Loading…

Revisit of prevailing practice guidelines and investigation of topographical treatment techniques in CFD-Based air ventilation assessments

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a mature method in wind engineering studies, but many air ventilation assessment (AVA) reports prepared by consulting firms in Hong Kong still suffer from the use of inappropriate techniques and computational settings in the CFD modeling stage. The main reason b...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Building and environment 2020-02, Vol.169, p.106580, Article 106580
Main Authors: An, Karl, Wong, Sze-Ming, Fung, Jimmy Chi-Hung, Ng, Edward
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
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!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-ede75a59d4bc4b1a803690e592dc35821e300f29acbd21940b68f0533a8ed27b3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-ede75a59d4bc4b1a803690e592dc35821e300f29acbd21940b68f0533a8ed27b3
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page 106580
container_title Building and environment
container_volume 169
creator An, Karl
Wong, Sze-Ming
Fung, Jimmy Chi-Hung
Ng, Edward
description Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a mature method in wind engineering studies, but many air ventilation assessment (AVA) reports prepared by consulting firms in Hong Kong still suffer from the use of inappropriate techniques and computational settings in the CFD modeling stage. The main reason behind this is the lack of informative guidelines relating to CFD model settings in the AVA Technical Circular issued by local authorities. Other aspects of AVA that require improvement include terrain modeling techniques and understanding the sensitivity of modeled topographical size to the wind environment. This paper revisits and summarizes important aspects of current best-practice guidelines for robust CFD simulations. The study compares two conventional approaches to terrain treatment through a series of sensitivity tests. The first approach uses terrain features to cover the entire ground of the computational domain, whereas the second imitates wind tunnel experiments in which the domain includes an inclined buffer area. One drawback of the first approach was found to be the occurrence of numerical divergence when the terrain size is small; meanwhile, in the latter approach, the inclination angle of the buffer area must not exceed 30° to achieve robust results. The final stage of the study validates the results of CFD simulations based on the two approaches with experimental data from a dense city. The approach that mimics wind tunnel experiments with a buffer zone was found to achieve better correlations, and smaller normalized mean square errors with respect to the experimental data and is thus considered superior. •Best Practice Guidelines for CFD simulations are revisited.•Two techniques for terrain modeling via CFD are validated by wind tunnel experiment.•VR and TKE are insensitive to a buffer area with an inclination angle less than 30°.•Simulation results are influenced by terrain size and treatment techniques.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106580
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2375481902</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0360132319307929</els_id><sourcerecordid>2375481902</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-ede75a59d4bc4b1a803690e592dc35821e300f29acbd21940b68f0533a8ed27b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkN1q3DAQhUVpIdu0rxAEufZGP_69a7LtJoGFQkmgd0KWxruzeGVH0hryCnnqyji9ztUMw_nOzBxCrjhbc8bLm-O6PWNvwU1rwXiThmVRs09kxetKZmWd__1MVkyWLONSyAvyNYQjS2Aj8xV5-wMTBox06OjoYdLYo9unVpuIBuj-jBbSCALVzlJ0E4SIex1xcDMTh3HYez0e0OieRg86nsBFGsEcHL6cE4eObrY_szsdwFKNnk5JgP1ioUOAEGYkfCNfOt0H-P5eL8nz9tfT5iHb_b5_3NzuMiNzFjOwUBW6aGzemrzluk6vNQyKRlgji1pwkIx1otGmtYI3OWvLumOFlLoGK6pWXpLrxXf0w3xgVMfh7F1aqYSsirzmDRNJVS4q44cQPHRq9HjS_lVxpubc1VH9z13Nuasl9wT-WEBIP0wIXgWD4AxY9GCisgN-ZPEPfUqS6Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2375481902</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Revisit of prevailing practice guidelines and investigation of topographical treatment techniques in CFD-Based air ventilation assessments</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>An, Karl ; Wong, Sze-Ming ; Fung, Jimmy Chi-Hung ; Ng, Edward</creator><creatorcontrib>An, Karl ; Wong, Sze-Ming ; Fung, Jimmy Chi-Hung ; Ng, Edward</creatorcontrib><description>Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a mature method in wind engineering studies, but many air ventilation assessment (AVA) reports prepared by consulting firms in Hong Kong still suffer from the use of inappropriate techniques and computational settings in the CFD modeling stage. The main reason behind this is the lack of informative guidelines relating to CFD model settings in the AVA Technical Circular issued by local authorities. Other aspects of AVA that require improvement include terrain modeling techniques and understanding the sensitivity of modeled topographical size to the wind environment. This paper revisits and summarizes important aspects of current best-practice guidelines for robust CFD simulations. The study compares two conventional approaches to terrain treatment through a series of sensitivity tests. The first approach uses terrain features to cover the entire ground of the computational domain, whereas the second imitates wind tunnel experiments in which the domain includes an inclined buffer area. One drawback of the first approach was found to be the occurrence of numerical divergence when the terrain size is small; meanwhile, in the latter approach, the inclination angle of the buffer area must not exceed 30° to achieve robust results. The final stage of the study validates the results of CFD simulations based on the two approaches with experimental data from a dense city. The approach that mimics wind tunnel experiments with a buffer zone was found to achieve better correlations, and smaller normalized mean square errors with respect to the experimental data and is thus considered superior. •Best Practice Guidelines for CFD simulations are revisited.•Two techniques for terrain modeling via CFD are validated by wind tunnel experiment.•VR and TKE are insensitive to a buffer area with an inclination angle less than 30°.•Simulation results are influenced by terrain size and treatment techniques.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0360-1323</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-684X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106580</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Aerodynamics ; Air ventilation assessments ; Best practice guidelines ; Buffer zones ; CFD simulations ; Computational fluid dynamics ; Computer applications ; Computer simulation ; Divergence ; Domains ; Experimental data ; Fluid dynamics ; Guidelines ; Hydrodynamics ; Inclination angle ; Mathematical models ; Robustness (mathematics) ; Sensitivity ; Terrain ; Terrain modeling ; Ventilation ; Wind engineering ; Wind tunnel testing ; Wind tunnels</subject><ispartof>Building and environment, 2020-02, Vol.169, p.106580, Article 106580</ispartof><rights>2019 Elsevier Ltd</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier BV Feb 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-ede75a59d4bc4b1a803690e592dc35821e300f29acbd21940b68f0533a8ed27b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-ede75a59d4bc4b1a803690e592dc35821e300f29acbd21940b68f0533a8ed27b3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>An, Karl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Sze-Ming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fung, Jimmy Chi-Hung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ng, Edward</creatorcontrib><title>Revisit of prevailing practice guidelines and investigation of topographical treatment techniques in CFD-Based air ventilation assessments</title><title>Building and environment</title><description>Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a mature method in wind engineering studies, but many air ventilation assessment (AVA) reports prepared by consulting firms in Hong Kong still suffer from the use of inappropriate techniques and computational settings in the CFD modeling stage. The main reason behind this is the lack of informative guidelines relating to CFD model settings in the AVA Technical Circular issued by local authorities. Other aspects of AVA that require improvement include terrain modeling techniques and understanding the sensitivity of modeled topographical size to the wind environment. This paper revisits and summarizes important aspects of current best-practice guidelines for robust CFD simulations. The study compares two conventional approaches to terrain treatment through a series of sensitivity tests. The first approach uses terrain features to cover the entire ground of the computational domain, whereas the second imitates wind tunnel experiments in which the domain includes an inclined buffer area. One drawback of the first approach was found to be the occurrence of numerical divergence when the terrain size is small; meanwhile, in the latter approach, the inclination angle of the buffer area must not exceed 30° to achieve robust results. The final stage of the study validates the results of CFD simulations based on the two approaches with experimental data from a dense city. The approach that mimics wind tunnel experiments with a buffer zone was found to achieve better correlations, and smaller normalized mean square errors with respect to the experimental data and is thus considered superior. •Best Practice Guidelines for CFD simulations are revisited.•Two techniques for terrain modeling via CFD are validated by wind tunnel experiment.•VR and TKE are insensitive to a buffer area with an inclination angle less than 30°.•Simulation results are influenced by terrain size and treatment techniques.</description><subject>Aerodynamics</subject><subject>Air ventilation assessments</subject><subject>Best practice guidelines</subject><subject>Buffer zones</subject><subject>CFD simulations</subject><subject>Computational fluid dynamics</subject><subject>Computer applications</subject><subject>Computer simulation</subject><subject>Divergence</subject><subject>Domains</subject><subject>Experimental data</subject><subject>Fluid dynamics</subject><subject>Guidelines</subject><subject>Hydrodynamics</subject><subject>Inclination angle</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Robustness (mathematics)</subject><subject>Sensitivity</subject><subject>Terrain</subject><subject>Terrain modeling</subject><subject>Ventilation</subject><subject>Wind engineering</subject><subject>Wind tunnel testing</subject><subject>Wind tunnels</subject><issn>0360-1323</issn><issn>1873-684X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqFkN1q3DAQhUVpIdu0rxAEufZGP_69a7LtJoGFQkmgd0KWxruzeGVH0hryCnnqyji9ztUMw_nOzBxCrjhbc8bLm-O6PWNvwU1rwXiThmVRs09kxetKZmWd__1MVkyWLONSyAvyNYQjS2Aj8xV5-wMTBox06OjoYdLYo9unVpuIBuj-jBbSCALVzlJ0E4SIex1xcDMTh3HYez0e0OieRg86nsBFGsEcHL6cE4eObrY_szsdwFKNnk5JgP1ioUOAEGYkfCNfOt0H-P5eL8nz9tfT5iHb_b5_3NzuMiNzFjOwUBW6aGzemrzluk6vNQyKRlgji1pwkIx1otGmtYI3OWvLumOFlLoGK6pWXpLrxXf0w3xgVMfh7F1aqYSsirzmDRNJVS4q44cQPHRq9HjS_lVxpubc1VH9z13Nuasl9wT-WEBIP0wIXgWD4AxY9GCisgN-ZPEPfUqS6Q</recordid><startdate>202002</startdate><enddate>202002</enddate><creator>An, Karl</creator><creator>Wong, Sze-Ming</creator><creator>Fung, Jimmy Chi-Hung</creator><creator>Ng, Edward</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier BV</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F28</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202002</creationdate><title>Revisit of prevailing practice guidelines and investigation of topographical treatment techniques in CFD-Based air ventilation assessments</title><author>An, Karl ; Wong, Sze-Ming ; Fung, Jimmy Chi-Hung ; Ng, Edward</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-ede75a59d4bc4b1a803690e592dc35821e300f29acbd21940b68f0533a8ed27b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Aerodynamics</topic><topic>Air ventilation assessments</topic><topic>Best practice guidelines</topic><topic>Buffer zones</topic><topic>CFD simulations</topic><topic>Computational fluid dynamics</topic><topic>Computer applications</topic><topic>Computer simulation</topic><topic>Divergence</topic><topic>Domains</topic><topic>Experimental data</topic><topic>Fluid dynamics</topic><topic>Guidelines</topic><topic>Hydrodynamics</topic><topic>Inclination angle</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Robustness (mathematics)</topic><topic>Sensitivity</topic><topic>Terrain</topic><topic>Terrain modeling</topic><topic>Ventilation</topic><topic>Wind engineering</topic><topic>Wind tunnel testing</topic><topic>Wind tunnels</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>An, Karl</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Sze-Ming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fung, Jimmy Chi-Hung</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ng, Edward</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ANTE: Abstracts in New Technology &amp; Engineering</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Building and environment</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>An, Karl</au><au>Wong, Sze-Ming</au><au>Fung, Jimmy Chi-Hung</au><au>Ng, Edward</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Revisit of prevailing practice guidelines and investigation of topographical treatment techniques in CFD-Based air ventilation assessments</atitle><jtitle>Building and environment</jtitle><date>2020-02</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>169</volume><spage>106580</spage><pages>106580-</pages><artnum>106580</artnum><issn>0360-1323</issn><eissn>1873-684X</eissn><abstract>Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a mature method in wind engineering studies, but many air ventilation assessment (AVA) reports prepared by consulting firms in Hong Kong still suffer from the use of inappropriate techniques and computational settings in the CFD modeling stage. The main reason behind this is the lack of informative guidelines relating to CFD model settings in the AVA Technical Circular issued by local authorities. Other aspects of AVA that require improvement include terrain modeling techniques and understanding the sensitivity of modeled topographical size to the wind environment. This paper revisits and summarizes important aspects of current best-practice guidelines for robust CFD simulations. The study compares two conventional approaches to terrain treatment through a series of sensitivity tests. The first approach uses terrain features to cover the entire ground of the computational domain, whereas the second imitates wind tunnel experiments in which the domain includes an inclined buffer area. One drawback of the first approach was found to be the occurrence of numerical divergence when the terrain size is small; meanwhile, in the latter approach, the inclination angle of the buffer area must not exceed 30° to achieve robust results. The final stage of the study validates the results of CFD simulations based on the two approaches with experimental data from a dense city. The approach that mimics wind tunnel experiments with a buffer zone was found to achieve better correlations, and smaller normalized mean square errors with respect to the experimental data and is thus considered superior. •Best Practice Guidelines for CFD simulations are revisited.•Two techniques for terrain modeling via CFD are validated by wind tunnel experiment.•VR and TKE are insensitive to a buffer area with an inclination angle less than 30°.•Simulation results are influenced by terrain size and treatment techniques.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106580</doi></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0360-1323
ispartof Building and environment, 2020-02, Vol.169, p.106580, Article 106580
issn 0360-1323
1873-684X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2375481902
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects Aerodynamics
Air ventilation assessments
Best practice guidelines
Buffer zones
CFD simulations
Computational fluid dynamics
Computer applications
Computer simulation
Divergence
Domains
Experimental data
Fluid dynamics
Guidelines
Hydrodynamics
Inclination angle
Mathematical models
Robustness (mathematics)
Sensitivity
Terrain
Terrain modeling
Ventilation
Wind engineering
Wind tunnel testing
Wind tunnels
title Revisit of prevailing practice guidelines and investigation of topographical treatment techniques in CFD-Based air ventilation assessments
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T06%3A55%3A07IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Revisit%20of%20prevailing%20practice%20guidelines%20and%20investigation%20of%20topographical%20treatment%20techniques%20in%20CFD-Based%20air%20ventilation%20assessments&rft.jtitle=Building%20and%20environment&rft.au=An,%20Karl&rft.date=2020-02&rft.volume=169&rft.spage=106580&rft.pages=106580-&rft.artnum=106580&rft.issn=0360-1323&rft.eissn=1873-684X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106580&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2375481902%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c340t-ede75a59d4bc4b1a803690e592dc35821e300f29acbd21940b68f0533a8ed27b3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2375481902&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true