See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/252714360

Application of CFD in building performance simulation for the outdoor

environment

Article · January 2009

CITATIONS READS

77 719

4 authors, including:

Ted Stathopoulos Jan Carmeliet

Concordia University Montreal ETH Zurich
241 PUBLICATIONS   5,947 CITATIONS    373 PUBLICATIONS   11,389 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jan Hensen
Eindhoven University of Technology
661 PUBLICATIONS   8,202 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Droplet Impact on (Fabric) Meshes View project

Investigation of impact of adsorbed water on structure and physical properties of amorphous polymers View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jan Hensen on 20 December 2013.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Eleventh International IBPSA Conference
Glasgow, Scotland
July 27-30, 2009

APPLICATION OF CFD IN BUILDING PERFORMANCE SIMULATION FOR THE

OUTDOOR ENVIRONMENT

Bert Blocken1, Ted Stathopoulos2, Jan Carmeliet3,4, Jan Hensen1

1
Building Physics and Systems, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands
2
Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
3
Chair of Building Physics, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology ETHZ, Zürich, Switzerland
4
Laboratory for Building Technologies, Empa, Dübendorf, Switzerland

discrete positions. The information they provide is

ABSTRACT often too simplified compared to the well-established
This paper provides a brief, non-exhaustive overview building performance simulation tools in which this
of the status of the application of CFD in building information is used. Examples are wind-driven rain
performance simulation for the outdoor environment. intensities and convective heat and mass transfer
It focuses on four topics: (1) pedestrian wind coefficients for building envelope Heat-Air-Mass
environment around buildings; (2) wind-driven rain (HAM) transfer tools and Building Energy
on building facades; (3) convective heat and mass Simulation (BES) software.
transfer coefficients at building surfaces; and (4) air Numerical modelling with CFD could be a powerful
pollutant dispersion around buildings. For each topic, alternative because it can avoid some of these
some specific difficulties, advantages and limitations. It can provide detailed information on the
disadvantages of CFD are addressed. relevant flow variables in the whole calculation
INTRODUCTION domain (“whole-flow field data”), under well-
controlled conditions and without similarity
In the past decades, Computational Fluid Dynamics
constraints. However, the accuracy of CFD is an
(CFD) has been studied intensively as a tool for
important matter of concern. Care is required in the
evaluating the indoor environment of buildings and
geometrical implementation of the model, in grid
its interaction with the building envelope, as well as
generation and in selecting proper solution strategies.
for analysing the outdoor environment around
In addition, numerical and physical modelling errors
buildings. While the use of CFD in engineering
need to be assessed by detailed verification and
practice is becoming quite well established for indoor
validation studies.
applications, this is considerably less pronounced for
This paper provides a brief, non-exhaustive overview
outdoor applications. In complex case studies, wind
of the status of the application of CFD in building
environmental problems such as pedestrian wind
performance simulation for the outdoor environment.
nuisance and air pollutant dispersion are still
It focuses on four topics: (1) pedestrian wind
typically investigated in boundary layer wind tunnels,
environment around buildings; (2) wind-driven rain
while wind-driven rain exposure and convective heat
on building facades; (3) convective heat and mass
and mass transfer coefficients at building surfaces are
transfer coefficients at building surfaces; and (4) air
generally estimated from simplified empirical or
pollutant dispersion around buildings. For each topic,
semi-empirical formulae. An important disadvantage
some specific difficulties, advantages and
of wind tunnel measurements however is that usually
disadvantages of CFD are discussed.
only point measurements are obtained. Techniques
such as Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and Laser- PEDESTRIAN WIND ENVIRONMENT
Induced Fluorescence (LIF) in principle allow planar AROUND BUILDINGS
or even full 3D data to be obtained, but the cost is High-rise buildings can introduce high wind speed at
considerably higher and application for complicated pedestrian level, which can lead to uncomfortable or
geometries is hampered by laser-light shielding by even dangerous conditions (Fig. 1). Wind discomfort
the obstructions constituting the urban model. and wind danger can be detrimental to the success of
Another disadvantage is the required adherence to new buildings. Wise (1970) reports about shops that
similarity criteria in reduced-scale testing. This can are left untenanted because of the windy environment
be a problem for, e.g., multiphase flow problems and which discouraged shoppers. Lawson and Penwarden
flows in which density differences are an important (1975) report the death of two old ladies due to an
driving force. Examples are wind-driven rain and unfortunate fall caused by high wind speed at the
pollutant dispersion studies. Empirical and semi- base of a tall building. Today, many urban authorities
empirical formulae generally only provide a first, only grant a building permit for a new high-rise
crude indication of the relevant parameters, often in building after a wind comfort study has indicated that
averaged form (e.g., surface-averaged) or at a few

- 489 -
the negative consequences for the pedestrian wind smaller than a user-defined filter are modelled. In
environment remain limited. Wind comfort studies the past, especially the deficiencies of using the
require knowledge of the mean wind velocity vector RANS approach with the standard k-ε model in
field at pedestrian height (z = 1.75 or 2 m). This modelling wind flow around buildings were
information can be obtained by wind tunnel addressed. These include the stagnation point
modelling or by CFD. Wind tunnel tests are generally anomaly with overprediction of turbulent kinetic
point measurements with Laser Doppler energy near the frontal corner, the underestimation of
Anemometry (LDA) or Hot Wire Anemometry separation and recirculation regions on the roof and
(HWA). In the past, also area techniques such as sand the side faces, and the overestimation of the size of
erosion and infrared thermography have been used. the recirculation region in the wake. Various revised
They are considered less suitable to obtain accurate k-ε models and also second-moment closure models
were developed and tested, and showed improved
quantitative information. Instead, they can be used as
performance for several parts of the flow field.
part of a two-step approach: first an area technique is
However, the main limitation of steady RANS
used to qualitatively indicate the most important
modelling remained, being its incapability to model
problem locations, followed by accurate point inherently transient features of the flow field such as
measurements at these most important locations separation and recirculation downstream of
(Blocken and Carmeliet, 2004a). windward edges and vortex shedding in the wake.
In spite of these deficiencies, steady RANS
modelling with the k-ε model and other turbulence
models has become quite popular for pedestrian-level
wind studies. Two main categories can be
distinguished: (1) fundamental studies, which are
typically conducted for simple, generic building
configurations to obtain insight in the flow
behaviour, for parametric studies and for CFD
validation; and (2) applied studies, which provide
knowledge of the wind environmental conditions in
specific and often much more complex case studies.
Fundamental studies were performed by many
authors, including Baskaran and Stathopoulos (1989),
Figure 1 Pedestrian-level wind nuisance around
Yoshie et al. (2007), Blocken et al. (2007a, 2008a),
high-rise buildings.
Tominaga et al. (2008a) and Mochida and Lun
(2008). Apart from these fundamental studies, also
One of the main advantages of CFD in pedestrian-
level wind comfort studies is avoiding this time- several CFD studies of pedestrian wind conditions in
consuming two-step approach by providing whole- complex urban environments have been performed
flow field data. The use of CFD for pedestrian-level (Murakami, 1990a; Takakura et al., 1993;
wind studies was initiated by the early, more general Stathopoulos and Baskaran, 1996; He and Song,
research efforts in which CFD was applied to study 1999; Richards et al., 2002; Westbury et al., 2002;
the wind-flow pattern around isolated buildings Blocken et al., 2004; Yoshie et al., 2007; Blocken
(Vasilic-Melling, 1977; Hanson et al., 1986; Paterson and Carmeliet, 2008; Blocken and Persoon, 2009)
and Apelt, 1986; 1989; Murakami et al., 1987; (Fig. 2 and 3). Almost all studies were conducted
Murakami and Mochida, 1988; Baskaran and with the steady RANS approach and a version of the
Stathopoulos, 1989; Murakami, 1990a; 1990b; 1993). k-ε model. An exception to this is the study by He
Together with later studies, they laid the foundations and Song (1999) who used LES.
for future best practice guidelines, by focusing on the The use of CFD in pedestrian-level wind comfort
importance of the boundary conditions on the studies in complex urban environments is receiving
numerical results (e.g., Stathopoulos and Baskaran, strong support from several international initiatives
1990; Baetke et al., 1990) and by comparing the that specifically focus on the establishment of
performance of various types of turbulence models in guidelines for such simulations (Franke et al., 2004;
steady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) Franke et al., 2007; Yoshie et al., 2007; Tominaga et
simulations (Murakami et al., 1992; Murakami, 1993; al., 2008b). In addition, more general CFD guidelines
Mochida et al., 2002), and of RANS versus Large are available (Casey and Wintergeste, 2000), as well
Eddy Simulation (LES) (Murakami et al., 1992; as more specific guidelines for modelling equilibrium
Tominaga et al., 2008a). Note that in steady RANS
atmospheric boundary layers in computational
simulations, only the mean flow is solved, while all
domains (Richards and Hoxey, 1993; Blocken et al.,
scales of turbulence are modelled. In LES on the
2007a; 2007b; Hargreaves and Wright, 2007; Franke
other hand, the large and generally most important
turbulent eddies are solved, while only the eddies et al., 2007; Gorlé et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2009).

- 490 -
The increasing acceptance of CFD as a tool for WIND-DRIVEN RAIN ON BUILDINGS
pedestrian-level wind studies has recently been To the knowledge of the authors, the first CFD
confirmed by the publication of the new Dutch Wind simulations of wind-driven rain (WDR) on buildings
Nuisance Standard, NEN8100 (NEN, 2006; were made by Souster in 1979. For a full historical
Willemsen and Wisse, 2007) that specifically allows overview up to 2003, the reader is referred to
the user to choose between wind tunnel testing and (Blocken and Carmeliet, 2004b). Choi (1991; 1993;
CFD. The standard also demands quality assurance, 1994a; 1994b) developed and applied a steady-state
both for wind tunnel testing and for CFD. It should simulation technique for WDR. It allows determining
be noted that CFD verification and validation are the the spatial distribution of WDR on building facades
essential components of quality assurance. In case of for given (fixed) values of the wind speed, the wind
complex urban environments, when measurements direction and the horizontal rainfall intensity. Later,
are often not available, model validation should be Choi’s simulation technique was extended into the
performed for simpler configurations, the flow time domain by Blocken and Carmeliet (2002;
features of which show resemblance with those 2007a). Most of these CFD simulations were based
expected in the actual complex urban configuration on the RANS approach. Although validation is an
(Blocken et al., 2004; Franke et al., 2007; Yoshie et essential part of RANS CFD simulations, up to now,
al., 2007; Blocken and Carmeliet, 2008; Tominaga et only a few attempts have been made for CFD
al., 2008b). For these simpler cases, wind tunnel validation with full-scale WDR measurements (van
measurement data are generally available in the Mook, 2002; Blocken and Carmeliet, 2002; 2006,
literature. Note that steady RANS is the 2007b; Tang and Davidson, 2004; Abuku et al.,
commonly used method, while LES is still 2009; Briggen et al., 2009). While some authors
considered out of reach for pedestrian-level wind found significant discrepancies between simulations
studies in urban environments (Yoshie et al., 2007). and measurements, others indicated a fair to good
agreement. A probable reason for these discrepancies
is the role of turbulent dispersion of raindrops, which
can be very different depending on the building
geometry and the position on the building (Briggen et
al., 2009). In spite of quite some research efforts, the
application of CFD WDR studies in practice has
remained very limited. Tang and Davidson (2004)
used CFD WDR simulations to explain surface
soiling patterns on the Cathedral of Learning in
Pittsburg (Fig. 4). In this figure, the catch ratio is the
ratio of WDR intensity to the standard rainfall
intensity on the ground. Briggen et al. (2009)
employed CFD simulations of WDR to explain the
moisture-related damage on the monumental tower
building St. Hubertus in the Netherlands (Fig. 5).
Figure 2 Part of geometry and computational grid
Only a few authors provided guidelines for CFD
for CFD study of pedestrian-level wind conditions in
WDR simulation (Choi, 1994a; 1994b; Blocken and
the Shinjuku Sub-central area in Tokyo, Japan
Carmeliet, 2002; 2004b; 2006; Briggen et al., 2009).
(Yoshie et al., 2007).
Note however that the guidelines for pedestrian-level
wind studies, mentioned in the previous section, also
apply for CFD WDR studies.

Figure 3 Part of geometry and computational grid

for CFD study of pedestrian-level wind conditions Figure 4 Illustration of the catch ratio on the
around the Amsterdam “ArenA” football stadium in Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburg (Tang and
the Netherlands (Blocken and Persoon, 2009). Davidson, 2004).

- 491 -
There are two main reasons for the limited practical wind convection coefficient correlations has been
use of CFD for WDR studies: (1) the excessively provided by Palyvos (2008). While a large number of
time-consuming character of Lagrangian particle valuable experimental investigations have been
tracking of raindrops, in which the entire building conducted, the number of CFD analyses for exterior
facade needs to be covered by a large number of CHTC and CMTC for buildings is very small. This
raindrops. Lagrangian tracking implies solving the might seem strange given the very large number of
equation of motion of individual raindrops within the such CFD studies that have been conducted in other
wind-flow field. Note that this wind-flow field is disciplines, such as mechanical and electronic
generally obtained with an Eulerian approach, i.e. not engineering. The main reason for this are the extreme
focusing on individual particles but on fixed requirements for these simulations for building
positions in space. Lagrangian tracking needs to be applications. As opposed to mechanical and
performed for a large number of combinations of electronic engineering applications, the Reynolds
reference wind speed, wind direction and raindrop numbers in civil and building engineering are several
diameter. (2) The fact that steady RANS does not orders of magnitude larger (105-107). The higher the
allow accurate modelling of the turbulent dispersion Reynolds number, the lower the thickness of the
of raindrops, which is important for calculating WDR viscous sublayer and buffer layer that determine the
intensities at the lower part of high-rise building convective surface resistance. For building
facades (Briggen et al., 2009). Accurate turbulent applications, the thickness of the viscous sublayer
dispersion modelling would require transient can go down to 10 mm – 100 μm (Blocken et al.
simulations with LES, which would require even 2009). Accurate CFD modelling of convective heat
more intensive Lagrangian particle tracking efforts. and mass transfer requires accurate and detailed
To alleviate these problems, it might be necessary to modelling of each part of the boundary layer.
abandon the traditional “Eulerian-Lagrangian” Unfortunately, previous simulations (Emmel et al.
framework in CFD WDR simulations, and to resort 2007) were conducted using wall functions, in which
to “Eulerian-Eulerian” modelling instead, in which the detailed influence of the boundary layer is
not only wind-flow pattern, but also the WDR strongly simplified. It has been shown that using wall
intensities are computed with an Eulerian approach. functions can easily yield overestimations of the
CHTC by up to 60% (Blocken et al., 2009). Accurate
modelling of convective heat and mass transfer
requires at least a few cells in the viscous sublayer.
As a result, very high-resolution grids are required,
with large differences between the largest (up to 1
km) and smallest (down to 10 μm) length scales.
Such high grid resolution gradients and very small
cells slow down convergence, can inhibit
convergence to be obtained with less-diffusive
turbulence models such as second-moment closure
models, and can even cause computer round-off
errors to become important. To the knowledge of the
authors, such simulations have up to now only been
performed by Defraeye et al. (2009) and Blocken et
al. (2009), but these authors did not go further than
Figure 5 Comparison of measured and simulated
considering a simple cubic building model (Fig. 6).
catch ratio on the south-west facade of the tower of
the monumental building St. Hubertus in the
Netherlands (Briggen et al., 2009).

CONVECTIVE HEAT AND MASS

TRANSFER COEFFICIENTS AT
EXTERIOR BUILDING SURFACES
In the past, convective heat and mass transfer
coefficients (CHTC and CMTC) for exterior building
surfaces have been investigated using wind tunnel
measurements (e.g., Kelnhofer and Thomas, 1976), Figure 6 High-resolution grid for CFD simulation of
full-scale measurements (e.g., Sharples et al., 1984; convective heat transfer coefficients around an
Loveday and Taki, 1996; Liu and Harris, 2007) and isolated cubic building model, with first grid cell
CFD simulations (Emmel et al., 2007; Defraeye et point at 160 μm from the facade (Blocken et al.,
al., 2009, Blocken et al., 2009). A recent overview of 2009).

- 492 -
This type of high-resolution CFD simulations is not eddies in the flow, can strongly improve pollutant
practical for actual cases of building simulation, and concentration predictions. This seems to indicate that
will probably remain so until specially-adapted wall LES modelling is a requirement for pollutant
functions are developed that can accurately take into dispersion modelling, also in complex urban
account surface heat and mass transfer. However, environments. However, the computational demands
note that also in this case, still grids with a relatively associated with this are very large. Although the
high resolution will be needed. Therefore, accurate statement by Yoshie et al. (2007) that LES is still out
exterior building heat and mass transfer with CFD of reach for practical pedestrian-level wind studies
will remain very demanding and might remain out of may equally apply to pollutant dispersion modelling,
range for many practical building simulation efforts valuable attempts with LES modelling in complex
for a considerable time to come. urban environments have been performed, supported
by efficient grid generation techniques and parallel
AIR POLLUTANT CONCENTRATION computing facilities (Hanna et al., 2006; Patnaik et
DISTRIBUTIONS AROUND BUILDINGS al., 2007; Löhner et al., 2008).
In the past two decades, a large number of so-called
“microscale” CFD simulations to investigate air CONCLUSIONS
pollutant concentration distributions around buildings A brief, non-exhaustive overview of the status of
have been conducted. Micro-scale refers to application of CFD in building performance
simulations at horizontal length scales smaller than – simulation for the outdoor environment has been
typically – 5 km. Due to the complexity of provided for four topics. While CFD offers some
microscale pollutant dispersion around buildings, considerable advantages compared to wind tunnel
much of the research in wind tunnels and with CFD testing and simplified empirical or semi-empirical
has focused on two generic basic situations: the equations, its practical application in at least wind-
urban street canyon (e.g. Leitl et al., 1997; Kastner- driven rain, convective heat and mass transfer and
Klein and Plate, 1999) and the isolated building (e.g. pollutant dispersion studies is currently hampered by
Li and Meroney, 1983; Leitl et al., 1997; Selvam, several important limitations. Some main limitations
1997; Tominaga et al., 1997; Li and Stathopoulos, are the deficiencies of steady RANS modelling, the
1997; Meroney et al., 1999; Tominaga and time-consuming and significantly more complex
Stathopoulos, 2007a; 2007b; 2008; Blocken et al., character of LES, the need for high-resolution grids
2008b). These generic studies have proven to be very and the constant requirement of CFD validation and
suitable for validation, verification and sensitivity verification. Research efforts will continue to focus
analysis. The reason is that, even although both on alleviating these limitations, but at least equally
situations are strong simplifications of reality, the important is avoiding user errors by increased high-
flow and dispersion processes involved are very quality education in CFD and its application for
complex and contain most of the salient features that outdoor building performance simulation.
are also present in the complex urban environment.
Apart from these generic studies, several authors
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
have performed studies in complex urban The authors thank the anonymous reviewers of the
environments (e.g., Hanna et al., 2006; Patnaik et al., abstract who provided valuable suggestions for this
2007; Neofytou et al., 2008; Huang et al., 2008; paper.
Löhner et al., 2008), although extensive validation REFERENCES
studies for such cases have not yet been reported.
Abuku, M., Blocken, B., Nore, K., Thue, J.V.,
A general conclusion from the generic studies is that
Carmeliet, J., Roels, S. 2009. On the validity of
steady RANS simulations in combination with numerical wind-driven rain simulation on a
typical turbulent Schmidt numbers (i.e. the ratio of rectangular low-rise building under various
turbulent viscosity to turbulent mass diffusivity) of oblique winds. Build. Environ. 44(3): 621– 632.
0.7-0.9 provide too low lateral turbulent diffusion
Baetke, F., Werner, H., Wengle, H. 1990. Numerical
compared to wind tunnel testing. In the past, several
simulation of turbulent flow over surface-mounted
authors have attributed this to the fact that steady
obstacles with sharp edges and corners. J. Wind
RANS modelling cannot incorporate the inherently Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.. 35(1-3): 129-147.
transient behaviour of separation and recirculation
downstream of windward edges, and of von Karman Baskaran, A., Stathopoulos, T. 1989. Computational
evaluation of wind effects on buildings. Build.
vortex shedding in the wake, which are particulary
Environ. 24: 325–333.
important for pollutant dispersion (Leitl et al., 1997;
Meroney et al., 1999; Blocken et al., 2008b). In fact, Blocken, B., Carmeliet, J. 2002. Spatial and temporal
Tominaga and Stathopoulos (2007a; 2008) showed distribution of driving rain on a low-rise building.
that LES modelling, which takes ino account these Wind Struct. 5(5): 441-462.
transient features because it actually solves the large

- 493 -
Blocken B, Carmeliet J. 2004a. Pedestrian wind and application of the new Dutch wind nuisance
environment around buildings: Literature review standard. Submitted.
and practical examples. Journal of Thermal Blocken, B., Defraeye, T., Derome, D., Carmeliet, J.
Envelope and Building Science 28(2): 107-159. 2009. High-resolution CFD simulations for
Blocken, B., Carmeliet, J. 2004a. Pedestrian wind convective heat transfer coefficients at the facade
environment around buildings: Literature review of a low-rise building. Build. Environ. In press.
and practical examples. J. Thermal Env. Build. (doi:10.1016/j.buildenv.2009.04.004 )
Sci. 28(2): 107-159. Briggen, P.M., Blocken, B., Schellen, H.L. 2009.
Blocken, B., Carmeliet, J. 2004b. A review of wind- Wind-driven rain on the facade of a monumental
driven rain research in building science. J. Wind tower: numerical simulation, full-scale validation
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 92(13): 1079-1130. and sensitivity analysis. Build. Environ. 44(8):
Blocken, B., Roels, S., Carmeliet, J. 2004. 1675-1690.
Modification of pedestrian wind comfort in the Casey, M., Wintergerste, T. 2000. Best Practice
Silvertop Tower passages by an automatic control Guidelines, ERCOFTAC Special Interest Group on
system. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 92(10): 849- Quality and Trust in Industrial CFD, ERCOFTAC,
873. Brussels.
Blocken, B., Carmeliet, J. 2006. The influence of the Choi, E.C.C. 1991. Numerical simulation of wind-
wind-blocking effect by a building on its wind- driven rain falling onto a 2-D building, in: Asia
driven rain exposure. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. Pacific Conf. on Computational Mechanics, Hong
94(2): 101-127 Kong, 1721-1728.
Blocken, B., Carmeliet, J., Stathopoulos, T. 2007a. Choi, E.C.C. 1993. Simulation of wind-driven rain
CFD evaluation of wind speed conditions in around a building. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
passages between parallel buildings—effect of 46&47: 721-729.
wall-function roughness modifications for the Choi, E.C.C. 1994a. Determination of wind-driven
atmospheric boundary layer flow. J. Wind Eng.
rain intensity on building faces. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Ind. Aerodyn. 95(9-11) 941-962. Aerodyn. 51: 55-69.
Blocken, B., Stathopoulos, T., Carmeliet, J. 2007b. Choi, E.C.C. 1994b. Parameters affecting the intensity
CFD simulation of the atmospheric boundary
of wind-driven rain on the front face of a building.
layer: wall function problems. Atmos. Environ. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 53: 1-17.
41(2) 238-252.
Defraeye, T., Blocken, B., Carmeliet, J. 2009. CFD
Blocken B, Carmeliet J. 2007a. On the errors
analysis of convective heat transfer at the surfaces
associated with the use of hourly data in wind- of a cube in a deep turbulent boundary layer.
driven rain calculations on building facades.
Submitted.
Atmos. Environ. 41(11): 2335-2343
Emmel, M.G., Abadie, M.O., Mendes, N. 2007. New
Blocken B, Carmeliet J. 2007b. Validation of CFD external convective heat transfer coefficient
simulations of wind-driven rain on a low-rise
correlations for isolated low-rise buildings. Energ.
building facade. Build. Environ. 42(7): 2530– Buildings 39(3): 335-342.
2548.
Franke, J., Hirsch, C., Jensen, A.G., Krüs, H.W.,
Blocken B, Moonen P, Stathopoulos T, Carmeliet J.
Schatzmann, M., Westbury, P.S., Miles, S.D.,
2008a. A numerical study on the existence of the Wisse, J.A., Wright, N.G., 2004.
Venturi-effect in passages between perpendicular Recommendations on the use of CFD in wind
buildings. Journal of Engineering Mechanics –
engineering. In: van Beeck, J.P.A.J. (Ed.),
ASCE 134(12): 1021-1028. Proceedings of the International Conference on
Blocken B, Stathopoulos T, Saathoff P, Wang X. Urban Wind Engineering and Building
2008b. Numerical evaluation of pollutant Aerodynamics. COST Action C14, Impact of
dispersion in the built environment: comparisons Wind and Storm on City Life Built Environment.
between models and experiments. J. Wind Eng. Von Karman Institute, Sint-Genesius-Rode,
Ind. Aerodyn. 96(10-11): 1817-1831. Belgium, 5–7 May 2004.
Blocken B, Carmeliet J. 2008. Pedestrian wind Franke, J., Hellsten, A., Schlünzen, H., Carissimo, B.
conditions at outdoor platforms in a high-rise (Eds.), 2007. Best practice guideline for the CFD
apartment building: generic sub-configuration simulation of flows in the urban environment.
validation, wind comfort assessment and COST Office Brussels, ISBN 3-00-018312-4.
uncertainty issues. Wind Struct. 11(1): 51-70
Gorlé, C., van Beeck, J., Rambaud, P., Van Tendeloo,
Blocken, B., Persoon, J., 2009. Pedestrian wind G., 2009. CFD modelling of small particle
comfort around a large football stadium in an dispersion: the influence of the turbulence kinetic
urban environment: CFD simulation, validation energy in the atmospheric boundary layer. Atmos.
Environ. 43(3): 673-681.

- 494 -
Hanna, S.R., Brown, M.J., Camell, F.E., Chan, S.T., Loveday DL, Taki AH. 1996. Convective heat transfer
Coirier, W.J., Hansen, O.R., Huber, A.H., Kim, coefficients at a plane surface on a full-scale
S., Reynolds, R.M. 2006. Detailed simulations of building facade. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 39(8):
atmospheric flow and dispersion in downtown 1729-1742.
Manhattan: An application of five computational Meroney, R.N., Leitl, B.M., Rafailidis, S. and
fluid dynamics models. Bulletin of the American Schatzmann, M. 1999. Wind-tunnel and
Meteorological Society 87(12): 1713. numerical modeling of flow and dispersion about
Hanson, T. Summers D.M., Wilson, C.B. 1986. several building shapes. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Validation of a computer simulation of wind flow Aerodyn. 81: 333-345.
over a building model. Build. Environ. 21: 97– Mochida, A.., Tominaga, Y., Murakami, S., Yoshie,
111. R., Ishihara, T., Ooka, R. 2002. Comparison of
Hargreaves, D.M., Wright, N.G. 2007. On the use of various k–ε models and DSM applied to flow
the k–ε model in commercial CFD software to around a high-rise building—report on AIJ
model the neutral atmospheric boundary layer. J. cooperative project for CFD prediction of wind
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 95(5), 355-369. environment. Wind Struct. 5(2–4): 227–244.
He, J., Song, C.C.S., 1999. Evaluation of pedestrian Mochida, A., Lun, I.Y.F. 2008. Prediction of wind
winds in urban area by numerical approach. J. environment and thermal comfort at pedestrian
Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 81: 295–309. level in urban area. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
Huang, H., Ooka, R., Chen, H., Kato, S., Takahashi, 96(10-11): 1498-1527.
T., Watanabe, T., 2008. CFD analysis on traffic- Murakami, S., Mochida; A., Hibi, K. 1987. Three-
induced air pollutant dispersion under non- dimensional numerical simulation of airflow
isothermal condition in a complex urban area in around a cubic model by means of large eddy
winter. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 96(10-11): simulation. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 25: 291–
1774-1788. 305.
Kastner-Klein, P., Plate, E.J. 1999. Wind-tunnel study Murakami, S., Mochida, A. 1988. 3-D numerical
of concentration fields in street canyons. Atmos. simulation of airflow around a cubic model by
Environ. 33(24-25): 3973-3979. means of the k-ε model. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Kelnhofer, W.J., Thomas C.J. 1976. External Aerodyn. 31: 283-303.
convection heat transfer coefficients on a building Murakami, S. 1990a. Computational wind
model. ASME Paper 76-WA/FE-30, ASME engineering. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 35(1-3):
Winter Annual Meeting, New York. ix-xi.
Lawson, T.V., Penwarden, A.D. 1975. The effects of Murakami, S. 1990b. Numerical simulation of
wind on people in the vicinity of buildings. 4th Int. turbulent flowfield around cubic model: current
Conf. Wind Effects on Buildings and Structures, status and applications of k-e model and LES. J.
Heathrow. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 33: 139-152.
Leitl, B.M., Kastner-Klein, P., Rau, M., Meroney, Murakami, S., Mochida, A., Hayashi, Y., Sakamoto, S.
R.N. 1997. Concentration and flow distributions 1992. Numerical study on velocity-pressure field
in the vicinity of U-shaped buildings: wind-tunnel and wind forces for bluff bodies by k- , ASM and
and computational data. J. Wind Eng. Ind. LES. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 44(1-3): 2841-
Aerodyn. 67&68: 745-755. 2852
Li, W., Meroney, R.N. 1983. Gas dispersion near a Murakami, S. 1993. Comparison of various turbulence
cubical model building. Part I. Mean models applied to a bluff body. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
concentration measurements. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 46 & 47: 21-36.
Aerodyn. 12: 15-33. NEN. 2006. Wind comfort and wind danger in the
Li, Y., Stathopoulos, T. 1997. Numerical evaluation of built environment, NEN 8100 (in Dutch) Dutch
wind-induced dispersion of pollutants around a Standard.
building. J.Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 67&68: 757- Neofytou, P., Haakana, M., Venetsanos, A., Kousa,
766. A., Bartzis, J., Kukkonen, J., 2008. Computational
Liu Y, Harris DJ. 2007. Full-scale measurements of fluid dynamics modelling of the pollution
convective coefficient on external surface of a dispersion and comparison with measurements in
low-rise building in sheltered conditions. Build. a street canyon in Helsinki. Environ. Monit.
Environ. 42(7): 2718-2736. Assess. 13(3): 439-448.
Löhner, R., Cebral, J.R., Camelli, F.E., Appanaboyina, Palyvos, J.A. 2008. A survey of wind convection
S., Baum, J.D., Mestreau, E.L., Soto, O.A., 2008. coefficient correlations for building envelope
Adaptive embedded and immersed unstructured energy systems’ modelling. Appl. Therm. Eng.
grid techniques. Comput. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng. 28(8-9): 801-808.
197(25-28): 2173-2197.

- 495 -
 Paterson D.A., Apelt C.J. 1986. Computation of wind Tominaga, Y., Mochida, A., Murakami, SH, Sawaki,
flows over three-dimensional buildings. J. Wind S. 2008a. Comparison of various revised k–ε
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 24: 192–213. models and LES applied to flow around a high-
Paterson, D.A., Apelt, C.J. 1989. Simulation of wind rise building model with 1:1:2 shape placed
flow around three-dimensional buildings. Build. within the surface boundary layer.
Environ. 24: 39–50. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 96(4): 389-411.
Patnaik, G., Boris, J.P., Young, T.R., Grinstein, F.F., Tominaga, Y., Mochida, A., Yoshie, R., Kataoka, H.,
2007. Large scale urban contaminant transport Nozu, T., Yoshikawa, M., Shirasawa, T. 2008b.
simulations with MILES. Journal Fluids Eng. AIJ guidelines for practical applications of CFD
129(12) 1524-1532. to pedestrian wind environment around buildings.
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 96(10-11) 1749-1761.
Richards, P.J., Hoxey, R.P. 1993. Appropriate
boundary conditions for computational wind Tominaga, Y., Stathopoulos, T. 2008. Numerical
engineering models using the k-ε turbulence simulation of plume dispersion around an isolated
model. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 46&47: 145- cubic buildings: comparisons between RANS and
153. LES computations. BBAA VI International
Colloquium on: Bluff Bodies Aerodynamics &
Richards, P.J., Mallison, G.D., McMillan, D., Li, Y.F. Applications, Milano, Italy, July, 20-24, 2008.
2002. Pedestrian level wind speeds in downtown
Auckland. Wind Struct. 5(2-4): 151-164. van Mook, F.J.R., 2002. Driving rain on building
envelopes, Ph.D. thesis, Building Physics and
Selvam, R.P. 1997. Numerical simulation of pollutant Systems, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven,
dispersion around a building using FEM. J. Wind Eindhoven University Press, Eindhoven, The
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 67&68: 805-814. Netherlands, 198 p.
Sharples S. 1984. Full scale measurements of Vasilic-Melling, D., 1977. Three Dimensional
convective energy losses from exterior building Turbulent Flow Past Rectangular Bluff Bodies
surfaces. Build. Environ.19: 31-39. (3rd edition), Ph.D. Thesis, Imperial College of
Souster, C. 1979. A theoretical approach to predicting Science and Technology, London.
snow loads and driving rain deposition on Westbury, P.S., Miles, S.D., Stathopoulos, T. 2002.
buildings, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Sheffield, CFD application on the evaluation of pedestrian-
UK, 1979. level winds. Workshop on Impact of Wind and
Stathopoulos, T., Baskaran, A. 1990. Boundary Storm on City Life and Built Environment, Cost
treatment for the computation of 3D turbulent Action C14, CSTB, June 3–4, Nantes, France.
conditions around buildings. J. Wind Engng Ind. Willemsen, E., Wisse, J.A., 2007. Design for wind
Aerodyn. 35: 177–200. comfort in The Netherlands: Procedures, criteria
Stathopoulos, T., Baskaran, A. 1996. Computer and open research issues. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
simulation of wind environmental conditions Aerodyn., 95(9-11): 1541-1550.
around buildings. Eng. Struct. 18 (11): 876–885. Wise, A.F.E. 1970. Wind effects due to groups of
Takakura, S., Suyama, Y., Aoyama, M. 1993. buildings. Royal Society Symposium
Numerical simulation of flowfield around Architectural Aerodynamics, London.
buildings in an urban area. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Yang, Y., Gu, M., Chen, S., Jin, X., 2009. New inflow
Aerodyn. 46-47: 765-771. boundary conditions for modelling the neutral
Tang, W., Davidson, C.I. 2004. Erosion of limestone equilibrium atmospheric boundary layer in
building surfaces caused by wind-driven rain. 2. computational wind engineering. J. Wind Eng.
Numerical modelling. Atmos. Environ. 38(33): Ind. Aerodyn. 97(2): 88-95.
5601-5609. Yoshie, R., Mochida, A., Tominaga, Y., Kataoka, H.,
Tominaga, Y., Stathopoulos, T. 2007a. Numerical Harimoto, K., Nozu, T., Shirasawa, T. 2007.
simulation of dispersion around an isolated cubic Cooperative project for CFD prediction of
building - influence of turbulence models and pedestrian wind environment in the Architectural
turbulent Schmidt number. Proc. 12th Int. Conf. Institute of Japan. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 95
Wind Engineering, Cairns, Australia. (9-11): 1551-1578.
Tominaga, Y., Stathopoulos, T. 2007b. Turbulent
Schmidt numbers for CFD analysis with various
types of flowfield. Atmos. Environ. 41(37): 8091-
8099.
Tominaga, Y., Murakami, S., Mochida, A. 1997. CFD
prediction of gaseous diffusion around a cubic
model using a dynamic mixed SGS model based
on composite grid technique. J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 67-68: 827-841.

- 496 -
View publication stats