Advertisement

Building Simulation

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 239–254 | Cite as

Wind-driven ventilation improvement with plan typology alteration: A CFD case study of traditional Turkish architecture

  • Yusuf Cihat Aydin
  • Parham A. MirzaeiEmail author
Research Article Indoor/Outdoor Airflow and Air Quality

Abstract

Aligned with achieving the goal of net-zero buildings, the implementation of energy-saving techniques in minimizing energy demands is proving more vital than at any time. As practical and economic options, passive strategies in ventilation developed over thousands of years have shown great potential for the reduction of residential energy demands, which are often underestimated in modern building’s construction. In particular, as a cost-effective passive strategy, wind-driven ventilation via windows has huge potential in the enhancement of the indoor air quality (IAQ) of buildings while simultaneously reducing their cooling load. This study aims to investigate the functionality and applicability of a common historical Turkish architectural element called “Cumba” to improve the wind-driven ventilation in modern buildings. A case study building with an archetypal plan and parameters was defined as a result of a survey over 111 existing traditional samples across Turkey. Buildings with and without Cumba were compared in different scenarios by the development of a validated CFD microclimate model. The results of simulations clearly demonstrate that Cumba can enhance the room’s ventilation rate by more than two times while harvesting wind from different directions. It was also found that a flexible window opening strategy can help to increase the mean ventilation rate by 276%. Moreover, the room’s mean air velocity and ventilation rate could be adjusted to a broad range of values with the existence of Cumba. Thus, this study presents important findings about the importance of plan typology in the effectiveness of wind-driven ventilation strategies in modern dwellings.

Keywords

wind-driven ventilation traditional Turkish architecture Cumba computational fluid dynamics (CFD) 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to the University of Nottingham for use of their facilities, and Mehmet Aydin for his financial support.

References

  1. Ai ZT, Mak CM (2014). A study of interunit dispersion around multistory buildings with single-sided ventilation under different wind directions. Atmospheric Environment, 88: 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allocca C, Chen Q, Glicksman LR (2003). Design analysis of singlesided natural ventilation. Energy and Buildings, 35: 785–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arseven C (1983). Sanat Ansiklopedisi. Istanbul: Milli egitim bakanlıgı.Google Scholar
  4. Bangalee MZI, Lin SY, Miau JJ (2012). Wind driven natural ventilation through multiple windows of a building: A computational approach. Energy and Buildings, 45: 317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blocken B, van Hooff T, Aanen L, Bronsema B (2011). Computational analysis of the performance of a venturi-shaped roof for natural ventilation: Venturi-effect versus wind-blocking effect. Computers and Fluids, 48: 202–213.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Cantin R, Burgholzer J, Guarracino G, Moujalled B, Tamelikecht S, Royet BG (2010). Field assessment of thermal behaviour of historical dwellings in France. Building and Environment, 45: 473–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chu C-R, Chiang B-F (2014). Wind-driven cross ventilation in long buildings. Building and Environment, 80: 150–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chu C-R, Chiu Y-H, Tsai Y-T, Wu S-L (2015). Wind-driven natural ventilation for buildings with two openings on the same external wall. Energy and Buildings, 108: 365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chu C-R, Chiang B-F (2013). Wind-driven cross ventilation with internal obstacles. Energy and Buildings, 67: 201–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dili AS, Naseer MA, Zacharia Varghese T (2011). Passive control methods for a comfortable indoor environment: Comparative investigation of traditional and modern architecture of Kerala in summer. Energy and Buildings, 43: 653–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eldem SH (1986). Turkish Houses Ottoman Period. Turkey: Türkiye anıt cevre turizm değerlerini koruma vakfı (T.A.C).Google Scholar
  12. Evola G, Popov V (2006). Computational analysis of wind driven natural ventilation in buildings. Energy and Buildings, 38: 491–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gebremedhin KG, Wu BX (2003). Characterization of flow field in a ventilated space and simulation of heat exchange between cows and their environment. Journal of Thermal Biology, 28: 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Günay R (1998). Türk ev gelenegi ve Safranbolu evleri. Istanbul: Yapı endüstri merkezi (YEM).Google Scholar
  15. Haghighat F, Mirzaei PA (2011). Impact of non-uniform urban surface temperature on pollution dispersion in urban areas. Building Simulation, 4: 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harriman LG, Lstiburek JW (2009). The ASHRAE Guide for Buildings in Hot and Hummid Climates, 2dn edn. Atlanta: American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers.Google Scholar
  17. Heiselberg P, Svidt K, Nielsen PV (2001). Characteristics of airflow from open windows. Building and Environment, 36: 859–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horan JM, Finn DP (2008). Sensitivity of air change rates in a naturally ventilated atrium space subject to variations in external wind speed and direction. Energy and Buildings, 40: 1577–1585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hu CH, Ohba M, Yoshie R (2008). CFD modelling of unsteady cross ventilation flows using LES. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 96: 1692–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IPPC/CC (2014). Climate Change 2014 Synthesis report Summary for polcymakes Report of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  21. IUG-MI (2016). Istanbul universitesi fen fakultesi, astronomi ve uzay bilimleri bolumu. Istanbul universitesi gozlemevi metroroloji istasyonu. Available at http://astronomi.istanbul.edu.tr/meteor.Google Scholar
  22. Jiang Y, Alexander D, Jenkins H, Arthur R, Chen Q (2003). Natural ventilation in buildings: Measurement in a wind tunnel and numerical simulation with large-eddy simulation, 91: 331–353.Google Scholar
  23. Jiang Y, Allocca C, Chen Q (2004). Validation of CFD simulations for natural ventilation. International Journal of Ventilation, 2: 359–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karava P, Stathopoulos T, Athienitis AK (2011). Airflow assessment in cross-ventilated buildings with operable facade elements. Building and Environment, 46: 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kindangen JI (1997). Window and roof configurations for comfort ventilation. Building Research & Information, 25: 218–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kindangen J, Krauss G, Depecker P (1997). Effects of roof shapes on wind-induced air motion inside buildings. Building and Environment, 32: 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kobayashi T, Chikamoto T, Osada K (2013). Evaluation of ventilation performance of monitor roof in residential area based on simplified estimation and CFD analysis. Building and Environment, 63: 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kobayashi T, Sandberg M, Kotani H, Claesson L (2010). Experimental investigation and CFD analysis of cross-ventilated flow through single room detached house model. Building and Environment, 45: 2723–2734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Küçükerman Ö (2007). Turkish House in Search of Spatial Identity, 6th edn. Turkey: Türkiye Turing ve Otomobil Kurumu.Google Scholar
  30. Lai HK, Kendall M, Ferrier H, Lindup I, Alm S, et al. (2004). Personal exposures and microenvironment concentrations of PM2.5, VOC, NO2 and CO in Oxford, UK. Atmospheric Environment, 38: 6399–6410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McQuiston FC, Parker JD, Spitler JD (2005). Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Analysis and Design, 6th edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  32. Mirzaei PA (2015). Recent challenges in modeling of urban heat island. Sustainable Cities and Society, 19: 200–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mirzaei PA, Carmeliet J (2013). Dynamical computational fluid dynamics modeling of the stochastic wind for application of urban studies. Building and Environment, 70: 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mirzaei PA, Haghighat F (2010a). A novel approach to enhance outdoor air quality: Pedestrian ventilation system. Building and Environment, 45: 1582–1593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mirzaei PA, Haghighat F (2010b). Approaches to study Urban Heat Island—Abilities and limitations. Building and Environment, 45: 2192–2201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mochida A, Yoshino H, Miyauchi S, Mitamura T (2006). Total analysis of cooling effects of cross-ventilation affected by microclimate around a building. Solar Energy, 80: 371–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. NASA/GCC (2016). NASA Global Climate Change Cital Signs of the Planet. NASA/GCC. Available at http://climate.nasa.gov/vitalsigns/global-temperature.Google Scholar
  38. NF (2016). Naturalfrequency—ECOTECT. Available at http://wiki.naturalfrequency.com/wiki/Air_Movement.Google Scholar
  39. Norton T, Grant J, Fallon R, Sun DW (2009). Assessing the ventilation effectiveness of naturally ventilated livestock buildings under wind dominated conditions using computational fluid dynamics. Biosystems Engineering, 103: 78–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Perén JI, van Hooff T, Leite BCC, Blocken B (2015a). CFD analysis of cross-ventilation of a generic isolated building with asymmetric opening positions: Impact of roof angle and opening location. Building and Environment, 85: 263–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Perén JI, van Hooff T, Leite BCC, Blocken B (2015b). Impact of eaves on cross-ventilation of a generic isolated leeward sawtooth roof building: Windward eaves, leeward eaves and eaves inclination. Building and Environment, 92: 578–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Perén JI, van Hooff T, Ramponi R, Blocken B, Leite BCC (2015c). Impact of roof geometry of an isolated leeward sawtooth roof building on cross-ventilation: Straight, concave, hybrid or convex? Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 145: 102–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ramponi R, Blocken B (2012). CFD simulation of cross-ventilation for a generic isolated building: Impact of computational parameters. Building and Environment, 53: 34–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saadatian O, Haw LC, Sopian K, Sulaiman MY (2012). Review of windcatcher technologies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16: 1477–1495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Samuel DGL, Nagendra, SMS, Maiya MP (2013). Passive alternatives to mechanical air conditioning of building: A review. Building and Environment, 66: 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Talya H (2007). Gelenksel Turk mimarisinde yapı sistem ve elemanları. Istanbul: urkiye Anıt Cevre Turizm Degerlerini Koruma Vakfı (TAC).Google Scholar
  47. Teppner R, Langensteiner B, Meile W, Brenn G, Kerschbaumer S (2014). Air change rates driven by the flow around and through a building storey with fully open or tilted windows: An experimental and numerical study. Energy and Buildings, 76: 640–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tominaga Y, Mochida A, Yoshie R, Kataoka H, Nozu T, Yoshikawa M, Shirasawa T (2008). AIJ guidelines for practical applications of CFD to pedestrian wind environment around buildings. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 96: 1749–1761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Torfs R, Brouwere KD, Spruyt M, Goelen E, Nickmilder M, Bernard A (2008). Exposure and risk assessment of air fresheners. VITO, Document No 2008/IMS/R/222.Google Scholar
  50. Vardoulakis S, Dimitroulopoulou C, Thornes J, Lai K-M, Taylor J, et al. (2015). Impact of climate change on the domestic indoor environment and associated health risks in the UK. Environment International, 85: 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. WB (2015). Weatherbase. Available at http://www.weatherbase.com.Google Scholar
  52. WEC/WERS (2013). World Energy Council World Energy Resources 2013 Survey Summary. London.Google Scholar
  53. WEC/WES-2050 (2013). World Energy Council World Energy Scenarios Composing Energy Futures to 2050. London.Google Scholar
  54. Wilhelmi OV, Purvis KL, Harriss RC (2004). Designing a Geospatial Information Infrastructure for Mitigation of Heat Wave Hazards in Urban Areas. Natural Hazards Review, 5: 147–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Architecture and Built Environment DepartmentThe University of NottinghamUniversity Park, NottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations