0 views

Uploaded by Derek Fong

Characteristics of thunderstorms

- m Tech Project Ashok
- Narrow Networking Based Upon
- Jacket
- met atpl q
- Famous Winds
- Narrow Networking Based Upon
- Solution Note Easy Migration From Aspen Hysys to Unisim Design
- List of Research Topics_2017.pdf
- synchroniser 2
- IRC_006-2010
- Pressure and Wind
- Averaging Wind Speeds and Directions
- Knowledge-Based, Optimal Models for Superblocks.pdf
- Meteorology - Part A
- Harris_Rees_en1992_1_4_en1991_1_5
- Sauer Pai Book TOC
- ANSYS DesignXplorer
- Torsional Wind Loading
- J Environ Manage 2007
- Presentation 2

You are on page 1of 10

Michael Jesson1, Matthew Haines2, Nishant Singh3, Mark Sterling4 and Ian Taylor5

1

Research Fellow, School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK,

m.a.jesson@bham.ac.uk

2

PhD Student, School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

3

Research Fellow, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

4

Beale Professor of Civil Engineering, School of Civil Engineering, University of Birmingham,

Birmingham, UK

5

Lecturer, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

ABSTRACT

This paper describes work undertaken as a joint project between the University of Strathclyde (UoS)

and the University of Birmingham (UoB) in the UK, aimed at simulating thunderstorm downbursts both

physically and numerically. The UoB downburst simulator uses a 1m diameter, impinging jet with computer-

controlled fans and flaps to physically simulate a downburst, with the data gathered used for calibration and

validation of the numerical models developed at the UoS. These models, which are in an early stage of

development, use novel inlet conditions to simulate the inflow, allowing more accurate and variable inflows.

Wavelet analysis is used to compare the full-scale and physical simulation data, with correlation analyses (phase-

plots) used to identify structures within the physical simulation flow field. Initial results show a good match

between the physical simulations and full-scale, field data, and between the two sets of simulations.

Introduction

Thunderstorm downbursts are extreme wind events caused by the density change as

warm, rising air cools, resulting in the gravity-driven fall of the resulting cold air. Upon

contact with the ground, a high pressure stagnation region forms as the vertical motion is

stalled, resulting in a radial outflow (Fujita 1985). Further, a ring-shaped entrainment vortex

is created by the downdraft (Chay and Letchford 2002b), which then travels with the outflow.

At ground level, this vortex rotates in the direction of the outflow, resulting in a combined

wind speed which exceeds that of the outflow alone. The existence of a secondary vortex,

formed at the leading edge of the primary vortex, has been indicated by numerical simulation

(Kim and Hangan 2007; Mason et al. 2009) and leads to further localized flow acceleration.

Field data show that the velocity field associated with a downburst differs significantly

from that of synoptic wind events - velocity time-series are highly non-stationary,

characterized by rapidly increasing wind speeds which culminate in a short period (~5

minutes or less) of intense winds (Fujita 1990; Gast and Schroeder 2003; Choi 2004), while

the vertical profile shows a maximum near the ground (Fig. 1).

Fujita (1981), using his own scale developed in 1971, estimated that downburst events

were capable of causing “…SEVERE DAMAGE…Roofs and some walls torn off well-

constructed houses…steel-framed hanger-warehouse type structures torn” (Fujita 1971).

Indeed, structural failures in a number of countries have been attributed to downbursts (Chen

and Letchford 2004); downbursts are often the cause of design wind speeds but despite this,

synoptic wind profiles still tend to be used for wind loading calculations (Chay and Letchford

2002a). It is, therefore, unsurprising that downbursts have become the subject of research,

Proc. of the 8th Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering – Nagesh R. Iyer, Prem Krishna, S. Selvi Rajan and P. Harikrishna (eds)

Copyright c 2013 APCWE-VIII. All rights reserved. Published by Research Publishing, Singapore. ISBN: 978-981-07-8011-1

doi:10.3850/978-981-07-8012-8 P3 1139

Proc. of the 8th Asia-Paciﬁc Conference on Wind Engineering (APCWE-VIII)

with attempts made to record actual, full-scale downburst events, and the development of both

physical and numerical simulations. Full-scale data have been captured by airfield

anemometers as part of routine monitoring (e.g. at Andrews Air Force Base (AAFB) (Fujita

1990)), early projects such as NIMROD, MiST and JAWS (Fujita 1990) and, more recently,

the 2002 Thunderstorm Outflow Experiment which set out to make high resolution

measurements of a downburst, succeeding in recording a rear-flank downdraft on the 4th June

2002 (Gast and Schroeder 2003; Orwig and Schroeder 2007; Holmes et al. 2008).

(b

) 2006)) and velocity time-series

Fig. 1 Example vertical velocity profiles (a, (Lin and Savory

(b, (Haines et al. 2013)) of synoptic and downburst winds.

While the full-scale data is invaluable in validating the simulation work, the near

impossibility of predicting precisely when and where downbursts will occur makes

measurements such as wind loading on structures impractical at full-scale. Laboratory-based,

physical simulations of downbursts have used two approaches – slot (e.g. (Lin and Savory

2006; Lin et al. 2007; Lin 2010)) and impinging jets (e.g. (Wood et al. 2001; Chay and

Letchford 2002a; Chay and Letchford 2002b; Mason 2003; McConville 2008; McConville et

al. 2009)). The experimental work described in this paper uses a modified version of the

impinging jet apparatus of McConville et al. (2009).

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is used in a variety of ways to numerical

simulate downbursts. Research on this topic is tending to fall broadly into two disciplines;

simulating the physical mechanisms of a downburst, using some form of meteorological

model (e.g. (Procter 1989; Orf et al. 1996; Lin et al. 2007), or simulating the physical

simulators being used for research (e.g. (Selvam and Holmes 1992; Zhou et al. 2012)).

Previous work by Letchford et al. (2002), Mason et al. (2005), Lin and Savory (2006) and

McConville et al. (2009) has shown that the physical simulations can match velocity time

histories reasonably well, and the data from them can be used to calibrate and validate the

numerical simulations.

The work described in this paper is part of an ongoing research project whose aim is to

investigate wind loading on structures subject to downburst winds, using a combination of

physical and numerical simulations. All of the simulations described above raise a

fundamental question which is discussed in Sterling et al. (2011) – i.e. “What is the

appropriate scaling to use in the physical simulations?” This problem is inherent to this type

of simulation, and it is envisaged that numerical studies may help to shed some light on the

subject. A brief description of the physical and numerical simulations undertaken for the

current work follows this introduction. Preliminary results are then given (more detailed

results and conclusions will appear in the full paper).

1140

Proc. of the 8th Asia-Paciﬁc Conference on Wind Engineering (APCWE-VIII)

Experimental Apparatus

McConville et al. (2009). Essentially, a 1m diameter impinging jet is created using computer

controlled fans and flaps, with the flaps controlling the onset of the downdraft. The flaps used

by McConville et al. have been replaced with more robust, plywood flaps, which are

counterweighted to prevent oscillation and hold them in the “open” position once released. A

jet velocity of Vj =13.7m/s is achieved, with a turbulence intensity of 13%. The jet impinges

onto a raised ground-plane, 2m below the jet outlet, with high frequency velocity and pressure

measurements made using 2000Hz Cobra probes and a bespoke, 500Hz, 64-channel pressure

measurement system respectively.

Numerical Simulation

The numerical simulation uses a numerical domain which is set up to closely match

the physical simulation. It uses an LES numerical method, similar to the work of Zhou et al.

(2012) with some important differences. The simulation is not of a jet which ramps up to a

steady state - in the same manner that the physical simulator turns the jet on and off again to

create a pulse so that only the vortex of the simulator is studied, the numerical model does the

same. In addition the inlet conditions can be changed from a non-steady jet, to a variety of

turbulent inlets. This includes a novel mixed-synthetic turbulent inlet developed by Singh

(2012). This works by selecting an appropriate correlation function for space and time and

also by selecting a true analytical representation of turbulence. For the synthetic LES

simulation, a mixed spectral method generates the turbulent velocity ¿eld with a designated

temporal correlation, a two point spatial correlation and a one point cross correlation. It is

envisaged that more accurately modelling the turbulence at the inlet, and also being able to

have some degree of control over it, will allow a range of conditions which aren’t possible in

the laboratory to be simulated.

In order to validate the physical simulations (“UoB”), comparison with the full-scale

data recorded during the Andrews Air Force Base (AAFB) downburst was made. The

velocities of both the UoB and AAFB data were non-dimensionalised using the respective

downdraft/jet velocity, Vj, while a dimensionless time, t*, was calculated as t* = tVj/D. For the

AAFB data, D = 1000m and Vj = 40ms-1 were used. The value for D is based on previous

estimates for the diameter of the AAFB downdraft (e.g. (Fujita 1985; Holmes and Oliver

2000)), while Vj is estimated from the Vj/D ~ 1.6 ratio seen in the physical simulations. It

should also be noted that the physical simulations do not replicate the translational motion of

a full-scale downburst. The non-dimensional time-series show close matching of the initial

peak (Fig. 2) – the second large peak in the AAFB data is not seen in the UoB data as it is

caused by the downburst passing over the airfield anemometer due to the translation

movement of the entire storm.

A Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT) using the Morlet wavelet has been applied

to the non-dimensional forms of both the AAFB data and a selection of the UoB data, using

the algorithm of Büssow (2007). Before applying the CWT, the time-series were padded to a

length 2(n+1), where n is the smallest integer such that 2n exceeds the length of the time-series.

Padding reduces the effects of wrap-around on edge values, while padding to a power of 2

improves the efficiency of the fast Fourier transform used within the CWT. Generally,

1141

Proc. of the 8th Asia-Paciﬁc Conference on Wind Engineering (APCWE-VIII)

padding with zeroes is used; however in the case of the time-series processed here, the initial

and final values are non-zero and so zero padding introduces a step which manifests itself at

the edges of the true data range in the power spectrum. In their algorithm (not used here),

Torrence and Compo (1998) subtract the mean value from the time-series before applying the

CWT – for a stationary signal this will bring the initial and final values close to zero,

removing the step. For the non-stationary case seen here, half of the padding was added

before the true data, using the mean value of the first ten data points, with the remainder

added after the true data, using the mean value of the last ten data points. This was seen to

reduce step effects while leaving the remaining data unaffected. Finally, a lower bound of

[min. power + 0.01(max. power – min. power)]) was applied in order to improve clarity of the

power spectra, with values below this limit set to the boundary value.

Analysis of the CWT output (Fig. 3) shows a similar duration in dimensionless time

for the increase in power due to the initial peak of the downburst. The AAFB data shows a

wider peak due to the rear edge of the downburst passing over the anemometer. Further, the

same dimensionless frequency range of the high power region (approximately 0.1 – 2) is seen

for both the full-scale and physical simulation data. From this analysis, the physical

simulations appear to be capturing both the time-domain and spectral form of a full-scale

event.

The numerical simulation work is in its early stages, but an initial examination of the

physical and numerical simulation results (Fig. 4) indicates good agreement between the two.

The initial velocity increases are negligibly different, and a plateau/dip is present in both at t =

0.3s. This dip is an indication of the presence of a secondary vortex. Although the numerical

simulation peaks slightly earlier than the physical, a maximum velocity of approximately

21m/s (1.6Vj) is seen in both.

1142

Proc. of the 8th Asia-Paciﬁc Conference on Wind Engineering (APCWE-VIII)

2

Dimensionless 10 -7.5

Frequency

-8

0 -8.5

10

-9

0 10 20 30 40

Dimensionless Time, t*

2

10 -6

Dimensionless

-6.5

Frequency

-7

0

10

-7.5

0 10 20 30 40

Dimensionless Time, t*

Fig. 3 Morlet CWT Power Spectra of the UoB (top) and AAFB (bottom) Data Sets

During a downburst the peak radial velocities are linked with the passing of the

primary, ring vortex. It would therefore be anticipated that a relationship between the vertical

velocity, w(t), and the radial velocity u(t) exists. As downburst winds are non-stationary,

standard calculations of correlation are not appropriate due to the use of the mean and

1143

Proc. of the 8th Asia-Paciﬁc Conference on Wind Engineering (APCWE-VIII)

standard deviation in the calculation – in the case of a downburst both of these parameters are

dependent on the length of time-series used. Instead, the relationship between u(t) and w(t)

has been elucidated using phase-plots, in which points (u(t), w(t)) are plotted for all t. In the

case of two random signals the phase-plot will show a random pattern; in the case of

correlated signals the phase-plot will exhibit order. In the case of the work presented here, the

phase-plot analysis is limited by the Cobra probes, which are only capable of measuring the

speed of winds whose direction lies within a ±45° cone around the probe x-axis (TFI 2013),

which was aligned horizontally and radially. A qualitative analysis is still possible, however.

For clarity, only the phase plots for x/D = 1.5, z/D = 0.02 and 0.20 are shown (Fig. 5).

Due to the short duration of the downburst event, the majority of the points (those from before

the downburst and after the passing of the vortex) lie close to w = 0. There is some spread

along the u direction, due to the post-vortex outflow velocity. For z/D < 0.04 there is little

evidence of vertical velocities, with w ~ 0, as evidenced by the z/D = 0.02 graph in Fig. 5.

This may be caused by damping of vertical motion by the wall and, more importantly, the fact

that close to the wall the ring vortex velocity is primarily horizontal, which also means that

the ring vortex has its greatest effect on the radial velocity. For analogous reasons the

maximum value of w(t) increases with height, z – the vortex velocity moves from the

horizontal towards the vertical – while the maximum u(t) decreases with height.

It is clear from Fig. 5 that the peak u(t) is preceded by upward flow and followed by

downward flow. This is indicative of the passing of the ring vortex, which has upward flow at

its leading edge and downward flow at its rear edge.

From his examination of full-scale data from the JAWS experiments, Hjelmfelt (1988)

determined that the vortex was not fully formed at the time of the maximum velocity, and

similar results are seen in the current simulations, with the maximum w(t) occurring at x/D =

2.0 (Fig. 6). From this figure it is also clear that at x/D = 1.0 there is still downward velocity,

arising from the downdraft, possibly due to a widening of the downdraft with distance from

the jet outlet.

The initial rapid rise in u(t) is, for x/D > 1.0, interrupted by a brief dip (Fig. 7). The

approximate height over which this dip is seen is given in Table 1. This dip is hypothesised to

be caused by a secondary vortex which develops at the leading edge of the primary vortex –

the existence of such a vortex has previously been suggested by, for example, Kim and

Hangan (2007), Xu and Hangan (2008) and Mason (2009). For the z/D values where the dip is

present the velocity increases rapidly immediately following the dip, with all time-series

converging before the maximum velocity is reached (Fig. 7). By isolating a short sub-section

of the time series encompassing the reduction, phase-plots can be constructed to examine the

coherence between u and w (Fig. 8). As the phase-plots lack a time scale, the point

corresponding to the temporal midpoint of the sub-section is indicated. It is evident that at the

time of the reduction u shows a decrease while w is downwards, and the subsequent increase

in u is accompanied by an increase in w, though it is noted that magnitude of the downward w

greatly exceeds that of any upward w. This pattern is also seen in phase-plots for other

positions (not shown).

In the case of Mason’s numerical simulations over flat ground, the secondary vortex

did not form until x/D ~ 1.5, as in the current study. Mason also reported lifting of the

secondary vortex by the primary vortex from x/D ~ 2.0, which is consistent with the increase

in height of the reduction region as x increases.

1144

Proc. of the 8th Asia-Paciﬁc Conference on Wind Engineering (APCWE-VIII)

Fig. 5 u(t)-w(t) Phase Plot at x/D = 1.5, z/D = 0.02 and z/D = 0.2.

which u(t) dip is seen

1.0 Not seen

1.5 0.03

2.0 0.15

(though weak above 0.13)

2.5 0.05

(some weak reduction seen above 0.05)

Table 1: Regions in which the u(t) "dip" is seen

Conclusions

impinging jet with flap aperture control) and numerically using novel inlet conditions, though

the latter work is in the early stages of development. Comparison of the physical simulation

data with full-scale data, specifically the Texas Rear Flank Downdraft event, has been

performed using direct comparison of non-dimensional velocity time-series and wavelet

1145

Proc. of the 8th Asia-Paciﬁc Conference on Wind Engineering (APCWE-VIII)

analysis. These analyses show that the physical simulations are successfully capturing the

main features of a downburst.

20

x/D = 1.5 z/D = 0.01

x/D = 1.5 z/D = 0.02

15 x/D = 1.5 z/D = 0.03

x/D = 1.5 z/D = 0.04

u(t*) (ms )

-1

10

0

0 5 10 15 25 20

30 35 40 45

t*

Fig. 7 u(t) at x/D = 1.5, z/D = 0.01, 0.02 and 0.03. Vertical lines mark the dip sub-

section.

5

x/D = 1.5 z/D = 0.01

Temporal midpoint

x/D = 1.5 z/D = 0.02

Temporal midpoint

w(t*) (ms )

-1

0 Temporal midpoint

x/D = 1.5 z/D = 0.04

Temporal midpoint

-5

0 5 10 15 20

-1

u(t*) (ms )

Fig. 8 Phase-plots for the dip sub-section indicated in Fig. 7. An additional separation of 0.5ms-1

has been added in the w direction for clarity.

primary, ring vortex and a preceding, weaker, secondary vortex. The existence of this

secondary vortex has previously been indicated by the results of other numerical simulation

studies.

Early results from the numerical simulations show consistency between the physical

and numerical simulations. These numerical simulations are intended to allow the

examination of cases which cannot be simulated physically, and their ability to reproduce the

physical simulations is encouraging.

References

1146

Proc. of the 8th Asia-Paciﬁc Conference on Wind Engineering (APCWE-VIII)

BÜSSOW, R. 2007. An algorithm for the continuous Morlet wavelet transform. Mechanical

Systems and Signal Processing, 21 (8), 2970-2979,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ymssp.2007.06.001.

CHAY, M. T. & LETCHFORD, C. W. 2002a. Pressure distributions on a cube in a simulated

thunderstorm downburst - Part A: stationary downburst observations. Journal of Wind

Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 90 (7), 711-732.

CHAY, M. T. & LETCHFORD, C. W. 2002b. Pressure distributions on a cube in a simulated

thunderstorm downburst - Part B: moving downburst observations. Journal of Wind

Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 90 (7), 733-753.

CHEN, L. & LETCHFORD, C. W. 2004. Parametric study on the along-wind response of the

CAARC building to downbursts in the time domain. Journal of Wind Engineering and

Industrial Aerodynamics, 92 (9), 703-724.

CHOI, E. C. C. 2004. Field measurement and experimental study of wind speed profile during

thunderstorms. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 92, 275-

290, 10.1016/j.jweia.2003.12.001.

FUJITA, T. T. 1971. Proposed characterization of tornadoes and hurricaines by area and

intensity. University of Chicago.

FUJITA, T. T. 1981. Tornadoes and downbursts in the context of generalized planetary

scales. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 38 (8), 1511-1534.

FUJITA, T. T. 1985. Downburst: Microburst and Macroburst, Chicago, Illinois, University of

Chicago Press.

FUJITA, T. T. 1990. Downbursts: Meteorlogical features and wind field characteristics.

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 36, 75-86.

GAST, K. D. & SCHROEDER, J. L. 2003. Supercell rear-flank downdraft as sampled in the

2002 thunderstorm outflow experiment. 11th International Conference on Wind

Engineering. Lubbock, Texax: ICWEIA.

HAINES, M., SINGH, N., STERLING, M. & TAYLOR, I. 2013. The simulation of non-

synoptic effects with applications to wind loading using CFD. European-African

Conference on Wind Engineering. Cambridge, UK.

HJELMFELT, M. R. 1988. Structure and life cycle of microburst outflows observed in

Colorado. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 27 (August), 900-927.

HOLMES, J. D., HANGAN, H. M., SCHROEDER, J. L., LETCHFORD, C. W. & ORWIG,

K. D. 2008. A forensic study of the Lubbock-Reese downdraft of 2002. Wind and

Structures, 11 (2), 137-152.

HOLMES, J. D. & OLIVER, S. E. 2000. An empirical model of a downburst. Engineering

Structures, 22, 1167-1172.

KIM, J. & HANGAN, H. 2007. Numerical simulations of impinging jets with application to

downbursts. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 95, 279-298,

doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2006.07.002.

LETCHFORD, C. W., MANS, C. & CHAY, M. T. 2002. Thunderstorms - their importance in

wind engineering, a case for the next generation wind tunnel. Journal of Wind

Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 90, 1415-1433.

LIN, W. E. 2010. Validation of a novel downdraft outflow simulator: a slot jet wind tunnel.

The University of Western Ontario.

LIN, W. E., ORF, L. G., SAVORY, E. & NOVACCO, C. 2007. Proposed large-scale

modelling of the transient features of a downburst outflow. Wind and Structures, 10

(4), 315-346.

LIN, W. E. & SAVORY, E. 2006. Large-scale quasi steady modelling of a downburst outflow

using a slot jet. Wind and Structures, 9 (6), 419-440.

1147

Proc. of the 8th Asia-Paciﬁc Conference on Wind Engineering (APCWE-VIII)

MASON, M. S. 2003. Pulsed jet simulation of thunderstorm downbursts. MSc Thesis, Texas

Tech University.

MASON, M. S., LETCHFORD, C. W. & JAMES, D. L. 2005. Pulsed wall jet simulation of a

stationary thunderstorm downburst, Part A: Physical structure and flow field

charaterisation. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 93, 557-

580.

MASON, M. S., WOOD, G. S. & FLETCHER, D. F. 2009. Numerical simulation of

downburst winds. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 97,

523-539.

MCCONVILLE, A. C. 2008. The Physical Simulation of Thunderstorm Downbursts.

University of Birmingham.

MCCONVILLE, A. C., STERLING, M. & BAKER, C. J. 2009. The physical simulation of

thunderstorm downbursts using an impinging jet. Wind and Structures, 12 (2), 133-

149.

ORF, L. G., ANDERSON, J. R. & STRAKA, J. M. 1996. A three-dimensional numerical

analysis of colliding microburst outflow dynamics. Journal of the Atmospheric

Sciences, 53 (17), 2490-2511.

ORWIG, K. D. & SCHROEDER, J. L. 2007. Near-surface wind characteristics of extreme

thunderstorm outflows. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 95

(7), 565-584, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2006.12.002.

PROCTER, F. H. 1989. Numerical simulations of an isolated microburst. Part II: sensitivity

experiments. Journal of the Atmospheric Sciences, 46 (14), 2143-2165.

SELVAM, R. P. & HOLMES, J. D. 1992. Numerical simulation of thunderstorm downdrafts.

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 44 (4), 2817-2825.

SINGH, N. K. 2012. Large Eddy Simulation of acoustic propagation in turbulent flow

through ducts and mufflers. PhD, University of Hull, UK.

STERLING, M., BAKER, C. J., HAINES, M. & QUINN, A. D. 2011. Scaling a thunderstorm

downburst simulator. In: 13th International Conference on Wind Engineering, 2011

Amsterdam, The Netherlands. ICWE, RAI.

TFI. 2013. Cobra Probe [Online]. Victoria, Australia: Turbulent Flow Instrumentation Pty

Ltd. Available: http://www.turbulentflow.com.au/Downloads/Flyer_CobraProbe.pdf

[Accessed 29th August 2013].

TORRENCE, C. & COMPO, G. P. 1998. A Practical Guide to Wavelet Analysis. Bulletin of

the American Meteorological Society, 79 (1), 61-78, 10.1175/1520-

0477(1998)079<0061:apgtwa>2.0.co;2.

WOOD, G. A., KWOK, K. C. S., MOTTERAM, N. A. & FLETCHER, D. A. 2001. Physical

and numerical modelling of thunderstorm downbursts. Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics, 89 (6), 535-335.

XU, Z. & HANGAN, H. 2008. Scale, boundary and inlet condition effects on impinging jets.

Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 96, 2383-2402,

doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2008.04.002.

ZHOU, X., WANG, F. & LIU, C. 2012. Wind pressure on a solar updraft tower in a simulated

stationary thunderstorm downburst. Wind and Structures, 15 (4), 331-343.

1148

- Narrow Networking Based UponUploaded bysfofoby
- JacketUploaded byKannan As
- met atpl qUploaded byBharat Harmilapi
- Solution Note Easy Migration From Aspen Hysys to Unisim DesignUploaded byCostas Aggelidis
- m Tech Project AshokUploaded byNani Nani
- Famous WindsUploaded byNarendra Kumar
- List of Research Topics_2017.pdfUploaded byMy Techtutorial
- Pressure and WindUploaded byRavi Andhale
- synchroniser 2Uploaded byAshok
- Narrow Networking Based UponUploaded bysfofoby
- Averaging Wind Speeds and DirectionsUploaded byFranco Palenque Valdez
- Harris_Rees_en1992_1_4_en1991_1_5Uploaded byabbaszk
- IRC_006-2010Uploaded byAnonymous ZSwvRe
- Knowledge-Based, Optimal Models for Superblocks.pdfUploaded byajitkk79
- Sauer Pai Book TOCUploaded byUmer Qureshi
- ANSYS DesignXplorerUploaded byVasundhara Kumari Peddinti
- Meteorology - Part AUploaded bytskbarca
- Torsional Wind LoadingUploaded byKmrnKhn
- J Environ Manage 2007Uploaded byLucica Barbes
- Presentation 2Uploaded byKrutiGDesai
- MesoMacroscaleSimulations--CDSMUploaded byvetti Kutty
- Reviewer (Definition of Terms) - Earthquake EnggUploaded byMich Camcam
- Ch 11Uploaded byboeingairbus1957
- 99639Uploaded byJose Deniz
- Paper 01S05 Finance Training can be a fun.pdfUploaded bysaqawsaqaw
- Full Report StellaUploaded byNOR HAYATUN RAHIMAH BINTI ROSLI
- Fikadie Alamirew.pdfUploaded byshangz1511
- matlab udexUploaded bymilpro
- ADVISOR_a_systems_analysis_tool_for_adva.pdfUploaded bybrufpot
- SV_JME_54200802_131_139_LjubenkovUploaded byArdiansyah

- fatigue fracture behaviorUploaded byDerek Fong
- gust loading document.pdfUploaded byDerek Fong
- wood60aUploaded byDerek Fong
- A New Fracture Mechanics Theory of Wood Extended Second EditionUploaded byDerek Fong
- Thunderstorm gust front characteristicsUploaded byDerek Fong
- Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the DoUploaded byDerek Fong
- Aluminum Joining ManualUploaded byDerek Fong
- Standard_P1833.docUploaded byDerek Fong

- Indeces, Standard FormUploaded byChristina Yee
- CCNA 2 Final V4.1 AnswersUploaded byccnadiscovery4
- Test Automation FrameworkUploaded byShalabh Dixit
- kurperaUploaded byEdwardo Itba
- What is CAS CCS and R2Uploaded byhemantsajwan
- AddOracleDbToOracleClusterGroup.ps1Uploaded byLo Mejor Medellin
- PS SAP PM Maintenance ProcessingUploaded byEric Brogin
- Advanced Sub Queries in Proc Sq lUploaded byMangeshWagle
- 10. Development of Fingerprint Biometric Attendance System for Non-Academic Staff in a Tertiary Institution.pdfUploaded byimdad ali
- Idl Simple ManualUploaded bypradeepkgk
- DE164 100 Series Windows 7 Setup Guide PrintUploaded bydrjperumal
- Cpp HowToProgramUploaded byDotrung Kien
- Interim Rates for Wholesale Residential and Business High Speed Access ServicesUploaded byMark Goldberg
- Digital Voltmeter Using PIC MicrocontrollerUploaded bybecem
- SAP PPUploaded byadi8066
- mat-f90Uploaded byKevin Devalentino Versi II
- TM210TRE.40-EnG_Working With Automation Studio_V4200Uploaded byVladan Milojević
- h61m vs MultiqigUploaded byJestor Torres
- Matlab 14Uploaded byadnan
- Element SizeUploaded byCreysson82
- txeis district administration training guide 2 0 0001Uploaded byapi-267803318
- Final Project ReportUploaded byAJCann
- A Visual Model Weighted Cos,ine Transform for Image Compression and Quality AssessmentUploaded byrishi_lv
- 6361459 PC XT Technical Reference Apr84Uploaded bykgrhoads
- MN_SINAUT-ST7cc_76Uploaded byaszapla
- Optimal location and sizing of DG units to improve the voltage stability in the distribution system using Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm with Time Varying Acceleration CoefficientsUploaded byGRD Journals
- MLvsMAPUploaded byhmbx
- Hypermorph TutorialUploaded byChrissy Watson
- Zegarra Final InglesUploaded byJoseZegarraSiles
- NII - IT SDLC - 1.0.T.01 Business Requirements SDLC Template_TEMPORALUploaded bykrishtal25