4.7 Article

CFD simulation of natural ventilation of a generic building in various incident wind directions: Comparison of turbulence modelling, evaluation methods, and ventilation mechanisms

期刊

ENERGY AND BUILDINGS
卷 229, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE SA
DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2020.110516

关键词

Single-sided ventilation; Cross-ventilation; Computational fluid dynamics simulation; Turbulence modeling; Incident wind direction

资金

  1. Research Grants Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, China [C7064-18G-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single sided and cross-ventilation of a cube-shaped building at various incident wind directions were stimulated using computational fluid dynamics (CFD). The simulation used either the Reynold-saveraged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations in conjunction with a 2-equation turbulence model (Standard k-epsilon model (SKT), Realizable k-epsilon model (RLZ), or Renormalization group k-epsilon model (RNG)), or Large Eddy Simulation (LES) with the Wall-Adapting Local Eddy-viscosity model (WALE). LES showed good agreement with wind tunnel data when modeling indoor and outdoor wind fields; RLZ had slightly better results than SKT and RNG. Two evaluation methods were examined: the integration of opening velocities method under-estimated single-sided ventilation rates but over-estimated cross-ventilation rates; the tracer-gas decay method was more computationally demanding of the two. When the tracer-gas method and LES were used in combination, their estimations were most accurate especially if the ventilation was driven by wind flow fluctuations. RANS and LES predicted steady decreases of 92.5% and 81.8% (single-sided ventilation), and 52.6% and 37.2% (cross-ventilation) in ventilation rate as incident wind direction varies from 0 degrees to 90 degrees. Discrepancies between the RANS and LES predictions of ventilation rates were mainly attributable to their respective turbulence-modeling methods. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据