Energy and Buildings, 15 - 16 (1990/91) 315 - 324
Modelling Air Flow Regimes in Urban Canyons
L. J. HUNTER, I. D. WATSON and G. T. JOHNSON
School of Mathematics, Physics, Computing and Electronics, Macquarie University, Sydney, N S W 2109 (Australia)
ABSTRACT
The geometry of urban canyons is an im-
portant determinant of near-surface air flow
patterns in cities. Characteristic canyon geom-
etries, expressed in terms of height-to-width
( H / W ) and length-to-height (L/H) ratios, are
known to produce three principal air flow
regimes: 'isolated roughness', 'wake interfer-
ence' and 'skimming flow'. However, there
remain uncertainties about the relationship be-
tween canyon geometry and transition from one
flow regime to another.
This paper illustrates the potential for math-
ematical modelling to resolve some of the cur-
rent uncertainties. We use a numerical model
which solves the Reynolds momentum equa-
tions to simulate the major canyon air flow
regimes and to illustrate the relationship be-
tween canyon geometry and transition from one
flow regime to another.
INTRODUCTION
The climate of the urban canopy layer is
primarily controlled by the micrometeorologi-
cal effects of canyon geometry and composi-
tion rather than the mesoscale forces
controlling the climate of the urban boundary
layer [1]. A significant component of the city
canyon climate, in the sense that air flow
often directly affects the well-being of city
inhabitants, is its characteristic wind pattern.
For example, air pollution within urban
canyons is of concern to human health, and a
number of studies have sought to identify opti-
mum urban canyon H / W ratios for efficient
dispersion of pollutants [2, 3]. Engineers and
town planners are also interested in air flow
so that problems of channelling and turbu-
lence at the base of buildings can be elimi-
nated, or at least reduced to acceptable levels
[4, 5]. What has emerged from such studies is
0378-7788/91/$3.50
315
that it is important to understand the nature
of the air flow regimes within urban canyons.
Recent work has established that air flow
regimes vary with urban canyon geometry.
Consistent patterns have been found by field
observation [1, 3] and in wind tunnel studies
[4]. When the above-roof wind direction is
perpendicular to the canyon, air flow within
the canyon exhibits one of three regimes, 'iso-
lated roughness', 'wake interference' or 'skim-
ming' flow (following the nomenclature of
Oke [6]).
The mechanisms by which each of the flow
regimes occurs may be summarized as follows.
When the H / W ratio of a canyon is less t h a n
0.3, i.e., the buildings are well spaced, they act
essentially as individual buildings (or 'iso-
lated roughness elements') since the air trav-
els a sufficient distance downwind of the first
building before encountering the next obsta-
cle (Fig. l(a)).
As buildings become more closely spaced
and H / W ratios increase, the disturbed air
flow has insufficient distance to readjust be-
fore encountering the next obstacle. The re-
sult is 'wake interference' flow (Fig. l(b)).
With reduced building spacing, the
mesoscale flow skims over the top of the
canyon (Fig. l(c)). In this case, mesoscale flow
is almost decoupled from the within-canyon
flow (hence the term 'skimming' flow), but
provides a weak tangential force which drives
a lee vortex cell within the canyon. The vor-
tex can be explained in terms of pressure
difference [7]. Air flow encountering a canyon
is obstructed so that the resulting mass con-
vergence creates an area of increased pressure
above the upwind building. Subsequent diver-
gence in the lee of the building creates an
area of relatively low pressure within the
canyon so t h a t flow tends toward the area of
lower pressure from the high-pressure area
above the building.
As air descends, it is deflected downwards
© Elsevier Sequoia/Printed in The Netherlands
;316
(a) . . . . . .
(b) (c)
Fig. 1. Flow regimes associated with different canyon
H/W ratios (after Oke [6]). (a) Isolated roughness flow;
(b) wake interference flow; (c) skimming flow.
by the windward face of the downwind build-
ing. There remains an area of low pressure in
the lee of the upwind building, resulting in flow
across the canyon floor in the opposite direc-
tion to the above-canyon flow. On reaching the
face of the building, air flow is deflected up the
building wall, conservation of mass requiring
an upward vertical flow to compensate for the
downward flow. Stronger mesoscale flow
across the top of the canyon gives horizontal
velocity to the (now weak) vertical flow.
A similar explanation for the occurrence of
skimming flow is given by Nicholson [8]. The
approach is based on the theory of conserva-
tion of mass and is used as the basis of the
Scalar Budget-Box Diffusion Model developed
by Nicholson. As air flows over the building,
its velocity at roof level is zero. Decreased
surface stress over the canyon cavity results in
acceleration of the layers of air near the roof
level. The acceleration of upper layers draws
air from within the canyon upwards. Because
the flow accelerates between the upwind build-
ing and the centre of the canyon at roof level,
horizontal mass t r a ns por t in the layer between
roof level and the height at which the build-
ings have no effect is greater than that above
the centre of the canyon. Continuity of mass
necessitates a positive vertical motion (i.e.,
mass tr an s p o r t out of the canyon) over the lee
half of the canyon. Thus a compensating down-
ward flow occurs over the downwind half of the
canyon.
THE PROBLEM
While the mechanisms described above are
reasonably well understood, the information
020
0.25 Isolated toughness flow
0.33
0 5O
1
Skzmmlng
4 Cube - - Ca~vo~
I I i i I 1 I
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
L/H
Fig. 2. Thresholds for flow regimes in urban canyons as
functions of urban canyon H/W and L/H ratios (after Oke
[7]).
regarding the critical thresholds of canyon
geometry (H/W and L/H) t hat mark the shift
from one flow regime to anot her remains lim-
ited. Much of our c u r r e n t understanding is
derived from wind tunnel studies which have
concent rat ed upon architectural applications:
the emphasis has been on investigating the
behaviour of air flow around individual build-
ings. The urban climatologist, however, focuses
upon city-wide problems, in which case the
urban canyon may be a more useful city unit for
investigation.
In this case, the length of buildings may be
a more significant determinant of air flow
regime than their height or width. The relation-
ships between the three principal air flow
regimes and canyon H/W and L/H ratios have
been summarized in a nomogram by Oke [7]
(Fig. 2), but the wind tunnel observations from
which the nomogram is compiled did not extend
to L/H ratios greater t han about four: our
current knowledge of flow patterns in long
urban canyons is thus uncert ai n for the want
of data.
In the absence of appropriate field and wind
tunnel observations, we will use a numerical
model of air flow in urban canyons for a wide
range of canyon geometries in an attempt to
answer the following questions:
(i) What are the threshold H~Wratios which
distinguish isolated roughness, wake interfer-
ence and skimming flow in urban canyons?
(ii) How do different L/H ratios modify
characteristic threshold H~ W ratios?
METHOD
Solution of the problem described above
requires a turbulence model in which the

Navier-Stokes equations are solved by a set
of differential equations to represent air flow
in three dimensions. We have used a k-~
model (see ref. 9 for a review of approaches to
solution of the momentum equations) as im-
plemented by Paterson [10].
The model
The k-~ model involves the solution of the
following set of six partial differential equa-
tions:
three momentum equations
Vj ~vi~xj=~[vt ~x~ j~gi] ~xiOP i = 1, 2, 3
the continuity equation
~U~ = 0
axj
the equation for transportation of turbulent
kinetic energy
tL~xj -~x~i~-~x-~
(3)
and the equation for dissipation of turbulent
kinetic energy
+clerk + are obtained by changing canyons widths and
~2
-c2 ~-
where
U i, i = 1,2,3, is a fluid velocity
P ( = ( P / p ) + (2k/3)) is augmented pressure
k ( = [u~[/2) is turbulent kinetic energy
( = v(aui/~xj)(~ui/~xj))
vt ( = c, k2/e) is turbulent viscosity
and
c,, cl, c2, ak, a~ are constants [10].
The model is limited to neutral conditions
(unless other terms are added to the equa-
tions) but, for the present purposes, the as-
sumption of neutral conditions is not a
significant problem. Nakamura and Oke [1]
observed t h a t although air within the urban
canyon is often unstable, conditions are near
neutral when vortex circulation is strongest
(in the late afternoon).
Another limitation of the model is the need
for large Reynolds numbers for convergence
to a solution. For air flow around buildings
with wind speeds greater t h a n 1 m s -1, the
317
threshold Reynolds number is exceeded. The
restriction is not relevant in practical terms,
since the threshold velocity for the formation
of the vortex is greater than 2 m s -1 [3].
Numerical solution
In order to solve the set of partial differen-
tial equations shown above (eqns. (1)-(4)), it
is necessary to obtain a substitute set of equa-
tions for solution by standard numerical tech-
niques. Paterson's implementation employs
finite differencing using the control volume
method with hybrid upwinding. The resultant
linear equations are then solved by the alter-
(1) nating direct implicit (ADI) method. An itera-
tive method is suitable when the solution
cannot be estimated with any accuracy, but a
good initial guess, such as the logarithmic
(2)
wind profile or power law profile, is available.
Model parameters
It is necessary to initialize the model with
canyon dimensions, vertical wind profiles at
grid boundaries, and roughness characteris-
tics of building and ground surfaces. For the
present purposes, building heights and widths
are assumed to be 20 m so that variations in
H/W and L/H ratios for different model runs
lengths. Upwind profiles were chosen to ap-
(4) proximate flow in medium-density suburban
areas [6] by using the logarithmic wind profile
(suitable for neutral conditions) with a rough-
ness length of 0.7 m. Building surfaces were
assumed to be smooth, with a roughness
length of 0.004m, and the ground was as-
sumed to have a roughness length of 0.1 m.
Wind speed was specified as 5 m s - ' at a
height of 20m at upwind and lateral
boundaries, ensuring t h a t the minimum
threshold speed of 2 m s -1 for development of
canyon vortices observed by DePaul and
Sheih [3] was comfortably exceeded.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In an attempt to determine thresholds for a
shift from one flow regime to another, as in
Oke's nomogram (Fig. 2), model runs were
undertaken with four L/H ratios (1, 3, 5 and 7,
where 5 and 7 represent canyon arrangements
for which wind tunnel data were unavailable)
and an appropriate range of H/W for each of
318

the four L / H ratios. Table I summarizes the
canyon geometries used, and the anticipated
flow (after Oke [7]).
Identification of the three flow patterns is
on the following basis. Skimming flow is char-
acterized by a clear single vortex within the
canyon. Wake interference flow is character-
ized by a reverse (with respect to upwind flow
direction) horizontal flow in the lower canyon
and forward flow along the top of the canyon.
A small vortex may appear behind the upwind
building but is not dominant. An area of low
wind speed appears in the centre of the
canyon. Isolated roughness flow is character-
istic of a flow around a single building. The
distinguishing features are a strong forward
horizontal flow and an increase in velocity
with height downwind of the lee vortex. The
results for each of the four canyon L / H classes
are outlined below.
Cubic canyon (L/H = 1)
The geometry represented by a L / H ratio of
1 is a building height of 20m and a canyon
length of 20 m. Canyon widths are shown in
Table 1.
H~ W ratio of 1 (anticipated flow, skimming)
The modelled flow pat t ern is shown in Fig.
3(a) and is characterized by a vortex circula-
tion typical of skimming flow. The centre of
the vortex is at 0.8 H and 0.3 W. The maximum
wind speed within the canyon is 2 . 7 m s 1,
which occurs at the top of the canyon. Rela-
tively high wind speeds also occur with the
descending flow against the downwind build-
ing.
H / W ratio of O.74 (anticipated flow, transi-
tion to wake interference)
Figure 3(b) still shows a strong vortex cir-
culation although the centre of the vortex has
now moved to 0.75 H and 0.37 W. The maxi-
mum wind speed within the canyon has in-
creased to 3 m s -1 across the top of the
canyon, with relatively high wind speeds oc-
curring down the face of the downwind build-
ing.

TABLE 1
Modelled urban canyon geometries and anticipated flow regimes

L/H ratios Width of H/W ratios Type of flow regime

canyon (m) anticipated (after Oke [7])

Cubic canyon
1 (20 m/20 m) 20 1.0 skimming flow
27 0.74 transition to wake interference
40 0.5 wake interference
50 0.4 transition to isolated roughness
60 0.33 isolated roughness
80 0.25 isolated roughness

Short canyon
3 (60 m/20 m) 20 1.0 skimming flow
40 0.5 wake interference
60 0.33 transition to isolated roughness
80 0.25 isolated roughness

Medium-length canyon
5 (100 m/20 m) 20 1.0 skimming flow
34 0.6 transition to isolated roughness
40 0.5 wake interference
60 0.33 wake interference
100 0.2 isolated roughness
140 0.14 isolated roughness

Long canyon
7 (140 m/20 m) 20 1.0 skimming
40 0.5 wake interference
74 0.27 transition to isolated roughness
100 0.2 isolated roughness
140 0.14 isolated roughness
 _-_____-
... I
_I-
*.
I...,,I1(
..,,,
%...,,,a,
....p,,,l
I--eI,‘,,
I.._,_,,,
..- _..,,,
(a) .._*_._..
~~-Iji~~~~~~~~~!
_T1
Fig. 3. Flow vectors for different
H/W ratio of 0.5 (anticipated flow, wake
interference)
The flow is shown in Fig. 3(c) and is similar
to that shown in Fig. 3(b), but shows evidence
of wake interference. A weak vortex circula-
tion is present behind the upwind building,
centred at 0.8 H and 0.2 W. Wind speeds are
relatively high towards the centre and top of
the canyon, the maximum being 3.7 m s-l.
H/W ratio of 0.4 (anticipated flow, transition
to isolated roughness)
Figure 3(d) shows characteristic wake inter-
ference flow. A small vortex exists in the lee of
the upwind building and areas of relatively low
velocity and abrupt changes in direction occur
within the canyon. By approximately 0.75 W
the horizontal component reverts to a logarith-
mic profile, although the horizontal flow is still
in the reverse direction lower in the canyon.
The combination of some of the characteristics
of both wake interference and isolated rough-
ness flow indicated that this is a transitional
regime.
HI W ratio of 0.33 (anticipated flow, isolated
roughness)
The isolated roughness flow shown in Fig.
3(e) is similar to that described by Oke [ 61 (Fig.
1). There is evidence of lee eddy circulation
and a return to the upwind velocity profile.
After the flow has adjusted, the downwind
building begins to have an effect on the flow by
319
H/W ratios in an urban canyon with a L/H ratio of I
deflecting it down the face of the building. The
maximum wind speed is 4.4 m s-l across the top
of the canyon, which is close to the wind speed
of the upwind profile at this level (4.9 m s-l).
Flow down the face of the downwind building
is weaker and a stronger flow sweeps down into
the canyon from above the roof of the upwind
building.
HI W ratio of 0.25 (anticipated flow, isolated
roughness)
Figure 3(f) clearly shows a return to isolated
roughness flow. There is evidence of the lee
eddy circulation, but the flow has returned to
a forward direction throughout the depth of
the canyon by approximately 0.5 W. By 0.75 W,
the flow resembles a logarithmic profile, the
profile used for the initial conditions. The
downwind building affects only air flow in
close proximity to it; air is deflected down the
face of the building. There is evidence of a
‘bolster’ eddy [ 61 near the face of the downwind
building.
Short canyon (Z/H = 3)
The geometry of this canyon arrangement is
a height of 20 m and a length of 60 m, for the
H/W ratios listed in Table 1.
HI W ratio of 1 (anticipated flow, skimming)
Figure 4(a) shows skimming flow, although
the vortex pattern is different from that shown
in Fig. 3(a). The vortex is now centred about
320
: : : :
: : :
: : : : : :1, : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :
(a) /~l, . . . . . . l. . . . . . . . .
----l: . . . . . . . . . . .
(b)
(d)
Fig. 4. As for Fig. 3 but with L/H= 3.
0.8H a n d 0.95 W. T h e c i r c u l a t i o n is w e a k , with
little d o w n w a r d flow w i t h i n t h e c a n y o n .
S t r o n g l a t e r a l flow s h o w n in Fig. 4a(i) e x p l a i n s
the u p w a r d m o v e m e n t . M a x i m u m wind speeds
a t the top of the c a n y o n are u p w a r d o u t of t h e
c a n y o n a n d r e l a t i v e l y weak: 1.2 m s -~ as com-
p a r e d to u p w i n d wind speed of 5 m s -~ at a
h e i g h t of 20 m. T h e m a x i m u m l a t e r a l wind
speed b e h i n d the b u i l d i n g s o c c u r s n e a r the
c e n t r e of the b u i l d i n g a n d is 0.9 m s -1.
H / W ratio of 0.5 (anticipated flow, wake
interference)
T h e flow s h o w n in Fig. 4(b) is r e v e r s e a n d
u p w a r d o u t of t h e c a n y o n . A c r o s s the top of
the c a n y o n the flow r e t u r n s to the u p w i n d
direction. T h e c h a n g e of d i r e c t i o n a n d de-
c r e a s e in v e l o c i t y is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the w a k e
i n t e r f e r e n c e p a t t e r n . T h e m a x i m u m wind
speed w i t h i n the c a n y o n is 2.1 m s 1, n e a r the
centre.
H / W ratio of 0.33 (anticipated flow, transi-
tion to isolated roughness)
T h e p a t t e r n s h o w n in Fig. 4(c) is r e p r e s e n -
t a t i v e of w a k e i n t e r f e r e n c e flow. T h e flow
c o m p o n e n t at the top of the c a n y o n is no
l o n g e r u p w a r d o v e r the w i d t h of the c a n y o n
b u t b e c o m e s h o r i z o n t a l , w i t h a m a x i m u m wind
s p e e d of 2 . 4 m s -1 n e a r t h e c e n t r e of the
c a n y o n . An a r e a of low w i n d speeds s u r r o u n d s
~ ,}~: :
. _ _ _
.- .~: :~, ', :
?- :: ~,: I-
z - -
the e l o n g a t e d v o r t e x c i r c u l a t i o n at approxi-
m a t e l y 0.75 H.
H / W ratio of 0.25 (anticipated flow, isolated
roughness)
T h e p a t t e r n p r o d u c e d is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of
w a k e i n t e r f e r e n c e flow (Fig. 4(d)), a l t h o u g h in
the u p p e r a r e a of the c a n y o n n e a r the down-
wind b u i l d i n g t h e r e is e v i d e n c e of a n adjust-
m e n t to i s o l a t e d r o u g h n e s s flow, w i t h f o r w a r d
h o r i z o n t a l flow d o w n to a h e i g h t of 13 m.
Medium length canyon ( L / H = 5)
T h e c a n y o n g e o m e t r y for a L / H r a t i o of 5 is
a h e i g h t of 20 m a n d a l e n g t h of 100 m.
H~ W ratio of 1 (anticipated flow, skimming)
F i g u r e 5(a) shows a n air flow p a t t e r n con-
s i s t e n t w i t h s k i m m i n g flow. A v o r t e x circula-
t i o n is e v i d e n t a n d c e n t r e d a b o u t 0 . 5 H ,
0.75 W. T h e m a x i m u m wind speed w i t h i n the
c a n y o n is 2.3 m s -~ n e a r r o o f level a n d o v e r
the v o r t e x centre.
H / W ratio of 0.6 (antipicated flow, transition
to wake interference)
F i g u r e 5(b) shows a small v o r t e x c e n t r e d at
0 . 7 H a n d 0.9 W. T h e u p w i n d h a l f of the
c a n y o n is b e g i n n i n g to show c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
w a k e i n t e r f e r e n c e flow w i t h a r e v e r s e horizon-
 321

- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(a)

"a

<.-

(0) - ~ ~- <-- <--- <---<---<-- <-- <--- .-- 4-- ~ ~ . . . . . j

,, : . . . . . . . . ~ ~ -.> --> --> --> --->--> --> --->--->-->--->

(?) " - ~--<--<--<---<'--<---<--- <-- <-- *- ~ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I

F i g . 5. A s f o r F i g . 3 b u t w i t h L / H = 5.

t a l flow i n d i c a t i n g a c h a n g e of flow regimes. H/W ratio of 0.2 (anticipated flow, isolated

T h e m a x i m u m w i n d s p e e d of 2.3 m s -1 is n e a r roughness)
t h e t o p of t h e c a n y o n . A l t h o u g h Fig. 5(e) is still c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of
w a k e i n t e r f e r e n c e flow, t h e r e is e v i d e n c e of a
H/W ratio of 0.5 (anticipated flow, wake inter- c h a n g e to i s o l a t e d r o u g h n e s s flow w i t h the
ference) i n c r e a s e d d e p t h of f o r w a r d h o r i z o n t a l flow in
T h e p a t t e r n s h o w n in Fig. 5(c) does n o t the d o w n w i n d h a l f of the c a n y o n .
c o n f o r m to w a k e i n t e r f e r e n c e flow as is ex-
pected. Since t h e r e is no e v i d e n c e of a v o r t e x
or a c h a n g e to f o r w a r d h o r i z o n t a l flow, it is H/W ratio of 0.14 (anticipated flow, isolated
n e i t h e r s k i m m i n g n o r i s o l a t e d r o u g h n e s s flow. roughness)
T h e i r r e g u l a r n a t u r e of w e a k i n t e r f e r e n c e flow I n v e s t i g a t i o n of a r e t u r n to a l o g a r i t h m i c
m a k e s a n a c c u r a t e definition difficult, b u t the profile d o w n w i n d of the s e c o n d b u i l d i n g sug-
v a r i a t i o n in d i r e c t i o n of this flow m a y well gests t h a t a r e t u r n to a f o r w a r d h o r i z o n t a l
indicate a further transitional stage towards flow does n o t o c c u r for a p p r o x i m a t e l y 5 H
w a k e i n t e r f e r e n c e flow. d o w n w i n d . F i g u r e 5(f) s h o w s t h a t t h e down-
w i n d b u i l d i n g influences the flow for approxi-
H/W ratio of 0.33 (anticipated flow, wake m a t e l y 20 m into the c a n y o n : t h u s a c a n y o n
interference) w o u l d n e e d to be o v e r 120 m wide (i.e., h a v e a
F i g u r e 5(d) s h o w s w a k e i n t e r f e r e n c e flow. H/W r a t i o less t h a n 0.17) in o r d e r to r e e s t a b -
F l o w w i t h i n t h e c a n y o n h a s a n u p w a r d verti- lish a l o g a r i t h m i c v e l o c i t y profile. In t h e
cal c o m p o n e n t , due to the s t r o n g l a t e r a l flow p r e s e n t case, t h e r e t u r n to a l o g a r i t h m i c
(Fig. 5(d)i), w i t h a m a x i m u m v e l o c i t y of profile is evident, a l t h o u g h r e v e r s e flow still
1.2 m s -1, T h e m a x i m u m h o r i z o n t a l v e l o c i t y is o c c u r s a l o n g t h e c a n y o n floor. T h e m a x i m u m
2 m s -x a c r o s s t h e top of t h e c a n y o n a n d in t h e w i n d s p e e d is 3 m s -1 a l o n g the top of the
middle of t h e c a n y o n a t a h e i g h t of approxi- c a n y o n , a r e d u c t i o n of 39% of t h e initial w i n d
m a t e l y 5 m. s p e e d a t 19 m.
322

) t

(a) (a)i- I --:* --> ~

- - ) ) ) . . . . . . . . . - -

/
J
- - F ~* -->-->--~--->--~--~--->--->--->--->--->--->-->--~--->~F--

(d)
: "..~ ~ 2 2- 2 2 2
. . . . . . , - ~ -
2
~--
:_ : : : : : .
~- . . . . . . . .
: : :
. J
(e)

Fig. 6. As for Fig. 3 but with L/H = 7.

Long canyon ( L / H = 7) H~ W ratio of 0.27 (anticipated flow, transi-

The g e o m e t r y r e p r e s e n t e d by a L / H r a t i o of tion to isolated roughness)
7 is a building h e i g h t of 20 m and a l e n g t h of F i g u r e 6(c) shows t h a t the flow is now
140 m. C a n y o n widths are given in Table 1. typical of w a k e interference. S t r o n g flows are
e v i d e n t across the top and along the lower
H~ W ratio of 1 (anticipated flow, skimming) p a r t of the canyon. The m a x i m u m wind speed
F i g u r e 6(a) shows a v o r t e x c i r c u l a t i o n is 2.9 m s -1.
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of skimming flow. The c e n t r e of
the v o r t e x is 0 . 5 H and 0.6 W. A m a x i m u m H / W ratio of 0.2 (anticipated flow, isolated
wind speed of 2.6 m s -1 o c c u r s across the top roughness)
of the c a n y o n with r e l a t i v e l y high wind speeds F i g u r e 6(d) shows t h a t the flow is still typi-
down the face of the d o w n w i n d building. cal of w a k e interference, a l t h o u g h t h e r e is
F i g u r e 6(a)i shows the lateral flow a r o u n d the some evidence of a t r a n s i t i o n to isolated
building, but with a c a n y o n of this length, r o u g h n e s s flow. The maximum wind speed
the lateral c o m p o n e n t in the c e n t r e of the w i t h i n the c a n y o n has i n c r e a s e d to 3.1 m s -1
building is effectively zero. across the top of the canyon.

H / W ratio of 0.5 (anticipated flow, wake H / W ratio of 0.14 (anticipated flow, isolated
interference) roughness)
F i g u r e 6(b) shows a v o r t e x c e n t r e d at 0.45 H F i g u r e 6(e) shows isolated r o u g h n e s s flow
and 0.75 W. In the lee c o r n e r of the c a n y o n the with a r e t u r n to a f o r w a r d h o r i z o n t a l flow at
flow has c h a n g e d d i r e c t i o n and m a y i n d i c a t e a a p p r o x i m a t e l y 0.84 W. Again, the flow along
t r a n s i t i o n to w a k e i n t e r f e r e n c e flow. Maxi- the floor of the c a n y o n is still reverse. The
mum wind speeds o c c u r across the top of the m a x i m u m wind speed across the top of the
c a n y o n and r e l a t i v e l y high wind speeds o c c u r c a n y o n is 3.3 m s -1 and an a r e a of r e l a t i v e l y
down the face of the d o w n w i n d building. high wind speed exists in the lee eddy.
 323

0.17
The results of the threshold value for the
change from skimming to wake interference
0.20
- - Oke ( 1 9 8 8 ) flow using the k-~ model verify the results
-o ..... o k--C model
0.25 presented by Oke [7]. The results from the
model also confirm the observation of Hussain
~ 0.33 and Lee [4] t h a t the length of the building has
little effect on this threshold value.
~ 0.50 For the change from wake interference to
W isolated roughness flow, the difference be-
z 1
tween the results of Oke [7] and those from
i I i l I i l the k-~ model is most pronounced. The meth-
(a) ods agree for cubic geometry only. Threshold
values calculated by the k - s model are signifi-
cantly greater, as shown in Fig. 7(b). The
0.17
threshold value appears to change slightly at
0.20 a H/W ratio of 0.19 for L/H ratios greater
o
than 5, whereas Oke suggests a H/W ratio of
0,25 /// 0.32.
/
/

0.33 /
/

CONCLUSIONS
I;: 0.50

,,r
1 The results of the modelling exercises de-
2 scribed present some interesting preliminary
4 I i i I I
o 1 2 3 4 5
LENGTH TO HEIGHT RATIO
(b)
Fig. 7. Threshold H / W values for t r a n s i t i o n from (a)
s k i m m i n g to wake interferences a n d (b) wake interference
to isolated r o u g h n e s s flow in u r b a n canyons.
Summary
Threshold values for the change of flow
regimes have been evaluated in detail above
and are shown in summary form in Fig. 7 along
with the threshold values presented by Oke [7].
Threshold values estimated from the k - e
model of turbulence are similar to those of Oke
[7], which are based on those of Hussain and
Lee [4] for skimming to wake interference flow
(Fig. 7(a)), but differ somewhat for wake inter-
ference to isolated roughness flow (Fig. 7(b)).
For a cubic geometry, and a threshold value
for the transition from skimming to wake inter-
ference flow, Oke suggests a H/W ratio of 0.71
and the k-~ model a H/Wratio of 0.74. For the
change to isolated roughness flow, both the
results presented by Oke [7] and those of the
k-~ model suggest a H/W threshold of 0.6.
Thus the results using the k-~ model for a
cubic geometry compare favourably with the
results of wind tunnel studies.
I I findings regarding the relationship between
6 7 8
canyon geometry and prevailing air flow
regime. In the range of canyon L/H ratios
where observations are available, the k-~
model produces similar H/W thresholds for
changes in flow regime. For greater L/H ra-
tios where there is a lack of data, the model
suggests that thresholds occur at smaller H~W
ratios than those estimated by Oke [7].
It should be stressed that the findings are
tentative and require validation by field obser-
vation. Nevertheless, it is clear that the k-~
model is capable of simulating the kind of flow
regimes which have been observed in both
field and wind tunnel studies. Furthermore,
and subject to verification, the model offers
the sort of flexibility than enables flow pat-
terns in urban canyons to be investigated in a
way that has hitherto been beyond the scope
of field measurement programmes.
REFERENCES
1 Y. N a k a m u r a and T. R. Oke, Wind, t e m p e r a t u r e and
stability conditions in an e a s t - w e s t oriented u r b a n
canyon, Atmos. Environ., 12 (1988) 2691 - 2700.
2 W. B. J o h n s o n , F. L. Ludwig, W. F. Dabberdt and R. J.
Allen, An u r b a n diffusion simulation model for carbon
monoxide, J. A i r Pollution Control Assoc., 27 (1973)
490 - 498.
324
3 F. T. DePaul and C. M. Sheih, Measurements of wind
velocities in a street canyon, Atmos. Environ., 20
(1986) 455- 459.
4 M. Hussain and B. E. Lee, An investigation of wind
forces on three-dimensional roughness elements in a
simulated atmospheric boundary layer flow. Part II.
Flow over large arrays of identical roughness elements
and the effect of frontal and side aspect ratio varia-
tions, Department of Building Sciences, University of
Sheffield, Report No. BS 56, 1980.
5 N. J. Cook, On simulating the lower third of the urban
adiabatic boundary layer in a wind tunnel, Atmos.
Environ., 7 (1973) 691 - 705.
6 T. R. Oke, Boundary Layer Climates, Methuen, New
York, 2nd edn., 1988.
7 T. R. Oke, Street design and urban canopy layer cli-
mate, Energy Build., 11 (1988) 103- 113.
8 S. E. Nicholson, A pollution model for street-level air,
Atmos. Environ., 9 (1975) 19.31.
9 B. E. Launder and D. B. Spalding, The numerical
computation of turbulent flows, Comp. Meth. Appl.
Mech. Eng., 3 (1974) 269- 289.
10 D. A. Paterson, Computation of wind flows over three
dimensional buildings, Thesis, University of Queens-
land (submitted in partial fulfillment of the require-
ment of Doctor of Philosophy), 1986.