Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 21 (1985) 119--154 119

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam --Printed in The Netherlands

NUMERICAL STUDIES OF FLOW THROUGH A WINDBREAK

JOHN D. WILSON*
University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario NIG 2W1 (Canada)
(Received August 27, 1984)

Summary

The pattern of flow through a porous windbreak has been investigated numerically
using several well-known closure schemes (turbulence models). The shelter is included as
a m o m e n t u m extraction term in the streamwise m o m e n t u m equation, for a fence having the
value kr~$~15 (x, 0) s(z,H) where k r is the pressure-loss coefficient of the fence, ~ is the local
mean horizontal (x) velocity, 5 (x, 0) is the delta function and s(z,H) is a unit step func-
tion which is zero for heights (z) greater than the fence height, H. Previous experiments on
neutrally stratified surface-layer flow through a porous fence were numerically simulated.
Very good agreement with the observed velocity deficit in the near wake (x < 1 5 H where
H = fence height) of the fence was obtained using a Reynolds-stress closure scheme,
The predictions of the "k--e" closure scheme (which includes turbulent kinetic energy
and energy dissipation rate equations to estimate the eddy viscosity) and the simplest
scheme tested, eddy viscosity K = K 0 = hu.oz (eddy viscosity at all downwind distances
equal to its value far upstream ku.oz, where h = v o n Karman's constant, u.0 = friction
velocity, z = height) were only slightly less satisfactory. Satisfactory estimates of the
pattern of turbulent kinetic energy behind the fence were obtained. All simulations
failed to predict the sharp speedup observed over the fence, and consequently yielded
a slower rate of recovery towards equilibrium than observed. Attempts to improve pre-
diction of the speed-over and the far wake by including corrections for mean streamline
curvature were unsuccessful.
Design aids for isolated windbreaks have been generated from the prediction of the
second-order closure model. These give the velocity reduction to be expected in the near
wake of the fence and the drag on the fence for a range of values of the fence pressure-
loss coefficient, kr.

I. Introduction
Windbreaks are used all over the world for purposes such as reduction o f
soil erosion, control o f snow drift and provision of a favourable microclimate
for humans, animals and plants. There are many types o f windbreak in use
(stubble strips, trees or shrubs, fences, reed mats, porous cloth) and m a n y
factors affect the choice of a windbreak: establishment and maintenance
costs, delay in establishment, portability, shading, water use, disease and
pest control, to name a few. The value of windbreaks to agriculture and
horticulture is incalculably huge, yet present techniques for the design of

*Present address: Meteorology Division, Geography Department, University of Alberta,

Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2H4, Canada.

0167-6105/85/$03.30 © 1985 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

120

windbreaks could hardly be described as quantitative and few would claim

that shelter is sufficiently well understood to ensure o p t i m u m design.
This paper concentrates solely on the aerodynamic aspects of windbreaks
and investigates the problem of calculating the flow pattern which results
from placing a porous windbreak perpendicular to the mean stream in an
otherwise undisturbed and "ideal" surface-layer flow. Understanding of the
effect of a windbreak on the flow pattern (by which is meant both the
mean flow and the turbulence) is a prerequisite to a full understanding of
other shelter effects (effects on evapotranspiration, leaf and air tempera-
ture, relative humidity) as well as being of direct and overriding importance
for shelter problems such as soil erosion, snow drift and plant or fruit
wind-damage.
The aim of this work is to evaluate turbulence models for the windbreak
problem and, where possible, to give design guidelines. In order for the latter
to be possible it is essential that the properties of the windbreak itself be
specified quantitatively and in a form which can be interpreted from an
aerodynamic point of view.
Plate [ 1 ] gave a review of shelterbelt aerodynamics. Since that time there
have been several contributions, but to the author's knowledge the only
attempts to predict shelter flow by solving the fluid flow conservation equa-
tions (conservation of mass, m o m e n t u m and energy) have been those of
Hagen et al. [2] (hereafter called HSMK) and Durst and Rastogi [3]. Both
these groups solved the equations of motion using a gradient-diffusion
closure scheme in which the eddy viscosity was itself modelled (the " k - - e "
model). HSMK, simulating the effect of a porous fence in the atmospheric
suface layer, imposed a velocity profile both upstream and in the immediate
wake of the fence. Durst and Rastogi, dealing with a solid fence in a wind-
tunnel boundary layer, used the no-slip condition at the fence.
It is well k n o w n that for barriers of very low porosity the flow pattern
is very complex. Often for the purposes of analysis the flow region is par-
titioned; for example, in their analytical theory for the mean velocity
behind an obstacle, Counihan et al. [4] (CHJ) split the wake into a wall
zone, a mixing zone, and an external zone. However, for an extremely
porous barrier the flow pattern can deviate only very slightly from the
well-understood equilibrium surface-layer flow. Practical windbreaks
are usually of fairly high porosity (20 to 50% porosity is usually recom-
mended) and may not cause flow separation; in a wind-tunnel study
of the flow pattern a b o u t solid and porous fences, Perera [5] found that
separation occurred only for porosities less than 30%, and that the flow
pattern for a given porosity was relatively insensitive to the construction of
the model fence*. It therefore seems reasonable to avoid partitioning the flow

* T h a t t h e flow p a t t e r n is relatively i n d e p e n d e n t of t h e f e n c e c o n s t r u c t i o n for a given

p o r o s i t y was earlier n o t e d b y M. J e n s e n ( S h e l t e r Effect, T h e Danish T e c h n i c a l Press,
Copenhagen, 1954).
 121

and to obtain the entire flow field by solving the equations of motion (with
appropriate resolution). The critical question is: are any of the presently
available closure schemes ("turbulence models") satisfactory for a windbreak
flow?
A detailed examination of the flow through a 50% porous fence carried
out by Finnigan and Bradley [6], using as an interpretive framework rigor-
ously derived mean-momentum and turbulent-kinetic-energy (TKE) equa-
tions, indicated a rather complex TKE balance in which difficult-to-model
terms such as pressure transport (pressure fluctuation--velocity fluctua-
tion correlation) and turbulent transport (velocity triple correlation) played
a very important role. This allows little optimism that any present turbu-
lence closure scheme, let alone a first-order (eddy viscosity) closure scheme,
could prove very useful for shelter flow. However, HSMK concluded that
the first-order k--e model gave satisfactory agreement with their measure-
ments of flow through 20, 40 and 60% porous fences (here it must be remem-
bered that their model was forced to agree with observations at the fence). Sim-
ilarly, Bradley and Mulhearn [7] concluded that the CHJ analytical solution
has some skill at least in predicting the velocity and shear stress profiles far
downwind.
Sections II--IV briefly describe the governing equations, a standard
numerical method, and a range of well-known closure schemes which were
used to predict two-dimensional flows through porous barriers. In Section V
the predictions of these models are compared with the experimental data
of Bradley and Mulhearn [7]. Section VI gives design guidelines (speed
reduction and fence drag as a function of H/zo, kr) based on verified model
predictions.

II. The governing equations and parameterisation o f the shelter

Interaction between an airflow and immersed objects (or excluded

volumes) necessitates that statistical averaging be carried out with caution.
Wilson and Shaw [8] (WS) and Raupach and Shaw [9] (RS) have formally
derived the equations of motion for flow through multiply connected space
(space within which not every closed contour may be shrunk to a point
without crossing solid material). Using RS averaging scheme I we may write
the conservation equations for streamwise ix) and cross-stream (z) momen-
tum and the mass conservation equation in steady-state neutrally stratified
incompressible flow as (WS eqn. 3)

~x
(
~ 2 + u , 2 + /~
p
) +
~z
(uw)
uw+ SU (la)
122

a u+u'w' +~ w 2 + w '2+ =SW (lb)

~x ~z p
au ~
-" + = 0 (lc)
ax ~}z

Here the overbar denotes a spatial average along the windbreak (cross-
wind) over a distance large compared to both the inhomogeneity in the
fence/trees and to the largest length-scales of significance in the airflow.
The extra terms which arise through this formal averaging procedure and
correspond to the form drag and skin friction at the air/solid interfaces
have been lumped together in the source terms on the right-hand side since
it is necessary that t h e y be parameterised in any case. Viscous diffusion of
mean m o m e n t u m has been neglected,/~ is the departure from a hydrostatic
lapse rate and p is the density. If the overbar were to be considered to
represent the normal Reynolds averaging and SU = SW = 0, one recovers the
conventional m o m e n t u m equations for micrometeorological flow outside
any vegetation and away from imbedded obstacles. It is advantageous to
derive the governing equations with proper recognition that the flow domain
is multiply connected, because this ensures that all solid/airflow interaction
terms will be recognized, and consistent approximations or parameterisations
can (ideally) be made.
In the case of a fence, the rate of extraction of m o m e n t u m has been
parameterised
SU = - k r ulul~(x, O)s(z,H)
SW = 0 (2)

where k r is the "resistance coefficient" or "pressure loss coefficient" of the

fence (see Laws and Livesey [10] ; note that their definition of k r contains
a factor of 1/2 which is omitted herein), 6 (x, 0) is the delta function (zero
unless x = 0) having dimensions (length-') and s(z,H) is a dimensionless unit
step function defined by (s = 1 for z ~< H; s = 0 for z > H) where H is the
height of the fence. For vegetative shelter the m o m e n t u m sink terms may
be written as
SU = CD(X, z) a(x, z) ulul
SW = 0
where a(x, z) is the leaf area density (dimensions, lengt h-l) and co is the
corresponding drag coefficient. This parameterisation has been widely used
to relate the wind profile within a horizontally uniform plant canopy to the
within-canopy Reynolds stress divergence; see, for example, WS and Wilson
et al. [11].
The parameterisation of porous shelter via the imposition of a m o m e n t u m
sink is both natural and convenient, and is superior to the treatment of
 123

shelter by adding an extra boundary condition (see, for example, HSMK,

who specified the velocity profilg at the fence).
Rigorous budget equations for the turbulent stresses appearing in the
m o m e n t u m equations ( l a , b) may be derived by manipulation o f the
Navier--Stokes equations. Again, careful attention to the averaging process
is necessary to formally account for the interaction between the flow and
immersed solids. Following RS, the stress budget equation for neutrally
stratified steady flow is

(3)
oxy i
t t
a f f ! 1 a ukP l au}p' + - - P ' ( a u ~ - + a u } )
UiUkUj M +

ax 1 p axi P aXk P axi ~x k

I I

_ 2v au i auk + Sik
axy axj
Here v is the kinetic viscosity, viscous diffusion has been dropped, and
again the airflow/solid interaction terms have been "disguised" in Sik.
By setting i = k we may obtain the TKE budget equation for a two-dimen-
sional flow
a (ue)
--
a __ = -
~-;~au w'2
aw-u'w' (au +
ato)
m (4)
ax + ~z (we) ax az -~z ax

+--u'p' --- w'e +-- w'p'

~x p ~z p
-e+SE
where e = 1/2 u'ku'k .
Here it has been assumed that the scales of motion responsible for the energy
dissipation are isotropic and the viscous dissipation term has been rewritten
as
I I

2v aui auk - 2 / 3 6 i k e
axj axj
e is the rate o f dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy, and SE = 1/2Sii
represents conversion o f mean flow kinetic energy into TKE o f the wake
flow. From the formal expressions for SU and Sii (see WS) it follows that
if SU is parameterized as -krU[/~[5 (x, O) s(z,H) t h e n Sii = + 2kr/~2[/~[~ (x, 0)
s(z,H). However, as discussed in Section V it was f o u n d to be advantageous
to simply set Sik = 0 and all results to be shown were obtained with S i k = 0
unless otherwise stated.
The reader m a y wonder how the spatially averaged flow variables which
124

appear in the governing equations may be compared with time-averaged

single-point experimental data. RS have shown that, strictly, one may n o t
consider the large area spatial average (their scheme I) and the small area
spatial average + temporal average (their scheme II) to be equivalent. How-
ever, the terms which distinguish the budget equations under the two
schemes have in any case been neglected in this work, and the numerical
solutions have been compared with time-average observations.

III. Closure schemes

The turbulent stress-gradient terms which appear in the mean flow equa-
tions (la, b) as a result of the averaging process necessitate the adoption
of closure relationships in order to obtain a closed set of equations. The
closure scheme employed in numerical simulation of a turbulent flow
problem is of crucial importance, and is likely to control the success (ac-
curacy) of the simulation (note that eqns. 1, 3 and higher-order equations
derived from the Navier--Stokes equations may be used interpretively with-
o u t the need of closure hypotheses). As flow problems of increasing com-
plexity have been addressed, there has been a corresponding increase in the
complexity of the closure schemes adopted. However, recently, Hunt et al.
[ 1 2 ] , summarising the findings of a colloquium on air flow and dispersion
in rough terrain, stated that "the current evidence Is that it is not necessarily
beneficial to use ever more complex models as the terrain becomes more
complex".
In this investigation of flow through a windbreak, numerous closure
schemes have been employed. All are well known, and will be briefly de-
scribed and labelled for convenience of reference.

A. First-order closure
The turbulent stresses are modelled as

u;w, = + -- (5a)
\ 0z 3x

u '2 = C u e - K Off ~g (5b)

0z

w'2 = cw-e + K ( O~x ozOW) (5c)

Here K is the eddy viscosity, e the turbulent kinetic energy, 1/2 u}u}, and
cu and cw are constants. Unless other__wise stated the e q u i l i b r i u m values of
the velocity variances were set at u': = (2.3u.0) 2, v': = w '2 = (1.3u.0) 2.

A1. Equilibrium eddy viscosity, Ko

The eddy viscosity is held everywhere at its "equilibrium" or "far up-
stream" form
 125

Ko(x,z) = ku.oz (6)

where k is von Karman's constant (k = 0.4 used herein), and u.0 is the far-
upstream friction velocity. The turbulent kinetic energy is held constant and
thus Cu, Cw, ~ do n o t affect the solution (since only gradients in u '2, w '2
directly affect u, w through the mean m o m e n t u m equations).

A 2 . Prandtl's e d d y viscosity, K--Pr

The e d d y viscosity has been formed b y the p r o d u c t o f the equilibrium
length scale lo = k z and a local velocity scale derived from the mean shear

q = l0 I~zzl. Again, e was held fixed.

A3. One-equation model, K--e

The eddy viscosity is formed b y the product of the equilibrium length
scale, 10, and a velocity scale, q = x/ce, formed from the TKE. A budget
equation for e is solved with the m o m e n t u m equations. This TKE equation
is eqn. (4) with the additional closure relationships
1 ~e
u'e + - - u ' p ' = - K-- (Ta)
p ax
1 ~e
w'e +-- w'p '= -K ~ (7b)
p 8z
e = (ce)3/21kz (7c)
c = U2.oleo (7d)
The energy dissipation rate, e, is thus assumed to retain the same relationship
to e as it does in the equilibrium surface layer (where shear production rate
= dissipation rate). It is worth noting here that Finnigan and Bradley [6]
concluded that the pressure and turbulent transport terms, replaced here
b y a gradient-diffusion expression, were of key importance in the TKE
budget o f their shelter flow.

A 4. T w o ~ e q u a t i o n m o d e l , K---e--~ ( o f t e n called, k ~ e )
The eddy viscosity is written as K = (ce)2/e and equations are included
for both e and e (Launder and Spalding [ 1 3 ] , LS). The e and e equations
used are exactly those given b y LS (equations 2.2-1 and 2.2-2)

~xx (u e) + ~zz (w e) = ax
-- + 7z

I (8)
--E
126

a
--(ue) +
a
- e)
= ~x /° e ~x
o(
+ -~z K l ° e ~ z
(a~]:
+CE, e / e K ~z + - +2 (9)
ax ax l
- C~2 e2/e
The values of the constants were set as C~, = 1.44, C~2 = 1.92, o~ = 1.3
as recommended b y LS. Equation (8) for TKE differs from that used with
au aw
the K - e scheme only in the absence of the term e(Cu + Cw :---).
ax oz

B. S e c o n d - o r d e r closure
By including budget equations for the stresses, whose gradients appear
in the mean m o m e n t u m equations, one hopes to arrive at a mathematical
model which is a more accurate description of reality than a gradient-dif-
fusion closure scheme. The major difficulty is again closure: while some of
the stress budget terms may be directly implemented in a model (e.g.,
transport by the mean flow, mean shear generation), others (turbulent and
pressure transport, redistribution) must be related back to known quantities.
The second-order closure scheme introduced by Mellor [14] in a simula-
tion of the horizontally uniform stratified surface layer was investigated
for the windbreak problem, but the results were very discouraging. The
second-order scheme used herein is one of several proposed and tested (in
a variety o f types of flow) by Launder et al. [15] (LRR). It was used b y
Pope and Whitelaw [16] (PW) to predict a number of wake flows. The
model will here be labelled " L R R 2 0 C " (Pope and Whitelaw termed it
Reynolds-stress model II). The closure hypotheses are
. . . . a u;u)
u i u j u k = - c~ -~/e u'ku~ (10)
Ox l

+ = -c1 e / e ( u } u ~ - - ~ e 5 ij) - c2 (Pii - ~ P6 ij) (11)

p \axj ~x i ]
a a
axi p'u) + ~ p'u; = 0 (12)
ax 1

~ x (U e) +-~z (W e) = e / S (C~l P - CE2 e) + c~-~x k u'ku ~ ~ (13)

where

auj OUi
Pij = - UiU'k - uiu
' k' (14)
ax k axk
 127

and

O~i
p-- - u;u axs (15)
No near-wall correction to the pressure strain is included. Note t h a t eqn.
(13) is simply a generalisation o f the dissipation equation used with the
" k - - e " model (eqn. 9). The velocity triple-correlation equation is a simple
gradient~liffusion hypothesis, and as pointed out by L R R it does n o t behave
properly under a rotation of the d u m m y indices.
On the assumption o f an equilibrium neutral surface layer (advection =
diffusion =__0; TKE production rate = dissipation rate; height-independent
, t ~2 '2 r2
u w , u , v , w ; logarithmic velocity profile) the L R R Reynolds-stress
TABLE 1

Values of arbitrary constants arising in the second-order closure scheme of Launder et al.
[15]

Constant Present work Previouswork

LRR PW

C, 2.114 1.5 2.5

c2 0.6 0.6 0.4
c s' 0.25 0.25 0.25
Cel 1.45 1.44 1.45
Ce 2 1.90 1.90 1.90
_CA 0.17 0.15 0.15
u'2/u~ __ 2.87
--
v 12 /U,o
2
- w' 2 /U,o
2
1.69
~/u~,o 3.13

equations reduce to a set of algebraic equations which determine the stresses

given values o f the arbitrary constants. Table 1 gives the values used herein
for the constants. The rationale for the choices made was to follow the sug-
gestion o f LRR as closely as possible but to impose the condition (well
o b e y e d in the neutral atmospheric surface layer) t h a t w'2/U2,o ~- 1.32.

IV. Numerical m e t h o d

The early stages o f this work used a vorticity-stream function formula-

tion or a primitive equation formulation using Chorin's m e t h o d of artificial
compressibility. Much time was wasted combatting numerical instability.
It was a relief to be introduced to the SIMPLE method, which is very clearly
described by Patankar [17] (PAT), one of its developers. An understanding
o f SIMPLE m a y be quickly gained by reading PAT and only a brief outline
will be given here.
128

The equations to be solved are cast in a standard form which will be

illustrated using the ~-mtm equation

+ wu-K~
8x 8x ~z 8z
1 ~ au '2 ~u'w'
- kr u l u l S ( x , O) s ( z , H ) (16)
p 8x ax 8z

Here the diffusion terms added on the le~-hand side have also been added
on the right-hand side, so that this is exa__etly eqn. (la). With first-order
closure schemes the parameterisation for u '2, u ' w ' wipes o u t the diffusion
terms on the right-hand side. In the case of second-order closure, all the
diffusion terms in the u-mtm equation as written above are fictitious, b u t
cancel.
The next step in SIMPLE is to split up the space into finite control
volumes and integrate the equations within their respective control volumes
to obtain equations which state that flux differences across sides of the
control volume must balance the source enclosed (as Patankar calls it, a
"pre-calculus" expression of conservation). Thus
JE -- J w + JN - J s = SUAxAz
where J is the (advective plus diffusive) flux of u-momentum across control
volume faces (labelled E, W, N, S). One c o m p o n e n t of the source term will
be - k r u l u l A z f E 6(x,0)dx which vanishes except for control volumes
which cross x = 0. It is very convenient that, using SIMPLE, the 5 function
is replaced b y its integral.
The continuity equation is next integrated throughout the control
volume, multiplied b y the grid point value of the variable in question (here
u), and subtracted from the conservation equation. One finally obtains
linearised discretization equations of the form
ac Uc = ae Ue + aw Uw + an Un + as Us + b + pressure term
where the neighbour coefficients (ac, ae, etc.) depend on the current best
estimate of the u n k n o w n fields. Patankar gives a set of simple rules for
evaluating the coefficients which ensures accurate conservation and numeri-
cal stability. Further details follow.

1. Grid
The SIMPLE method solves the u-mtm, w-mtm, and continuity equations
at staggered points in space (see Fig. 1). The control volumes were here set
up by first specifying the locations of the u (m) and w (o) points (through
which pass the control volume boundaries for the pressure correction equa-
 129

tion) then placing the pressure points (o) at the centre of the control volume
thus defined.
The boundaries of the computational domain run through points at which
the boundary-normal velocities are defined. Consequently, there are no in-
complete u-control volumes adjacent to the top and bottom boundaries,
and no boundary condition on E is needed at these boundaries. However,
one must specify values o f the momentum flux to/from u-control volumes
at the top and bottom boundaries.

2. Boundary conditions
(a) Horizontal velocity
u was specified at the upstream edge u = Uo(Z) and at the outflow the con-
~E
dition - - = 0 was imposed (u (IHI, J) = E ( I H I - 1,J) where I and J label the
~x
horizontal and vertical axes of the grid).

(b) V e r t i c a l v e l o c i t y
Specified as w = 0 at the top and bottom computational boundaries. At
the side boundaries a zero-lateral-flux (of vertical momentum) condition was
imposed.

( c ) Pressure
As discussed by PAT and by Van Dormal and Raithby [18] (VDR), with
w(I,JHI)
I I~ z=ZT

O ~ ~

z = ZW(J)
w(I,J)
z,J
I~
u(ILO-1,J)
o.o O
p(I,J) u(I,J)
• p(I + l
o 1,J) '
x,I
z = ZU(J)

_L w(I,JLO + 1)
• -. 0 m 0 ..... 0 ~ u(IHl,dLO + 1)
p(I,JLO + 1) u(I,JLO + 11
I I ~
p(IHI,JLO + 1]
I t
! Z-~-Z O
w(I,JLO) I

x= -Xl x=X2

Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of the staggered grid. Spacings shown as uniform for simplicity.
Pressure grid points (o), ~ grid points (=), ~ grid points (e)./; control volume d e n o t e d ~ ,
control volume denoted[].
130

the above boundary conditions on the mean velocities no arbitrary specifica-

tion of pressure boundary conditions is necessary.

( d ) S t r e s s e s ~u
•" '2
, v ' 2 , w ' 2 , u'w')
In the second~rder closure formulation the stresses were placed at the
points marked (~) on the grid. This choice enables direct determination
(without interpolation) of the important shear production terms (involving
~U/Oz) of the stress budget equations and the stress gradients appearing in
the m o m e n t u m equations. Furthermore, the outermost stress gridpoints then
lie on the computational boundaries, so from all points of view this choice
seems the natural one.
The stresses were directly specified on the upstream and top boundaries
as
u '2 = auU2,o v '2 = avU2.o w '2 = awU2,o u ' w ' = -U2,o (17)
At the ground, a local friction velocity was formed from the lowest-
defined u-velocity
kup
u.(I) - - - (18)
in(Zp/Z o)
where subscript p indicates height ZU(JLO+I). This friction velocity then
determined the momentum flux to ground, and, via the assumption of a
local equilibrium layer, the surface values of u '2, v'2, w'2 using the equilib-
rium relationships u'2 = au u, 2(i), etc. This stress lower-boundary condition
is further discussed in Section V.

At the downstream boundary, -~x = 0 was imposed.

(e) TKE and dissipation

Under the K--e scheme, TKE was placed at the (D) points. TKE was then
specified upwind and along the top boundary, while at the ground - - = 0
0z
was imposed and downstream O / ~ x = 0 was imposed. As well as obtaining
the surface m o m e n t u m flux (required as a boundary condition for the u-
m t m equation) by eqn. (18), as an alternative the "wall f u n c t i o n "

u*2(I) = Lln(~/z0)Jl ~/c "e(I, JLO) (19)

suggested by LS was used. These two alternatives will henceforth be distin-

guished as u, = u,(u), u, = u,(u, e).
For the K--e--e scheme the energy and dissipation were placed either at
the conventional location (o), or at the points (D) of Fig. 1 where the key
velocity-gradient source terms are directly available. The outcome of predic-
tions was much more sensitive to the treatment of the lower boundaries than
 131

to the choice of location o f e, e, and because the (D) location is more con-
venient (direct specification o f ~, e upstream and at the lid rather than flux
specifications, and simpler evaluation of source terms) all results shown here
use the (D) positioning. The lower b o u n d a r y was treated thus: the vertical
gradient of e was set to zero at ground, and the value of u . (either u , ( u ) or
u . ( u , e)) was taken to fix e both at Zo ( J = J L O ) and a t J = J L O + 1, assum-
ing near-ground height variation as u . 3/kz.
For convenience the domain used will be d e n o t e d
NZL
D = [X1/H:X2/H, Z T / H ] NXLUW. NXLDW
where X1 = inflow boundary, X2 = outflow boundary, Z T = top boundary,
NZL = number of rows, N X L U W = number of columns upwind, N X L D W =
number of columns downwind.

3. S t r e t c h i n g o f grid
In order to obtain the field of species ¢ (which could be m o m e n t u m ) ,
SIMPLE actually solves conservation equations which contain an extra
term (V • U)p Cp where subscript p indicates the diver_gence is estimated at
the ~-gridpoint p. Although SIMPLE ensures t h a t V q u is very small at pres-
sure gridpoints, the divergence at other points is n o t necessarily of similar
(negligible) size unless the grid volume dimensions are position-independent.
In this work it is highly desirable to focus computational effort near the
windbreak, but to ensure that this " c o n t i n u i t y violation t e r m " (CVT) is
u n i m p o r t a n t the control volume dimensions have never varied by more than
20% between adjacent control volumes (this precludes use of a logarithmic
grid). The volume-integrated continuity violation term has been monitored
to ensure it is small (~2%) with respect to the drag on the windbreak.
The horizontal spacing followed the series
XU
-=0,2,2+(1.2X 2)=4.4,4.4+(1.2X 2.4)...
H
and the vertical spacing used was

z w = z-2-°, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.0 + (1.2 X 0.25) = 1.30 . . . *

H H

* N o t e added in proof. The sensitivity of the numerical solutions to changes in the resolu-
tion (as distinct f r o m d o m a i n size) was n o t systematically investigated. It has since been
f o u n d t h a t i m p r o v e d resolution yields changes in the solutions which are n o t insignifi-
cant. Solutions given here m u s t n o t be regarded as grid-independent. No clear pattern to
the changes caused by altering the grid resolution has been established, and it has proven
impossible to d e m o n s t r a t e grid-independence even with a c o m p u t a t i o n a l e f f o r t a m o u n t -
ing to 2 h of CPU time. Durst and Rastogi [3 ] experienced this p r o b l e m in their simula-
tion of separating f l o w past a solid fence. Where the findings of this paper are cast in
d o u b t by the grid-dependence p r o b l e m a f o o t n o t e to that e f f e c t will be given.
132

4. Non-dimensionalisation
All velocities were normalised by u,0, all lengths by z0.

5. Advection/diffusion scheme
All work reported used Patankar's power-law scheme (see PAT).

6. Pressure-correction equation
Rather than the m e t h o d given b y PAT, the revision called SIMPLEC and
described by Van Doormal and Raithby [18] has been employed.

7. Solution o f the discretization equations

The discretization equations have been solved using a line-by-line solver
(successive passes of a tridiagonal matrix solver in alternate directions)
with repetitions continued until the square root of the sum of the squares
of residuals is reduced by an arbitrary factor (usually 1/4) (see PAT and
VDR).

8. Force balance: a test for convergence and accuracy

Analytical integration of eqn. (la) (conservation of u-momentum) be-
tween limits fxX2 fz0ZT where Z T is sufficiently high that w ( Z T ) = 0 yields
]
';JXl " r ° ' < o
where FD is the total drag on the fence per unit crosswind length.
Using the SIMPLE m e t h o d the continuity violation term, CVT, men-
tioned earlier must also be included in the force balance. After each cycle
(consisting of definition of new neighbour coefficients and solution of the
resulting equations) the terms in the force balance equation were evaluated.
Iterations ceased when the force balance (including 'CVT which was itself
small) was correct to within 1% of the total drag, FD, and all individual
residuals at each grid point for each variable were smaller than a specified
limit. This normally required a b o u t 100 + 20 cycles. Using single precision
on an IBM 3081D, solutions using second-order closure required about 5
CPU minutes. Checks on the mass balance indicated inflow = outflow to
about 8 significant figures.

9. S m o o t h i n g and relaxation
No supplementary smoothing was used. In most cases the equations con-
tain diffusion (smoothing) terms as a consequence of closure hypotheses.
In the case of the u- and w-momentum equations under second-order closure
this is n o t the case; it should be noted that the diffusion terms {employing
eddy viscosity, K0) added to the left- and right-hand sides of these equa-
tions (to obtain the standard SIMPLE form) cancel.
It was found necessary to provide heavy relaxation (E = 0.5 in the ter-
 133

minology o f van Doormaal and Raithby) to ensure numerical stability when

using s e c o n d ~ r d e r closure. This relaxation affects the rate of progress
towards, b u t n o t the accuracy of, the final solution.

10. Equilibrium consistency

In every case the numerical model retained the imposed inflow-boundary
equilibrium values o f all variables with a high degree of accuracy when
allowed to run without the m o m e n t u m sink corresponding to the fence.

V. Comparison o f predictions with experimental data

The closure schemes described in Section III have been used to predict
the flow pattern for a fence corresponding to that used in the experiment
described by Bradley and Mulhearn [7] and Finnigan and Bradley [6].
A section of fence corresponding to the description o f Bradley and
Mulhearn (vertical slats of wood, 1.2 × 0.08 × 0.01 m, 50% porosity) was
built and placed in a wind tunnel so as to block the tunnel (as m o u n t e d in
the tunnel, the porosity was 0.48). The resistance coefficient o f the fence
was determined by measuring the pressure difference across the fence (1.5
m upstream to 3 m downstream) and dividing b y p~2 where u is the meas-
ured tunnel windspeed (note that the resistance coefficient is c o m m o n l y
defined a s k r = Ap/(1/2 pu2); the factor 1/2 has been omitted from the
definition herein). Eight measurements with 1.5 m s -1 ~< u <~ 6 m s -~ yielded
k r = 1.97 (sample standard deviation 0.04) with no obvious speed-depen-
dence. This is in good agreement with a formula given by Hoerner [19]
which, for a sharp-edged fence of porosity 50%, predicts k r = 2. Baines
and Peterson [20] gave a graph summarising resistance coefficients as a
function of porosity which indicates a value of a b o u t 1.6 for "square bar
lattices". Unless stated otherwise, simulations used k r = 2.0 and z0 = 0.002 m
(H/zo = 600).
The upstream equilibrium values, u':/U2.o, v'2/U:.o, used in the numerical
simulations fall within the range of values observed for atmospheric surface-
layer flow, b u t they do not necessarily precisely match the Bradley and
Mulhearn experiments. It has been found that the predicted mean veloci.i_~
fields are rather insensitive to the equilibrium values incorporated for u':, v':.
Furthermore, since the numerical models contain only a single turbulence
timescale, ~/e, one cannot hope to match in detail the manner in which a
real wake flow might respond to changes in the approach spectra (due, for
example, to changes in the u '2 spectrum caused b y variations in planetary
boundary layer depth). One can only hope that such responses are in reality
of secondary importance. That this is so is indirectly indicated by the experi-
mental data; results obtained on different occasions could be cast in a
universal form b y a very simple normalisation (division b y a reference up-
stream mean velocity).
134

A. Mean flow, pressure

Figure 2 shows the observed vertical profile of normalised horizontal
windspeed, u/u04 (where u04 is the average windspeed at z = 4 m far up-
stream), at a downwind distance x / H = 4.2. Also shown are the predictions
of the K0 scheme, for three sizes of the computational domain. Evidently,
care must be taken that the "lid" is not t o o low; as the lid is raised the
speedup over the fence declines (giving poorer agreement with observation
in this case). Because the lid is impermeable, any deficit in mass flow rate
in the lee o f the shelter must be compensated by a surplus elsewhere. Hence,
with the higher lid, the less intense speed-up must persist over a greater
depth.
-~ 2.92

3.0 ii/ ] 2.35

2.52.0 ~ t 1.88

.J , , ,
112o

0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1

~/5o4
Fig. 2. Vertical profiles of 6/60, at x / H = 4.2 according to the K0 scheme for several sizes
of the computational domain: observations (- ); upstream profile (-----); (o) D =
[-60:112, 47] 24 .
.... 3,(') ° = [-60:112,16]] 80~1 3;(n)D = [-60:60,7]~,~,~0.

When the domain size was increased from

Ds = [ - 6 0 : 1 1 2 , 47] 2410,~3 t o D = [ - 1 1 2 : 1 7 0 , 82] 2~3,~s
the largest changes in the solution were less than 1%. Therefore, Ds has been
used as the standard domain, and all results given used Ds unless otherwise
stated.
Figure 3 compares the predicted vertical profiles of U/Uo4 at x / H = 4.2
obtained with D = [ - 6 0 : 6 0 , 7.2] ~4
10~10 using Ko, K--Pr, and K--'e. Though it
has been shown that this domain is insufficiently large, it may nevertheless
be concluded that K--Pr and K--e compare less favourably with the experi-
mental data than does K0. The K--e prediction shown used the wall function
 135

? 2.92
O Ko

30 • K-P. i /
& K-~ T / 2.35

2.5 I/

z[m] o 1.48

1.5 1.15 Z/H

10 • /
o.5 / o. . ./ 1.3,5
I i ~'1 "~- i I I t I I
0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
U/U04

Fig. 3. Vertical profile of u/u0~ at x / H = 4.2 according to K 0 (o). K - - P r (=), and K--e (4):
observations ( - - ) ; far upstream profile (-- - --).

u, = u . (u, e). The K--e prediction using u . ( u ) differed noticeably only in

the lowest 3 levels.
Below a b o u t 0.5H, the shear, Ou/Oz, in the lee of the windbreak is much
weaker than aSo/OZ, while over a range o f ~ 0 . 6 - - 2 H the opposite is the
case. Thus, the Prandtl eddy viscosity behaves as
K < Ko z/H<~ 0.5
K > K0 0.6 <~ z/H <~ 2
Precisely the opposite modification of K with respect to K0 is needed to
"curve-fit" the prediction to the observations in the near lee of the wind-
break; better agreement results from using a constant K for z < ~ 2H and
then allowing an increase with height at the "normal" rate. Thus, the local
shear (at least combined with length scale kz) is a poor predictor o f the
necessary velocity scale.
Figure 4 compares the K---e--e model (with u.(u, e)) and the K0 model
using the standard domain Ds. Over a range o f heights around z = H the
K---~--e prediction is superior to K0, but b o t h share the failure to predict
the distinct speedup observed__.Also shown is the prediction of the K-'~--e
model with an extra term -kru '2 8 (x, O) s(z,H) included in the u-momentum
source term SII. This term represents an additional m o m e n t u m loss through
the velocity fluctuations, and as the figure shows, has little effect at large
heights where ~2 >> u,2. Near the ground the term has a significant effect, but in
view of the relatively large errors (with respect to the experimental data)
above a b o u t 1.5H its inclusion is hardly warranted.
136

2.92

I/
//
2.5
amO / 1.88
2.0
z[m] 1.48
1.5 zlH

1.0 .875
] / ~ ~ ,, o j j / U P//UPSTREAM
STREAM .625
O.5 .375

a= .....~. ~ " ~ .126

0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1
U/504
Fig. 4. Vertical profile of u/u04 at x / H = 4.2 according to Ko, K - - e - - e : observations
(- --); upstream profile (-- ---); (o) K0; (=) K--~--e ; (•) K---e--e with additional momen-
tum sink term +2krur~l~L6 (x, 0) s(z,H).

Figure 5 compares the predicted profile of eddy viscosity K = (c e)2/e

at x / H = 4.4 with the equilibrium profile K0 = 0.4u,0z. There is an interest-
ing similarity to the c o m m o n l y assumed variation of eddy diffusivity in and
above a uniform canopy, with, in this case, an effective displacement height
of order H. The region where K--~--e has yielded greatest improvement over
K0 is ~ 0.5H - 2H, the zone of approximately constant K according to
K--e--e. The near-ground peak in K was caused by small values of e (relative
to e0) occurring near ground in the near lee of the fence. The values ob-
tained for K in this region (near ground at small x/H) depended strongly on
the treatment at the lower boundary (choice of u , , etc.) but above about
0.5H all K--e--e simulations showed the same features in the eddy viscosity
profile.
Figure 6 compares the observed vertical profile of U/Uo4 at x / H = 4.2
with that predicted by the LRR20C model. The K0 and K--e--e (using
u,(u, e)) predictions are also shown. The agreement with experiment is,
overall, slightly better than is obtained with the K0 or K--e--e models,
though again the speed-up over the top of the fence is not correctly pre-
dicted. Inclusion of a near-wall correction to the pressure--strain terms
following the m e t h o d of Gibson and Launder [21] yielded a mean velocity
field negligibly different from that of LRR20C.
There was a very slight deterioration in the solution for the mean velocity
when, as is consistent with the assignment SU = -krULUL5 (x, 0) s(z,H), source
 137

z/H

Ko

v i i I I i I i

0 200 400 600 800

K/ZoU * o

Fig. 5. Vertical profile of eddy viscosity at x / H = 4.2 according to the K--~--e scheme
( o ) and equilibrium profile ( - - ) .

2.92

:
3.0
2.35
2.5
.o/// 1.88
2.0
zlm] • cm//J/// 1.48
z/H
1.5
1.15

1.0 .875

.625
0.5 .375

.126
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
u/u04

Fig. 6. Vertical profile of u/u04 at x l H = 4.2 according to LRR20C (-- e--), K--~-
(=), and K o (o).
138

terms + 2krU21UtS(x, 0) s(z,H) and + kruwDulS(x, O) s(z,H) were added to the

u '2 and u'w' budget equation__s, respectively. The inclusion of these terms
caused a large increase in the u '2 levels near the fence (virtually a step change in
u '2 from a near equilibrium value to ~ 13 {u'2)0 at x / H = 0, z / H = 1) b u t
fairly modest changes to the u'w' field. It is quite possible that inclusion
of these terms implies, to be consistent, the inclusion of extra terms else-
where (e.g., in the energy dissipation equation; inclusion of the MKE -* TKE
term in the production term of the e equation has lead to numerical in-
stability which has not yet been overcome). As discussed later, increased
TKE in the immediate lee of the fence is contrary to observation. In view
of this, and because the changes to the mean field were fairly small and
showed no impact on the overall problem of improving the prediction of
the speed-up over the fence, it was decided to omit these source terms.
Over the range 4.4 ~ x / H <~ 15 L R R 2 0 C predicted that the near ground
speed Up slightly exceeds the speed at the next higher gridpoint. This leads
one to suspect that the lower boundary condition used for the stresses is
not completely satisfactory. When the ground-level stresses were instead
calculated from the normal budget equations expressed on the 1/2-control
volume adjacent to the ground (neglecting stress-diffusion to ground and
evaluating OU/az from Up on the assumption of a logarithmic profile) the
predictions were negligibly altered, which implies that the mean flow and
turbulent transport terms are, adjacent to the ground, of so little importance
that in effect an equilibrium layer does exist; consequently, eqn. (17) is
valid. Alternative methods which postulate a near-wall wind profile which
is sensitive to the pressure gradient have been suggested. However, when
the wall function corresponding to the suggestion of Rastogi and Rodi [22]
was incorporated, the near-ground discrepancy was slightly worsened. The
discrepancy at the ground is in any case of minor importance (though it
may have a serious impact on the overall force balances to be presented)
since alternative boundary treatments have been found to have very little
impact on the solution except at the lowest ~-gridpoint, and the most serious
problem is the failure to correctly predict the speed-up zone aloft.
Figure 7 shows the observed horizontal profile of U/Uo4 at fixed heights
z / H = 0.4, 1.9 and the corresponding predictions of the Ko, K--'e--e, and
LRR20C models. The predictions give a rate of recovery towards the up-
stream (equilibrium) condition which is lower than that observed, and this
is probably a consequence of the models' failure to predict the speed-up
over the fence. It is of interest that the predictions of Pope and Whitelaw
[ 1 6 ] , for flow past a disk m o u n t e d perpendicular to an approaching air-
stream, show similar features: failure to predict the distinct speed-up in the
outer layer (their fig. 10b) and underprediction of the rate of recovery
towards upstream conditions (their fig. 9a).
Figure 8 gives the observed vertical profiles of U/Uo4 at x / H = 12.5, 16.7
and the predictions at x / H = 15.0 of Ko, K--e--e and LRR20C. Again, at
large heights all three numerical solutions fail to predict the observed speed-
up.
 139

I I I I I I I |

1.0 oe •
- ~ . 1.88 .

0.8

0.6 :~~, . . ~ " ~ . _~ _ ~

u/u04
0.4 • • ~ ~
~ ~.~'~'
• • obs
0.2 -- LRR
I " I K-~-e
------ KO
0.0 I I I I I I I
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
x/H
Fig. 7. Horizontal profiles of u/u04 at zlH = 0.38, 1.88. Observations (*), L R R 2 0 C ( - - ) ,
K----~----e( ..... ), K o ( - - - - - - ) .

--- LRR
• K-~-~

J
0 Ko

/
2.92

3
2.35

1.88
z[m] 2 /i ~ ~ z/H
1.48
1.15
.875
.625
.375
0 I I | I I I I I I
.126
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
U/U04
Fig. 8. Vertical profile of U / ~ 0 4 at x / H = 15 according to L R R 2 0 C ( - - - - - ), K - ~ - - e (-),
and K 0 ( o ) . Observations upstream and at x / H = 1 2 . 5 , 16.7 ( - - - ) .
140

Figures 9 and 10 indicate the sensitivity of the predictions using the

LRR20C closure scheme to changes in the pressure loss coefficient, k r .
In Fig. 10, a plot of the relative slow-down Au(z)/uo4 at x / H = 4.2, the
profile for k r = 2.0 shows very satisfactory agreement with observation
below about 1.5H {i.e., in the most important region, for practical pur-
poses). Tinkering with the value of k r yields no improvement in the pre-
0.8

0.6
"
~/a04 0.4
\\\. • .~,~-~f • obs

0.2 2
3
0,0 I I I I I I I
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
x/H
Fig. 9. H o r i z o n t a l profiles o f u/u04 at z/H = 0.38 according to the L R R 2 0 C s c h e m e w i t h
several values o f the m o m e n t u m loss c o e f f i c i e n t . Observations (e).

3.0
8 obs
!kml
r 2
3
2.5

2.0
O~

1.5 o ~,

z/H
o •
1.0

o • z~
0.5

o
0.0 I I I I I I
-0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
AD(z)ID04
Fig. 10. Vertical profile o f A u / ~ 0 , at x/H = 4.2 according to the L R R 2 0 C s c h e m e for
several values o f the m o m e n t u m loss c o e f f i c i e n t k r. Observations ( - - ) .
 141

diction of the speed-up over the fence (and these are fairly large changes,
corresponding to a range in porosity of a b o u t 62% through 50% to a b o u t 44%)
which to some extent confirms that it is n o t an inadequacy of the param-
eterisation -kru[U15 (x, O) s(z,H) for the m o m e n t u m sink which is responsible
for the failings of the numerical model.
It is of interest to note from Fig. 9 that a larger value of k r leads to re-
duced windspeeds at all x / H , at least at z / H = 0.38. This is in contrast to
the widely held belief that although a less permeable fence causes a deeper
minimum in the horizontal profile of velocity, the rate of recovery to up-
stream conditions is more rapid, and, in consequence, little is gained b y
decreasing the porosity [ 2 3 ] . Table 2 summarises experimental findings on
the effect o f windbreak porosity on the rate of recovery towards the up-
stream equilibrium condition. These observations unambiguously indicate
increasing downstream extent of wind reduction as the porosity is decreased,
in agreement with the prediction of the numerical model.
Figure 11 shows a horizontal profile of vertical velocity predicted b y the
L R R 2 0 C scheme (those predicted by K--~--e and K0 are almost identical.
According to K o , K - - e - - e , and L R R 2 0 C the maximum updraft (w = 2.2
u,0 at x / H = - 1 , z / H = 1.3) considerably exceeds the maximum downdraft
(w = - 0 . 3 0 u , 0 at x / H = 9, z / H = 1.3). The location of these peaks agrees
well with the observations of Maki and Kawashima [26] (MK) for flow
through a cheesecloth net. The upstream peak is o f magnitude comparable
to that observed b y MK, b u t the d o w n d r a f t is weaker than observed. The
streamline inclination corresponding to the peak updraft is tan -1 w / u = 8.1 ° ;
Finnigan and Bradley observed a maximum inclination of 6 ° . The "calibra-
tion condition" for the determination of the pressure-loss coefficient, kr,
TABLE 2

Summary of observed dependence of the leeward extent of windspeed reduction (at z/H
= 0.5) upon windbreak porosity. The tabulated values give the downwind distance in
multiples of fence height at which recovery to 60% (in brackets 80%) of the approach
windspeed occurs

Source Hagen et al. [2] Raine and Stevenson Hagen and Skidmore Numerical
atmosphere [24] wind tunnel [25] atmosphere (LRR20C)

H/z o 75 100 260 600

Porosity
kr = 1 (21)
60% 7.5 12(20)
50% (kr=2) 7.5(16) (26)
kr = 3 (28)
40% 9 13(22)
34% 10(17.5)
20% 12 13(22) 14(19)
0% 13(20) 14.5(20)
142

I I I I I

30

2.0

20

1.0 I
I 10
/

...... 0 P/oU2*o
W/U* 0 0
/
/
/
I -10
-1.0 /
I
I
I -20
I
I
I
-30

i 0 J
-60 -40 -20 0 20 4 60 80

x/H
Fig. 11. H o r i z o n t a l profile o f vertical v e l o c i t y at z/H = 1.3 ( - - ) and ground level pressure
(. . . . ) according to L R R 2 0 C scheme.

was that of flow at normal incidence to the fence. It was felt that an attempt
to include sensitivity of kr to angle of attack was unwarranted, because
actual inclination angles are fairly small, and in any case large changes in k r
do not yield an improvement in the prediction of the speed-up zone.
Also shown in Fig. 11 is the horizontal profile of ground-level mean
pressure, /~, predicted by LRR20C. The ground-level pressure at x / H = 112
was given the reference value 0.0 (as discussed by Patankar [17] in the
present case only differences in pressure are meaningful and pressure is a
relative variable). It is initially surprising to see a pressure difference be-
tween x / H = - 6 0 and x / H = +112 (small though it is relative to the pressure
difference across the fence). However, Good and Joubert [27] observed
an abrupt pressure rise at a distance x / H = 15(6/H) °'7 upstream of a solid
fence in a smooth-wall wind-tunnel boundary layer (for 0.5 ~< 5 / H ~ 25).
Though their flow is not strictly comparable, if one applies their finding
using boundary layer depth 5 = top level of grid, a pressure rise at x / H =
- 2 2 0 is indicated. Therefore, the modest pressure difference predicted be-
tween x / H = - 6 0 and x / H = +112 is not impossible. The predicted difference
yields a large term in the volume-integrated force budget (see Section V. C).
As anticipated by Plate [ 1 ] , the predicted pressure on the back of the
fence is constant (to within 1% for x / H = 1, z / H <~ 1) while on the front
surface there is greater variation (25% range at x / H = - 1 ).
 143

Failure to predict the speed-up over the fence has been shown to be a
feature which is independent of the closure scheme employed, and similar
defects have been noted in earlier (independent) work*. A possible explana-
tion is that none o f the closure schemes deal correctly with mean streamline
curvature, which m a y have very large effects on shear flow turbulence.
Bradshaw [28] argued that empirical modification o f the Reynolds stress
and length scale (dissipation) transport equation is necessary to account
for curvature effects, which are m u c h larger than would be expected on
the basis o f the magnitude of the extra terms arising w h e n the equations
are re-cast in a coordinate system appropriate to flow curvature. The con-
vex-upwards streamline curvature over the top o f the windbreak implies a
stabilising (exchange-suppressing) influence which perhaps brings about
the shallow distinct speed-up zone observed. The smallest value o f the radius
o f curvature predicted is approximately R = 15H (at x=O, z / H = 1). Though
there is no obvious choice for shear layer depth 8, using 5 ~ 10H gives 5/R
0.7, at which value strong curvature effects m a y be expected [29]. Finnigan
and Bradley analysed the TKE budget of this flow and found that the
explicit curvature terms were o f relatively minor importance. However, as
stated above, the possibility (or likelihood) remains that streamline curvature
has a large indirect effect on this flow. Incorporation of the curvature cor-
rection to the " k - - e " model suggested by Launder et al. [30], a modifica-
tion of the e-destruction term based on a local curvature Richardson num-
ber, yielded changes in the numerical solution which did not substantially
improve the prediction of the flow over the fence. Hanjalic and Launder
[31] described a modification o f the e-equation which t h e y found improved
simulation of a boundary layer with adverse pressure gradient. When in-
cluded, this modification, which augments the effect of normal strain rela-
tive to shear strain on the e-production term, did not significantly alter the
prediction of the LRR20C scheme.
Any of the models examined herein will give a satisfactory estimate o f
the near-ground m a x i m u m velocity deficit (i.e., the peak shelter effect) for
an isolated belt. However, the failure to give the correct rate of recovery in-
dicates that simulation of multiple windbreaks should be undertaken with
special caution. The reason for the good agreement near the windbreak is
probably that in this region the pressure gradients are so strong as to domi-
nate the m o m e n t u m equations, making the stress-gradient parameterisation
o f secondary importance. Further downstream the pressure gradients are
of secondary importance, and stress gradients restore the flow towards
equilibrium.

* I n a d e q u a t e grid r e s o l u t i o n c a n n o t b e ruled o u t as a possible f a c t o r in t h e failure t o

p r e d i c t t h e f l o w p a t t e r n c o r r e c t l y . N o c o n s i s t e n t t r e n d w i t h i m p r o v i n g r e s o l u t i o n has
been obtained.
144

B. Reynolds stress, turbulent kinetic energy

It has been shown that, regardless of closure scheme, the numerical
models predict a weak speed-up zone over a large depth above the fence
rather than the distinct and shallow peak observed. Figure 12 shows that
in the speed-up zone o f the observations the predicted stress gradients
-Su'w'/~z are strongly negative (u-momentum sink) whereas the observed
values are very small. Figure 13 shows the horizontal profile o f ground-level
local friction velocity u,/u,o. The predicted values are very sensitive to
the choice of lower boundary condition on m o m e n t u m flux (the K--e--e
prediction shown used u,(u. e), and the prediction using u , ( u ) differs con-
siderably). The L R R 2 0 C prediction is in best overall agreement with the
observations.
For some applications the effect of a windbreak on the turbulence is as
important as the effect on the mean flow. A reasonably consistent picture
o f the effect of a fence on the turbulent kinetic energy level in its wake may
be drawn from the several wind-tunnel and atmospheric studies available
(which span a wide range of values of H/zo and porosity; in some cases in-
adequate anemometer frequency response has probably lead to underesti-
mates of high-frequency variance). Where quoted below the results of Raine
and Stevenson [24] (RS) for the u '2 variance spectrum have been re-cal-
culated as nS(n) versus In nz/u (an area-preserving scaling which is known
6 4 b
• obs I
I
- - LRR
-- - -- K-~-~
. . . . Ko
5 -

4,

z[m]
I
I \ \ [
\\
3~ , \
\
\

2
)•
1F
/
/

o0 . 0 0,5 1.0 1.5

;o ' ,.o 2.0

(-u~)'~/u. °

Fig. 12. Vertical profiles of x / - C ~ / U , o at x / H = (4.2, 15) according to the K0, K-~---e
and LRR20C schemes. Observations (e).
 145

1.0 /
0 O
.m O qu

U*/U* 0

0.5
o~-,,. ~ _ ~ ~ ~
• obs

- - LRR

- - - - - K-~-(:

. . . . Ko

0.0 I I I I
10 20 30 40 50
x/H

Fig. 13. Horizontal profile of local friction velocity u,/u,o according to LRR20C, K---~--~
and K 0. Observations (*).

to "collapse" equilibrium surface boundary-layer spectra to a universal

form) to allow comparison of their measurements from different heights
(here n is true frequency). The major features o f the TKE field in flow
about a fence are:

(i) Q u i e t z o n e
A zone of reduced u '2 and v '2 variance in the immediate wake of both
solid and porous fences, bounded approximately by a line drawn from the
top o f the fence to the ground at x ~ 8H (Raine and Stevenson [24] ; Hagen
and Skidmore [25] (HS)). The extent of the reduction in variance is depen-
dent on porosity; HS reported a 50% reduction in u '2 behind a solid fence,
a 90% reduction behind porous fences. The RS spectrum at x / H = 2, z / H =
0.6 for a 50% porous fence shows a dramatic reduction in power in the
(normally energy~ontaining) low-frequency region with a surplus at high
frequency, the total variance being only 25% o f the upstream value. The
peak frequency at this location is strongly dependent on porosity, increasing
approximately 10-fold as porosity increases from 0 to 60% which suggests
a trend from dominating large eddies to a field of small scale eddies shed by
individual elements of the fence. The RS spectra at x / H = 6, z / H = 0.6 are
towards or at the outer edge of the zone of reduced turbulence. The meas-
ured variance differed little from the approach value, and the peak frequency
showed no sensitivity to porosity. However, there was a distinct change in
the spectral distribution o f the energy relative to the approach spectrum,
the peak frequency being moved to higher frequency (from np ~ 5 I-Iz at
equilibrium to np ~ 17 Hz; note that O . l u o ( H ) / H ~ 23 Hz) with reduced
power at very low frequency and increased power elsewhere.

(ii) T u r b u l e n t z o n e
A large increase in TKE centred on the streamline touching the top o f a
porous fence (in the case of a solid fence, along a streamline passing through
146

z ~ 1.5H at the fence; RS) with a maximum value at a b o u t x / H = 10 and

farther downstream progressive diffusion and weakening (Finnigan and
Bradley). According to Finnigan and Bradley, above this fence-top stream-
line TKE is increased b y at least 50% at all levels observed ( z / H <~ 4) in the
range 4 ~< x / H < 40 = farthest downstream observation. Raine and Steven-
son and HSMK indicate that increases do not occur above a b o u t z / H = 3.
Ogawa and Diosey [32] present simultaneous spectra at z = H upwind
and downwind of a solid fence in the atmospheric surface layer. Their use
o f normalised frequency n H / u o ( H ) (where u0(H) = upstream windspeed at
H and n = true frequency) means that one m a y readily compare the spectral
variance as a function of true frequency. The observation at x / H = 5, z / H = 1
falls in the zone of increased variance. The peak frequency of the u '2, v '2
spectra is displaced upwards in frequency (relative to the approach spectra).
Though the variance at very low frequency is reduced, the total variance is
increased by ~ 50%. The peak o f the w '2 spectrum at this location is dis-
placed downwards in frequency (but b y x / H = 10 has returned to the equi-
librium position). Ogawa and Diosey interpret these contrasting results for
horizontal and vertical velocity spectra by hypothesisingthat the airflow/
solid-fence interaction generates eddies at frequencies which are high rela-
tive to dominant frequencies in the equilibrium horizontal velocity spectra
but low relative to the dominant frequencies in the equilibrium vertical
velocity spectrum. At x / H = 5 the spectra of all three velocity components
peak at n p H / u o ( H ) ~ 0.1 which suggests that np = O . l u o ( H ) / H is a figure
representative of the frequency at which the interaction between a solid
fence and the airflow contributes turbulent energy. This estimate predicts
np = 23 Hz (precisely as observed) for the RS wind-tunnel observation of
the u': spectrum at x / H = 6, z / H = 0.6 behind a solid barrier, and is a reason-
able first estimate (in the absence of a better method) for the peak frequen-
cy outside the zone of reduced turbulence behind porous fences.
According to Raine and Stevenson, b y x / H = 15 spectra of u': have re-
gained the shape of approach spectra but with the peak frequency remain-
ing higher than that at equilibrium and with increased total variance.

The zone of increased TKE may be explained by an increased shear pro-

duction rate. The air flow--fence interaction converts both mean kinetic
energy and low frequency turbulent kinetic energy to high frequency wake
turbulence. The existence of a quiet zone may be qualitatively understood if
one accepts the hypothesis that the wake turbulence, having a very small
length scale, is rapidly dissipated. Certainly wake turbulence is not a major
part of the total TKE within a plant canopy, where (as is the case at a wind-
break) the MKE -* TKE conversion rate can be large with respect to the
local (shear) production rate (see ref. 9). If one starts with the inclusion
(which seems very reasonable) of a b o d y force in the instantaneous u-
m o m e n t u m equation which removes m o m e n t u m in proportion to the in-
stantaneous velocity
 147

au a a
+ - - (u 2 +p/p) + ( u w ) = -krulUJS(x, O) s(z,H) (21)
at ax ~z
it follows t h a t in the derived R e ynol ds averaged equations these are extra
terms in k r as follows
au
m + . . . = . . . - kr ( u 2 + u,~) 5(x, O) s(z,H) (22a)
at
aU'2 --
+ • • • = • • • - 4kr u ~,2 ~ (x, O) s(z,H) - 2kr u'3 8 (x, 0) s(z,H) (22b)
at
auPw ~
• + • • • = • • • - 2kr u u'w' ~ (x, 0) s(z,H) - kru'U'W' 8 (x, O) s(z,H) (22c)
at
Thus, a sink f o r u '2 arises naturally ( t r e a t m e n t o f t he v': and w '2 equations
is mo r e difficult since these fluctuations are parallel to the fence rather
t h a n normal), and provided it is u n d e r s t o o d t hat this energy must reappear
(with th e e x t r a c t e d MKE) at high f r equency, this seems a reasonable ex-
planation and approach to take in modelling. Since t he numerical models
c a n n o t represent changes in spectral distribution, and t he dissipation rate
equation, e, is m a t c h e d to t he equilibrium spectral distribution, t h e reap-
pearance o f th e "missing e n e r g y " must be neglected (else it causes an er-
r o n e o u s rise in t o t a l T K E in t he near wake as n o t e d earlier).
Turning n o w t o t h e numerical simulations, Fig. 14 shows t h e prediction
o f L R R 2 0 C f o r t he streamwise profile o f u':/(u'2)o at fixed heights z / H =
0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 4.0 (for t he Bradley and Mulhearn fence). The ext ra sink
terms in kru which appear in eqns. (22b) and (22c) were included; w i t h o u t
them, th e zone o f r e duc e d t ur bul e nc e is n o t predicted (though ground-level
values o f TKE are r e duc e d because t h e y are det erm i ned via u . from t he
near-ground horizontal velocity). The mean velocity field is onl y slightly
modified as a result o f including these terms and is in no less satisfactory
agreement with observation. T he triangular zone o f reduced variance in the
immediate lee o f the fence is in qualitative agreement with the findings o f
Raine and Stevenson as to t h e degree o f r e d u c t i o n and rate o f recovery for
a fence o f 50% porosity. A corresponding plot of TKE yields a very similar
p atter n , t h e main difference being t h a t t he minima o c c u r at x / H = 2 rather
t h a n at the fence, and are n o t as deep (e/e0 ~ 0.4 at z / H = 0.25, 0.5). At
z / H = 1.0 the predicted T K E rises sharply behind t h e fence and reaches a
peak o f ~ 2.5e0 at x / H ~ 10. This m a y be com pared with t he variation o f
T K E along Finnigan and Bradley streamline 2, which far upstream lies at
z / H ~ 0.7. The observations indicate a peak at x / H ~ 10 o f a b o u t t he same
magnitude as t h a t predicted. At z / H = 4.0 t h e T K E remains at t h e far up-
stream level e0 e x c e p t d o w n s t r e a m o f x / H ~ 10 where a very m odest rise is
evident. This is in contrast to t h e observations o f FB, w ho f o u n d t hat
above their streamline 2 t h e T K E is enhanced by at least 50% at all ob-
148

3.0

7.0

~ 2.0
o

1.0

0.0 [ I I I I l I
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
x/H
Fig. 14. H o r i z o n t a l p r o f i l e s o f u'2/(u'~)o at z/H = 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 4.0 a c c o r d i n g t o t h e
LRR20C scheme.

served points. This (enhanced) level of the TKE was observed to remain
rather constant with downstream position, at least over the range 4.2 < x/H
< 40. FB suggest t h a t this enhancement of the TKE at large z is caused by
turbulent and pressure transport; these have been modelled using a gradient-
diffusion term. The poor agreement as to the TKE level between model and
observation at large z may indicate that this closure assumption is a major
weakness. On the other hand, enhancement of the TKE at large z has not
been reported in other studies.

C. The integral force balance

The integral force balance was always performed over the volume defined
by the computational boundaries. The results of the force balance varied
with the closure scheme employed and the size of the domain (the latter
being expected, o f course). One unambiguous indication is that even with a
very large domain, Ds = [-60:112, 47] 24 10,13, the term [~2 + u,2 +P]x2xl may
p
n o t be neglected. Table 3 gives the force balance according to the Ko, K--e--e,
and LRR20C schemes. Whether or not the overwhelming importance of the
pressure term is real or an artificiality of the numerical models is uncertain.
Seginer [33] applied Bernoulli's Theorem to the velocity pattern about a
windbreak and deduced that with X1 ~ 10H and X2 ~ 30H the pressure
 149

TABLE 3

I n t e g r a l force b a l a n c e a c c o r d i n g t o Ko, K - ~ - - e , a n d L R R 2 0 C s c h e m e s for s t a n d a r d

d o m a i n Ds

Ko K-"e--e LRR20C

-2 ]x1/FD
[U X2 a -0.45 -0.81 -0.58
[u ]x1/FD a
X2
0.00 -0.08 -0.03
2 X2 b
[~/p U.o]x1/FD +1.16 +1.87 +1.43
[u-";'~']ZTo/FDC +0.31 +0.03 +0.19

a Positive if influx e x c e e d s o u t f l u x .
b p o s i t i v e if i n f l o w pressure e x c e e d s o u t f l o w pressure.
c Positive if m o m e n t u m flux t o g r o u n d is smaller t h a n m o m e n t u m flux t o t o p b o u n d a r y .

term makes only a small contribution to the overall budget. However, the
use of Bernoulli's Theorem in this context is rather crude.

VI. Design o f an isolated windbreak

The numerical models, particularly L R R 2 0 C , have given an accurate

prediction of the decrease in windspeed in the near wake of a windbreak
(see Fig. 10). The L R R 2 0 C model has therefore been used to investigate
the velocity deficit and the drag over a range of values of the parameters
H/zo and k r with the aim of providing design guidelines.
Figure 15 gives the horizontal profile of u(z)/rio(Z) at z / H = 0.6 for several
values of H/zo and kr = 0.5, 5.0. The shift in the location of the speed mini-
m u m towards the windbreak as the porosity is decreased agrees with wind-
tunnel and atmospheric observations. Though reservations have been ex-
pressed as to the accuracy o f the far wake, there is no reason to d o u b t the
accuracy of the predicted near-wake velocity minimum*, the depth of which
can be seen to be rather insensitive to large changes in H/zo. These (and
other) numerical predictions m a y be conveniently summarised b y defining
a fractional velocity reduction (or index of shelter effectiveness)
ri0(z) - ri(x, z) ~ri(z)
ISE = rio(Z) = rio(Z)

The variation o f ISE with changing H/zo and kr is shown in Fig. 16; (IsE has
been evaluated at the downstream distance o f greatest speed reduction at
height z / H = 0.6). This variation may be described by the formula

* T h o u g h t h e s o l u t i o n s o b t a i n e d are n o t g r i d - i n d e p e n d e n t , t h e changes in t h e n e a r - g r o u n d
v e l o c i t y field i m m e d i a t e l y b e h i n d t h e f e n c e b r o u g h t a b o u t b y c h a n g i n g t h e grid resolu-
t i o n are n o t a large f r a c t i o n o f t h e o b s e r v e d velocity r e d u c t i o n (<~ 5%).
150

~E
- 0.19 ln(kr) + 0.42
Uo

Given&r, the maximum velocity reduction (i.e., the depth o f the wind reduc-
tion curve) may be deduced with an expectation of errors not exceeding
1.0

0.8

0.6

5/B o
0.4

0.2 H/zo= 200

6OO
----- 1200

0 [ I I l l [
-5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
x/H

Fig. 15. H o r i z o n t a l profile o f relative w i n d s p e e d Et(z)/E~o(Z ) at z / H = 0.6 a c c o r d i n g to

L R R 2 0 C for several values o f H / z o a n d k r = 0.5, 5.0.

1.0

0.8

0.6
Ag

5o
0.4

~, H//Zo= 100
200
o 600
0.2
13 1200

[ I 1 I
0.2 0.5 1.0 2 5 10
k
r

Fig. 16. F r a c t i o n a l r e d u c t i o n in w i n d s p e e d Au(x, z ) / u o ( z ) , w h e r e u0 is t h e a p p r o a c h

speed, e v a l u a t e d at ( x / H = l o c a t i o n o f m i n i m u m ; z / H = 0.6) as a f u n c t i o n o f H / z o a n d k r.
 151
i i 1 I i , 12

0.5 10

0.4 8

0.3 6

CF CF./(H/Zo)0"36

0.2 4

0.1 2

0 I I I t i i i 0
.3 .5 .7 1.0 2 3 5 7 10
kr

Fig. 17. V a r i a t i o n o f t h e drag ( p e r u n i t c r o s s w i n d l e n g t h ) o n a f e n c e w i t h H/zo, k r. Sym-

bols d e n o t e values o f H/zo as d e f i n e d o n Fig. 16.

20%*. Values of kr may be related to screen/fence t y p e and porosity with the,

aid of engineering correlations, such as those given by Hoerner [19]. For
natural windbreaks, the value of kr may be roughly estimated as

kr ~ f CDaLB d x
--oo

where aLB is the leaf (or branch) area density and CD is a corresponding drag
coefficient.
It is useful to define
D D
CF, = ...... CF =
p U2.oH p u~(H)H
where D is the drag on the fence per unit crosswind length. It is not possible
to deduce the fence drag coefficients from a knowledge of kr because their
values depend on the wind profile at the fence, hence, on the flow pattern
in its entirety. However, the predictions of the numerical model may be used
to determine CF, CF. as a function o f kr, H/zo. Figure 17 shows the varia-
tion o f CF and CF./(H/zo) °'36 against k r according to L R R 2 0 C ; from these
curves the drag per unit length on a fence m a y be determined simply b y
specifying k r and either (H/zo, u . 0 ) o r (H, u0(H)).

* T h e range o f validity of t h e s e p r e d i c t i o n s is u n c e r t a i n , a n d it is inadvisable t o e x t r a p -

o l a t e very far in t h e d i r e c t i o n of low p o r o s i t y (high kr).
152

VII. Conclusions

Of the closure schemes examined here, the Reynolds-stress model first

proposed by Launder et al. [15] has proven most accurate, and has given
very satisfactory agreement with observations of the velocity in the near
wake of a fence with minimal input (specification of the pressure loss coef-
ficient, kr, as determined by a simple wind-tunnel test). The gain in ac-
curacy obtained by using second-order closure rather than simpler al-
ternatives is modest, and surprisingly good predictions of the near wake are
obtained using the very crude assumption of an eddy viscosity varying with
height alone, K o ( z ) = 0.4u.0z. This is probably a consequence of dominance
of pressure gradients and relative unimportance of stress gradients near the
windbreak.
Provided that one includes a sink term in the u '2 budget equation to con-
vert low-frequency power to wake turbulence (which is assumed to be dis-
sipated rapidly), the Reynolds-stress model also gives a satisfactory predic-
tion of the triangular zone of reduced TKE in the immediate lee of a fence,
and of the zone of increased TKE centred on the streamline touching the
top of the fence.
A general feature of these simulations (which has also been noted in in-
dependent work) is a failure to predict the sharp speed-up zone observed
above the fence and a consequently underestimated rate of return towards
the upstream equilibrium state. This is believed to indicate inadequacy
of the closure schemes in this very complex flow which contains strong
streamline curvature. Though there are other aspects of the numerical
models which are not above criticism (e.g., the lower boundary condition
on the stresses; the simple m o m e n t u m sink), large alterations in these areas
have not yielded significant change*.
Because of the good agreement between observation and prediction in
the near wake, it has been possible to give design aids relating the expected
speed reduction near an isolated fence and the drag on the fence to the key
fence parameter kr. However, the unsatisfactory prediction of the far wake
means that one could not with confidence simulate the more complex prob-
lem of a windbreak network.

Acknowledgements

This work was started while the author was at the New Zealand Meteor-
ological Service and has been completed at the University of Guelph under
the partial support of the National Science arid Engineering Research Coun-
cil of Canada. I am grateful to Dr. E.F. Bradley for sending me his experi-
mental data, and to Dr. G.D. Stubley for easing m y introduction to the

*As noted earlier, inadequate grid resolution may have contributed to the deficiencies
of the solutions given.
 153

SIMPLE numerical method. I would also like to thank the many people with
whom I have had encouraging discussions, in particular Dr. R.A. Wooding
and Dr. R.H. Shaw.

References
1 E.J. Plate, The aerodynamics of shelter belts, Agric. Meteorol., 8 (1971) 203--222.
2 L.J. Hagen, E.L. Skidmore, P.L. Miller and J.E. Kipp, Simulation of effect of wind
barriers on airflow, Trans. ASAE, 24 (1981) 1002--1008.
3 F. Durst and A.K. Rastogi, Turbulent flow over two-dimensional fences, in Turbulent
Shear Flows, Vol. 2, Selected papers from the 2nd Int. Syrup. on Turbulent Shear
Flows, London, 1979, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1980, pp. 218--232.
4 J. Counihan, J.C.R. Hunt and P.S. Jackson, Wakes behind two-dimensional surface
obstacles in turbulent boundary layers, J. Fluid Mech., 64 (1974) 529--563.
5 M.D.A.E.S. Perera, Shelter behind two-dimensional solid and porous fences, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 8 (1981) 93--104.
6 J.J. Finnigan and E.F. Bradley, The turbulent kinetic energy budget behind a porous
barrier: an analysis in streamline coordinates, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 15 (1983)
157--168.
7 E.F. Bradley and P.J. Mulhearn, Development of velocity and shear stress distribu-
tions in the wake of a porous shelter fence, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn., 15 (1983)
145--156.
8 N.R. Wilson and R.H. Shaw, A higher order closure model for canopy flow, J. Appl.
Meteorol., 16 (1977) 1197--1205.
9 M.R. Raupach and R.H. Shaw, Averaging procedures for flow within vegetation
canopies, Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 22 (1982) 79--90.
10 E.M. Laws and J.L. Livesey, Flow through screens, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., 10 (1978)
247--266.
11 J.D. Wilson, D.P. Ward, G.W. Thurtell and G.E. Kidd, Statistics of atmospheric tur-
bulence within and above a corn canopy, Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 24 (1982)
495--519.
12 J.C.R. Hunt, D.P. Lalas and D.N. Asimakopoulos, Air flow and dispersion in rough
terrain: a report on Euromech 173, J. Fluid Mech., 142 (1984) 201 216.
13 B.E. Launder and D.B. Spalding, The numerical computation of turbulent flows,
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 3 (1974) 269--289.
14 G. Mellor, Analytic prediction of the properties of stratified planetary surface layers,
J. Atmos. Sci., 30 (1973) 1061--1069.
15 B.E. Launder, G.J. Reece and W. Rodi, Progress in the development of a Reynolds-
stress turbulence closure, J. Fluid Mech., 68 (1975) 537 566.
16 S.B. Pope and J.H. Whitelaw, The calculation of near-wake flows, J. Fluid Mech.,
73 (1976) 9--32.
17 S.V. Patankar, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Series in Computational
Methods in Mechanics and Thermal Sciences, Hemisphere Publishing Co., London,
1980.
18 J.P. Van Doormaal and G.D. Raithby, Enhancements of the SIMPLE method for
predicting incompressible fluid flows, Numerical Heat Transfer, 7 (1984) 147.
19 S.F. Hoerner, Fluid Dynamic Drag, S.F. Hoerner, Library of Congress Catalog Card
Number 64-19666, 1965.
20 W.D. Baines and E.G. Peterson, An investigation of flow through screens, Trans.
ASME, 73 (1951) 467--480.
21 M.M. Gibson and B.E. Launder, Ground effects on pressure fluctuations in the atmo-
spheric boundary layer, J. Fluid Mech., 86 (1978) 491--511.
154

22 A.K. Rastogi and W. Rodi, Calculation of general three-dimensional turbulent bound-

ary layers, J. AIAA, 16 (1978) 151--159.
23 J. van Eimern, R. Karschon, L.A. Razumova and G.W. Robertson, Windbreaks and
Shelterbelts, World Meteorol. Org. Tech. Note No. 59 (1964).
24 J.K. Raine and D.C. Stevenson, Wind protection by model fences in a simulated
atmospheric boundary layer, J. Ind. Aerodyn., 2 (1977) 159--180.
25 L.J. Hagen and E.L. Skidmore, Turbulent velocity fluctuations and vertical flow as
affected by windbreak porosity, Trans. ASAE, 14 (1971) 634--637.
26 T. Maki and S. Kawashima, Studies on the windbreak nets, J. Agric. Meteorol.
(Japan), 39 (1983) 79--89 (in Japanese).
27 M.C. Good and P.C. Joubert, The form drag of two-dimensional bluff plates im-
mersed in turbulent boundary layers, J. Fluid Mech., 31 (1968) 547--582.
28 Bradshaw, P., Effects of streamline curvature on turbulent flow, AGARDograph No.
169 (1973).
29 Bradshaw, P., The analogy between streamline curvature and buoyancy in turbulent
shear flow, J. Fluid Mech., 36 (1969) 177--191.
30 Launder, B.E., C.H. Priddin and B.I. Sharma, The calculation of turbulent boundary
layers on spinning and curved surfaces, Trans. ASME J. Fluids Eng., 99 (1977) 231--
239.
31 K. Hanjalic and B.E. Launder, Sensitizing the dissipation equation to irrotational
strains, Trans. ASME J. Fluids Eng., 102 (1980) 34--40.
32 Y. Ogawa and P.G. Diosey, Surface roughness and thermal stratification effects on
the flow behind a two-dimensional fence. I. Field study, Atms. Environ., 14 (1980)
1301--1308.
33 I. Seginer, Windbreak drag calculated from the horizontal velocity field, Boundary-
Layer Meteorol., 3 (1972) 87--97.