A wind tunnel simulation of the mean velocity fields behind upright porous fences

Porosity is the most important parameter that determines the efficiency of wind fences. The present study provided a deeper understanding of mean flow regime behind fences with different porosities at different wind velocities by means of a scaled wind tunnel simulation. Velocities were measured using particle image velocimetry and the mean velocity field was obtained and discussed. The mean velocity fields obtained at different wind velocities were similar. Analyzing the streamline patterns revealed an inherent link between fence porosity and mean airflow characteristics behind the fence. The optimal fence porosity is considered to be the critical porosity above or below which airflow characteristics differ strongly. According to the present study, the optimal porosity is found to be around 0.2 or 0.3, which corresponds to a critical porosity above which bleed flow dominates and below which reversed flow becomes significant. The parameters characterizing the reverse cell behind fences were well correlated with porosity. The velocity profiles revealed seven typical flow regions behind fences, characterized by different velocity gradients. The airflow becomes less complicated and the number of flow regions decreases as fence porosity increases. Some regions, especially the reverse cell and small vortex, disappear when the porosity exceeds a certain value. The flow regions gradually merge as the distance downwind increases, and eventually recover a single velocity profile due to downward transfer of momentum from overlying layers. The recovery distance decreases with increasing fence porosity.

[1]  Dexin Guan,et al.  A wind-tunnel study of windbreak drag , 2003 .

[2]  Sang Joon Lee,et al.  Laboratory measurements of velocity and turbulence field behind porous fences , 1999 .

[3]  Adrie F. G. Jacobs,et al.  The normal-force coefficient of a thin closed fence , 1985 .

[4]  M. Perera,et al.  Shelter behind two-dimensional solid and porous fences , 1981 .

[5]  Michael R. Raupach,et al.  Large-Eddy Simulation of Windbreak Flow , 1998 .

[6]  J. Iversen,et al.  Comparison of wind-tunnel model and full-scale snow fence drifts , 1981 .

[7]  A. R Packwood,et al.  Flow through porous fences in thick boundary layers: comparisons between laboratory and numerical experiments , 2000 .

[8]  John D. Wilson,et al.  A Field Study of the Mean Pressure About a Windbreak , 1997 .

[9]  L. J. Hagen,et al.  Turbulent Velocity Fluctuations and Vertical Flow as Affected by Windbreak Porosity , 1971 .

[10]  D. B. Spalding,et al.  Turbulent shear flows , 1980 .

[11]  John D. Wilson,et al.  Numerical studies of flow through a windbreak , 1985 .

[12]  U. Boldes,et al.  VELOCITY FLUCTUATIONS IN THE WAKE BEHIND WIND BREAKERS AND AT THE EDGE OF THE SHEAR LAYER, AND THEIR CORRELATIONS WITH THE FREE STREAM , 1995 .

[13]  K. G. Ranga Raju,et al.  Experimental study on characteristics of flow past porous fences , 1988 .

[14]  D. W. Fryrear,et al.  Mean flow and shear stress distributions as influenced by vegetative windbreak structure , 1995 .

[15]  Geert Sterk,et al.  Spatial modeling of wind speed around windbreaks , 2003 .

[16]  Ido Seginer,et al.  Windbreak drag calculated from the horizontal velocity field , 1972 .

[17]  Cheol Woo Park,et al.  Wind tunnel observations about the shelter effect of porous fences on the sand particle movements , 2002 .

[18]  Salem Alhajraf,et al.  Computational fluid dynamic modeling of drifting particles at porous fences , 2004, Environ. Model. Softw..

[19]  E. Skidmore,et al.  Windbreak Drag as Influenced by Porosity , 1971 .

[20]  Zhibao Dong,et al.  Threshold velocity for wind erosion: the effects of porous fences , 2006 .

[21]  Jürgen Kompenhans,et al.  Particle Image Velocimetry; Progress towards Industrial Application , 2000 .

[22]  Michael R. Raupach,et al.  A wind tunnel study of turbulent flow around single and multiple windbreaks, part I: Velocity fields , 1996 .

[23]  David R. Miller,et al.  Wind reduction by a highly permeable tree shelter-belt , 1974 .

[24]  A.J.G. Papesch.  Wind tunnel test to optimize barrier spacing and porosity to reduce wind damage in horticultural shelter systems , 1992 .

[25]  Wim Cornelis,et al.  Optimal windbreak design for wind-erosion control , 2005 .

[26]  Cheol Woo Park,et al.  Surface pressure characteristics on a triangular prism located behind a porous fence , 1999 .

[27]  A. Townsend.  The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow , 1975 .

[28]  Domingos Xavier Viegas,et al.  Shelter effect on a row of coal piles to prevent wind erosion , 1988 .

[29]  Fuh-Min Fang,et al.  On the flow around a vertical porous fence , 1997 .

[30]  C. Park,et al.  Experimental study on surface pressure and flow structure around a triangular prism located behind a porous fence , 2003 .

[31]  J. Marañón Di Leo,et al.  Field study of the flow behind single and double row herbaceous windbreaks , 2001 .

[32]  K. K. Bofah,et al.  Field tests of porous fences in the regime of sand-laden wind , 1986 .

[33]  William H. Snyder,et al.  Similarity criteria for the application of fluid models to the study of air pollution meteorology , 1972 .

[34]  R. Baltaxe,et al.  Air flow patterns in the lee of model windbreaks , 1967 .

[35]  Gordon M. Heisler,et al.  2. Effects of windbreak structure on wind flow , 1988 .

[36]  D. C. Stevenson,et al.  Wind protection by model fences in a simulated atmospheric boundary layer , 1977 .

[37]  Hyoung-Bum Kim,et al.  Velocity field measurements of flow around a triangular prism behind a porous fence , 1998 .

[38]  Erich J. Plate,et al.  The aerodynamics of shelter belts , 1971 .

[39]  H. S. Govinda Ram,et al.  An experimental investigation of flow fields downstream of solid and porous fences , 1997 .