Advertisement

Boundary-Layer Meteorology

, Volume 168, Issue 2, pp 213–246 | Cite as

Comparison of Speed-Up Over Hills Derived from Wind-Tunnel Experiments, Wind-Loading Standards, and Numerical Modelling

  • Amir A. Safaei Pirooz
  • Richard G. J. Flay
Research Article
  • 241 Downloads

Abstract

We evaluate the accuracy of the speed-up provided in several wind-loading standards by comparison with wind-tunnel measurements and numerical predictions, which are carried out at a nominal scale of 1:500 and full-scale, respectively. Airflow over two- and three-dimensional bell-shaped hills is numerically modelled using the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes method with a pressure-driven atmospheric boundary layer and three different turbulence models. Investigated in detail are the effects of grid size on the speed-up and flow separation, as well as the resulting uncertainties in the numerical simulations. Good agreement is obtained between the numerical prediction of speed-up, as well as the wake region size and location, with that according to large-eddy simulations and the wind-tunnel results. The numerical results demonstrate the ability to predict the airflow over a hill with good accuracy with considerably less computational time than for large-eddy simulation. Numerical simulations for a three-dimensional hill show that the speed-up and the wake region decrease significantly when compared with the flow over two-dimensional hills due to the secondary flow around three-dimensional hills. Different hill slopes and shapes are simulated numerically to investigate the effect of hill profile on the speed-up. In comparison with more peaked hill crests, flat-topped hills have a lower speed-up at the crest up to heights of about half the hill height, for which none of the standards gives entirely satisfactory values of speed-up. Overall, the latest versions of the National Building Code of Canada and the Australian and New Zealand Standard give the best predictions of wind speed over isolated hills.

Keywords

Complex terrain Horizontally-homogeneous boundary layer Numerical modelling Wind-loading standards and codes Wind tunnel 

References

  1. ANSYS Inc. (2011) ANSYS CFX-pre user’s guide. ANSYS Inc., Southpointe, CanonsburgGoogle Scholar
  2. AS/NZS1170.2 (2011) Australia/New Zealand Standard, Structural design actions, Part 2: wind actions. Jointly published by Standards Australia Limited/Standards New Zealand, Sydney, NWS and WellingtonGoogle Scholar
  3. ASCE-7 (2016) Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other structures. American Society of Civil Engineers, RestonGoogle Scholar
  4. Australian Standard (1989) Australian Standard, SAA Loading code, part 2: wind loads. Standards Australia, North SydneyGoogle Scholar
  5. Balogh M, Parente A, Benocci C (2012) RANS simulation of ABL flow over complex terrains applying an Enhanced k–ε model and wall function formulation: implementation and comparison for fluent and OpenFOAM. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 104–106:360–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilal M, Sridhar N, Araya G, Parameswaran S, Brikelund Y (2015) Wind flow over a complex terrain in Nygardsfjell, Norway. In: ASME 9th international conference on energy sustainability, June 28–July 2 2015, San Diego, CA, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  7. Bitsuamlak G, Stathopoulos T, Bedard C (2004) Numerical modelling of wind flow over different types of topography. Structures Congress: building on the past, securing the future, 22–26 May, 2004, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, pp 1–11Google Scholar
  8. Blocken B, Carmeliet J (2004) Modelling atmospheric boundary-layer flow with Fluent: curing the wall-function roughness incompatibility. The Fluent Benelux User Group Meeting, 5–6 October, 2004, Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  9. Blocken B, Carmeliet J (2006) The influence of the wind-blocking effect by a building on its wind-driven rain exposure. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 94(2):101–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blocken B, Stathopoulos T, Carmeliet J (2007) CFD simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer: wall function problems. Atmos Environ 41:238–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blocken B, Hout AVD, Dekker J, Weiler O (2015) CFD simulation of wind flow over natural complex terrain: case study with validation by field measurements for Ria de Ferrol, Galicia, Spain. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 147:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bowen AJ (1983) The prediction of mean wind speeds above simple 2D hill shape. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 15:259–270CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Breuer M, Peller N, Rapp C, Manhart M (2009) Flow over periodic hills—numerical and experimental study in a wide range of Reynolds numbers. Comput Fluids 38:433–457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. BS NA EN 1991-1-4 (2010) (English): UK National Annex to Eurocode 1. Actions on structures. General actions. Wind actionsGoogle Scholar
  15. BS6399-2 (1997) Loading for buildings—part 2: code of practice for wind loads. Published under the authority of the Standards Board, BSI 10-1998Google Scholar
  16. Cao S, Wang T, Ge Y, Tamura Y (2012) Numerical study on turbulent boundary layers over two-dimensional hills—effects of surface roughness and slope. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 104–106:342–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Carpenter P, Locke N (1999) Investigation of wind speeds over multiple two-dimensional hills. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 83:109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Celik IB, Ghia U, Roache PJ, Freitas CJ, Coleman H, Raad PE (2008) Procedure for estimation and reporting of uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications. ASME J Fluids Eng 130:1–4Google Scholar
  19. Chaudhari A, Vuorinen V, Agafonova O, Hellsten A, Hamalainen J (2014) Large-Eddy simulations for atmospheric boundary layer flows over complex terrains with applications in wind energy. In: Joint 11th World Congress on Computational Mechanics, the 5th European conference on computational mechanics, and the 6th European conference on computational fluid dynamics, Barcelona, Spain, pp 5205–5216Google Scholar
  20. Cook NJ (1985) The designer’s guide to wind loading of building structures (Part 1), 1st edn. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Deaves DM, Harris RI (1978) A mathematical model of the structure of strong winds. Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA), Report 76, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Diebold M, Higgins C, Fang J, Bechmann A, Parlange MB (2013) Flow over hills: a large-eddy simulation of the Bolund case. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 148:177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. EN 1991-1-4 (2005) (English): Eurocode 1: actions on structures—part 1–4: general actions—wind actions [Authority: The European Union Per Regulation 305/2011, Directive 98/34/EC, Directive 2004/18/EC]Google Scholar
  24. Ferreira AD, Silva MC, Viegas DX, Lopes AG (1991) Wind tunnel simulation of the flow around two dimensional hills. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 38:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flay RGJ, Turner R, Revell M, Carpenter P, Cenek P, King AB (2012) Wind speed up over hills and complex terrain, and the risk to infrastructure. In: 18th Australasian fluid mechanics conference, 3–7 December, 2012, Launceston, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  26. Flay RGJ, Carpenter P, Revell M, Cenek P, Turner R, King A (2013a) Full-scale wind engineering measurements in New Zealand. In: The 8th Asia-Pacific conference on wind engineering, 10–14 December, 2013, Chennai, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  27. Flay RGJ, Turner R, Revell M, Carpenter P, Cenek P, King A (2013b) Wind speed-up measurements over Belmont Hill in complex terrain. In: 6th European and African conference on wind engineering, 7–13 July, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  28. Flay RGJ, Nayyerloo M, King AB, Revell MJ (2015) Comparison of wind speed hill-shape multipliers calculated by seven wind loading standards with full-scale measurements. 17th Australasian Wind Engineering Society Workshop, 10–13 February, 2015, Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  29. Franke J, Hirsch C, Jensen AG, Krus HW, Schatzmann M, Westbury PS, Miles SD, Wisse JA, Wright NG (2004) Recommendations on the use of CFD in wind engineering. In: Proceedings of the international conference urban wind engineering and building aerodynamics, 5–7 May, Rhode-Saint-Genèse, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  30. Franke J, Hellsten A, Schlunzen H, Carissimo BE (2007) Best practice guideline for the CFD simulation of flows in the urban environment. Cost action 732: quality assurance and improvement of microscale meteorological models, University of Hamburg, Meteorological Institute, Hamburg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  31. Hargreaves DM, Wright NG (2007) On the use of the k–ɛ model in commercial CFD software to model the neutral atmospheric boundary layer. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 95:355–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hewer FE (1998) Non-linear numerical model predictions of flow over an isolated hill of moderate slope. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 87:381–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hunt JR, Leibovich S, Richards KJ (1988) Turbulent shear flow over low hills. Q J R Meteorol Soc 114:1435–1470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Irwin HPAH (1981) A simple omnidirectional sensor for wind-tunnel studies of pedestrian-level winds. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 7:219–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ishihara T, Hibi K (2002) Numerical study of turbulent wake flow behind a three-dimensional steep hill. Wind Struct 5(2–4):317–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ishihara T, Hibi K, Oikawa S (1999) A Wind tunnel study of turbulent flow over a three-dimensional steep hill. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 83:95–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ishihara T, Fujino Y, Hibi K (2001) A wind tunnel study of separated flow over a two-dimensional ridge and a circular hill. Wind Eng 89:573–576Google Scholar
  38. Jackson PS, Hunt JCR (1975) Turbulent wind flow over a low hill. Q J R Meteorol Soc 101:929–955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kaimal JC, Finnigan JJ (1994) Atmospheric boundary layer flows: their structure and measurement. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim HG, Patel VC (2000) Test of turbulence models for wind flow over terrain with separation and recirculation. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 94:5–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kim HG, Lee CM, Lim HC, Kyong NH (1997) An experimental and numerical study on the flow over two-dimensional hills. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 66:17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Launder BE, Spalding DB (1974) The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 3:269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Liu Z, Ishihara T, Tanaka T, He X (2016) LES study of turbulent flow fields over a smooth 3-D hill and a smooth 2-D ridge. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 153:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Loureiro JB, Alho AT, Freire AP (2008) The numerical computation of near-wall turbulent flow over a steep hill. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 96:540–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Menter FR (1994) Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. Am Inst Aeronaut Astronaut 32(8):1598–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miller C, Gibbons M, Beatty K, Boissonnade A (2013) Topographic speed-up effects and observed roof damage on Bermuda following Hurricane Fabian 2003. Weather Forecast 28:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moreira GA, Dos Santos AA, Do Nascimento CA, Valle RM (2012) Numerical study of the neutral atmospheric boundary layer over complex terrain. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 143:393–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. NBC (2015) National Building Code of Canada, National Research Council of Canada (NRC), Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  49. O’Sullivan JP, Archer RA, Flay RGJ (2011) Consistent boundary conditions for flows within the atmospheric boundary layer. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 99:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Popinet S (2003) Gerris: a tree-based adaptive solver for the incompressible Euler equations in complex geometries. J Comput Phys 190:572–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raithby GD, Stubley GD, Taylor PA (1987) The Askervein Hill project: a finite control volume prediction of three-dimensional flows over the hill. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 39:247–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ramechecandane S, Gravdahl AR (2012) Numerical investigation on wind flow over complex terrain. Wind Eng 36(3):273–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Richards PJ, Hoxey RP (1993) Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models using the k–ɛ turbulence model. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 46 & 47:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Richards PJ, Norris SE (2011) Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models revisited. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 99:257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Richards PJ, Norris SE (2015) Appropriate boundary conditions for a pressure driven boundary layer. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 142:43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Taylor PA, Gent PR (1974) A model of atmospheric boundary-layer flow above an isolated two-dimensional hill: an example of flow above gentle topography. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 7:349–362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Teunissen HW (1983) Wind tunnel and full scale comparisons of mean flow over an isolated low hill. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 15:271–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Troen I, Petersen EL (1989) European wind atlas. Risø National Laboratory, RoskildeGoogle Scholar
  59. User’s Guide—NBC 2015 Structural Commentaries (Part 4 of Division B), Commentary I: wind load and effectsGoogle Scholar
  60. Wilcox DC (1993) Turbulence modeling for CFD, 1st edn. DCW Industries, La CanadaGoogle Scholar
  61. Wood N (1995) The onset of separation in neutral, turbulent flow over hills. Boundary-Layer Meteorol 76(137):164Google Scholar
  62. Wood N, Mason PJ (1993) The pressure force induced by neutral, turbulent flow over hills. Q J R Meteorol Soc 119:1233–1267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Yang Y, Gu M, Chen S, Jin X (2009) New inflow boundary conditions for modelling the neutral equilibrium atmospheric boundary layer in computational wind engineerring. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 97:88–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations