Effects of variability of local winds on cross ventilation for a simplified building within a full-scale asymmetric array: overview of the Silsoe field campaign

The large body of natural ventilation research, rarely addresses the effects of the urban area on ventilation rates. A novel contribution to this gap is made by the REFRESH cube campaign (RCC). During 9 months of observations, the Silsoe cube was both isolated and surrounded by a limited asymmetrical staggered array. A wide range of variables were measured continuously, including: local, reference and internal flow, stability, background meteorological conditions, internal temperature, and ventilation rates (pressure difference techniques for cross ventilated cases). This paper tests the impact of the array on the relation between local and reference wind speeds as modified by wind direction and on cross ventilation rates. The presence of the array causes a 50% to 90% reduction in normalised ventilation rate when the reference wind direction is normal to the cube. The decrease in natural ventilation varies with wind direction with large amounts of scatter for both setups. The relation between local and reference wind speeds for the array case had two characteristic responses, not explained by reference wind (speed or direction) nor sensitive to averaging period, turbulence intensity or temperature differences. Given the singular response of the CIBSE approach, it is unable to capture these conditions

Field measurement of natural ventilation rate in an idealised full-scale building located in a staggered urban array: comparison between tracer gas and pressure-based methods

Currently, no clear standards exist for determining urban building natural ventilation rates, especially under varying realistic meteorological conditions. In this study, ventilation rates are determined using tracer gas decay and pressure-based measurements for a full-scale (6 m tall) cube. The cube was either isolated (2 months of observations) or sheltered within a staggered array (7 months), for both single-sided and cross ventilation (openings 0.4 x 1 m). Wind speeds at cube height ranged between 0.04 m s-1 and 13.1 m s-1. Errors for both ventilation methods are carefully assessed. There is no discernible linear relation between normalised ventilation rates from the two methods, except for cross ventilation in the array case. The ratio of tracer gas and pressure derived ventilation rates is assessed with wind direction. For single-sided (leeward opening) cases it approached 1. For cross ventilation the ratio was closer to 1 but with more scatter. One explanation is that agreement is better when internal mixing is less jet-dominated, i.e. for oblique directions in the isolated case and for all directions for unsteady array flows. Sheltering may reduce the flushing rate of the tracer gas from the cube relative to internal mixing rate. This new dataset provides an extensive range of conditions for numerical model evaluation and for understanding uncertainty of ventilation rates. Knowledge of the latter is critical in buildin

Investigating the influence of neighbouring structures on natural ventilation potential of a full-scale cubical building using time-dependent CFD

Building location and orientation with respect to incident wind angle are important parameters in determining wind-driven natural ventilation. Experimentally measured façade pressures and ventilation rates in the Silsoe cube under single-sided and cross-flow ventilation configurations are compared with CFD simulations conducted in OpenFoam and ANSYS Fluent using a typical linear workflow approach. Eight wind directions are studied with the cube in isolation and in a new staggered nine cube array format. Comparison is made using CIBSE's prescribed ventilation calculation method based on internal/external building pressure differences. Ventilation rate in the isolated cube with single-sided opening was comparatively lower than either of the cross-flow cases, and relationships between air change rate and wind angle were much weaker in the array cases. For the single opening case with the isolated cube, ventilation effectiveness decreases as the wind turns towards the opening due to increased short-circuiting of airflows. Turbulent structures close to windows improve mixing in the array case. Simulations suggest that vortex shedding from up-wind buildings provides pulsating ventilation in both window configurations, which may attenuate the negative effects of upwind flow obstruction

Bluff bodies in deep turbulent boundary layers: Reynolds-number issues

It is generally assumed that flows around wall-mounted sharp-edged bluff bodies submerged in thick turbulent boundary layers are essentially independent of the Reynolds number Re, provided that this exceeds some (2–3) × 104. (Re is based on the body height and upstream velocity at that height.) This is a particularization of the general principle of Reynolds-number similarity and it has important implications, most notably that it allows model scale testing in wind tunnels of, for example, atmospheric flows around buildings. A significant part of the literature on wind engineering thus describes work which implicitly rests on the validity of this assumption. This paper presents new wind-tunnel data obtained in the ‘classical’ case of thick fully turbulent boundary-layer flow over a surface-mounted cube, covering an Re range of well over an order of magnitude (that is, a factor of 22). The results are also compared with new field data, providing a further order of magnitude increase in Re. It is demonstrated that if on the one hand the flow around the obstacle does not contain strong concentrated-vortex motions (like the delta-wing-type motions present for a cube oriented at 45? to the oncoming flow), Re effects only appear on fluctuating quantities such as the r.m.s. fluctuating surface pressures. If, on the other hand, the flow is characterized by the presence of such vortex motions, Re effects are significant even on mean-flow quantities such as the mean surface pressures or the mean velocities near the surfaces. It is thus concluded that although, in certain circumstances and for some quantities, the Reynolds-number-independency assumption is valid, there are other important quantities and circumstances for which it is not