575 publications from this institution
Wind flow modeling in urban areas is influenced by many uncertainties, such as geometric detailing, inflow and boundary conditions, numerical approach (RANS, LES, and DNS) and turbulence model. This study aims to investigate how the different inflow conditions that are usually adopted to simulate urban wind flows may affect the accuracy of the results. CFD simulations were performed on a selected urban area - “Quartiere La Venezia” in Livorno (Italy) - using a steady-state RANS approach. Two types of inflow profiles were considered for one wind direction (α = 240° from the North). Wind tunnel tests performed on the same urban model were used as a benchmark to validate the numerical simulations. Mean wind profiles at 25 locations were compared and the statistical performance in terms of four different metrics was quantified for both inflow conditions. The results show that slightly different inflow conditions can greatly affect the results in terms of mean wind speed and turbulent kinetic energy.
Façade geometrical details can substantially influence the near-façade airflow patterns and pressures. This is especially the case for building balconies as their presence can lead to multiple separation and recirculation areas near the façades and hence large changes in surface pressure distribution. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has been widely used to investigate the impact of building balconies, mainly based on the steady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the performance of steady RANS and large-eddy simulations (LES) in predicting the near-façade airflow patterns and mean surface pressure coefficients (Cp) for a building with balconies for three wind directions θ = 0°, 90°, 180°, where 0° is perpendicular to the façade under study. The evaluation is based on validation with wind-tunnel measurements of Cp. The results show that both RANS and LES can accurately predict Cp on the windward façade for θ = 0° with average absolute deviations of 0.113 and 0.091 from the measured data, respectively. For the other two wind directions, LES is clearly superior. For θ = 90°, the average absolute deviations for RANS and LES are 0.302 and 0.096, while these are 0.161 and 0.038 for θ = 180°. Large differences are found in the computed flow fields on the balcony spaces. Because RANS systematically underestimates the absolute values of both Cp and mean wind speed on the balconies, it is suggested that building design based on RANS might result in excessive ventilation and in too high wind nuisance level.