A PROPOSITION TO DETERMINE WINDOW AVERAGE FOR TURBULENT FLOWS BY MULTIRESOLUTION DECOMPOSITION
Keywords:Stable boundary layer. Reynolds average. Spectral gap. Multiresolution spectrum.
The estimative of turbulent quantities by Reynolds average depend on time scale average. This average window should be great enough to describe all turbulent contributions and small enough to filter the largest scales (low frequencies contributions). In this work are applied the multiresolution decomposition to find the spectral gap that split the turbulent of non-turbulent motions, this way the best time scale for the Reynolds average. The results of that methodology are compared with 1, 5, 15, and 30min windows average. This task is accomplished by the linear correlation between tubulent kinetic energy and friction velocity scale. The results reveal a better linear relationship between kinetic energy and friction velocity scale with adaptative time scale average than ones found with frozen window average.
Acevedo, O. C., Costa, F. D., Oliveira, P. E., Puhales, F. S., Degrazia, G. A., Roberti, D.R. (2014). The influence of submeso processes on stable boundary layer similarity relationships. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 71(1), 207–225.
Businger, J. A. (1981). Equations and concepts. Em: Nieuwstadt, F., Dop, H. V. (Eds) Atmospheric turbulence and air pollution modeling, D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Cap. 1, pp. 1–36.
Stull, R. (1988). An introduction to boundary layer meteorology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht.
Vickers, D., Mahrt, L. (2003). The cospectral gap and turbulent flux calculations. Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic technology, 20(5), 660–672.
Vickers, D., Mahrt, L. (2004). Evaluating formulations of stable boundary layer height. Journal of applied meteorology, 43(11), 1736–1749.
Wyngaard, J. C. (2010). Turbulence in the atmosphere. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.