4.7 Article

LES for pedestrian level wind around an idealized building array-Assessment of sensitivity to influencing parameters

Journal

SUSTAINABLE CITIES AND SOCIETY
Volume 44, Issue -, Pages 406-415

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.scs.2018.10.034

Keywords

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD); Large eddy simulation (LES); Building array; Pedestrian level wind (PLW); Sensitivity analysis

Funding

  1. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [C5002-14G]
  2. State Key Laboratory of Subtropical Building Science (South China University of Technology, China) [2016ZB04]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Large eddy simulation (LES) is increasingly recognized as an important approach in the assessment of pedestrian level wind (PLW) conditions, while its numerical performance is sensitive to a few key parameter settings. This study aims to further identify the sensitivities to these main influencing parameters in modeling wind flow around a building array using LES. This is achieved by quantitatively comparing mean wind velocities from the LES predictions and those from a benchmark wind tunnel experiment. The parameters investigated are the mesh resolution, discretization time step and sampling period, vortices' number of the inlet flow, the upstream distance of the computational domain, and the sub-grid scale (SGS) models. Results are quantified using four validation indices. Specifically, the correlation coefficient R between the predicted results using SGS model with the dynamic Smagorinsky-Lilly method and the experimental results is 0.89, which is higher than those between the experiment results and other three SGS models. Based on the sensitivity tests, it is recommended that the normalized discretization time step be set below 0.09, and that the normalized sampling period and vortices' number be above 219 and 190, respectively, in the LES simulation of PLW flows around a building array.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available