LES validation of urban flow, part I: flow statistics and frequency distributions
Environmental Fluid Mechanics, ISSN: 1573-1510, Vol: 17, Issue: 3, Page: 521-550
2017
- 45Citations
- 49Captures
Metric Options: Counts1 Year3 YearSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Article Description
Essential prerequisites for a thorough model evaluation are the availability of problem-specific, quality-controlled reference data and the use of model-specific comparison methods. The work presented here is motivated by the striking lack of proportion between the increasing use of large-eddy simulation (LES) as a standard technique in micro-meteorology and wind engineering and the level of scrutiny that is commonly applied to assess the quality of results obtained. We propose and apply an in-depth, multi-level validation concept that is specifically targeted at the time-dependency of mechanically induced shear-layer turbulence. Near-surface isothermal turbulent flow in a densely built-up city serves as the test scenario for the approach. High-resolution LES data are evaluated based on a comprehensive database of boundary-layer wind-tunnel measurements. From an exploratory data analysis of mean flow and turbulence statistics, a high level of agreement between simulation and experiment is apparent. Inspecting frequency distributions of the underlying instantaneous data proves to be necessary for a more rigorous assessment of the overall prediction quality. From velocity histograms local accuracy limitations due to a comparatively coarse building representation as well as particular strengths of the model to capture complex urban flow features with sufficient accuracy are readily determined. However, the analysis shows that further crucial information about the physical validity of the LES needs to be obtained through the comparison of eddy statistics, which is focused on in part II. Compared with methods that rely on single figures of merit, the multi-level validation strategy presented here supports conclusions about the simulation quality and the model’s fitness for its intended range of application through a deeper understanding of the unsteady structure of the flow.
Bibliographic Details
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know