Advertisement

Natural ventilation of an isolated generic building with a windward window and different windexchangers: CFD validation, sensitivity study and performance analysis

  • J. Antonio CastilloEmail author
  • Guadalupe Huelsz
  • Twan van Hooff
  • Bert Blocken
Research Article

Abstract

Windexchangers are relatively small structures located on the building rooftop to promote natural ventilation. This paper presents a Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) validation study, sensitivity analysis and performance comparison of three windexchanger (WE) configurations applied to a generic isolated building with a windward window. The study is limited to wind-driven (isothermal) ventilation, for wind perpendicular to the windward facade. The CFD simulations are based on the 3D-steady Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations. The validation study is performed with experimental results from a previously published water channel test. The sensitivity analysis focuses on the domain size, grid resolution and turbulence model. The performance evaluation of the three WE configurations is based on the mean velocity and mean static pressure coefficients in the vertical centerplane, the ventilation volume flow rate and the volume percentage of the living zone with air speed ratio equal to or above 0.10. The WE configuration with four openings and one duct shows the highest ventilation flow rate (0.232 m3/s) and the highest volume percentage (21%). This study shows that the assessment and selection of WE configurations should not only be based on volume flow rate or ACH but should consider the living zone air speed ratio as well, specifically concerning the flow distribution in the living zone.

Keywords

windexchanger windcatcher natural ventilation CFD validation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Eindhoven University of Technology for the software, hardware and office facilities during an academic stay of J.A. Castillo. This work has been partially supported by the PAPIIT-UNAM IN103816 project. J.A. Castillo acknowledges the postdoctoral fellowship grant by the DGAPA-UNAM, the computational facilities provided by the SENER-CONACYT project 260155. J.A. Castillo also is grateful with Dr. Adriana Lira and Dr. Gerardo Oliva for their academic support during the postdoctoral stay. Twan van Hooff is currently a postdoctoral fellow of the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) and acknowledges its financial support (project FWO 12R9718N). The authors acknowledge the partnership with ANSYS CFD.

References

  1. ANSYS (2013). Fluent 15 user’s guide. Lebanon: Fluent Inc.Google Scholar
  2. Baker CJ (2007). Wind engineering—Past, present and future. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 95: 843–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bangalee MZI, Miau JJ, Lin SY, Yang JH (2013). Flow visualization, PIV measurement and CFD calculation for fluid-driven natural cross-ventilation in a scale model. Energy and Buildings, 66: 306–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bañuelos-Ruedas F, Angeles-Camacho C, Rios-Marcuello S (2010). Analysis and validation of the methodology used in the extrapolation of wind speed data at different heights. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14: 2383–2391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barlow JB, Rae WH, Pope A (1999). Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, 3rd edn. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Blocken B, Carmeliet J, Stathopoulos T (2007a). CFD evaluation of wind speed conditions in passages between parallel buildings: Effect of wall-function roughness modifications for the atmospheric boundary layer flow. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 95: 941–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blocken B, Stathopoulos T, Carmeliet J (2007b). CFD simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer: Wall function problems. Atmospheric Environment, 41: 238–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blocken B, Stathopoulos T, Carmeliet J (2008). Wind environmental conditions in passages between two long narrow perpendicular buildings. Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 21: 280–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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 & Fluids, 48: 202–213.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Blocken B (2014). 50 years of Computational Wind Engineering: Past, present and future. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 129: 69–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blocken B (2015). Computational Fluid Dynamics for urban physics: Importance, scales, possibilities, limitations and ten tips and tricks towards accurate and reliable simulations. Building and Environment, 91: 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blocken B (2018). LES over RANS in building simulation for outdoor and indoor applications: A foregone conclusion? Building Simulation, 11: 821–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Calautit JK, Hughes BR, Shahzad SS (2015). CFD and wind tunnel study of the performance of a uni-directional wind catcher with heat transfer devices. Renewable Energy, 83: 85–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carrilho da Graça G, Daish NC, Linden PF (2015). A two-zone model for natural cross-ventilation. Building and Environment, 89: 72–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Castillo JA, Cruz-Salas MV, Huelsz G (2017). Natural ventilation by windexchangers in a building with a window in prevailing winds: Design guidelines. International Journal of Ventilation, 16: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cebeci T, Bradshaw P (1977). Momentum Transfer in Boundary Layers. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere Publishing Corporation.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen Q (2009). Ventilation performance prediction for buildings: A method overview and recent applications. Building and Environment, 44: 848–858.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. CONAVI (2010). Comisión Nacional de Vivienda, Código de Edificación de vivienda.Google Scholar
  19. Cruz-Salas MV, Castillo JA, Huelsz G (2014). Experimental study on natural ventilation of a room with a windward window and different windexchangers. Energy and Buildings, 84: 458–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cruz-Salas MV, Castillo JA, Huelsz G (2018). Effect of windexchanger duct cross-section area and geometry on the room airflow distribution. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 179: 514–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Elmualim AA (2006a). Effect of damper and heat source on wind catcher natural ventilation performance. Energy and Buildings, 38: 939–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elmualim AA (2006b). Dynamic modelling of a wind catcher/tower turret for natural ventilation. Building Services Engineering Research and Technology, 27: 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elmualim AA, Awbi HB (2002). Wind tunnel and CFD investigation of the performance of “windcatcher” ventilation systems. International Journal of Ventilation, 1: 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Esfeh MK, Dehghan AA, Manshadi MD, Mohagheghian S (2012). Visualized flow structure around and inside of one-sided windcatchers. Energy and Buildings, 55: 545–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Etheridge D (2012). Natural Ventilation of Buildings—Theory, Measurement and Design. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Franke J, Hellsten A, Schlünzen H, Carissimo B (2007). Best Practice Guideline for the CFD Simulation of Flows in the Urban Environment. COST office.Google Scholar
  27. Gallardo JP, Pettersen B, Andersson HI (2013). Effects of free-slip boundary conditions on the flow around a curved circular cylinder. Computers & Fluids, 86: 389–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hughes BR, Ghani SAAA (2009). A numerical investigation into the effect of windvent dampers on operating conditions. Building and Environment, 44: 237–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hughes BR, Ghani SAAA (2010). A numerical investigation into the effect of windvent louvre external angle on passive stack ventilation performance. Building and Environment, 45: 1025–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hughes BR, Calautit JK, Ghani SA (2012). The development of commercial wind towers for natural ventilation: A review. Applied Energy, 92: 606–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jones WP, Launder BE (1972). The prediction of laminarization with a two-equation model of turbulence. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 15: 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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
  33. Khodakarami J, Aboseba MR (2015). Impact of openings’ number and outdoor flow direction on the indoor vertical flow velocity in wind catchers. International Journal of Renewable Energy Research, 5: 325–333.Google Scholar
  34. Launder BE, Spalding DB (1974). The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 3: 269–289.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. Launder BE, Reece GJ, Rodi W (1975). Progress in the development of a Reynolds-stress turbulence closure. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 68: 537–566.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. Li L, Mak CM (2007). The assessment of the performance of a windcatcher system using computational fluid dynamics. Building and Environment, 42: 1135–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liu S, Mak CM, Niu J (2011). Numerical evaluation of louver configuration and ventilation strategies for the windcatcher system. Building and Environment, 46: 1600–1616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Menter FR (1994). Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA Journal, 32: 1598–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Meroney R, Derickson R (2014). Virtual reality in wind engineering: The windy world within the computer. Indian Journal Wind Engineering—Indian Society for Wind Engineering, 11(2): 11–26.Google Scholar
  40. Montazeri H (2011). Experimental and numerical study on natural ventilation performance of various multi-opening wind catchers. Building and Environment, 46: 370–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Montazeri H, Azizian R (2008). Experimental study on natural ventilation performance of one-sided wind catcher. Building and Environment, 43: 2193–2202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Montazeri H, Montazeri F, Azizian R, Mostafavi S (2010). Two-sided wind catcher performance evaluation using experimental, numerical and analytical modeling. Renewable Energy, 35: 1424–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murakami S (1993). Comparison of various turbulence models applied to a bluff body. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 46–47: 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Murakami S (1997). Current status and future trends in computational wind engineering. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 67–68: 3–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Oropeza-Perez I, Østergaard PA (2014). Energy saving potential of utilizing natural ventilation under warm conditions—A case study of Mexico. Applied Energy, 130: 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 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
  47. 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
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. Roache PJ (1994). Perspective: A method for uniform reporting of grid refinement studies. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 116: 405–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shetabivash H (2015). Investigation of opening position and shape on the natural cross ventilation. Energy and Buildings, 93: 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shih T-H, Liou WW, Shabbir A, Yang Z, Zhu J (1995). A new k-ε eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows. Computers & Fluids, 24: 227–238.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Solari G (2007). The international association for wind engineering (IAWE): Progress and prospects. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 95: 813–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stathopoulos T (1997). Computational wind engineering: Past achievements and future challenges. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 67–68: 509–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Su Y, Riffat SB, Lin Y, Khan N (2008). Experimental and CFD study of ventilation flow rate of a MonodraughtTM windcatcher. Energy and Buildings, 40: 1110–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Tominaga Y, Stathopoulos T (2013). CFD simulation of near-field pollutant dispersion in the urban environment: A review of current modeling techniques. Atmospheric Environment, 79: 716–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. van Hooff T, Blocken B (2010a). Coupled urban wind flow and indoor natural ventilation modelling on a high-resolution grid: A case study for the Amsterdam Arena Stadium. Environmental Modelling & Software, 25: 51–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. van Hooff T, Blocken B (2010b). On the effect of wind direction and urban surroundings on natural ventilation of a large semi-enclosed stadium. Computers & Fluids, 39: 1146–1155.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  60. Wieringa J (1992). Updating the Davenport roughness classification. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 41: 357–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Yakhot V, Orszag SA, Thangam S, Gatski TB, Speziale CG (1992). Development of turbulence models for shear flows by a double expansion technique. Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics, 4: 1510–1520.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Antonio Castillo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Guadalupe Huelsz
    • 2
  • Twan van Hooff
    • 3
    • 4
  • Bert Blocken
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Centro de Investigaciones en Arquitectura, Urbanismo y Paisaje, Facultad de ArquitecturaUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoCoyoacán, Ciudad de MéxicoMexico
  2. 2.Instituto de Energías RenovablesUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoTemixcoMexico
  3. 3.Building Physics and Services, Department of the Built EnvironmentEindhoven University of TechnologyMB Eindhoventhe Netherlands
  4. 4.Building Physics Section, Department of Civil EngineeringKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium

Personalised recommendations