnalytical and numerical tests for well-mixed property
)()()0,|,( 1 nrr ppztzp
0rz
1z
z
no reflection: path length
reflection path has total length
tzK
zzz
tzKztzp r
)(4
2exp
)(22
1)0,|,(
1
21
1
1
|| 1zz
rzzz 21
where .const`
zzz
Kt
14.5 min
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
p(z, t)
1
10
100
z
Chapman-KolmogorovRandom FlightsRF (no drift)
100
*
z
ut
Upper reflection at L=4000 z0
Lower reflection at zr=0
RDM with surface reflection is not a well-mixed modelRDM with surface reflection is not a well-mixed model
Flow regime: ideal neutral surface layer
L =
… … but it (RDM) gives excellent simulation of reference dispersionbut it (RDM) gives excellent simulation of reference dispersion
0 0.001 0.00210
100
1000
z/z 0
RFRF (mu=0)RF (zr>0)
0.001 0.002
z0 u* / kv Q
10
100
1000dt
101
“True” normalized, crosswind-integrated concentration at x/z0=2000 is 1.48 x 10-3
0 0.004 0.008
z0 u* / kv Q
10
100
1000
z/z 0
m=10-1
And treatment of the drift term?....And treatment of the drift term?....
“Truth”… do not reverse drift term
Now test actual codeNow test actual code (urbanLS3.for) against reference dispersion by scaling PPG onto the urbanSTREAM grid for Oklahoma City: at its highest resolution, z=3 m
(x, y irrelevant since horizontal gradients vanish)
• urbanLS is not a grid-free Lagrangian model; unless the grid resolves the strong near-ground gradients of the ASL precise forward/backward 0/1-order consistency should not be expected; if one simulates (eg.) PPG57 with z0= 0.006 m on this grid at full scale , then the velocity statistics in the lowest layer (k=2) represent the flow in the range
50000
z
z
• therefore specify z0=zc(2)/2=0.75 m and a source-detector separation of 2000z0 scales to 1500 m. Discretization error is greatly reduced, because the wind statistics in the plume layer are represented by more than 50 layers
• perfect reflection at zrefl=z0
TimestepTimestep
0th-order simulations:
1st-order simulations: 1
LT
t
0
22
CT w
L
)(
)(
Ku
Ixt
x (I)
)(Ku
• forward-backward consistency of 1st order simulations• only modest sensitivity to timestep, but do need t/TL smaller than 0.1 to attain agreement within one std error with reference dispersion data• bigger impact of t on backward than forward simulation
0th-order forward simulation excellent; backward very sensitive to t
• forward simulation good, and not very sensitive to whether one sets drift term to zero in lowest layer• backward simulation very sensitive to whether drift term is reversed, to whether
it is zeroed in lowest layer, and to t
Focus on 0Focus on 0thth-order simulations:-order simulations:
• 1st-order forward and backward consistent, in good agreement with the reference dispersion data, only weakly sensitive to t
• 0th-order forward simulation in good agreement with the reference dispersion data, even with large t, and only weakly sensitive to inclusion or neglect of drift term in lowest layer
• 0th-order backward simulation demands drift term should not be reversed, but should be zeroed in lowest layer… else spurious vertical gradient arises
• remains to comprehend the 0th-order backward simulations, which for the time being I distrust
Recapitulate implications of tests of 0f, 0b, 1f, 1b against reference dispersion case:Recapitulate implications of tests of 0f, 0b, 1f, 1b against reference dispersion case:
26.5 min
Simulation of Gas Plume from a source in Oklahoma CitySimulation of Gas Plume from a source in Oklahoma City
continuous source1.9 m above ground
Intensive Observation Intensive Observation Period 9, July 27, 2003: Period 9, July 27, 2003: 0615-0630 0615-0630
wind
200 forward paths, displayed 200 forward paths, displayed only below 50 m heightonly below 50 m height
wind
350 m
(Not to scale)
#74
800 900 1000 1100
y [m]
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2000
8000
1400
0
600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
y [m] (Crosswind)
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
2500
2600
2700
2800
2900
3000
3100
x [m
]
52 53 54 55 56
62 63 64 6566
72 73 74 76
8384 86
94 96
512 513514 515 516
517
N
22002400
26002800
x [m]
600800
10001200y [m]
0
5000
10000
15000
C [ppt]
0
5000
10000
15000
C [ppt]Sampler positions
source
Mean ground-level concentration [parts per trillion] from Mean ground-level concentration [parts per trillion] from forward LS simulationforward LS simulation
• fully 3D, Cfully 3D, C00=4.8=4.8• dt = 0.05 min (Tdt = 0.05 min (TLL, , x/u )x/u )• zzreflrefl=0.1 m=0.1 m• reset veloc. fluc if > 6reset veloc. fluc if > 6• 9 x 80,000 paths9 x 80,000 paths• detector half-widths 20 x 20 x 1.75 mdetector half-widths 20 x 20 x 1.75 m• execution time 44 hrsexecution time 44 hrs(3.68 min per 1000 paths)(3.68 min per 1000 paths)
Paths displayed only below z = 25 m
600 800 1000 1200
y [m]
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
x [m
]
52 53 54 55 56
62 63 64 6566
72 73 74 76
8384 86
94 96
512 513514 515 516
517
2200
2400
2600
2800
x [m]
600
800
1000
y [m]
0
5000
10000
15000
C [ppt]
0
5000
10000
15000
C [ppt]
Performance of (1f) Lagrangian model relative to experimentPerformance of (1f) Lagrangian model relative to experiment
52 53
54 55
56
62
63
64 65 66
7273 74
76
83
8486
94 96
513
515
517
52 53 54 55 56 62 63 64 65 66 72 73 74 76 83 84 86 94 96 51251351451551651710
100
1000
10000
100000
C [
pp
t]
expt (06:15-06:30)urbanEUurbanLS (17apr/06)
#74
10 100 1000 10000
expt
10
100
1000
10000
La
gra
ng
ian
mo
de
l 5455
5663
6465
66
73
74
76
83
84
8694
96
513
515
10 100 1000 10000
expt
10
100
1000
10000
Eu
leri
an
mo
de
l
53
5455
56
63
64
65
66
73
74
76
83
84
869496
513
515
517
Comparison of performance of (1f) Lagrangian and Comparison of performance of (1f) Lagrangian and Eulerian solutions relative to experiment…Eulerian solutions relative to experiment…
Mean concentration [ppt]Mean concentration [ppt]
Backward simulation… from detectors #54, 55, 56, 64Backward simulation… from detectors #54, 55, 56, 64
• evidence suggests 0f option in urbanLS is fast and reliable
• puzzles remain relative to 0b option
• remains to repeat the 0f, 0b, 1f, 1b consistency tests in disturbed flow
• evidence suggests 0f, 1f, 1b options are all very satisfactory for realistic urban simulations
• however no evidence yet that implementing Lagrangian approach driven by urbanSTREAM wind statistics offers any greater (or lesser) accuracy than Eulerian approach available in urbanSTREAM
ConclusionConclusion
31.5 min