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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Building and environment 2020-02, Vol.169, p.106580, Article 106580 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
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 & 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 |