Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
J. Naprstek & C. Fischer (eds); ITAM AS CR, Prague, 11-15 July, 2005, Paper #138
J. Franke, W. Frank
ABSTRACT: A numerical simulation of the flow across an asymmetric street junction formed by four rings
of buildings has been performed with the commercial flow solver FLUENT V6.1 using the Reynolds averaged
Navier-Stokes equations with six different turbulence models. The turbulence models comprised four linear
two-equation models and a differential Reynolds stress model with two formulations for the pressure-strain.
The simulations were done for two directions of the approach flow using three systematically refined grids for
each case. The results on the finest grid were shown to differ only slightly from the next coarser grid. These
results were then compared with velocity and turbulence measurements that are available from the CEDVAL
model while the
database. The best results for the velocity are obtained with the realizable and standard
Reynolds stress models perform best for the Reynolds stresses and slightly worse for velocity.
much better agreement for the LES with the measuerments than for the RANS with standard
model. LES was also used by [Hanna et al. (2002)]
for the flow over a matrix of cubes with reasonable agreement between simulation results and experiments. While LES leads in general to better predictions than RANS its costs are currently too high for
engineering applications. Therefore industrial scenarios are normally treated with the RANS approach,
e.g. [Ferreira et al. (2002), Richards et al. (2002),
Ketzel et al. (2002), Westbury et al. (2002)]. None of
the cited works uses higher-order turbulence models
and many did not analyse the influence of the grid resolution on the results.
1 INTRODUCTION
The detailed knowledge of the interaction of the atmospheric boundary layer flow with clusters of obstacles
like buildings, trees or other obstructions is important for several reasons. Understanding and predicting
the forces and loadings on the obstructions requires
knowledge of the complex flow patterns around the
obstacles and within the streets. This information is
also needed to assess the mechanical wind effects on
pedestrians and to determine the dispersion of pollutants or contaminants.
Besides the experimental investigation of the
flow within the built environment in boundary
layer wind tunnels, Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is increasingly used for the numerical
simulation of the flow around clusters of buildings. [Lien & Yee (2004)] computed the flow over
a matrix of cubes solving the Reynolds Averaged
Navier Stokes (RANS) equations with the standard
and [Kato & Launder (1993)]
turbulence model.
While there was a good agreement between measured and computed velocities, the turbulent kinetic
energy was underpredicted. A similar case has been
studied by [Cheng et al. (2003)]. Besides the RANS
equations with the standard
turbulence model
they used Large Eddy Simulation (LES) with different subgrid scale models. While RANS computations solve for the statistically steady flow field directly, LES computes the unsteady flow field formed
by the larger eddies and only models the influence of
the unresolved eddies. [Cheng et al. (2003)] report
In the present work we therefore analyse the performance of the RANS approach with six turbulence
models, including two differential Reynolds stress
models, for the prediction of the flow over a moderately complex cluster of four rings of buildings
forming an asymmetric street junction. For this case
velocity and turbulence measurements are available
for three directions of the approach flow from the
C EDVAL database (www.mi.uni-hamburg.de/cedval)
[Leitl (2000)]. The simulations are performed with
the commercial flow solver F LUENT V6.1 for two directions of the approach flow, using three systematically refined grids in each case. The grid dependance
of the solutions is analysed only qualitatively. The
computational results for the mean velocities and the
turbulence on the finest grid are then compared with
the experimental data.
Dr.-Ing. Jorg Franke, Department of Fluid- and Thermodynamics, University of Siegen, e-mail franke@ift.uni-siegen.de
Prof. Dr.-Ing. Wolfram Frank, Department of Fluid- and Thermodynamics, University of Siegen, e-mail frank@ift.unisiegen.de
The Fourth European & African Conference on Wind Engineering, Paper #138
2 NUMERICAL METHOD
!
(4)
is the production of
*
and defined as
(5)
(1)
,
where
tensor,
(6)
(2)
(7)
3
3
3
In Equation (4)
denotes the diffusion coefits dissipation. These quantificient of and
ties have different definitions for the different twoequation turbulence models that are used. Altogether
four models are used of which three belong to the
class of
models and the fourth is the shear stress
transport
model of [Menter (1994)]. All
models solve a modelled transport equation for the
dissipation in addition to Equation (4).
)
!
(3)
8
(8)
'
Here,
is the turbulent kinetic energy,
the Kronecker delta function and the turbulent
or eddy viscosity. The turbulent viscosity is computed
from the turbulent kinetic energy and a measure of
its dissipation, for each of which an additional transport equation is solved. Therefore these models are
called two-equation turbulence models.
>
>
>
Here,
is the diffusion coefficient of and
and
its production and dissipation, respectively.
Their definitions are listed in Table 1 for the twoequation turbulence models which are briefly introduced in the following.
)
>
>
turbulence models
C
model
SKE
RNG
RKE
>
>
>
>
'
8
'
!
!
Q
D
D
O
G
8
>
G
X
G
1.44
1.42
1.92
1.68
1.9
0.09
0.0845
U
K
turbulence models
C
'
>
model
SKE
1.3 1.0
RNG
'
G
U
8
0.4187 9.793
0.4187 9.793
0.4187 9.793
>
J. Franke, W. Frank
Standard
(SKE) model
The SKE model of [Launder & Spalding (1972)]
is still widely used in CWE despite its stagnation
point anomaly, which leads to an overprediction of
in stagnant flow regions. Despite this shortcoming it yields reasonable results for the flow within
clusters of obstacles, e.g. [Lien & Yee (2004)].
The constants used in this model are given in Table 2.
ReNormalization Group (RNG)
model
The RNG model of [Yakhot & Orszag (1986)]
mainly differs from the SKE model in the equation
for . The parameter in the dissipation term of
is defined as
with
(9)
"
'
(
1
/
R
(
/
P
D
B
P
Y
P
,
2
(13)
P
@
@
'
where
(10)
(
1
@
,
*
1
*
(11)
/
(
is defined as
(
P
P
D
@
%
8
7
<
:
=
<
>
(12)
"
"
The Fourth European & African Conference on Wind Engineering, Paper #138
!
(18)
#
1
/
>
#
#
#
1
=
(14)
(15)
Both, the LRR-IP and the SSG model use Equation (8) to compute the scalar dissipation . The production and dissipation term are computed as in the
SKE model with the same constants. However, the
production term
is now computed exactly from
as
. In this form it is also used in the
transport equation for , Equation (4), where the coefficient , which is also used in the diffusion term of
Equation (14), is now
. is computed as in
the SKE model with the same value for . The equation for is only necessary to compute in the wall
adjacent cells. In the rest of the domain is computed
directly from the normal stresses. Near the wall is
needed to compute the Reynolds stresses. Assuming
a logarithmic distribution of the velocity and equilibrium of the turbulence and neglecting convection and
diffusion in Equation (14), the stresses are
where
is the Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor
. The rapid part
defined as
is modelled as proposed by [Fu et al. (1987)],
"
!
!
#
"
#
(16)
"
is approximated as proposed by
Finally,
[Gibson & Launder (1978)]
'
(
#
(17)
"
/
(19)
5
>
>
>
>
#
#
#
3
1
Here, are the components of the unit normal vector to the wall, is the wall normal distance and
the von Karman constant. Its value and the one of
are the same as for the SKE model, cf. Table 2.
This model for the wall-reflection term is
known to be inadequate for impinging flows
[Hanjalic (1999), Murakami (1998)]. Therefore
simulations are performed with and without inclu. The grid convergence study of the
sion of
. One simulaLRR-IP model is done without
, denoted LRR-IP+, is perormed on
tion with
the fine grid for comparison.
Quadratic Pressure-Strain Model (SSG):
The model of Speziale, Sarkar and Gatski (SSG)
[Speziale et al. (1991)] uses an approximation for
the slow part of the pressure strain which is
quadratic in , and for the rapid part a quasi-linear
model. The entire pressure-strain follows from
'
"
^
N
_
(20)
`
'
L
Here,
is the wall shear stress,
the normal distance from the wall and
is
the friction velocity in the case of local equilibdepends on the non dimensional roughrium.
ness height
, where
is the dimensional roughness height.
is computed from the
following formulas which have been derived from
measurements in sand-grain roughened pipe flow
[Cebeci & Bradshaw (1977)].
\
"
J. Franke, W. Frank
'
&
5
2
-
9
5
0
:
4
&
(21)
For the constant
the default value
is
used in the present work. Finally, the standard treatment for , and with the wall function approach
is used [F LUENT (2003)]. Thus the boundary conditions at rough and smooth solid walls are described.
The other boundary conditions applied are described
in subsection 2.3.
&
&
250
250
130
>
90
60
H = 60
(a)
15H
10H
10H
10H
30H
(b)
15H
8.3H
9.2H
9.3H
27.8H
The Fourth European & African Conference on Wind Engineering, Paper #138
the intersection is treated as rough wall with a hy, indrodynamic roughness length of
ferred from the measurements of the approach flow.
The measured approach flow corresponds to a neutrally stratified boundary layer flow over a rough wall
with the cited roughness length and a friction veloc. In addition to these data the
ity
exponent in the power law approximation of the velocity profile is provided by the C EDVAL database as
. In Figure 3(a) the two resulting velocity profiles
are shown together with the measurements. While the
power law approximates the measured velocity profile
very well, the logarithmic distribution leads to much
too high velocities. Therefore the power law is chosen for the prescription of the velocity at the inflow
boundary.
(a)
(b)
Power law
7
6
z/H
z/H
Exp.
SKE-F
RNG-F
RKE-F
SST-F
LRR-IP-F
SSG-F
Inlet
"
8
7
Log law
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
U [m/s]
k [m /s ]
(a)
z/H
Also shown in Figure 3(a) are the computed velocity profiles after
from the inlet plane for
approach flow case which are the same as for
the
the
case. The profiles are nearly identical for all
turbulence models. Below
the computations have smaller velocities than the measurements
and the power law at the inflow. This momentum loss
is attributed to the usage of a cell height at the wall
which is too low for the applied value of the roughness height , see discussion below.
A similar behaviour can be observed for the turbulent kinetic energy , see Figure 3(b). There the computed also decreases considerably below
from the constant value prescribed at the inlet.
The inflow profile for (and for or ) is computed from
and
according to the proposal of
[Richards & Hoxey (1993)]. The resulting turbulent
"
0
-5
'
-4
-3
-2
-1
x/H
'
(b)
z/H
0
-5
-1
-2
-3
-4
x/H
J. Franke, W. Frank
for the medium (M) and 36 490 cells for the coarse
(C) grid. While the cell volume change is kept below 2.5 for the fine grid, its maximum increases to
3.5 on the medium and 5.5 on the coarse grid. This is
one reason why no Richarson extrapolation is used to
examine the grid convergence. The resolution of the
buildings height with the medium and the fine grid is
shown on the previous page in Figure 4(a) and 4(b),
respectively.
3 RESULTS
(a) 6
y/H
-2
First a qualitative comparison of the results on the different grids is presented. As there are in total 1706
measurement locations for the
case and 1528 for
the
case the computed results are plotted against
the measured ones at all positions where data are
available. As 2D laser doppler anemometry has been
used in the experiments, only the velocity and the
stress
are available at all positions. In Figure 6
the corresponding results are shown for the RKE turbulence model. For the other models similar results
are obtained. The computed velocities are normalised
with
at
from the inlet, cf. Figure (3)(a). For the experimental velocities the corresponding value from the approach flow measurements
is used. It can be seen that the values on the medium
and fine grid differ only little, with a few exceptions.
For the turbulence quantities similar results are obtained.
As already stated in subsection 2.3, a grid convergence study by Richardson extrapolation is not used
as the expansion ratio differs considerably between
the grids and only linear interpolation to the measurement locations is used. Therefore the quantitative assessment of grid convergence is based on the hit rate
which is recommended by the [VDI (2003)] for code
validation. The hit rate is defined as
-4
-2
x/H
(b) 8
"
4
2
"
y/H
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-8
-6
-4
-2
x/H
Figure 5 Resolution of the crossing with medium grid. (a)
, (b)
approach flow. Red colored is the surface mesh
on the rough ground around the crossing, black colored the
surface mesh on the smooth ground between the buildings
and blue colored the surface mesh on the smooth building
roofs.
&
&
)
'
(22)
where
'
The Fourth European & African Conference on Wind Engineering, Paper #138
(a) 1.5
RKE-C
RKE-M
RKE-F
U SIM / U SIM,REF
0.5
0
-0.5
-0.5
0.5
U EXP / U EXP,REF
1.5
(b) 1.5
RKE-C
RKE-M
RKE-F
USIM / U SIM,REF
turb. model
SKE-C
SKE-M
SKE-F
RNG-C
RNG-M
RNG-F
RKE-C
RKE-M
RKE-F
SST-C
SST-M
SST-F
SSG-C
SSG-M
SSG-F
LRR-IP-C
LRR-IP-M
LRR-IP-F
LRR-IP+F
LRR-IP+F, ES
0.5
29
-0.5
-0.5
0.5
1.5
50
58
59
43
54
51
51
59
61
43
51
48
58
58
51
62
68
60
61
38
56
57
36
53
53
39
56
55
36
54
45
59
59
38
60
63
57
60
14
14
15
16
16
18
14
16
15
14
15
18
16
16
19
17
18
21
21
72
77
78
37
55
60
63
68
64
29
36
42
70
71
51
72
73
72
73
62
69
69
30
40
40
53
52
51
24
30
38
57
58
41
60
64
83
81
42
34
39
59
65
60
42
46
49
54
56
51
72
74
65
59
60
64
75
UEXP / U EXP,REF
Table 4 Hit rate (in %) of velocity and normal Reynolds
stress components for the
approach flow.
for
otherwise
&
turb. model
SKE-C
SKE-M
SKE-F
RNG-C
RNG-M
RNG-F
RKE-C
RKE-M
RKE-F
SST-C
SST-M
SST-F
SSG-C
SSG-M
SSG-F
LRR-IP-C
LRR-IP-M
LRR-IP-F
"
(23)
Here,
denotes the normalised results of the
computation and the normalised experimental results.
is the absolute value of the relative error and
the allowed deviation which has different values
for the examined quantities. For the velocity components we use
and for the Reynolds stresses
. The resulting hit rates for the velocity and
normal Reynolds stress components are listed in Table 3 and Table 4 for the
and
approach flow,
respectively.
For both cases the hit rate of the velocity components converges in general with grid refinement.
Some models display oscillating behaviour which can
be attributed to the bad convergence on the fine grid
+
47
57
59
50
51
49
48
57
59
43
49
50
44
52
54
45
51
50
29
53
54
43
45
47
27
55
56
30
46
39
32
46
50
33
51
41
21
23
24
16
20
17
23
21
20
20
19
16
19
14
15
18
16
16
55
49
56
66
66
64
59
63
65
52
54
53
68
65
62
67
67
63
7
3
3
25
26
20
17
8
10
52
44
37
38
14
13
39
15
14
25
20
25
61
61
52
34
37
39
52
42
34
69
65
64
66
60
64
J. Franke, W. Frank
approach
6
5
EXP.
U EXP,REF
Y/H
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
-5
-3 -2 -1 0
X/H
Figure 7 Velocity vectors from
Experimental results.
and
at
"
The Fourth European & African Conference on Wind Engineering, Paper #138
-1
-2
-2
-3
-3
-4
-4
1
-1
-5
-3 -2 -1 0
U SIM,REF
Y/H
6
5
-5
-3 -2 -1 0
X/H
6
5
RKE
SST
U SIM,REF
U SIM,REF
-1
-2
-2
-3
-3
-4
-4
-5
-3 -2 -1 0
-5
-3 -2 -1 0
Y/H
Y/H
U SIM,REF
SSG
U SIM,REF
X/H
LRR-IP
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-3
-4
-4
-5
-3 -2 -1 0
-5
-3 -2 -1 0
6
5
1
X/H
at
Y/H
and
X/H
6
LRR-IP+, ES
U SIM,REF
U SIM,REF
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-3
-4
-4
-5
-3 -2 -1 0
-5
-3 -2 -1 0
LRR-IP+
The corresponding numerical results with the twoequation models are displayed in Figure 8. None of
the models predicts the recirculation zone when the
flow enters the crossroad from the positive
direction. The deflection of this flow towards the street
in positive
direction is only captured by the SKE
and RKE model, where the last one is the only model
that shows the experimentally observed flow reversal
above
. The RNG and the SST model predict that the flow goes through the entire crossroad
and does not enter the street in positive
direction.
This is due to the fact that the flow into the junction
from the street facing the inlet plane has lower momentum than in the experiment. This is already obvious from the first velocity vectors at the entrance into
this street. While in the experiment these have nearly
equal length, representative of a block profile, all simulations have smaller velocities close to the walls, the
smallest for the SST model. Thus the prediction of
the flow near the walls seems to be responsible for the
low momentum that then leads to a flow field which
X/H
X/H
Figure 8 Velocity vectors from
Two-equation model results.
-1
Y/H
Y/H
U SIM,REF
RNG
Y/H
SKE
Y/H
X/H
X/H
10
J. Franke, W. Frank
U / U REF
SKE
RNG
RKE
SST
LRR-IP
SSG
EXP
0.5
z/H=0.5
x/H=0.17
-0.5
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
Y/H
0.1
z/H=0.5
x/H=0.17
-4
-3
-2
-1
2
1.5
1
0
-3
velocity and
.
normal
0
-3
SKE
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
-2
-1
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-3
RNG
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
-2
-1
X/H
2.5
Z/H
X/H
Z/H
-1
1.5
0.5
-2
y/H=-1
U EXP,REF
2.5
Z/H
EXP
X/H
Y/H
Figure 10 Comparison of
Reynolds stress at
2.5
Z/H
uu / U REF
SKE
RNG
RKE
SST
LRR-IP
SSG
EXP
0
-5
1.5
1
0.5
0
-3
RKE
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
-2
-1
X/H
2.5
2
Z/H
0.5
0.05
1.5
1
0.5
0
-3
SST
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
-2
-1
X/H
11
The Fourth European & African Conference on Wind Engineering, Paper #138
model, good agreement for the SKE, RKE and LRRIP+ model and no agreement for the RNG and SST
which is not
model. For the plane
shown here, all models yield good agreement. On the
other hand all models performance is weak for the
const. planes.
2.5
Z/H
2
1.5
SSG
1
0.5
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
0
-3
-2
-1
X/H
2.5
2.5
2.5
y/H=-1
x/H=0
y/H=-1
x/H=0
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
0
-3
-2
-1
Z/H
LRR-IP
Z/H
Z/H
0.5
0.5
X/H
2.5
Z/H
2
1.5
LRR-IP+
1
0.5
0
-3
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
-2
-1
-0.2
0.2
0.02
0.04
0.06
ww / U REF2
Figure 13 Comparison of
Reynolds stress at
legend see Figure 10.
2.5
Z/H
W / U REF
X/H
velocity and
normal
. For colour
1.5
LRR-IP+, ES
U SIM,REF
1
0.5
0
-3
-2
y/H=-1
-1
X/H
"
&
"
0.4
12
J. Franke, W. Frank
at
2.5
2.5
y/H=-1
x/H=0
2.5
2
1.5
1.5
0.5
0
-3
EXP
y/H=-1
U EXP,REF
-2
-1
z/H
z/H
z/H
2
1.5
y/H=-1
x/H=0
0.5
0.5
x/H
2.5
z/H
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-3
SKE
0
-0.2
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
-2
-1
z/H
0.5
0
-3
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
-1
x/H
z/H
2
1
0.5
0
-3
RKE
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
-2
-1
x/H
z/H
2
1
0.5
0
-3
velocity and
"
&
'
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
&
x/H
0.1
normal
. For colour
'
-1
SST
-2
2.5
1.5
0.05
ww / U REF
2.5
1.5
Up to
all models predict too low
velocities with the SST and RNG model even having negative velocities close to the ground. The best
agreement is obtained with the SSG, LRR-IP and
the agreement with
RKE model. Above
the experiments is good although a stronger downward movement is observed experimentally.
For the normal stress all models display too low
values within the crossroad. There the SKE model is
closest to the experiments but predicts too high a peak
value. This peak is reproduced by all models except
than in the
for the SSG model albeit at a larger
experiments.
So for the
approach flow case we find in gencase. While the
eral the same results as in the
qualitative and quantitative prediction of the flow in
const. planes is very good for all modthe
els, even better than in the case, the results for the
const. planes are worse.
%
RNG
-2
0.4
2.5
0.2
Figure 15 Comparison of
Reynolds stress at
legend see Figure 10.
x/H
1.5
W / U REF
2.5
z/H
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-3
4 CONCLUSIONS
LRR-IP
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
-2
Six turbulence models comprising four linear twoequation models and two differential Reynolds stress
models were used to simulate the flow from two approach flow directions across an asymmetric street intersection formed by four rings of buildings which
partly have a slanted roof. Three systematically refined grids were used in each case to assess the grid
dependance of the results and the simulations on the
finest grid were found to be nearly grid independent.
The predictions were compared with available wind
tunnel data from the C EDVAL database. The agreement between the predicted and measured velocity
components in the measurement planes parallel to the
ground is in general very good. There the standard
-1
x/H
2.5
z/H
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-3
SSG
y/H=-1
U SIM,REF
-2
-1
x/H
and
at
13
The Fourth European & African Conference on Wind Engineering, Paper #138
lence models for engineering applications. AIAA Journal, 32, 8, pp. 1598-1605.
Launder, B. E. & Spalding, D. B. (1972) Lectures in Mathematical Models of Turbulence. Academic Press, London.
Yakhot, V. & Orszag, S. A. (1986) Renormalization group
analysis of turbulence: I. Basic theory. Journal of Scientific Computing, 1, 1, pp. 1-51.
eddy-viscosity model
Shih, T.-H. et al. (1995) A new
for high Reynolds number turbulent flows Model development and validation. Computers & Fluids, 24, 3,
pp. 227-238.
Schumann, U. (1977) Realizability of Reynolds-stress turbulence models. Phys. Fluids, 20, 5, pp. 721-725.
Wilcox, D. C. (1988) Reassessment of the scaledetermining equation for advanced turbulence models.
AIAA Journal, 26, 11, pp. 1299-1310.
F LUENT (2003) FLUENT V6.1 Users guide, Fluent Inc.,
Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA.
Hanjalic, K. (1999) Second-moment turbulence closures
for CFD: Needs and prospects. International Journal of
Computational Fluid Dynamics, 12, 11, pp. 67-97.
Lien, F. S. & Leschziner, M. A. (1994) Assessment of
turbulent transport models including non-linear RNG
eddy-viscosity formulation and second-moment closure.
Computers & Fluids, 23, 8, pp. 983-1004.
Launder, B. E. et al. (1975) Progress in the development
of Reynolds-stress turbulence closure. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 68, pp. 537-566.
Rotta, J. (1951) Statistische Theorie nichthomogener Turbulenz. 1. Mitteilung. Zeitschrift fur Physik, 129, pp.
547-572.
Fu, S. et al. (1987) Accomodating the effects of high strain
rates in modelling the pressure-strain correlation. Thermofluids report TFD/87/5, UMIST, Manchester.
Gibson, M. M. & Launder, B. E. (1978) Ground effects on
pressure fluctuations in the atmospheric boundary layer.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 86, pp. 491-511.
Murakami, S. (1998) Overview of turbulence models applied in CWE-1997. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Applications, 74-76, pp. 1-24.
Speziale, C. G. et al. (1991) Modelling the pressure-strain
correlation of turbulence: an invariant dynamical systems approach. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 227, pp.
245-272.
Cebeci, T. & Bradshaw, P. (1977) Momentum Transfer in
Boundary Layers, Hemisphere Publishing Corporation,
New York.
Richards, P. J. & Hoxey, R. P. (1993) Appropriate boundary
conditions for computational wind engineering models
model. Journal of Wind Engineering and
using the
Industrial Aerodynamics, 46 & 47, pp. 145-153.
VDI (2003) Environmental meteorology. Prognostic microscale windfield models Evaluation for flow around
buildings and obstacles. VDI-Richtlinie 3783, Blatt 9
(Entwurf), in German.
5 REFERENCES
Lien, F.-S. & Yee, E. (2004) Numerical modelling of the
turbulent flow developing within and over a 3-D building array, Part I: A high-resolution Reynolds-Averaged
Navier-Stokes approach. Boundary-Layer Meteorology,
112, pp. 427-466.
Kato, M. & Launder, B. E. (1993) The modeling of turbulent flow around stationary and vibrating square cylinders. Proceedings of the 9th Symposium on Turbulent
Shear Flows, Kyoto, Japan.
Cheng, Y. et al. (2003) A comparison of large eddy simuReynolds-averaged Navierlations with a standard
Stokes model for the prediction of a fully developed turbulent flow over a matrix of cubes. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 91, pp. 13011328.
Hanna, S. R. et al. (2002) Comparisons of model simulations with observations of mean flow and turbulence
within simple obstacle arrays. Atmospheric Environment, 36, pp. 5067-5079.
Ferreira, A. D. et al. (2002) Prediction of building interference effects on pedestrian level comfort. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 90, pp.
305-319.
Richards, P. J. et al. (2002) Pedestrian level wind speeds
in downtown Auckland. Wind & Structures, 5, 2-4, pp.
151-164.
Ketzel, M. et al. (2002) Intercomparison of numerical urban dispersion models - Part II: Street canyon in Hannover, Germany. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution: Focus,
2, 5-6, pp. 603-613.
Westbury, P. et al. (2002) CFD application on the evaluation of pedestrian-level winds. Proceedings of the Workshop Impact of Wind and Storm on City life and Built
Environment, Nantes, France, pp. 172-181.
Leitl, B. (2000) Validation data for microscale dispersion
modeling. EUROTRAC Newsletter, 22, pp. 28-32.
Menter, F. R. (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbu
14