4.7 Article

An integrated simulation-assessment study for optimizing wind barrier design

期刊

AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST METEOROLOGY
卷 263, 期 -, 页码 198-206

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.agrformet.2018.08.018

关键词

Wind barrier; Computational fluid dynamics; Wind-tunnel experiment; Shelter efficiency; Optimal design

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41330746, 41630747, 41871004]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [312231103]
  3. State Key Laboratory of Earth Surface Processes and Resource Ecology [2015-TDZD-010, 2017-ZY-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Wind barriers are artificial structures that are widely built to abate wind erosion by reducing wind velocity near surface, which requires optimal design in aeolian engineering. Previous studies have shown that numerical simulation is an effective method for optimal design of wind barriers. However, there still exist two challenging questions: 1) how to resolve fine-scale airflow fields around barriers? and 2) how to systematically evaluate the shelter efficiency? In the current study, we have conducted high-resolution 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations for airflow passing through wind barriers then explored optimal designs. To validate the simulation results, we compared the simulated airflow results with those from wind-tunnel measurement. Moreover, we innovatively proposed a shelter index to evaluate the shelter efficiency, which has taken wind velocity reduction, economical cost and shelter degree into account. According to the calculated shelter index, wind barriers with porosity of 0.3-0.4 could provide the longest effective shelter distance, and a 2-row-a-belt scheme with inter-row spacing of 5-7h (h as the height of wind barriers) is the most effective. The optimal inter belt spacing is suggested as 12-15h depending on local wind velocity. This study is intended to provide design references for constructing wind barriers in aeolian engineering.

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