2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.08.037
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Uncertainty quantification of upstream wind effects on single-sided ventilation in a building using generalized polynomial chaos method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The maximum ventilation rate occurs for the windward opening with an oblique wind direction in which case the external air can easily enter the building through the opening. The ventilation rate of shear ventilation rate is generally lower than the windward and leeward ventilation but the ventilation rate of leeward opening is slightly larger than the windward opening when the wind direction is perpendicular to the opening face [20,24,46,51]. As mentioned in Section 2.2, the eddy penetration is a main contributor in shear ventilation and the eddy penetration could be zero for windward opening when the wind direction is normal to the opening due to zero parallel wind velocity [39].…”
Section: Upstream Windmentioning
confidence: 92%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The maximum ventilation rate occurs for the windward opening with an oblique wind direction in which case the external air can easily enter the building through the opening. The ventilation rate of shear ventilation rate is generally lower than the windward and leeward ventilation but the ventilation rate of leeward opening is slightly larger than the windward opening when the wind direction is perpendicular to the opening face [20,24,46,51]. As mentioned in Section 2.2, the eddy penetration is a main contributor in shear ventilation and the eddy penetration could be zero for windward opening when the wind direction is normal to the opening due to zero parallel wind velocity [39].…”
Section: Upstream Windmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…It may be due to the much lower computation expense and requirement despite of the relative inaccuracy compared with LES. Various turbulence models have been tried in RANS simulations in order to predict closer results with the LES and experimental results, such as the Standard [29,30,33,51,67,81], BSL [54,57,62,63], RNG [41, 42, 45, 60, 73, 74, 81, 84, ] k-ε models and SST k-ω model [22,46,50]. RNG k-ε model is a better choice for the simulation of the SSV ventilation rate and air distribution inside the buildings though all k-ε models fail to correctly determine the velocity components near the horizontal surfaces [81].…”
Section: Cfd Simulationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This approach can be inaccurate since it employs a discharge coefficient (C d ) that is usually assumed to be constant (0.61), but that is affected by installation effects in reality (Karava et al, 2004). The second approach calculates the ventilation flow rate by integrating the time-averaged normal velocity through the openings (Jiang and Chen, 2001;Caciolo et al, 2012;Sun et al, 2017). It eliminates the uncertainty due to C d , but the use of the time-averaged velocity field can still yield inaccurate predictions when ventilation is driven by turbulent fluctuations at the openings (Jiang and Chen, 2001).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Probabilistic approaches were introduced in building physics by Hokoi and Matsumoto [4]. Subsequently, a variety of methods for probabilistic assessment have been employed [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]. A comprehensive review on uncertainty analysis in building energy assessment is presented in [15], where it is concluded that uncertainty analysis is on the verge of becoming the primary approach in building energy assessment.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%