Advertisement

Experimental and Computational Analysis of Microscale Wind Conditions in the Port of Amsterdam

  • A. RicciEmail author
  • B. Blocken
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 27)

Abstract

The present paper deals with on-site measurements and 3D steady RANS simulations performed on the “IJmuiden vault” which falls under the Port Authority of Amsterdam. The numerical results were validated, in terms of amplification factor and local wind direction, using on-site measurements carried out by four 2D ultrasonic anemometers for a period of nine months. To quantify the deviation between measured and simulated data, the metric FAC1.3 was used. In that respect, 90% of simulated data (in terms of amplification factor) was found to be within 30% of deviation from the measured data. In terms of local wind direction, 86% of simulated data were found within ±30° and only the 6% of the whole database showed a large deviation equal and greater than ±60°. Finally, a software application was developed to convert the macroscale wind conditions to the local wind conditions near and in the newly built vault.

Keywords

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) On-site measurements Microscale wind conditions Urban environment Validation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was sponsored by NWO Exacte en Natuurwetenschappen (Physical Sciences) for the use of supercomputer facilities, with financial support from the Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research, NWO).

References

  1. Baker CJ (2007) Wind engineering - past, present and future. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 95:843–870CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blocken B, van der Hout A, 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
  3. Blocken B (2014) 50 years of computational wind engineering: past, present and future. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 129:69–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blocken B, Janssen WD, van Hooff T (2012) CFD simulation for pedestrian wind comfort and wind safety in urban areas: General decision framework and case study for the Eindhoven University campus. Environ Model Softw 30:15–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blocken B, Stathopoulos T, Carmeliet J (2007) CFD simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer: wall function problems. Atmos Environ 41:238–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burlando M, Pizzo M, Repetto MP, Solari G, De Gaetano P, Tizzi M (2014) Short-term wind forecast for the safety management of complex areas during hazardous wind events. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 135:170–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cebeci T, Bradshaw P (1977) Momentum Transfer in Boundary Layers. Hemisphere Publishing Corporation, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Ferziger JH, Perić M (2002) Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, 3rd edn. Springer, Heidelberg ISBN 978-3-540-42074-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Franke J, Hellsten A, Schlünzen, H, Carissimo, B (2007) COST Action 732 quality assurance and improvement of microscale meteorological modelsGoogle Scholar
  10. Franke J, Hellsten A, Schlünzen H, Carissimo B (2007) COST Action 732 quality assurance and improvement of microscale meteorological models. COST Action 732Google Scholar
  11. Janssen WD, Blocken B, van Wijhe HJ (2017) CFD simulations of wind loads on a container ship: validation and impact of geometrical simplifications. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 166:106–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Launder BE, Spalding DB (1974) The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 3:269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Murakami S (1990) Computational wind engineering. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 36:517–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pasquill F (1961) The estimation of the dispersion of windborne material. The Meteorological Magazine, vol 90, no 1063Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Ricci A, Burlando M, Freda A, Repetto MP (2017a) Wind tunnel measurements of the urban boundary layer development over a historical district in Italy. Build Environ 111:192–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ricci A, Kalkman I, Blocken B, Burlando M, Freda A, Repetto MP (2017b) Local-scale forcing effects on wind flows in an urban environment: impact of geometrical simplifications. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 170:238–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Schatzmann M, Olesen H, Franke J (2010) COST 732 model evaluation case studies: approach and results. COST Action 732Google Scholar
  19. Shih TH, Liou WW, Shabbir A, Zhu J (1995) A new k-ε eddy-viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows e model development and validation. Comput Fluids 24:227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Solari G (2007) The international association for wind engineering (IAWE): progress and prospects. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 95:813–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Stathopoulos T (1997) Computational wind engineering: past achievements and future challenges. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 67–68:509–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stull RB (1988) An Introduction to Boundary Layer Meteorology, 1st edn. Springer, Netherlands ISBN 978-94-009-3027-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tominaga Y, Mochida A, Yoshie R, Kataoka H, Nozu T, Yoshikawa M et al (2008) AIJ guidelines for practical applications of CFD to pedestrian wind environment around buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 96:1749–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. van Hooff T, Blocken B (2010) Coupled urban wind flow and indoor natural ventilation modelling on a high-resolution grid: a case study for the Amsterdam ArenA stadium. Environ Model Softw 25:51–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Venkatram A (1996) An examination of the Pasquill-Gifford-Turner dispersion scheme. Atmos Environ 30:1283–1290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wieringa J (1992) Updating the Davenport roughness classification. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 41–44:357–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of the Built EnvironmentEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Civil, Chemical and Environmental Engineering (DICCA)University of GenoaGenoaItaly
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringKU LeuvenLouvainBelgium

Personalised recommendations