Wind and Structures

Techno-Press (테크노프레스)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Peak pressures on low rise buildings: CFD with LES versus full scale and wind tunnel measurements

  • Aly, Aly Mousaad (Winsdstorm Impach, Science and Engineering (WISE) Lab, Civil & Environmental Engineering, Louisiana State University) ;
  • Gol-Zaroudi, Hamzeh (Windstorm Impact, Science and Engineering(WISE), Louisiana State University)
  • Received : 2018.08.24
  • Accepted : 2019.11.20
  • Published : 2020.01.25
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper focuses on the processes of wind flow in atmospheric boundary layer, to produce realistic full scale pressures for design of low-rise buildings. CFD with LES turbulence closure is implemented on a scale 1:1 prototype building. A proximity study was executed computationally in CFD with LES that suggests new recommendations on the computational domain size, in front of a building model, apart from common RANS-based guidelines (e.g., COST and AIJ). Our findings suggest a location of the test building, different from existing guidelines, and the inflow boundary proximity influences pressure correlation and reproduction of peak loads. The CFD LES results are compared to corresponding pressures from open jet, full scale, wind tunnel, and the ASCE 7-10 standard for roof Component & Cladding design. The CFD LES shows its adequacy to produce peak pressures/loads on buildings, in agreement with field pressures, due to its capabilities of reproducing the spectral contents of the inflow at 1:1 scale.

Keywords

References

  1. Aboshosha, H., Bitsuamlak, G. and El Damatty, A. (2015), "Turbulence characterization of downbursts using LES", J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerod, 136, 44-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2014.10.020.
  2. Aly, A.M. (2014), "Atmospheric boundary-layer simulation for the built environment: past, present and future", Build. Environ., 75, 206-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.02.004.
  3. Aly, A.M. (2016), "On the evaluation of wind loads on solar panels: The scale issue", Solar Energy, 135, 423-434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2016.06.018.
  4. Aly, A.M. and Gol-Zaroudi, H. (2017), "Atmospheric boundary layer simulation in a new open-jet facility at LSU: CFD and experimental investigations", Measurement, 110, 121-133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2017.06.027.
  5. ASCE7-2010. (2010), Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, ASCE Standard, ASCE/SEI 7-10. American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, USA.
  6. Bienkiewicz, B. and Ham, H. (2003), "Wind tunnel modeling of roof pressure and turbulence effects on the TTU test building", Wind Struct., Int. J., 6(2), 91-106. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2003.6.2.091.
  7. Davidson, L. (2007), "Using isotropic synthetic fluctuations as inlet boundary conditions for unsteady simulations", Adv. Appl. Fluid Mech., 1(1), 1-35.
  8. Davidson, L. (2008), "Hybrid LES-RANS: Inlet boundary conditions for flows with recirculation", Proceedings of the 2007 Symposium of Hybrid RANS-LES Methods, Corfu, Greece, June.
  9. Dhunny, A.Z., Lollchund, M.R. and Rughooputh, S.D.D.V. (2015), "A high-resolution mapping of wind energy potentials for Mauritius using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)", Wind Struct., Int. J., 20(4), 565-578. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2015.20.4.565.
  10. Feng, R., Liu, F., Cai, Q., Yang, G. and Leng, J. (2018), "Field measurements of wind pressure on an open roof during Typhoons HaiKui and SuLi", Wind Struct., Int. J., 26(1), 11-24. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2018.26.1.011.
  11. FLUENT. (2015), FLUENT C.F.D. ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, USA, 15317.
  12. Franke, J., Hellsten, A., Schlunzen, K.H. and Carissimo, B. (2011), "The COST 732 best practice guideline for CFD simulation of flows in the urban environment: a summary", Int. J. Environ. Pollut., 44(1-4), 419-427. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2011.038443.
  13. Gol-Zaroudi, H. and Aly, A.M. (2017), "Open-jet boundary-layer processes for aerodynamic testing of low-rise buildings", Wind Struct., Int. J., 25(3), 233-259. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2017.25.3.233.
  14. He, J., Pan, F. and Cai, C. (2017), "A review of wood-frame low-rise building performance study under hurricane winds", Eng. Struct., 141, 512-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.03.036.
  15. Ho, T.C.E., Surry, D. and Morrish, D.P. (2003), NIST/TTU Cooperative Agreement-Windstorm Mitigation Initiative: Wind Tunnel Experiments on Generic Low Buildings, BLWT-SS20-2003, Boundary-layer Wind Tunnel Laboratory, University of Western Ontario, London, Canada.
  16. Hojstrup, J., Larsen, S.E. and Madsen, P.H. (1990), "Power spectra of horizontal wind components in the neutral atmospheric surface boundary layer," Proceedings of the AMS 9th Symposium on Turbulence and Diffusion, Roskilde, Denmark.
  17. Holmes, J.D. (2015), Wind Loading of Structures, Taylor and Francis, New York, USA.
  18. Jackson, A. (2017), "A comprehensive tour of snappy HexMesh", Proceedings of the 7th OpenFOAM Workshop, Berlin, Germany, October.
  19. Janajreh, I. and Emil, S. (2012), "Large eddy simulation of wind loads on a low-rise structure and comparison with wind tunnel results", Appl. Mech. Mater., 152, 1806-1813. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.152154.1806.
  20. Keating, A., Piomelli, U., Balaras, E. and Kaltenbach, H. (2004), "A priori and a posteriori tests of inflow conditions for large-eddy simulation", Phys. Fluid., 16(12), 4696-4712. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1811672.
  21. Kramlich, J. (1980), "The fate and behavior of fuel-sulfur in combustion systems", Ph.D. Dissertation; Washington State University, Washington, USA.
  22. Levitan, M.L. and Mehta, K.C. (1992a), "Texas tech field experiments for wind loads part 1: building and pressure measuring system", J. Wind Eng. Industr. Aerodyn., 43(1-3), 1565-1576. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(92)90372-H.
  23. Levitan, M.L. and Mehta, K.C. (1992b), "Texas tech field experiments for wind loads part II: meteorological instrumentation and terrain parameters", J. Wind Eng. Industr. Aerodyn., 43(1-3), 1577-1588. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(92)90373-I.
  24. LSU_HPC. (2017), High Performance Computing at Louisiana State University, Louisiana State University.
  25. Lumley, J.L. and Panofsky, H.A. (1964), The Structure of Atmospheric Turbulence. John Wiley and Sons, New York, USA.
  26. Lund, T., Wu, X. and Squires, K. (1998), "Generation of turbulent inflow data for spatially-developing boundary layer simulations", J. Comput. Phys., 140(2), 233-258. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1998.5882.
  27. Main, J.A. (2011), "Special-purpose software: MATLAB functions for estimation of peaks from time series", National Institute of Standards and Technology, Maryland, USA.
  28. Mann, J. (2012), Atmospheric Turbulence, Routledge, London, UK.
  29. Mann, J., Kristensen, L. and Jensen, N.O. (1998), Uncertainties of Extreme Winds, Spectra, and Coherences, in Bridge Aerodynamics, Balkema Publishers, AA/Taylor and Francis, The Netherlands.
  30. Mathey, F., Cokljat, D. and Bertoglio, J. (2006a), "Specification of LES inlet boundary condition using vortex method", Prog. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 6, 58-67. http://doi.org/10.1504/PCFD.2006.009483.
  31. Mathey, F., Cokljat, D., Bertoglio, J.P. and Sergent, E. (2006b), "Assessment of the vortex method for large eddy simulation inlet conditions", Prog. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 6(1-3), 58-67. https://doi.org/10.1504/PCFD.2006.009483
  32. Moret Rodrigues, A., Tome, A. and Gloria Gomes, M. (2017), "Computational study of the wind load on a free-form complex thin shell structure", Wind Struct., Int. J., 25(2), 177-193. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2017.25.2.177.
  33. Morrison, M., Brown, T. and Liu, Z. (2012), "Comparison of field and full-scale laboratory peak pressures at the IBHS research center", Proceedings of the ATC/SEI Advances in Hurricane Engineering Conference, Florida, USA. October.
  34. Okada, H. and Ha, Y. (1992), "Comparison of wind tunnel and fullscale pressure measurement tests on the Texas Tech Building", J. Wind Eng. Indust., 43(1-3), 1601-1612. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(92)90375-K.
  35. OpenFOAM (2015), Openfoam User Guide, OpenFOAM Foundation Ltd., e2888.
  36. Ozdogan, M., Sungur, B., Namli, L. and Durmus, A. (2017), "Comparative study of turbulent flow around a bluff body by using two-and three-dimensional CFD", Wind Struct., Int. J., 25(6), 537-549. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2017.25.6.537.
  37. Sadek, F. and Simiu, E. (2002), "Peak non-Gaussian wind effects for database-Assisted low-rise building design", J. Eng. Mech., 128(5), 530-539. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:5(530).
  38. Sergent, E. (2002), "Vers une methodologie de couplage entre la Simulation des Grandes Echelles et les modeles statistiques", Ph.D. Dissertation; Ecole centrale de Lyon, Ecully, France.
  39. Simiu, E. (2009), "Toward a standard on the wind tunnel method", NIST Technical Note, 1655, 1-36.
  40. Simiu, E. (2011), Design of Buildings for Wind - A Guide for ASCE 7-10 Standard Users and Designers of Special Structures, John Wiley and Sons Company, New York, USA.
  41. Smirnov, A., Shi, S. and Celik, I. (2001), "Random Flow Generation Technique for Large Eddy Simulations and Particle-Dynamics Modeling", J. Fluid Eng., Amer. Soc. Mech. Eng., 123(2), 359. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1369598.
  42. Smith, D.A., Morse, S.M. and Mehta, K.C. (2017), Wind Engineering Research Field Laboratory Selected Data Sets for Comparison to Model-Scale, Full-Scale and Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations, Wind Science and Engineering Research Center, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA.
  43. Tabor, G. and Baba-Ahmadi, M. (2010), "Inlet conditions for large eddy simulation: A review", Comput. Fluid., 39(4), 553-567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2009.10.007.
  44. Tamura, Y., Suganuma, S., Kikuchi, H. and Hibi, K. (1999), "Proper orthogonal decomposition of random wind pressure field", J. Fluids Struct., 13(7-8), 1069-1095. https://doi.org/10.1006/jfls.1999.0242.
  45. Tieleman, H., Ge, Z., Hajj, M. and Reinhold, T. (2003), "Pressures on a surface-mounted rectangular prism under varying incident turbulence", J. Wind Eng., 91(9), 1095-1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(03)00045-X.
  46. Tominaga, Y., Mochida, A., Yoshie, R., Kataoka, H., Nozu, T., Yoshikawa, M. and Shirasawa, T. (2008), "AIJ guidelines for practical applications of CFD to pedestrian wind environment around buildings", J. Wind Eng. Industr. Aerodyn., 96(10), 1749-1761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2008.02.058.
  47. VDI. (2005), VDI 3783, Part 9, 2005. Environmental Meteorology-Prognostic Micro-Scale Windfield Models-Evaluation for Flow around Buildings and Obstacles, Beuth Verlag GmbH, Berlin, Germany.
  48. Xu, Y. (1995), "Model-and full-scale comparison of fatigue-related characteristics of wind pressures on the Texas Tech Building", J. Wind Eng. Industr. Aerodyn., 58(3), 147-173. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-6105(95)00012-7.
  49. Yousef, M.A.A., Selvam, P.R. and Prakash, J. (2018), "A comparison of the forces on dome and prism for straight and tornadic wind using CFD model", Wind Struct., Int. J., 26(6), 369-382. https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2018.26.6.369.
  50. Zhang, X. (2009), CFD Simulation of Neutral ABL Flows, Risoe National Lab. for Sustainable Energy, Technical University of Denmark, Denmark.

Cited by

  1. Fluid-structure interaction of a tensile fabric structure subjected to different wind speeds vol.31, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2020.31.6.533
  2. Linear prediction and z-transform based CDF-mapping simulation algorithm of multivariate non-Gaussian fluctuating wind pressure vol.31, pp.6, 2020, https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2020.31.6.549
  3. Effect of aerodynamic modifications on the surface pressure patterns of buildings using proper orthogonal decomposition vol.32, pp.3, 2020, https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2021.32.3.227
  4. Fast simulation of large-scale non-stationary wind velocities based on adaptive interpolation reconstruction scheme vol.33, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.12989/was.2021.33.1.055
  5. Experimental investigation of the aerodynamics of a large industrial building with parapet vol.3, pp.1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1186/s42774-021-00080-z