ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 94 (2006) 119
www.elsevier.com/locate/jweia

Experimental study on roughness effects on

turbulent boundary layer ow over a
two-dimensional steep hill
Shuyang Caoa,, Tetsuro Tamurab
a

Wind Engineering Research Center, Tokyo Polytechnic University, 1583 Iiyama, Atsugi,
Kanagawa 243-0297, Japan
b
Department of Environmental Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, 4259 Nagatsuta,
Yokohama 226-8502, Japan
Received 29 October 2004; received in revised form 5 September 2005; accepted 7 October 2005
Available online 18 November 2005

Abstract
Wind tunnel experiments were carried out to study the effects of surface roughness on the
turbulent boundary layer ow over a two-dimensional steep hill, accompanied by a relatively steady
and large separation, sometimes called a separation bubble. Rough surface conditions were modeled
by placing small cubes on the hill surface with an arrangement whose roughness density equaled
4.1%. Vertical proles of the turbulence statistics over the hill were investigated, and compared with
those for an oncoming turbulent boundary layer over a at surface covered by cubes with the same
arrangement. Furthermore, measurements of the turbulent boundary layer ow over a smooth hill of
the same shape were taken in order to identify the surface roughness effects. The speed-up ratio
above the crest and the turbulence statistics in the wake were focused on. Flow structures in the
separation bubble were investigated by measuring the velocity with a split-ber probe. Measurement
with ne resolution in the streamwise direction for near-ground ows was carried out to detect the
reattachment point. The results show that the roughness blocks both on the hill surface and on the
upstream ground affect the speed-up ratio over the hill. The speed-up ratio above the crest of a rough
hill is larger than that of a smooth hill. The separation bubble of a rough hill extends further
downstream, resulting in a larger reattachment length than a smooth hill. The location with the
maximum turbulence intensity in the downstream prole also moves further downstream for a rough
hill. Proles of reverse-ow intermittency that give a description of the dynamic behavior of the

Corresponding author. Tel.:+81462429656; fax: +81462429656.

E-mail address: cao@arch.t-kougei.ac.jp (S. Cao).

0167-6105/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2005.10.001

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2

S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

separation bubble are presented. In addition, variations of power spectrum of longitudinal velocity
uctuation downstream of the hill are shown for both surface conditions.
r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Hill; Roughness; Separation and reattachment; Turbulent boundary layer; Turbulent statistics

1. Introduction
Atmospheric turbulent ow over a steeply curved hill involves complicated ow
phenomena such as spatial development, separation, reattachment and downstream
recovery of the turbulent boundary layer. Increase in velocity, or speed-up, and
separation and reattachment that cause variations in both mean ow and turbulence, are
two features particularly important for wind engineering applications. This is because, for
instance, in questions of wind turbine siting, it is crucial to understand the position with
accelerations in the mean wind and its magnitude, whereas changes to both the mean wind
and turbulence are important when predicting the dispersion of atmospheric pollutants in
hilly terrain or estimating wind loading on structures. The majority of past studies on
airow over a steep hill have focused on these two ow features [13].
Meanwhile, it has been shown that the condition of the hill surface, smooth or rough,
should be considered when studying the effects of topography on the airow. Neff and
Meroney [4] investigated the vegetation inuence on wind power availability in terms of
the amplication of wind speed on a crest with and without vegetation on its surface. They
showed that removal of vegetation leads to an increase in the speed-up ratio on the crest.
Miller and Davenport [5] examined the current Canadian and UK wind loading codes of
practice for predicting speed-up on the crests of complex terrain considering the upstream
surrounding topography and surface roughness. They implied the necessity of considering
surface roughness and upstream ow conditions when predicting speed-up. Both these two
studies were restricted to the speed-up ratio on the crest of a hill for their practical projects.
The fundamental roles played by roughness were not considered.
Establishment of a separation bubble in the lee side is another important ow feature in
addition to the speed-up. Thus, the inuence of surface roughness on separation also
attracts a lot of attention. From a review of many eld observations and wind tunnel
experiments, Finnigan [1] suggested that the occurrence of separation in the wake region
depends on the hill shape (2D or 3D), steepness and roughness, and for a 2D hill of given
steepness, separation is more likely to occur with increasing roughness. The local surfaceair scalar transfer in a hilly region is considered intuitively to be inuenced by the surface
roughness, especially when a separation bubble is formed in the wake region. Research on
modication made by surface roughness on a turbulent structure over a steep hill is likely
to be important for scalar transfer processes, such as particle deposition and pollutant
dispersion, which are dominated by aerodynamics. However, there have been a few
detailed quantitative studies of the roughness effects on the turbulent boundary layer
structure. The majority past researches on airow over a fully rough single 2D ridge or 3D
hill or wavy hills have been carried out to study the turbulence over a rough hill, not to
clarify roughness effects [68]. Meng and Hibis [9] work was an exception. They studied
the proles of mean velocity, turbulence intensities and turbulence structure over a rough
hill in comparison with results obtained over a smooth hill. One result showed the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

downstream movement of the reattachment points. However, its mechanisms were not
given. In this study, we carried out an experimental study of the turbulent boundary layer
over smooth and rough steep hills, with emphasis on the basic roles of the surface
roughness played on the behavior of the separation bubble and on the speed-up ratio, and
discuss the physical mechanism of movement of the reattachment point.
Wind tunnel facilities in the Department of Environment Science and Technology,
Tokyo Institute of Technology were employed to study the turbulent boundary layer ow
over 2D steep smooth and rough hills. The main objective of this study was to obtain
accurate Reynolds number independent measurement data concerning the mean as well as
turbulent ow, including the dynamic behavior of the separation bubble. The proles of
mean velocity and turbulence intensity, the power spectrum and the turbulent structure
over the hill were discussed and compared with those of the oncoming turbulence on a at
plate. Flow over smooth and rough hills were also compared in order to identify the effects
of surface roughness. Roughness effects on the speed-up ratio on the crest and the
structure of the separation bubble were focused on. In this study, the rough surface
conditions were modeled by placing small cubes on the hill surface, rather than using metal
mesh [8] or articial grass [4,9], which has been widely used by many researchers. Using the
cubes, the rough surface itself can be quantied with the aid of roughness parameters, for
instance, roughness density, which will be described later. The hill considered in this study
had a maximum slope of about 321 in the lee side, which is steep enough to establish
relatively steady separation. Another objective of this study was to provide experimental
data to validate the numerical model of the CFD analysis of ow over hills, which was
inuenced by both the curvature and pressure gradient, and thus required particular
attention to turbulence modeling.
2. Experimental setup
The experiments were conducted in the 1.0 m-wide, 0.8 m-high by 7.0 m-long test section
of an open circuit wind tunnel. The free-stream turbulence intensity was about 0.3% at the
turntable location. The hill model considered had a hill prole given by
yh x H cos2 px=2L;
LoxoL,
yh x 0; xo
L; x4L,

where the hill model height H was 40 mm and the length L was 100 mm. Length L is
dened as half the distance between the upwind hill foot and the downwind hill foot (see
Fig. 1). This shape had a maximum slope of about 321 (gradient 0.628) on the lee side,
which exceeded the critical value (about 161) suggested by Finnigan for separation to take
place [1]. End plates were employed at the two sides of the hill model. The length in the
span direction of the hill model was 800 mm. This hill model gave a blockage ratio of
5.0%.
Neutrally stratied atmospheric boundary layers were simulated by placing two arrays
of 50 mm-high cubes just downstream of the contraction exit, in other words, at the
entrance of the test section, followed by 30- and 10 mm-high cubic roughness elements,
totally covering a length of 1000 mm of the test section oor. The height of these roughness
elements decreased gradually downstream to avoid complicating the ow due to sudden
roughness change from rough to smooth [9]. The remaining 6.0 m length of the test section

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

Contraction
chamber

Test section

Traversing
mechanism

800

y
H=40 x
1000

4000

2L=200

2000

Fig. 1. Sketch of experimental setup (the roughness elements on the front 1000 mm were placed for both smooth
and rough surface conditions. The following roughness elements, 5 mm cubes, were only placed on the rough
surface condition).

oor was covered by 5 mm-high cubic roughness elements when a rough surface condition
was required, otherwise there were no roughness elements for the relatively smooth surface
condition. No spires or barriers were used in the experiments. Hence, the generated
turbulent boundary layer was close to a naturally grown neutral one. The reason for also
placing roughness blocks at the entrance to the test section for relatively smooth surface
conditions was that we wished to generate a turbulent boundary layer over a smooth
surface with the same boundary layer depth as that of the rough surface boundary layer. It
was known that the ratio of the boundary layer depth to the hill height was also a factor
inuencing the characteristics of the boundary layer over a hill. The effect of this ratio
could be excluded when the boundary layer depth was set to be the same for both hill
surface conditions. Fig. 1 illustrates the experimental setup, together with the coordinate
system utilized in this study, where x, y are the free-stream and wall normal velocity
directions, respectively. The origin of the coordinate system is at the center of the hill 5.0 m
downstream from the contraction exit. Meanwhile, a subsidiary vertical coordinate,
y0 y
yh x, was used to express the height above the hill surface.
Measurements of mean ow and turbulence statistics were taken using a cross-wire
probe (55P61) and a split-ber probe (55R55) in conjunction with a 90N10 DANTEC
constant temperature anemometer system. The probes were placed with respect to xed
Cartesian coordinates in the tunnel. Measurements with the cross-wire probe were
restricted within the upper part (y=H41:0) of the boundary layer because of the ow with
large incident angle to the probe in the forebody, and highly turbulent ow and reversed
ow in the afterboby of the hill, which lead to unreliable measurement results with the
cross-wire probe. The split-ber probe was applied to locations within y=Ho1:0 in this
study. One split-ber probe contained two nearly identical sensors combined on a common
quartz ber and permitted highly localized ow eld measurements. The working principle
of the split-ber probes was the variation of the local transfer coefcient with ow angle
for a heated cylinder placed in a cross ow. Accordingly, the sum of the heat transfer from
the two sensors depended only on the velocity, while the difference depended on both
velocity and ow angle in the plane perpendicular to the two sensors. Split-ber probes
have been used as an alternative to pulsed wires to measure reversed ow. For instance,
Kiya and Sasaki [10] investigated the structure of a turbulent separation bubble formed at

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

the leading edge of a blunt at plate with the aid of a split-ber probe. The calibration
procedure of the split-ber probe has been described by Boerner and Leutheusser [11] and
modied by Ishihara et al. [12]. In this study, the split-ber probe 55R55 was calibrated
using Ishihara et al.s modied method. The calibration results showed that the deviation
of the sum of the output voltages of the two separate sensors with pitch angle was lower
than 71.5% within the velocity region of 1.08.0 m/s, while the difference between them,
which implies the directional response of the probe, was favorably close to the ideal cosine
function. The thin nickel lms of the split-ber probe, which are covered with 0.5 mm thick
quartz coating to protect against oxidation, were deposited on a 200 mm quartz ber with
an active length of 1.2 mm. It was much larger than a standard wire/lm probe, so its
frequency response should be checked before being utilized to measure turbulence. The
power spectrum of the turbulence in a turbulent boundary layer was measured with a
standard 5 mm diameter hot-wire probe (55P61) and a 200 mm diameter split-lm probe
with the same CTA. The power spectra obtained were practically identical within the
frequency region of less than 1.0 KHz (not shown). In all the experiments, the output signal
was digitized and sampled for about 30 s at a frequency of 1 KHz for each point in the
proles.
More than ten thousand small roughness elements (5 mm cubes) were placed in a
staggered pattern on the wind tunnel oor to generate the rough wall turbulent boundary
layer, as illustrated in Fig. 2. This arrangement gave a roughness density l 4:1%, where
l is dened as the total roughness front area per unit ground area. This arrangement was
maintained on the rough hill surface. It has been described by Perry et al. [13] that, for a
rough wall turbulent boundary layer, two types of roughness can be distinguished, referred
to as k- and d-type. k-type roughness follows the well-known NikuradseClauser
correlation scheme of velocity prole. However, for a d-type rough wall, the elements
are more closely spaced. Stable vortices are set up in the grooves so that eddy shedding
from the elements into the ow will be negligible. As a result, d-type roughness does not
follow the NikuradseClauser correlation scheme. In this study, the arrangement of
roughness elements (W 7:0b) corresponded to a k-type rough wall turbulent boundary
layer.
The organized spanwise structures have been observed in several types of separated and
reattachment ows, for e.g., in the wake of a bluff body [10] and in the ow around a twodimensional backward-facing step [14]. However, the variance of mean quantities along
the spanwise direction reported in these studies was not too signicant from the wind

W (35mm)

5mm Cube

W (35mm)

b(5mm)

Fig. 2. Arrangement of roughness elements for generating rough wall turbulent boundary layer.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
6

S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

engineering point of view. In a preliminary experiment of this study, we measured the

mean longitudinal velocity along the spanwise direction on the hill crest and reattachment
location. Signicant variance was not recognized. Therefore, in this study, the turbulence
statistics were measured in the symmetrical plane of the hill model.

3. Flow characteristics
3.1. Undisturbed turbulenceinflow turbulence
Flat boards covered with, or without, roughness elements were placed rst on the wind
tunnel oor to generate turbulent boundary layers over rough or relatively smooth
surfaces. Measurements at a location of 5.0 m downstream of the contraction exit of the
wind tunnel (where the hill model would be placed) were taken to obtain the ow
characteristics of the turbulent boundary layers themselves. The proles of the mean ow
and turbulence determined the reference turbulent boundary layer ow to be used for
comparison with the proles taken over the hills. The ow characteristics of the
undisturbed turbulence are shown in Fig. 3(a)(e). The mean velocity proles are shown in
Fig. 3(a), which are normalized by U 1 , the free stream velocity at the same location. The
turbulent boundary layer depth d was about 250 mm, or 6.25 times the hill height for both
surface conditions. The effects of the ratio of boundary layer depth to hill height could
thus be excluded. Similar measurements (not shown) further upstream and downstream of
this location showed good agreements. It implied that the boundary layer was fully
developed and the free-stream velocity could be considered constant around the hill model
location. Therefore, the pressure gradient along the ow was considered too small to
inuence the separation and wake characteristics signicantly.
The roughness length z0 was determined by the best tting of the log law to the measured
velocity prole, with the friction velocity ut and the zero-plane displacement d determined
beforehand. ut was derived from the Reynolds stress in the constant shear layer region
observed adjacent to the wall equilibrium layer. From the proles of Reynolds stress
shown in Fig. 3(b), ut is found to be 0:051U 1 and 0:033U 1 for the boundary layers of
rough and relatively smooth surfaces, respectively. The zero-plane displacement d was
assumed to be 0.7 h (h: roughness element height), which was suggested by Jackson [15].
With the obtained values of ut and d, the roughness length, z0 0:2 mm, was obtained for
the rough surface (see Fig. 3(e)). This ow had a roughness Reynolds number Res
( ut  z0 =n, n is the kinematic viscosity) equal to 3.97, greater than the value of 3 that is
often taken as the lower limit indicative of fully rough ow [16]. Recently, Snyder and
Castro [17] showed that this lower limit to maintain the fully rough condition could
decrease to 1.0 when sharp-edged rectangular cylinders are used to model the rough
surface. Therefore, the generated rough surface boundary layer in this study can be
considered as fully rough ow. Meanwhile, a roughness length z0 0:004 mm was
obtained for the relatively smooth surface, which is so small that it can be treated as a
smooth surface in practice (called smooth surface hereafter). The root-mean-square (rms)
values of the longitudinal and vertical velocity uctuations, su and sv , are shown in
Fig. 3(c) and (d), respectively, normalized by ut . Near-surface values of su and sv are
comparable with the measurements of other studies, as summarized in Table 1. These data
are generally consistent with the wall similarity hypothesis. In addition, the turbulent

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

Smooth surface
Rough surface

Smooth surface
Rough surface

200
y/

y (mm)

300

0.5
100

0.2

0.4

(a)

0.6
U/U

0.8

0.002 0.003 0.004

-u'v'/U 2

Smooth surface
Rough surface

Smooth surface
Rough surface
Rough surface
(Raupach)
(y -d)/

(y-d )/

0.001

(b)

0.5

0.5

u/u

(c)

1
u/u

(d)

30
Smooth surface
Rough surface

U/U

20
z0=0.004mm
10
z0=0.2mm
0
(e)

100

101
y-d (mm)

102

103

Fig. 3. Proles of turbulent boundary layer over at surfaces: (a) Longitudinal mean velocity, (b) shear stress, (c)
rms of longitudinal velocity uctuation, (d) rms of vertical velocity uctuation and (e) mean velocity proles
expressed with log law.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
8

S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

Table 1
Measurements of ow characteristics over at surfaces
Smooth

Present
Andreopoulos and Bradshaw [18]
Perry et al. [19]
Raupach [20]

Rough

su =st

sv =st

su =st

sv =st

2.35
2.24
2.13
2.10

1.10
1.11
1.13
1.01

2.15
2.09
2.18
2.04

1.13
1.00
1.13
1.10

(rectangular cylinder)
(sand)
(mesh)
(rectangular cylinder)

intensities at the hill height, normalized by local mean velocity, were 8.93% and 15.1%, for
smooth and rough conditions, respectively.
A model/eld scale of 1:2000, consistent with an atmospheric boundary layer
approximately 500 m high, gives an equivalent full scale of z0 0:4 m, representative of
a suburban area. It also gives an equivalent height of 80 m for a hill, with 10 m-high
obstacles standing on it. In addition, the values of roughness density (l 4:1%) and
roughness length (z0 0:2 mm) obtained under the rough surface condition follow the
relation suggested by Raupach [21], such that z0 =h varies linearly with l when the
roughness density is low.
3.2. Variations of turbulence structure with surface condition
Reynolds numbers, based on hill height H and velocity U H at the hill height of the
undisturbed turbulence over at plate, were about 12,000 and 10,500 for the smooth and
rough surface hills, respectively. The difference between Reynolds numbers of the two
surface conditions was not large, so it was not necessary to consider Reynolds number
effects. The hill considered in this paper had a large slope, so the application of the wellknown analytical method that may help us in interpreting the experimental data, or the
check of the theoretical scheme using our experimental data in turn, could not be carried
out, because the current analytical method is valid only for low or moderate hills.
Fig. 4 compares the proles of longitudinal mean velocity at several downstream
locations of the smooth and rough surface hills with those of reference boundary layer ow
shown in break lines. Longitudinal mean velocity is normalized with U 1 , the free stream
velocity. Some similar ow characteristics can be found between these two surface
conditions. Flow decelerates at the upwind hill foot and accelerates at the crest, relative to
the respective prole on at ground. The proles of mean velocity on the lee side of the hill
are completely different from those on the upstream side because of the reversed ow, or
the separation bubble on the lee side. Furthermore, the mean velocity prole does not
recover to its original state as in the upstream ow even at x=H 7:5, which is the
farthest downstream measurement point during this experiment. This means that the
turbulence property is inuenced by the hill within a long downstream region. Fig. 5 shows
the proles of the rms of longitudinal velocity uctuation su for smooth and rough surface
conditions, and compares them with the proles of turbulence of the reference boundary
layers. Although there are no signicant variations of su relative to the turbulence of
reference boundary layer on the foreside of the hill, it deviates greatly on the lee side, with

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119
x/H=-2.5

2.5

3.75

5.0

6.25

7.5

exp., Re=12000

y/H

3
2
1
0

U/U

U/U

(a)

Velocity profile of reference boundary layer

x/H=-2.5

exp., Re=10500

2.5

3.75

5.0

6.25

7.5

y/H

3
2
1
0

0
0
U/U

(b)

0
0
U/U

Velocity profile of reference boundary layer

Fig. 4. Mean velocity proles over smooth and rough hills: (a) Smooth surface and (b) rough surface.

x/H=-2.5

exp., Re=12000

3.75

5.0

6.25

7.5

y/H

3
2
1
0

0
0

 /U
0.2 u

(a)

0
0
u /U

Turbulence of reference boundary layer

x/H=-2.5

3.75

5.0

6.25

7.5

exp., Re=10500

y/H

3
2
1
0

0
0

(b)

0
0
u /U

0.2

0
0
u /U

Turbulence of reference boundary layer

Fig. 5. Proles of turbulence intensity over smooth and rough hills: (a) Smooth surface and (b) rough surface.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

10

increased values at approximately the hill height due to the separated shear layer.
Although the general structures of the turbulent boundary layers over smooth and rough
hills are quite similar, some differences between the statistical and dynamical structures are
found by detailed analysis of the experimental data, among which the roughness effects on
the speed-up ratio, and separation bubble including the reverse-ow intermittency, as well
as the power spectrum are mainly described.
3.2.1. Turbulence statistics on the crest
In assessing the impact of topography on design wind speed, it is convenient to consider
the increase in mean wind velocity over the hill with the aid of a parameter called fractional
speed-up ratio, which is dened by:
sx; y0

DU
Ux; y0
U 0 y0

,
0
U 0 y
U 0 y0

(2)

where U(x, y0 ) is the wind speed at height y0 above the local surface of the hill and U0(y0 ) is
the reference wind speed at the same height above the at surface. Eq. (2) relates the
increase in wind speed at a given height to the undisturbed wind speed at the same height
above the surface. Fractional speed-up ratio over a sinusoidal terrain can be satisfactorily
predicted from theoretical frameworks if the slope of the hill is below 0.5. However, for the
steep hill in this study, application of an analytical method will yield unacceptable errors,
so a wind tunnel study is often relied on. Several countries have put forward empirical
relations between fractional speed-up ratio and the scales of the hill shape from extensive
experimental data as their national wind loading codes. In this study, we reveal the basic
role the roughness blocks play in the velocity change, and shed some light on matters that
need attention in predicting the speed-up ratio.
Proles of speed-up ratio over smooth and rough hills, obtained at the upwind hill foot,
crest and downwind hill foot, are shown in Fig. 6(a). The rough hill case shows a slightly
larger deceleration at the upwind hill foot than the smooth hill, compared with respective
upstream prole. Speed-up ratios for both surface conditions are negative at the downwind
hill foot where the ow is in the dead water region. The most signicant location for
considering the speed-up ratio is on the crest where large acceleration occurs. The
measurements show that the speed-up ratio at the crest of the rough hill is obviously larger
than that at the crest of the smooth hill below height y0 4h (0.5H) (h: height of roughness
block). The speed-up ratio at y0 2h (0.25H) is 0.875 and 0.457 for the rough and smooth
hills, respectively. Meanwhile, for the prole of speed-up ratio on the crest, there should be
a height y0max where DU is maximum in the prole because of the demand of no-slip
condition on the hill surface. The height y0max and the magnitude are of practical
importance for wind engineering applications. Unfortunately, we could not detect them
because the measurements did not reach close enough to the surface. However, we can
predict that y0max on the crest of the rough hill appears at a higher position than on the crest
of the smooth hill, because the inner layer where the boundary layer is in local equilibrium
becomes deeper on the crest of the rough hill, which will be described later.
The variations of speed-up ratio shown in Fig. 6(a) are obtained for a smooth hill in
smooth ow and a rough hill in rough ow. However, consideration of any real
topography soon shows that these two conditions are highly idealized. It is very common
that a hill has a roughness cover or roughness grade different with its surroundings. For a
given hill, the change in upstream roughness grade affects the characteristics of upstream

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119
8

8
upwind, smooth
upwind, rough
crest, smooth
crest, rough
downwind, smooth
downwind, rough

(a)

smooth hill in smooth flow

rough hill in rough flow
smooth hill in rough flow
rough hill in smooth flow

y'/H

y'/H

11

-1

0
S

(b)

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Fig. 6. Roughness effects on fractional speed up ratio: (a) At upwind, downwind and crest of hill and (b)
dependence on upstream and surface rough condition.

turbulence, and thus inuences the turbulence structure over the hill. Thus, variation of
speed-up ratio with difference of roughness covered on the hill and on the surroundings
should also be taken into consideration. An extreme change in roughness grade on the
surface may be a sudden roughness change from smooth to rough or from rough to
smooth. Thus, additional experiments were carried out for a smooth hill in rough ow and
a rough hill in smooth ow. The results of speed-up ratio on the crest obtained for these
four conditions (smooth hill in smooth ow, smooth hill in rough ow, rough hill in
smooth ow and rough hill in rough ow) are summarized in Fig. 6(b). With approaching
the hill surface, the speed-up ratios deviate greatly, indicating that they depend strongly on
the surface conditions (smooth or rough) of both the hill and its upstream ground,
especially below height y0 4h (0.5H). Speed-up ratio at y0 2h (0.25H) shows the
relation
S roughflow;smoothhill 0:9184S roughflow;roughhill 0:8754S smoothflow;smoothhill 0:4574
S smoothflow;roughhill 0:245. This can be explained by the following process. Although the
turbulence statistics on the upwind hill foot for a given upstream roughness is almost
unchanged with the surface condition of the hill (not shown), velocity defection is enlarged
compulsively by the roughness blocks on the hill surface for a rough hill in smooth ow,
resulting in a smaller speed-up ratio on the crest than for a smooth hill in smooth ow.
However, for a smooth hill in rough ow, the ow accelerates more easily above the hill
surface because of the removal of the roughness blocks, resulting in a larger speed-up ratio
than for a rough hill in rough ow. Thus, it can be concluded that speed-up ratio receives
combined effects of hill surface condition and upstream surface condition. For a steep hill
of a given shape, rough upstream surface condition leads to a larger speed-up ratio than
the smooth upstream surface condition, and hill surface roughness reduces the speed-up
ratio when the same upstream surface condition is considered.
Turning to turbulence, Fig. 7 shows the proles of the rms value of longitudinal velocity
uctuation su and Reynolds stress u0 v0 on the crest. Each quantity is normalized by its

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

12

Smooth surface
Rough surface

y' /

y' /

0.5

0.5

Smooth surface
Rough surface

0
(a)

0.2

0.4

0.6
u/ur

0.8

1
(b)

1
u'v'/u'v'r

Fig. 7. Proles of turbulence statistics on the crest: (a) rms of the velocity uctuation and (b) Reynolds stress.

value in the upstream ow at the same height, sur and u0 v0r . su becomes smaller than in the
upstream ow on the crest under both surface conditions. This is evidence of the wellknown phenomenon of ow laminarization on the top of a curve. In addition, su =sur for
the rough hill is smaller than that for the smooth hill, especially near the hill surface,
indicating that the turbulence is suppressed more for the rough hill. A similar tendency can
be found in the prole of u0 v0 =u0 v0r , shown in Fig. 7(b). The rough hill has a smaller value of
u0 v0 =u0 v0r than the smooth hill, and this becomes more obvious with approach to the hill
surface. In addition, the point with the maximum u0 v0 =u0 v0r is located at a higher position in
the rough surface condition. This suggests that the inner layer expands upwards for the
rough hill, leading to a higher position of y0max of DU max .
3.2.2. Turbulence statistics in wake
One signicant feature of turbulent ow over a steep hill is the establishment of a
separation bubble on the lee side. Variation of the reattachment point or the length of the
ow recirculation zone, with the surface condition is of particular importance in
considering the scalar transfer on the lee side of the hill. Fig. 8 presents the proles of time
mean longitudinal velocity in and around the separation bubble over smooth and rough
hills. The broken line shows the dividing streamline that passes through the points where
the mean velocity is zero. The dividing streamline lies below the separating and reattaching
streamline, but gives a clear indication of the extent of the separation region. Fig. 8 shows
that, although there is only a slight difference between the heights of the dividing points for
the two surface conditions at x=H 1:25 above the hill surface, it deviates more noticeably
downstream, and nally reattaches to the ground at the reattachment point at a distance
xL =H 5:4 and 6.5 from the hill center, respectively, for the smooth and rough hills. The
reattachment length of the rough hill is larger. This agrees with our numerical results [22]
and Meng et al.s experimental result [9]. The reattachment point is determined by
extrapolating to y 0 of the dividing points (Fig. 8) in practice. In order to get an accurate

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

y/H

x/H= 0
2

1.25

2.53

3.75

3.0

13

6.25

7.5

0
0

0
U/U

U/U

Smooth surface

Rough surface

Fig. 8. Dividing streamlines of smooth and rough hills.

2
U

1.0
0.5

Int.

U (m/s)

Smooth hill
(y=2mm)
Rough hill
(y=7mm)

Int.
0.0
-1
4

10

x/H

Fig. 9. Distribution of mean velocity and reverse ow intermittency.

measurement of the reattachment length, probes are traversed from x 150 to 320 mm
with a downstream interval of 10 mm at 2 mm above the oor for the smooth hill, and
7 mm above the oor (2 mm above the roughness block) for the rough hill. Fig. 9 shows the
downstream variations of mean velocity of the smooth hill at y 2 mm and for the rough
hill at y 7 mm. The point where the mean velocity changes from minus to plus, that is to
say U 0, is the nearest dividing point to the ground that we could detect in the
experiment. Fig. 9 shows that this dividing point, and thus the reattachment point of the
rough hill, is further downstream.
Meanwhile, the downstream distributions of reverse-ow intermittency for both surface
conditions are obtained and shown also in Fig. 9, where reverse-ow intermittency is
dened as the fraction of time during which the ow at a given position is in reversal. Fig. 9
shows that at points U 0 for both surface conditions, the reverse-ow intermittency
equals 0.5, which means that the forward ow and reversed ow share 50% each at the
dividing point near the ground. This ow phenomenon was also noticed by Moin et al. in
their numerical research on the backward-facing step ow [23]. Another interesting
phenomenon worth noting is that the reverse-ow intermittency never equals unity even at
the middle of the separation bubble. However, the separation point on the hill surface was

ARTICLE IN PRESS
14

S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

x/H=-2.5
4

3.75

Smooth
Smooth surace
su ace
Rough
Rough surface
surface

5.0

6.25

7.5

y/H

3
2
1
0
0

0.2

0
u/U

0
u/U

Fig. 10. Vertical proles of rms values of longitudinal velocity uctuation.

not measured during the experiment. We will study it and analyze its variation with surface
condition in our continuing numerical research.
Fig. 10 shows the vertical proles of rms value of the longitudinal velocity uctuation su
at several downstream locations. A sharp change in su is noticed in the prole on the lee
side. The peak value of su in the prole appears approximately at the hill height. Actually
the peak position of the rough hill is a little higher than that of the smooth hill, especially
at x=H 1:25 and x=H 2:5, after the separation. The broken line passes the position
with peak value of su in the prole. This line can be considered as indicative of the center
of the separated shear layer. Fig. 10 shows that the separated shear layer from the rough
hill appears at a higher position than that from the smooth hill. Roughness blocks on the
rough hill surface are considered to contribute to it. Variation of su =U 1 with hill surface
condition is also shown in Fig. 10. It is interesting that, however, su =U 1 of the rough hill
is larger than that for the smooth hill at the foreside of the hill as well as on the oncoming
turbulence, it becomes smaller at the lee side of the hill within the region roughly below the
hill height, while it remains in the region above the hill height. This means that the
separated shear layer from the rough hill is not as strong as that from the smooth hill.
Based on this and the result that the turbulence on the crest is more suppressed on the
rough hill (Fig. 7), we predict that the Reynolds stress inside the separation bubble, which
is impossible to measure with the split-ber probes in this study, is smaller on the rough
hill. This prediction is supported by the measurement of Reynolds stress at x=H 7:5
shown in Fig. 11, in which the Reynolds stress is indeed smaller for the rough hill
condition. The momentum from the ground in the near wake region is smaller for the
rough hill, so the reattachment bubble extends further downstream until the ow returns to
a fully turbulent state to reattach on the ground.
In addition, Fig. 12 presents the downstream proles of the rms values of the
longitudinal velocity uctuation for both rough and smooth hills. The peak positions in
these proles are generally comparable with respective dividing points in the mean velocity
prole along the near-ground surface shown in Fig. 9. Fig. 12 shows that the downstream
location with maximum turbulence intensity in the prole along the near-ground surface
differs from the surface condition. It shifts further downstream in the rough hill condition.
This feature is one important effects of the surface roughness and requires special attention
in wind engineering applications.
Fig. 13 presents the distributions of reverse-ow intermittency on the lee side of the hills.
It is found that the reverse-ow intermittency has a value unequal to zero within almost the
whole hill wake region measured in this study for both surface conditions. Reversed ow

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

15

Smooth surface
Rough surface

y/
7.5

0.5

0
0

0.002

0.004

0.006

-u'v'/U

0.008

0.01

Fig. 11. Vertical proles of Reynolds stress at x=H 7:5 (d7:5 : depth of the reference boundary layer at
x=H 7:5).

1
Smooth hill
(y=2mm)

u (m/s)

0.9
0.8

Rough hill
(y=7mm)

0.7
0.6
0.5
3

6
x/H

Fig. 12. Downstream proles of rms of longitudinal velocity uctuation.

also exists at points outside of the separation bubble. At a given point, the reverse ow
intermittency of the rough hill is larger than that of the smooth hill, and the difference
between them becomes larger toward the ground. These ow features should be taken into
consideration when the scalar transfer, e.g., pollutant dispersion, at the lee side, is
discussed.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

16

1.5

1.25

2.5

x/H
3.75

5.0

6.25

y/H

1
0.5
0
1.0

Int.

Int.
Smooth
Rough

Fig. 13. Proles of reverse-ow intermittency: (a) Smooth hill and (b) rough hill.

3.2.3. Power spectrum

Spectral analysis was carried on the longitudinal velocity uctuations in the wake to help
investigation of vortex behavior on the lee side of the hill. Fig. 14 shows the power spectra
at several downstream locations (x=H 0:0, x=H 2:5, x=H 5:0) with the same height
(y0 =H 1:0) above the ground, where f is the frequency. The x and y coordinates in Fig. 14
are normalized by the local mean velocity UH and the variance of the velocity uctuation
su , respectively. The Karman-type power spectra of the inow turbulence obtained at
y=H 1:0 are also shown as references. The power spectra at three downstream locations
of both hills display
2/3 slope in the inertial subrange, predicted by Kolmogorovs
hypothesis. The very dominant spectrum peak usually occurring at the vortex-shedding
frequency of a bluff body was not found in these power spectra. The measured power
spectrum presents a broad peak at a higher frequency than the oncoming turbulence. The
power spectrum of the rough hill shows a larger decrease from that of the upstream
turbulence at the low normalized frequency number, than that of the smooth hill.
Furthermore, the power spectrum of the smooth hill shows recovery toward the power
spectrum of the inow turbulence at x=H 5:0, but it is not clear at the same downstream
location for the rough hill. All these factors indicate that a longer downstream distance is
necessary for the turbulent boundary layer over a rough hill to recover its original state as
in the upstream turbulence.
4. Summary and conclusions
We have shown wind tunnel measurements of the turbulent boundary layer over a 2D
steep hill. A split-ber probe was utilized to measure the high turbulent ow as well as
reversed ow. The rough surface condition was modeled by placing small cubes on the hill
surface with an arrangement whose roughness density equaled 4.1%. Vertical proles of
the turbulence statistics over the rough hill were compared with the proles over a at
surface covered by cubes with the same pattern. Furthermore, for a smooth hill with the
same shape, measurements were taken to identify the surface roughness effects.
The measurements show that the fractional speed-up ratio on the crest depends on both
the hill surface condition and the upstream surface condition (smooth or rough). The
dependence becomes stronger with approach to the hill surface, especially below y0 o4h.
The rough inow surface condition leads a larger fractional speed-up ratio than the
smooth inow surface condition, and the hill surface roughness reduces the fractional

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

17

100

fSu / 2

-2/3 slope

10-1
inflow
x/H=0.0
x/H=2.5
x/H=5.0
10-2

10-2

(a)

10-1
fH /UH

100

100

fSu / 2

-2/3 slope

10-1
inflow
x/H=0.0
x/H=2.5
x/H=5.0
10-2

(b)

10-2

10-1
fH /UH

100

Fig. 14. Power spectrum.

speed up ratio when the same inow surface condition is considered. Accordingly,
S roughflow;smoothhill 4S roughflow;roughhill 4S smoothflow;smoothhill 4Ssmoothflow;roughhill .
Variation of ow separation on the hill surface condition was investigated in this study.
The separation region, as dened by the U 0 locus, extends further downstream for the
rough hill. The separated shear layer of the rough hill is weaker than that of the smooth
hill. The momentum from the ground is smaller for the rough hill, so the separation bubble
extends further downstream until the ow returns to the fully turbulent state to reattach to
the ground. In addition, the downstream location with maximum turbulence intensity in
the downstream prole is also dependent on the surface condition. The peak position of
turbulence intensity shifts further downstream in the rough hill condition. Furthermore,
the distribution of reverse-ow intermittency on the lee side of the hill is shown. The rough
hill has larger reverse-ow intermittency than the smooth hill at a given point, especially
near the ground. The reverse-ow intermittency has a value not equal to zero within
almost the whole hill wake region measured in this study. Reversed ow also exists at
points outside of the separation bubble. However, no separation point was detected in the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
18

S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

experiment. We will study this factor and analyze its variation with surface condition in
our continuing numerical research.
Power spectra of both surface conditions display
2/3 slope in the inertial subrange, as
predicted by Kolmogorovs hypothesis. The power spectrum of the rough hill shows a
larger decrease from that of the inow turbulence at the low normalized frequency
number, than that of the smooth hill. Furthermore, downstream recovery of the power
spectrum is slow for the rough hill.
Finally, we point out that the results shown in this paper are the combined effects of the
roughness blocks on the hill surface and on the upstream ground. The variations are not
generated only by the roughness blocks on the hill surface. The contribution of the
roughness blocks on the upstream ground is also important. The rough condition of the
upstream ground determines the property of the upstream turbulence, which plays
important roles in the variation of the turbulent boundary layer over the hill.
References
[1] J.J. Finnigan, Air Flow Over Complex Terrain, Flow and Transport in The Natural Environment, Springer,
Heidelberg, 1988, pp. 183229.
[2] E.F. Bradley, An experimental study of the prole of wind speed, shear stress and turbulence at the crest of a
large hill, Quart. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc. 106 (1980) 101124.
[3] J.J. Finnigan, M.R. Raupach, E.F. Bradley, G.K. Aldis, A wind tunnel study of turbulent ow over a twodimensional ridge, Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 50 (1990) 277311.
[4] D.V. Neff, R.N. Meroney, Wind-tunnel modeling of hill and vegetation inuence on wind power availability,
J. Wind Eng. Indus. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 335343.
[5] C.A. Miller, A.G. Davenport, Guidelines for the calculation of wind speed-ups in complex terrain, J. Wind
Eng. Indus. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 189197.
[6] W. Gong, A. Ibbetson, A wind tunnel study of turbulent ow over model hills, Boundary-layer Meteorol. 49
(1989) 113148.
[7] W. Gong, P. Taylor, A. Dornbrack, Turbulent boundary layer ow over xed aerodynamically rough twodimensional sinusoidal waves, J. Fluid Mech. 312 (1996) 137.
[8] M. Athanassiadou, I.P. Castro, Neutral ow over a series of rough hills: a laboratory experiment, BoundaryLayer Meteorol. 10 (2001) 1130.
[9] Y. Meng, K. Hibi, An experimental study of turbulent boundary layer over steep hills, in: Proceedings of
15th National Symposium on Wind Engineering, Tokyo, 1998, pp. 6166 (in Japanese).
[10] M. Kiya, K. Sasaki, Structure of a turbulent separation bubble, J. Fluid Mech. 137 (1983) 83113.
[11] T. Boerner, H.J. Leutheusser, Calibration of split-ber probe for use in bubbly two-phase ow, DISA info.,
No.29, 1984, pp. 1013.
[12] T. Ishihara, K. Hibi, S. Oikawa, A wind tunnel study of turbulent ow over a three-dimensional steep hill,
J. Wind Eng. Indus. Aerodyn. 83 (1999) 95107.
[13] A.E. Perry, W.H. Schoeld, P.N. Joubert, Rough wall turbulent boundary layers, J. Fluid Mech. 37 (1969)
383413.
[14] N. Furuichi, M. Kumada, An experimental study of a spanwise structure around a reattachment region of a
two-dimensional backward-facing step, Exp. Fluids 32 (2002) 179187.
[15] P.S. Jackson, On the displacement height in the logarithmic velocity prole, J. Fluid Mech. 111 (1981) 1525.
[16] O.G. Sutton, Micrometeorology, McGraw Hill, New York, p. 333.
[17] W.H. Snyder, I.P. Castro, The critical Reynolds number for rough-wall boundary layers, J. Wind Eng. Indus.
Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 4154.
[18] J. Andreopoulos, P. Bradshaw, Measurements of turbulence structure in the boundary layer on a rough
surface, Boundary-Layer Meteorol. 20 (1981) 201213.
[19] A.E. Perry, K.L. Lim, S.M. Henbest, An experimental study of the turbulent structure in smooth and rough
wall turbulent boundary layers, J. Fluid Mech. 177 (1987) 437466.
[20] M.R. Raupach, Conditional statistics of Reynolds stress in rough wall and smooth wall turbulent boundary
layers, J. Fluid Mech. 108 (1981) 363382.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S. Cao, T. Tamura / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 94 (2006) 119

19

[21] M.R. Raupach, R.A. Antonia, S. Rajagopalan, Rough-wall turbulent boundary layers, Appl. Mech. Rev. 44
(1991) 125.
[22] S. Cao, T. Tamura, T. Shindou, DNS of turbulence characteristics of wind over a two- dimensional hill shape
model with surface roughness, in: Proceedings of 11th International Conference on Wind Engineering,
Lubbock, USA, 2003, pp. 25562662.
[23] H. Le, P. Moin, J. Kim, Direct numerical simulation of turbulent ow over a backward-facing step, J. Fluid
Mech. 330 (1997) 349374.