ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 91 (2003) 1155–1162

A new method to calculate wind profile

parameters of the wind tunnel boundary layer
Guoliang Liua,b,*, Jie Xuanc,b, Soon-Ung Parka
a
School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742, South Korea
b
Environment Science Center, Peking University, Beijing 100871, People’s Republic of China
c
Program in Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, CO 80309, USA
Received 12 November 2002; received in revised form 3 June 2003; accepted 10 June 2003

Abstract

This paper introduces a new method to process wind profile data of simulated atmospheric
boundary layer flows in the wind tunnel so as to obtain the two important wind profile
parameters—the surface roughness length z0 and the friction velocity u : Instead of using the
wind speed profile, the turbulent intensity profile of the turbulent surface layer, which is
measured with a single probe hot-wire anemometer, is used to calculate the surface roughness
length z0 : Then, the calculated surface roughness length z0 is substituted into the mean wind
speed profile of the constant flux layer to calculate friction velocity u : From our results this
method is better than the simple regression method using the wind speed profile, which has
been widely used.
r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Wind tunnel; Turbulent intensity profile; Surface roughness length z0 ; Friction velocity u

1. Introduction

In a neutral surface layer, the velocity profile follows the well-known logarithmic
law. The mean velocity distribution is given by [1]

U 1 ðz  dÞ
¼ ln ; ð1Þ
u k z0

*Corresponding author. School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Seoul National University,
Seoul 151-742, South Korea.
E-mail address: guoliang liu74@hotmail.com (G. Liu).

0167-6105/$ - see front matter r 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0167-6105(03)00057-6
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1156 G. Liu et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1155–1162

where U is the mean velocity at the height of z above the surface, u the friction
velocity, z0 the surface roughness length, d the zero plane displacement, and k the
Von Karman constant (0.4). The universal logarithmic velocity profile in the neutral
surface layer now has been widely used in both wind tunnel and in atmospheric field
work. It is also applied to estimate the two most important parameters, the surface
roughness length z0 and the friction velocity u ; through regression of this equation
with observed velocity profile data. However, in practice, this method is hardly
allowed to estimate these two parameters accurately and simultaneously because of
the zero plane displacement d in Eq. (1). Also, a minute error in estimating the slope
of the logarithm-linear segment (the velocity profile of the lower layer) will produce a
large error in estimating z0 :
The purpose of this paper is to introduce a new method to estimate these
parameters simultaneously with more precision using the measured wind profile data
in the wind tunnel.

2. Methodology

This method utilizes the turbulent intensity profile measured by a single probe of a
hot-wire anemometer to calculate the surface roughness length z0 : Then the
calculated value of the surface roughness length z0 is substituted into the mean wind
speed profile of the constant flux layer to calculate the friction velocity u and zero
plane displacement d:
The surface roughness length z0 is estimated using the empirical expression given
by the Engineering Science Data Unit [2], which had been used as a criterion to test
the simulated turbulent boundary layer [3–6]. By correlating strong wind atmo-
spheric data over a large variety of different roughness conditions, ESDU concluded
that the variation of the turbulent intensity with height up to 100 m is
su ð0:867 þ 0:556 log10 z  0:246 log210 zÞ
¼ B; ð2Þ
U ln ðz=z0 Þ
where B ¼ 1:0 for z0 p0:02 m, B ¼ 0:76z0:07
0 for 0.02 m<z0 p1.0 m, and B ¼ 0:76
for z0 X1:0 m.
About 90% of the data used for the test fell within 715% of the values given by
Eq. (2).
Fig. 1 displays the atmospheric turbulence intensity profile for different values of
the surface roughness length obtained from Eq. (2). The surface roughness length z0
is determined by comparing the observed turbulent intensity in the wind tunnel
profile with the turbulent intensity profile given by Eq. (2).

3. Implementation

We use our experimental data to show how to determine the wind profile
parameters with this method. The data were obtained from a dense gas experiment
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Liu et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1155–1162 1157

70
Zo=0.01
Zo=0.02
60 Zo=0.1
Zo=0.2
Zo=0.5
50

40
Z (m)

30

20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
TURBULENT INTENSITY ( % )

Fig. 1. Variations of atmospheric turbulent intensity with height for different surface roughness
lengths [2].

Table 1
Mean wind speed and turbulent intensity data obtained from the wind tunnel experiment (where Ur is the
velocity at the reference height 10 cm)

z (cm) Ur ¼ 0:59 m s1 Ur ¼ 1:69 m s1

U (m s1) Turbulent intensity (%) U (m s1) Turbulent intensity (%)

1 0.427 32.7 1.325 25.1

2 0.466 31.7 1.415 23.4
4 0.513 27 1.554 23.4
6 0.56 26.8 1.591 22.3
8 0.575 26.7 1.642 22.1
10 0.592 25.4 1.69 22
14 0.634 25.4 1.761 22
20 0.712 23.1 1.919 20.4
32 0.79 18.9 2.155 17.8
48 0.887 15.6 2.353 16.2
64 0.961 12.2 2.645 14.1

that was conducted in the Wind Tunnel of the Center of Environment Science,
Peking University. The data are listed in Table 1. These two group of data are
obtained under the same surface condition so that the surface roughness length z0 of
these data is the same.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1158 G. Liu et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1155–1162

1
10

0
Ur=1.69 m / s
Z (cm)

10
Ur=0.59 m / s

-1
10

-2
10
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
U (m/s)

Fig. 2. Mean wind profiles.

Fig. 2 shows the variation of mean wind speed with height obtained from the wind
tunnel experiment. The layer from 10–70 cm is assumed to be a constant flux layer.
Theoretically this layer should satisfy the log-linear relationship in Eq. (1). We can
extrapolate the logarithmic wind profile down to a height where the extrapolated
wind speed U becomes zero where the height is d þ z0 above the actual ground
surface. The results are: d þ z0 E0:55 cm for Ur ¼ 0:59 m s1, and d þ z0 E0:40 cm
for Ur ¼ 1:69 m s1.
Figs. 3–5 illustrate the method to calculate the surface roughness length z0 : The
procedure is, first to change the wind tunnel measured data to the field data with the
length-scale factor of 1:100 (This length-scale factor is discretionary); second to draw
in one figure the changed experimental data with three profiles of su =U; 1:15su =U
and 0:85su =U using Eq. (2) with any reasonably chosen z0 : This is repeated with
different values of z0 to determine the most appropriate surface roughness length
z0 for the measured data (here we just show three figures for three different values
of z0 ).
By comparing the figures we can determine the surface roughness length z0 : That
best matches the field data is 0.12 m since most of the experimental data lie between
1:15su =U and 0:85su =U: Therefore, the surface roughness length z0 of the wind
tunnel data is about 0.12 cm. Then we can calculate the zero plane displacement d by
the calculated z0 þ d minus this z0 : Using the calculated z0 and d; Eq. (1) was best-
fitted to the mean velocity data in the height range 10 cmpzp64 cm to estimate u ;
which resulted in u ¼ 0:057 m s1 for Ur ¼ 0:59 m s1, and u ¼ 0:157 m s1 for
Ur ¼ 1:69 m s1. In this example we found that there is no difference in the result of
u if we assume d ¼ 0: Fig. 6 shows the result of the log-linear profile from the
above-calculated parameters and the measured wind speed data in the wind tunnel.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Liu et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1155–1162 1159

70
Ur=0.59 m/s
Ur=1.69 m/s
60 -15%
+15%
ESDU for Zo=0.12 m
50

40
Z (m)

30

20

10

0
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TURBULENT INTENSITY(%)

Fig. 3. Comparison of the experiment data with ESDU for z0 ¼ 0:12 m (where ‘ESDU for z0 ¼ 0:12 m’ is
the profile of su =U using Eq. (2) with z0 ¼ 0:12 m, ‘15%’ is 0:85su =U; ‘+15%’ is 1:15su =U).

70
Ur=0.59 m/s
Ur=1.69 m/s
60 -15%
+15%
ESDU for Zo=0.05 m
50

40
Z (m)

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TURBULENT INTENSITY ( % )

Fig. 4. Same as in Fig. 3 except for z0 ¼ 0:05 m.

Another example to determine z0 and u was carried out for an independent wind
tunnel experimental data, as shown in Table 2, obtained under the same surface
conditions used to obtain the data in Table 1. The results provide a surface
roughness length 0.12 cm and u 0.062 m s1, which agree well with the results from
the experimental data in Table 1.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1160 G. Liu et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1155–1162

70
Ur=0.59 m/s
Ur=1.69 m/s
60 -15%
+15%
ESDU for Zo=0.20 m
50

40
Z (m)

30

20

10

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
TURBULENT INTENSITY (%)

Fig. 5. Same as in Fig. 3 except for z0 ¼ 0:20 m.

600

kU/u*=ln (( Z- d) / Zo)
500 Ur=0.59 m / s
Ur=1.69 m / s

400
(Z-d )/ Zo

300

200

100

0
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
kU/u*

Fig. 6. Log-linear profile.

4. Conclusion

We have shown that the present method is reasonable. Because more information
is used in this method, it yielded more consistent and stable estimates of z0 and u
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
G. Liu et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1155–1162 1161

Table 2
Experimental data measured in the wind tunnel

Z (cm) U (m s1) Turbulent intensity (%)

1 0.406 33.6
2 0.509 28.5
4 0.577 24.9
6 0.627 23.8
8 0.612 26.3
10 0.678 22.4
14 0.714 22.8
20 0.79 20.4
32 0.875 17.2
48 0.936 14.6
64 1.019 11.7
80 1.1 9.27
96 1.136 7.5
112 1.16 5.6
128 1.181 3.8

compared with the method using the simple regression equation of the wind speed
profile.
Besides the two methods discussed here (the regression method of the wind speed
profile and the present method), another alternative method is to measure friction
velocity u first with an X-type hot-wire anemometer, and then to determine z0 by
substituting the measured u into the mean wind speed profile of the surface
turbulent layer. This method also can yield more consistent and stable estimates of z0
and u compared with the simple regression method of the wind speed profile [7].
The strong point of the present method is to use the turbulent intensity profile which
is easily obtained as part of wind speed profile measurements in the wind tunnel
experiment.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Professor Jones, the editor of the journal, for
additional task on our English.

References

[1] O.G. Sutton, Micrometeorology, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953.

[2] ESDU, Characteristics of atmospheric turbulence near the ground, Engineering Science Data Unit
Numbers 74030 and 74031, London, 1974.
[3] J. Donat, M. Schatzmann, Wind tunnel experiments of single-phase heavy gas jets released under
various angles into turbulent cross flows, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 83 (1999) 361–370.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1162 G. Liu et al. / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (2003) 1155–1162

[4] J. Shanmugasundaram, P. Harikrishna, S. Gomathinayagam, N. Lakshmanan, Wind terrain

and structural damping characteristics under tropical cyclone conditions, Eng. Struct. 21 (1999)
1006–1014.
[5] M. Schatzmann, W.H. Snyder, R.E. Lawson, Experiments with heavy gas jets in laminar and turbulent
cross-flows, Atmos. Environ. A 27 (1993) 1105–1116.
[6] D.E. Neff, Physical modeling of heavy plume dispersion, Dissertation, 1989, pp. 49–50.
[7] G. Zhu, S.P. Arya, W.H. Snyder, An experimental study of the flow structure within a dense gas
plume, J. Hazard. Mater. 62 (1998) 161–186.