Validation Process for Rooftop Wind Regime CFD Model in Complex Urban Environment Using an Experimental Measurement Campaign

This research presents a validation methodology for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) assessments of rooftop wind regime in urban environments. A case study is carried out at the Donadeo Innovation Centre for Engineering building at the University of Alberta campus. A numerical assessment of roofto...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Energies (Basel) 2021-05, Vol.14 (9), p.2497
Main Authors: Mattar, Sarah Jamal, Kavian Nezhad, Mohammad Reza, Versteege, Michael, Lange, Carlos F., Fleck, Brian A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Alternative energy
Approximation
CFD
complex urban geometry
Computational fluid dynamics
Computer applications
Energy industry
Error analysis
experimental measurements
Fluid dynamics
Hydrodynamics
Scale models
Simulation
Standard deviation
turbulent flow
Urban environments
validation study
Validity
Velocity
Wind direction
Wind measurement
Wind power
wind regime
Wind speed
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This research presents a validation methodology for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) assessments of rooftop wind regime in urban environments. A case study is carried out at the Donadeo Innovation Centre for Engineering building at the University of Alberta campus. A numerical assessment of rooftop wind regime around buildings of the University of Alberta North campus has been performed by using 3D steady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations, on a large-scale high-resolution grid using the ANSYS CFX code. Two methods of standard deviation (SDM) and average (AM) were introduced to compare the numerical results with the corresponding measurements. The standard deviation method showed slightly better agreements between the numerical results and measurements compared to the average method, by showing the average wind speed errors of 10.8% and 17.7%, and wind direction deviation of 8.4° and 12.3°, for incident winds from East and South, respectively. However, the average error between simulated and measured wind speeds of the North and West incidents were 51.2% and 24.6%, respectively. Considering the fact that the upstream geometry was not modeled in detail for the North and West directions, the validation methodology presented in this paper is deemed as acceptable, as good agreement between the numerical and experimental results of East and South incidents were achieved.
ISSN:1996-1073
1996-1073
DOI:10.3390/en14092497