메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
Richards, P.J. (Environment Group, Silsoe Research Institute) Quinn, A.D. (Environment Group, Silsoe Research Institute) Parker, S. (Division of Environmental Health & Risk Management, University of Birmingham)
저널정보
테크노프레스 Wind & structures Wind & structures 제5권 제2호
발행연도
2002.1
수록면
177 - 192 (16page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
Computation solutions for the flow around a cube, which were generated as part of the Computational Wind Engineering 2000 Conference Competition, are compared with full-scale measurements. The three solutions shown all use the RANS approach to predict mean flow fields. The major differences appear to be related to the use of the standard $k-{\varepsilon}$, the MMK $k-{\varepsilon}$ and the RNG $k-{\varepsilon}$ turbulence models. The inlet conditions chosen by the three modellers illustrate one of the dilemmas faced in computational wind engineering. While all modeller matched the inlet velocity profile to the full-scale profile, only one of the modellers chose to match the full-scale turbulence data. This approach led to a boundary layer that was not in equilibrium. The approach taken by the other modeller was to specify lower inlet turbulent kinetic energy level, which are more consistent with the turbulence models chosen and lead to a homogeneous boundary layer. For the $0^{\circ}$ case, wind normal to one face of the cube, it is shown that the RNG solution is closest to the full-scale data. This result appears to be associated with the RNG solution showing the correct flow separation and reattachment on the roof. The other solutions show either excessive separation (MMK) or no separation at all (K-E). For the $45^{\circ}$ case the three solutions are fairly similar. None of them correctly predicting the high suctions along the windward edges of the roof. In general the velocity components are more accurately predicted than the pressures. However in all cases the turbulence levels are poorly matched, with all of the solutions failing to match the high turbulence levels measured around the edges of separated flows. Although all of the computational solutions have deficiencies, the variability of results is shown to be similar to that which has been obtained with a similar comparative wind tunnel study. This suggests that the computational solutions are only slightly less reliable than the wind tunnel.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0