Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 73 (1998) 215—230

Effects of surface roughness element spacing

on boundary-layer velocity profile parameters
Yunqiu Jia, B.L. Sill*, T.A. Reinhold
Department of Civil Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634-0911, USA

Received 28 June 1996; accepted 22 September 1997

Abstract

Turbulent boundary-layer velocity profiles over rough surfaces depend on the size, shape and
spacing of the roughness elements. In this study, simple theoretical equations to predict the
aerodynamic roughness length and displacement height as functions of element spacing density
are developed when cubes are used as roughness elements. These parameters are also evaluated
from wind-tunnel tests for various element spacing densities. The experimental results agree
well with the theoretical equations. Dependence of the shear velocity (or surface drag coeffic-
ient), turbulence intensity and longitudinal turbulent length scale on the element spacing
density are also evaluated from the experiments. ( 1998 Published by Elsevier Science B.V.
All rights reserved.

Keywords: Log-law; Roughness length; Cubes; Spacing

1. Introduction

The mean velocity profile in the atmospheric boundary layer is often modelled by
the “log law”. This model requires the shear velocity u , the displacement height d,
*
and the aerodynamic roughness length z to allow description of the wind profile as
0
u 1 z!d
" ln . (1)
u k z
* 0
While all the parameters mentioned above are important, the parameter which
receives the most interest is the aerodynamic roughness length z . It is a part of the
0
Jensen number (h/z ), often used in scaling, and is used as a measure of different types
0
of terrain (open country, suburban, etc.).

* Corresponding author.

0167-6105/98/$19.00 ( 1998 Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII S 0 1 6 7 - 6 1 0 5 ( 9 7 ) 0 0 2 8 9 - 4
216 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230

The velocity profile is also often described by a “power-law” model which is

written as

A B
z!d a
u"u , (2)
3 Z
3
where u is a reference velocity at a reference height Z and a is the power-law
3 3
exponent. The parameters z and a are the ones most often referred to in specifying the
0
roughness of a particular terrain. Expressions have been presented [1] which relate
z and a so the present paper focuses only on z .
0 0
Other parameters of interest include d, u , the longitudinal turbulence intensity I ,
* u
the lateral turbulence intensity I and the longitudinal turbulent length scale ¸ . This
v x
paper discusses the dependence of all of these parameters on the roughness element
spacing density, with most of the attention given to z .
0

2. Aerodynamic roughness length

Over the years, z values for many natural conditions have been measured, includ-
0
ing forests, cities, crops, grass, etc. A simple approximation for z can be written as [2]
0
z
0"c, (3)
H

where H is the mean roughness height, and c a constant, approximately 0.1. However,
aerodynamic roughness lengths measured in controlled situations (wind tunnel, water
channel) show that the value of z /H is not constant but varies greatly and is
0
a function of geometry, density and the layout pattern of the roughness elements.
Lettau [3] considered the density of roughness elements and their frontal area in
the special cases when roughness elements are uniform in size and evenly spaced, and
concluded that

z A
0"0.5 & , (4)
H s

where A is the element frontal (or projected) area and s the specific plan area (total
&
plan area per roughness element).
Kondo and Yamazawa [4] developed a slightly different formulation suitable in
a rural town or city and gave

z h
0"0.25 ! , (5)
H H

where

1 i/n
h " + Hs (6)
! s ii
i/1
 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230 217

and s, H , s are the total area, the roughness element height and the area occupied by
i i
the roughness elements (subscript i for each element, n elements altogether), respec-
tively. Cook [5], Simiu and Scanlan [6], and Wieringa [7] developed different tables
of terrain roughness. In these tables, ranges of z values and mean roughness height
0
are given for each terrain category, with the only differences being the number of
terrain categories and the ranges.
By examining the data obtained from the natural conditions and controlled
situations, Fang and Sill [2] concluded that

A BA B
z A A
0" & & . (7)
H s A
8
Here A is the windward surface area of the element. An experiment using a roughness
8
field of random heights (but of average height of about 5.1 cm) was conducted to help
evaluate Eq. (7). Roughness elements were made of wood 5.1 cm]5.1 cm in planform
dimensions, in four different heights (2.5, 5.1, 7.6 and 10.2 cm). The mean element
height varied from 4.9 to 5.6 cm for random configurations and was 5.1 cm for
uniform height roughness field tests. The experimental results agreed well with Eq. (7).
It is expected that as the roughness density (A /s) increases from sparse to dense, the
&
efficiency of the roughness field, represented by the value of z /H, does not always
0
increase. Above a critical density the value of z /H decreases. This is because the
0
roughness elements tend to act as a whole, and the flow no longer responds to the
individual element so that the surface appears smoother to the flow above that critical
density. The critical density where the maximum z /H occurs is a function of
0
roughness geometry and is related to changes in the flow patterns around the
roughness elements.
Three flow regimes have been suggested in earlier studies [8,9]. These are “isolated
roughness flow”, “wake interference flow” and “skimming flow”. In the isolated
roughness flow regime the roughness elements are sufficiently far apart that each
element acts in isolation, and behind which the wake and the separation bubble
develop completely, with reattachment occurring before the next element is reached.
In the wake interference flow regime the roughness elements are close enough to each
other so that the separation bubble associated with each element does not have room
to develop fully. In the skimming flow regime the roughness elements are closer still so
that stable vortices are created in the spaces between the elements. The flow seems to
skim over the elements. The maximum value of z /H is obtained at the start of the
0
wake interference flow and followed by a decrease in the skimming flow regime to
a value of zero at 100% density, corresponding to flow over the smooth surface
formed by the top surface of the elements (for the case of cubes).
Based on the idea that the displacement height is the level at which the mean drag
on the surface appears to act, Jackson [10] developed an equation to predict z /H for
0
two-dimensional (rod) roughness elements as

z 1!e~2a
0" , (8)
H 2ae1@a
218 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230

Fig. 1. Jackson’s calculated z /H versus attenuation coefficient, a.

0

where a is the attenuation coefficient defined as

C jh2
a" $ (9)
4l2

and C is the drag coefficient of a single element, j is the frontal area of roughness per
$
unit plan area unoccupied by roughness, and l is mixing length.
Eq. (8) is plotted in Fig. 1. For moderately dense arrays of semi-rigid elements (like
mature corn and some types of trees), a lies in the range 1—2 [11]. The value of z /H in
0
this range gives good agreement with the results of others [12,7]. An average for
vegetation is about z /H"0.15. Fig. 1 shows the anticipated behavior of z /H with
0 0
spacing (an increase, peak, and a decrease).

3. Model development

Generally, the interaction of the earth’s surface with atmospheric flows is an

integrated result of turbulent drag caused by many obstacles. In this section, a simple
equation is developed to predict the roughness length z for a special case when cubes
0
are used as the roughness elements (or obstacles).
 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230 219

Fig. 2. The definition of effective frontal area A .

%&&

If the total drag of the cube is considered, the average horizontal force per unit plan
area (a stress s) containing many cubes can be written as
A 1
q" %&& . C uN 2, (10)
s 2 $
where A is the effective frontal area of the cube, s the specific plan area, C the
%&& $
pressure drag coefficient of a single cube mounted on the floor (Figs. 8 and 9) so that
the value of C is about 1.7, and uN is the average velocity.
$
Courchesne and Lanevine [13] indicated that the value of C is a function of
$
turbulence intensity and gave the relationship between them. For the wind tunnel
study reported here, the turbulence intensity is about 10% for a single cube mounted
on the floor (Figs. 8 and 9) so that the value of C is about 1.7.
$
If the cubes are arranged so that one cube is directly behind the other as shown in
Fig. 2, the effective frontal area of the cube is that of the shadow area (area outside the
wake) which contributes to the drag force caused by the cube. It is also assumed that
the displacement height is
A !A
d" & %&& . (11)
H
The effective frontal area A and displacement height d are, obviously, functions of
%&&
the roughness density. The average velocity is obtained by averaging the velocity from
d#z to H by using Eq. (1) to obtain
0

CA B D
u H!d z
uN " * ln !1# 0 . (12)
k z H!d
0
This (range for averaging) is used to keep the model simple (even though the “log
law” does not rigorously apply below the top of the elements). The validity of this
step can be judged by comparing the final expression for z with experimental
0
values.
Next, substitute Eq. (12) into Eq. (10) and neglect drag on the flat plate surrounding
the elements. This gives
q ". u2 , (13)
8 *
220 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230

Fig. 3. The layout patterns of the cubes.

z 1!(d/H)
0" , (14)
H ep
where p is defined as

S
2k2 z /H
p" #1! 0 . (15)
(A /A ) (A /s) C 1!d/H
%&& & & $
Note that since p contains z /H, Eq. (14) cannot be solved explicitly for z /H. The
0 0
ratios A /A and d/H are functions of the roughness density A /s. Fig. 2 gives
%&& & &
A hH#2h(H!h) 3h 2h2
%&&" " ! , (16)
A H2 H H2
&

A B
h (mx!H) tan h mx
" " !1 tan h. (17)
H H H
In Eq. (17), m"1 for a normal pattern and m"2 for a staggered pattern as shown in
Fig. 3. Also for cubical elements,
A H2
&" , (18)
s x2
so
x 1
" . (19)
H JA /s
&
Combine Eqs. (17) and (19) and substitute into Eq. (16):

A B CA B D
A m m 2
%&&"3 !1 tan h!2 !1 tan h . (20)
A
& JA /s JA /s
& &
A simple correction can be used if the cubes are closely packed in a staggered pattern.
In this situation, A /A value is smaller than the value predicted by Eq. (20) since
%&& &
cubes in alternate rows shadow those behind it. As shown in Fig. 4, besides the effect
caused by cube I on cube III, cube II also has an effect on cube III by physically
blocking it from the flow. So a value of A /A should be subtracted from Eq. (20) for
4 &
 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230 221

Fig. 4. The definition of overlap area A .

4

a staggered pattern when cubes are closely packed. Here, A is the overlap area
4
(shadow) of cubes II and III,

A "2bH (21a)
4
and
H!¸
b" , (21b)
2

¸"Js!JA , (21c)
&
JA !Js#JA
b" & &. (21d)
2

So finally,

A 2bH 2b 2JA !Js 1

4" " " & "2! . (21e)
A
&
H2 H JA JA /s
& &
A /A is equal to zero for normal pattern (m"1). With Eq. (21e), Eq. (20) becomes
4 &

A B CA B D A B
A m m 2 1
%&&"3 !1 tan h!2 !1 tan h ! 2! (m!1).
A
& JA /s JA /s JA /s
& & &
(22)

From Fig. 2

d A !A A !A A
" & %&&" & %&&"1! %&& . (23)
H H2 A A
& &
222 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230

So

A B CA B D
d m m 2
"1!3 !1 tan h#2 !1 tan h
H JA /s JA /s
& &

A B
1
# 2! (m!1). (24)
JA /s
&
As the values of A /s decrease, the distance mx between the central line of the cubes
&
increases, d/H decreases and A /A increases. But below a critical value of
%&& &
A /s (mx"X) where the maximum value of z /H occurs, the values of d/H and A /A
& 0 %&& &
are no longer a function of density and
d A
"0, %&&"1 for mx*X, (25)
H A
&
where
H
X" #H. (26)
tan h
In this case, the cubes are so widely spaced that the drag force for each cube is
independent of the element density.
Eqs. (22) and (24) are valid when A /s is less than 0.57 for staggered pattern (m"2).
&
For A /s greater than 0.57, A /A is equal to zero and d/H is equal to 1. The critical
& %&& &
value of A /s can be calculated from Eq. (22) when A /A equals to 1, or
& %&& &

AB A B
A 2m tan h 2
& " . (27)
s 2 tan h#1
#3*5*#!-
The value of h should be carefully chosen because it determines the value of X and
therefore the range in which Eqs. (22) and (24) can be applied. It also determines the
critical value of A /s at which the maximum value of z /H occurs.
& 0
The value of h should be estimated by using Eq. (27) if the critical value of A /s is
&
known. From the experimental results of wind tunnel tests (the details will be
discussed later), the critical value of A /s is between 0.15 and 0.25 as shown in Fig. 6.
&
This gives values of h between 17° and 27° for normal pattern and between 7° and 10°
for staggered pattern. Comparison with the experimental results, suggest that the
upper limits for h are best in this model, and are used for all predictions presented
here. The parameter h is the only one used for fitting with experimental data.
Using Eqs. (22), (24) and (25) along with Eq. (14), the relationship between z /H and
0
A /s can be plotted by trial an error as shown in Fig. 5 along with Eq. (4) (Lettau) and
&
Eq. (7) (Fang and Sill).

4. Test program

A series of tests were conducted in the Civil Engineering Boundary-Layer Wind

Tunnel at Clemson University to systematically measure both boundary-layer
 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230 223

Fig. 5. Calculated z /H versus A /s for cubical roughness elements.

0 &

velocity profiles and pressures on a single roughness element imbedded in a rough-

ness field. This paper discusses the results from the velocity measurement
program. The tunnel test section is 3.1 m]1.8 m. The roughness elements used
were wooden cubes having a side dimension of 8.8 cm. Most of the previous
tests mentioned above were conducted using a staggered pattern roughness field in
the wind tunnel. Consequently, the cubes in this study were also arranged in a
staggered pattern. The heavy wooden cubes were placed on the floor of the tunnel and
could be moved easily.
Velocity was measured with a hot wire anemometer. The hot wire sensor was
calibrated regularly to maintain accuracy. Vertical profiles at the center of the test
section were obtained from measurements along elevation z. Two velocity profiles
were obtained by using two different wind speeds for each spacing density. All the
parameters presented in this study are the average of two values derived from two
wind tunnel speed settings. The parameters of interest did not vary greatly with tunnel
speed. Turbulence intensities and longitudinal turbulent length scales were calculated
from the velocity fluctuations.
To obtain an estimate of the magnitude of d, the displacement height, and z , the
0
aerodynamic roughness length, the method suggested by Perry and Joubert [14] was
used. If u is plotted against ln(z), the resultant curve should be linear over the constant
stress portion of the boundary layer if d is zero. If d is not zero, successive values are
224 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230

assumed for d until a value is found which produces a linear variation of (u&ln(z)).
Extrapolation of this line to the ln(z) axis then gives the value of ln(z ).
0
If the surface roughness is changed at an upwind fetch distance y, the wind profile
will only be related to the local roughness within an internal boundary layer of limited
height d(y), while the wind structure at higher levels is still determined by the
roughness at upwind distances'y. The internal boundary layer height d(y) is the
highest level at which the influence of the roughness change begins to be noticeable.
Peterson [15] first showed that most of the layer below d(y) is a transition layer.
Near-equilibrium adaptation of fluxes to the downwind roughness occurs at levels
below +0.1d(y). Thus, this is the largest acceptable height for observation used in
determining terrain roughness correctly. Wieringa [7] developed an equation to
predict the necessary fetch distance to ensure that a particular profile level z is still in
the equilibrium layer fully adapted to an upwind roughness z in field experiments.
0
However, there are no wind tunnel studies for the relationship between fetch distance
and the largest profile height range which can be used to determine a given upwind
roughness. Wieringa also gave the lowest acceptable observation height z (&1.5H)
*
below which the observations are not acceptable for roughness determination. In this
study, the value of z is approximately equal to 13.3 cm.
*
To find the fetch distance needed to ensure that a particular profile level z, say,
30.1 cm, is in the equilibrium layer in this wind tunnel study, additional experiments
were conducted. Two space densities were selected with A /s equal to 0.22 and 0.056,
&
respectively. For each space density, velocity profiles were measured for different fetch
distances y. The value of z /H was derived from velocity profiles for a range
0
14—30.1 cm in elevation. The results show that despite some scatter, z /H is almost
0
constant for fetch distances greater than 6.1 m for both space densities. Thus, the
minimum value of fetch distance needed to ensure that the profile level at z"30.1 cm
is in the equilibrium layer was set at 6.1 m. The fetch distance used in the experiments
for all other space densities was kept equal to or greater than 6.1 m.

5. Experimental results and discussion

The experiments were conducted for the parameter A /s ranging from 0 to 0.60.
&
The variations of z /H and d/H with roughness element density, A /s, are shown
0 &
in Figs. 6 and 7, together with the results of Koloseus [16], who measured cubical
elements in an open-flow channel, and results of Counihan [17] who measured
cubical elements in the A /s range from 0.08 to 0.45 in the wind tunnel. At A /s"0,
& &
the roughness length indicated is that of floor of the tunnel, i.e. there are no cubes
in the tunnel. Since the tops of the cubes were sanded, they have a similar
smooth surface to the floor of the wind tunnel. As a result, the roughness length
at A /s"1 is the same as that at A /s"0, although d should vary from 0 to H over
& &
this range. Value of z /H and d/H were also obtained from the velocity profile for
0
a height range 14—30.1 cm.
As the roughness element density increases, z /H increases until a critical value of
0
A /s+0.2 is reached. Above this value z /H decreases as the roughness element
& 0
 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230 225

Fig. 6. Variation of z /H with A /s for both experiment’s results and theoretical equation.
0 &

Fig. 7. Variation of d/H with A /s for both experiment’s results and theoretical equation.
&
226 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230

Fig. 8. Variation of longitudinal turbulence intensity with A /s for different height.

&

density increases. The values of z /H for the present study are between Koloseus’s
0
results and Counihan’s results and the value of A /s at which the maximum value of
&
z /H occurs is also slightly different from the other two results. Despite this, however,
0
there is a strong similarity in the trends of the three sets of data. The variation of d/H
for the present tests compares well with Counihan’s values.
To compare the experimental results with the theoretical equation obtained
in the previous section, the theoretical equations are also plotted in Figs. 6 and 7.
The equations for a staggered pattern agree reasonably well with the test results,
though there is some difference between them at A /s around the critical
&
value.
The turbulence intensities for both longitudinal and lateral directions at different
elevations were obtained from velocity fluctuations as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. Below
the height level of 45.7 cm, as A /s increases, the u@/º and v@/º increases until A /s
& &
reaches the critical value of about 0.2. Above this value, the value of turbulence
intensity remains relatively constant. It is also observed that the turbulence intensity
decreases as the height z increases (as expected). As z increases, the effect of A /s on
&
intensity decreases.
The variation of longitudinal turbulent length scale ¸ with A /s is shown in
x &
Fig. 10. As A /s increases, the value of ¸ decreases until A /s reaches the critical
& x &
value of about 0.2. Above this value, ¸ increases as A /s increases. It is also ob-
x &
served that ¸ is a function of height. ¸ increases as the height z increases.
x x
 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230 227

Fig. 9. Variation of lateral turbulence intensity with A /s for different height.

&

Fig. 10. Variation of longitudinal turbulent length scale with A /s for different height.
&
228 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230

Fig. 11. Variation of drag coefficient with A /s.

&

From the velocity profiles, values of u /k are also obtained. To find the relationship
*
between the drag (or friction) coefficient c and u /k, use the definitions as
& *
q "1 c . º2, (28)
8 2 &

S
q
u " 8, (29)
* .

so
2u2
c" *, (30)
& º2

where º is the velocity at a specified reference height. Values for c versus A /s are
& &
plotted in Fig. 11. This plot has a shape similar to the z /H versus A /s plot. As A /s
0 & &
increases, c increases until the critical value of A /s is reached. After that c decreases
& & &
as A /s increases.
&
The relationship between c and z /H is shown in Fig. 12. The drag coefficient
& 0
c increases as the roughness length z /H increases. This plot includes A /s
& 0 &
values between 0 and 0.6. It appears that c can be expressed as a function of only
&
z /H.
0
 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230 229

Fig. 12. Variation of c with z /H.

& 0

6. Conclusions

1. The simple theoretical equations for z /H and d/H developed in this study
0
compare well with present experimental results of wind tunnel “cube tests” as well as
other previously published results. This suggests that the approach used has some
merits, despite several rather drastic simplifications.
2. The theoretical equations developed assume that cubes are used as roughness
elements while Lettau’s equations was based on natural conditions and Fang and
Sill’s equation was based on a combination of natural conditions and controlled
situations including cubes, spheres, baskets, etc. Despite this, the theoretical equations
agree well with Fang and Sill’s equation and reasonably well with Lettau’s equation
for A /s values less than the critical value. This suggests that the equation developed in
&
this study might be used for roughness elements of other shapes.
3. The values of h"27° for normal pattern and h"10° for staggered pattern used
in this study are only for cubes used as roughness elements. If other roughness element
shapes are considered, the value of h may not be the same as that used for cubes.
4. Since only one shape (cube) and one size of roughness element was used in the
present study, the value of A , or frontal area of the elements was not varied.
&
230 Y. Jia et al. /J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 73 (1998) 215—230

Therefore, this study did not prove that the ratio A /s is the proper parameter to
&
correlate velocity profile parameters with element spacing, although it seems appro-
priate and has been used by others.

References
[1] B.L. Sill, Turbulent boundary layer profiles over uniform rough surfaces, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
31 (1988) 147—163.
[2] C. Fang, B.L. Sill, Aerodynamic roughness length: correlation with roughness elements, 8th Int. Conf.
Wind Eng., London, Canada, 8—12 July 1991.
[3] H. Lettau, Note on aerodynamic roughness parameter estimation on the basis of roughness-element
description, J. Appl. Meteorol. 8 (1969) 828—834.
[4] J. Kondo, H. Yamazawa, Aerodynamic roughness over an inhomogeneous ground surface, Bound.-
Layer Meteorol. 35 (1986) 331—348.
[5] N.J. Cook, The designer’s guide to wind loading of building structures, Part I: Background, damage
survey, wind data and structure classification, Building Research Establishment Report, Butter-
worths, London, 1985.
[6] E. Simiu, R.H. Scanlan, Wind effects on structures, Wiley, New York, 1985.
[7] J. Wieringa, Representative roughness parameters for homogeneous terrain, Bound.-Layer Meteorol.
63 (1993) 323—363.
[8] B.E. Lee, B.F. Soliman, An investigation of the forces on three dimensional bluff bodies in rough wall
turbulent boundary layers, J. Fluids Eng. (1977) 503—511.
[9] H.M. Morris, Flow in rough conduits, Trans. ASCE 120 (1955) 373—398.
[10] P.S. Jackson, On the displacement height in the logarithmic velocity profile, J. Fluid Mech. 111 (1981)
15—25.
[11] R.M. Cionco, A wind-profile index for canopy flow, Bound.-Layer Meteorol. 3 (1972) 225—263.
[12] G. Szeicz, G. Endrodi, Aerodynamic and surface factors in evaporation, Water Resourc. Res. No. (2)
(1969) 380—394.
[13] J. Courchesne, A. Laneville, An evaluation of drag coefficient for rectangular cylinders exposed to grid
turbulence, J. Fluids Eng. 104 (1982) 523—528.
[14] A.E. Perry, P.N. Joubert, Rough wall boundary layers in adverse pressure gradients, J. Fluid Mech. 17
(1963) 193—211.
[15] E.W. Peterson, Modification of mean flow and turbulent energy by a change in surface roughness
under conditions of neutral stability, Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 95 (1969) 561—575.
[16] H.J. Koloseus, J. Davidian, Roughness-concentration effects on flow over hydrodynamically rough
surfaces, Geological Survey Water — Supply Paper 1592-D, US Dept. Int., 1966.
[17] J. Counihan, Wind tunnel determination of the roughness length as a function of the fetch and the
roughness density of three-dimensional roughness elements, Atmos. Environ. 5 (1971) 637—642.