REFINED MISKAM SIMULATIONS OF THE MOCK URBAN SETTING TEST

Mrton Balcz 1 and Joachim Eichhorn 2 1 MSc, assistant research fellow, 2PhD, research associate 1 Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Budapest, Hungary 2 Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany ABSTRACT The MUST wind tunnel dataset served as validation case for obstacle-resolving micro-scale models in the COST Action 732 Quality Assurance and Improvement of Micro-Scale Meteorological Models. Recently, Eichhorn and Balcz (2008)[5] presented first results of flow and dispersal simulations of the Mock Urban Setting Test (MUST) obtained from the latest version of the numerical model MISKAM. The current study summarises the MISKAM simulations of the MUST case, showing the effect of increased grid resolution, revised numerical schemes and different inlet boundary conditions on model performance. Results are discussed through comparison of vertical profiles, concentration distribution diagrams as well as in a more generalized view using validation metrics for the flow, turbulence and dispersion variables. It can be concluded that main flow features and concentration distribution are predicted well, but the simulation of smaller scale flow features needs further improvement of the model. 1. INTRODUCTION The COST Action 732 rose from the experience that micro-scale flow and dispersion models are widely used in assessment but their validation is still limited. The Action provided a model evaluation guidance document, Britter and Schatzmann (2007)[1], leading model developers through the steps of proper model validation and documentation. On the other hand, the Action also gives recommendations on model set-up for users of micro-meteorological CFD models with a comprehensive Best Practice Guideline in Franke et al., (2007)[7]. Emphasizing the necessity of applicable validation data sets, the Action will recommend and publish several data sets at its ending in 2009. One of them is the Mock Urban Setting Test, which was also extensively investigated in wind tunnel (Leitl et al., 2007[11]) and was already run by a plenty of models during the Action, including also MISKAM 5.01 simulations of Goricsn et al. (2009)[9]. Summarized results were presented e.g. by Franke et al. (2008)[8] and Olesen et al. (2008)[14]. The model investigated in the present study is the latest version (6 beta3) of the MISKAM code which gained currency in environmental assessment practice due to the relatively simple model set-up and to the fast code able to run on single processor PC. MISKAM wind fields are often used as inputs for other dispersion and chemistry models, e.g. by Stern and Yamartino (2001)[16] or Dixon et al. (2006)[3]. The new version introduces updated discretisation schemes instead of the upstream scheme used in earlier versions. Evaluation according to the German guideline VDI 3783/9 [17] was performed by Eichhorn and Kniffka (2007)[6].

2. MODEL DESCRIPTION AND SETUP The Mock Urban Setting Test, described by Yee and Biltoft (2004)[18], was conducted in a Utah desert area using 120 shipping containers (L W H: 12.2 2.42 2.54m) arranged in a rectangular array. The setting was instrumented and flow and concentration measurements were carried out for puff and continuous releases. The arrangement has been investigated in a boundary-layer wind tunnel by Leitl et al. (2007)[11] in 1:75 scale at more wind directions. Velocity component data for both mean values and fluctuations are available from vertical towers between the containers and from horizontal planes of coarse and fine resolution in different heights (0.9-5.1m). The number of measurement points is above 1700 at each wind direction. Tracer dispersion data is available at -45 flow direction in 256 data points at 1.28m height. The model MISKAM solves the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equation adopting the Boussinesq approximations to eliminate sound waves and using a k- turbulence closure modified by Kato and Launder (1993)[10] and Lpez (2002)[12] on a Cartesian grid of Arakawa-C type. Buildings are represented as blockouts from the grid. Dispersion of an inert pollutant is calculated by the advection-diffusion equation using the wind field simulation results. A detailed description of the model is given in Eichhorn (2008)[4]. Opposed to version 5 which uses upstream scheme, in version 6, momentum advection is solved by the predictor-corrector method suggested by MacCormack (1969)[13]. For the advection of scalars (turbulence kinetic energy, turbulent dissipation, pollutants) the MPDATA algorithm of Smolarkiewicz and Grabowski (1989)[15] has been implemented. For the diffusion equations an ADI procedure is applied. A simple but robust red-black SOR scheme is used to solve the pressure equation. The time step is continuously adjusted to fulfil the CFL criterion. In the MUST simulations (Table 1) presented here grids of different resolutions (coarse, fine and refined) were used. Additionally the effect of the various schemes was tested in simulations 2a - 3b (see [5]). Because of the blockout approach in a Cartesian grid, container positions were slightly (by max. 0.2m) modified. The coarse and fine grids were first used by Goricsn et al. (2009)[9].
Table 1 Overview of recent (1-3b) and new (4-6) MUST simulations. For more grid details see Goricsn et al. (2009)[9]
Flow simulations (0degree and -45 degree wind direction) No. version 1 5.01 2 5.01 3 4 5 6 6 beta3 6 beta3 6 beta3 6 beta3 grid comment coarse 1.3 mio. cells, 1x1x0. 5m resolution fine 4.79 mio. cells, 0.5x0.5x0. 5m resolution fine refined 5.65 mio. cells, 0.5x0.5x0.25m resolution fine modified inlet profile (z0 = 0.075m) refined modified inlet profile (z0 = 0.075m) Dispersion simulations (-45degree wind direction) No. dispersion scheme 1 upstream 2a upstream 2b MPDATA, 2 steps 3a upstream 3b MPDATA, 2 steps 4 MPDATA, 2 steps 5 MPDATA, 2 steps 6 MPDATA, 2 steps

Simulation 4 and 6 use the refined grid with 0.25m (0.1H) vertical resolution up to 3m height. As the boundary conditions at the inlet of the computational domain generated by the model (vref = 1m/s at zref = 7.29m, initial roughness z0 = 0.01m) gave too low turbulent kinetic energy k compared to wind tunnel data, simulations 5 and 6 were run using a modified profile (Figure 1). The pollutant source was treated as volume source without momentum. Turbulent Schmidt number was Sct = 0.74. Concentrations were normalized as C* = CurefH2 / Q, C is the computed concentration, uref the inlet velocity taken at reference height zref, H is container height and Q the source strength.

Figure 1. Computational domain and the fine grid (left); original and modified inlet boundary conditions (right)

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Observations about the flow field were made based on vertical profile diagrams. Typical examples are shown in Figure 2. While MISKAM 6 profiles for runs 3 - 6 do not differ significantly, improvements compared to v5.02 can be noticed. Compared to wind tunnel data, the longitudinal component U is still underestimated in lower heights. Flow separation above and the induced downward flow behind the containers seems to be not properly resolved by MISKAM, which explains the underprediction or even the absence of the vertical velocity component W in many measurement towers. Similar observations were made by Olesen et al. (2008)[14] in other models participating the COST 732 MUST exercise. Statistical comparison was done by calculating the hit rates for all data from vertical profiles and horizontal planes (Figure 3). The hit rate is defined as the percentage of measurements with an allowed relative deviation D of 25%, or an absolute deviation W based on the measurement error. For the MUST case W has been specified as 0.008 for U, 0.007 for V and W, 0.005 for k and 0.003 for C* (all normalized values). Model acceptance is proposed e.g. by the VDI guideline (VDI, 2005), if the hit rate is 66% at least. As expected from velocity profile diagrams, hit rates of V and W are poor, while longitudinal velocity U is well predicted and near the acceptance limit. At the 0 case hit rates are improving neither compared to simulation 3 nor to version 5 simulations. Interestingly, version 5 with coarse grid (1) gives the highest hit rate in case of U, although this is explicitly opposite to the observations made earlier in velocity profile diagrams. Hit rates of the variable k change remarkably due to the modified inlet profile of simulation 5 an 6.

At -45 wind direction, the application of the new schemes in MISKAM 6 is clearly recognised through better hit rates in simulation 3-6. The grid refinement had practically no effect, while the modified inlet profile took improvements of all velocity components and especially of k.

Figure 2. Velocity profiles at -45: between (3) and behind (9) obstacles. Container height corresponds to z/zref = 0.35

Figure 3. Hit rates for the 0 degree (left) and -45 degree case (right)

Regarding the concentration field, wind tunnel measurements show the change of the plume direction from the ground source due to channelling flow between the containers (Figure 4). Version 5 dispersion simulations 1-2b, analysed in Eichhorn and Balcz (2008)[6], predicted longer and thinner plumes than measured, leading to overprediction near the source and along the plume axis. The use of the upstream scheme reduced this error for the wrong reason, i.e. the considerable numerical diffusion. In simulation 3b with MPDATA scheme, shown in Figure 4, left, the simulated plume has the right direction but is still too long. The modified inlet profile with increased k resulted in better agreement (Figure 4, right), the refined grid, however, did not. Statistical analysis of concentrations was performed using hit rate (Figure 3, right), and also using normalized mean square error NMSE, fractional bias FB, geometric mean bias MG and geometric variance VG (Figure 5). Version 6 metrics are below and inside the dashed lines, the range of acceptance proposed e.g. in [2].

Figure 4. Distribution of normalized concentration at 1.28m (0.5H) height. Left: fine grid, original inlet profile (3b); right: fine grid, modified profile (5). Black lines interpolated from measurement data points (black dots)

Figure 5. Left: comparison of measured and simulated concentrations at -45 for simulation 5 (fine grid and modified inlet profile). Middle and right: Linear and logarithmic metrics for all investigated dispersion simulations

4. CONCLUSIONS The simulations of the MUST validation case using MISKAM with revised numerical schemes gave improvements in both flow and dispersion validation metrics. Main flow features are resolved well, resulting in a concentration field with metrics near or above acceptance limit. Smaller structures in the vicinity of the containers are not appearing correctly, which is a general observation in RANS models tested in the COST 732 MUST exercise. This explains the poor metrics of the lateral and vertical velocity components. Model users are advised to use the revised schemes, a fine computational grid and take care of the proper choice of model parameters, e.g. inlet turbulence profile, since these can influence the overall results remarkably.
The MUST data set has been provided by the Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) for use in COST732.

5. REFERENCES
[1] [2] BRITTER, R., SCHATZMANN, M. (ED.): Model Evaluation Guidance and Protocol Document, COST Action 732 -COST Office: Brussels, 2007, ISBN 3-00-018312-4 CHANG, J.C. AND HANNA, S.R.: Air quality model performance evaluation -Meteo. Atmos. Phys. 87 (2004) 167-196.

[3] [4] [5]

[6]

[7] [8]

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]

[15] [16] [17] [18]

DIXON, N., BODDY, J., SMALLEY, R., TOMLIN, A.: Evaluation of a turbulent flow and dispersion model in a typical street canyon in York, UK -Atmospheric Environment 40 (2006) 958-972. EICHHORN, J.: MISKAM - Manual for version 5 -Giese-Eichorn, Wackernheim, Germany, 2008 http://www.lohmeyer.de/eng/Software/zip/MISKAM 5 Manual_English.pdf EICHHORN, J., BALCZ, M.: Flow and dispersal simulations of the Mock Urban Setting Test -Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Harmonization within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes (HARMO12), Croatian Meteorological Journal 43 (2008) 67-72. EICHHORN, J., KNIFFKA, A.: An improved version of the microscale flow model MISKAM - Evaluation according to VDI guideline 3783/9 -Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes (2007) 31-35. FRANKE, J., HELLSTEN, A., SCHLNZEN, H., CARISSIMO B., (ED.): Best practice guideline for the CFD simulation of flows in the urban environment -COST Office, Brussels, 2007 FRANKE, J.; BARTZIS, J. BARMPAS, F.; BERKOWICZ, R.; BRZOZOWSKI; K. BUCCOLIERI; R. CARISSIMO, B.; COSTA, A.; DI SABATINO, S.; EFTHIMIOU, G. GORICSAN; I. HELLSTEN, A. KETZEL, M.; LEITL, B.; NUTERMAN, R.; OLESEN, H.; POLREICH, E.; SANTIAGO, J., TAVARES, R.: The MUST model evaluation exercise: statistical analysis of modelling results -Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Harmonization within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes (HARMO12), Croatian Meteorological Journal 43 (2008) 414-418. GORICSN, I., BALCZ, M., BALOGH, M., CZDER, K., RKAI, A., TONK, CS.: Simulation of flow in an idealised city using various CFD codes -International Journal of Environment and Pollution, accepted for publication KATO, M., LAUNDER, B.E.: The modelling of turbulent flow around stationary and vibrating square cylinders -Ninth Symposium on Turbulent Shear Flows, Kyoto, Japan, 1993 LEITL, B., BEZPALCOVA, K., HARMS, F.: Wind tunnel modelling of the MUST experiment -Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Harmonisation within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes (2007) 435-439. LPEZ, S.D.: Numerische Modellierung turbulenter Umstrmungen von Gebuden PhD thesis, University of Bremen, Germany, 2002 MACCORMACK, R.W.: The effect of viscosity in hypervelocity impact cratering -AIAA Paper 69-354. (1969) OLESEN, H.R., BAKLANOV, A., BARTZIS, J., BARMPAS, F. BERKOWICZ, R., BRZOZOWSKI, R. BUCCOLIERI, R., CARISSIMO, B., COSTA, A., DI SABATINO, S., EFTHIMIOU, G., FRANKE, J., GORICSN, I., HELLSTEN, A., KETZEL, M. LEITL, B., NUTERMAN, R., POLREICH, E., TAVARES, R.: The MUST model evaluation exercise: Patterns in model performance -Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Harmonization within Atmospheric Dispersion Modelling for Regulatory Purposes (HARMO12), Croatian Meteorological Journal 43 (2008) 403-408. SMOLARKIEWICZ, P. K., GRABOWSKI, W.W.: The multidimensional positive definite advection transport algorithm: Nonoscillatory option -J. Compu. Physics 86 (1989) 355-375. STERN, R., YAMARTINO, R. J.: Development and first evaluation of micro-calgrid: a 3-D, urban-canopy-scale photochemical model -Atmospheric Environment 35 (2001) 149-165. VDI, 2005. VDI 3783, Blatt 9: Environmental meteorology - Prognostic microscale windfield models - Evaluation for flow around buildings and obstacles -Beuth-Verlag, Berlin, Germany YEE, E. AND BILTOFT, C.A.: Concentration fluctuation measurements in a plume dispersing through a regular array of obstacles -Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 111 (2004) 363-415.