4.6 Article

Study of Heavy Gas Pollutants' Dispersion in Street Canyon Terrain

期刊

PROCESSES
卷 9, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/pr9101754

关键词

wind tunnel; CFD simulation; pollutant dispersion; heavy gas; safety

资金

  1. National Key R&D Program of China [2018YFC0808600]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study focused on heavy gas dispersion under the terrain conditions of street canyons. The results showed that the flow field distributions in street terrains were dominated by higher buildings, and the interception effect of the street canyon on upstream pollutants declined with the decrease in the street canyon's aspect ratio. Also, a large quantity of upstream pollutants accumulated on the windward side of higher buildings when the height ratios were different.
This study focused on heavy gas dispersion under the terrain conditions of street canyons. The effects of street aspect ratio and height ratio were investigated, and the influence of environmental wind speed in the typical ideal street canyon terrain was explored. The results indicated that the surrounding flow field distributions in street terrains were dominated by higher buildings. In addition, when the building height was held constant, the flow field was affected by the joint influence of the two isolated buildings. The interception effect of the street canyon on upstream pollutants declined with the decrease in the street canyon's aspect ratio. In addition, when the height ratios were different, a large quantity of upstream pollutants accumulated on the windward side of higher buildings. The relative concentration per unit area inside the canyon was affected by the air circulation inside and outside the canyon and the size of the dispersion space. The increase in the environmental wind speed promotes the entry of pollutants into the street while aggravating the overall dispersion of the pollutants. Therefore, the emergence of the most unsafe wind speeds caused most of the pollutants to gather in the street canyons.

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

4.6
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