Natural cross-ventilation in buildings: Building-scale experiments, numerical

simulation and thermal comfort evaluation
G.M. Stavrakakis
a
, M.K. Koukou
b
, M.Gr. Vrachopoulos
b
, N.C. Markatos
a,
*
a
Computational Fluid Dynamics Unit, School of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Iroon Polytechniou 9, GR-15780 Athens, Greece
b
Environmental Research Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Technological Educational Institution of Halkida, Psachna GR-34400, Greece
1. Introduction
Mechanical ventilation in buildings is common practice
nowadays, due to the need to provide thermal comfort and good
indoor air quality in enclosed spaces. The energy consumption
related to the operation of heating, ventilating and air-condition-
ing (HVAC) systems is considerable. According to recently
published data, nearly 68% of the total energy used in service
and residential buildings is attributable to HVAC systems [1]. On
the other hand, natural ventilation replaces indoor air with fresh
outdoor air without any energy consumption, and it also helps to
overcome common health problems related to insufficient
maintenance of mechanical ventilation systems. Typically, the
energy cost of a naturally ventilated building is 40% less than that
of an air-conditioned building [2,3]. From a design’s point of view,
it is noticeable that modern building designers make imaginative
use of glass and space to create well-lit and attractive interiors [4].
However, these buildings are usually characterised by tightness
and highly glazed facades, often with poor shading. This, combined
with extra heat gains from the electric lighting and office
equipment, such as computers and photocopiers, increase the
overheating risk that is finally leading to a significant degradation
of indoor thermal comfort [5]. This problem is challenging for
engineers who must design optimum ventilation systems given
the above constraints of improvident application of HVAC systems.
Natural ventilation uses the freely available resources of wind and
solar energy and could represent an optimum ventilation
technique. Although, these resources are free, they are very
difficult to control [4]. The challenge is to provide the appropriate
control mechanisms to establish the required indoor air quality
(IAQ). To achieve this, it is necessary to understand the physics of
natural ventilation.
The air movement in a naturally ventilated building is a result of
pressure differences produced by wind and buoyancy forces [4,6].
The most common models to predict the performance of naturally
ventilated buildings are network, zonal and field (computational
fluid dynamics, CFD) models. Network models are used for the
airflow rate prediction through the openings of a building. This
kind of models can predict the airflow rates adequately but have
the disadvantage of not predicting the airflow field inside the
Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681
A R T I C L E I N F O
Article history:
Received 29 November 2007
Received in revised form 8 February 2008
Accepted 19 February 2008
Keywords:
Natural ventilation
Cross-ventilation
Turbulence
Buoyancy
CFD
Thermal comfort
A B S T R A C T
The constantly increasing energy consumption due to the use of mechanical ventilation contributes to
atmospheric pollution and global warming. An alternative method to overcome this problem is natural
ventilation. The proper design of natural ventilation must be based on detailed understanding of airflow
within enclosed spaces, governed by pressure differences due to wind and buoyancy forces. In the present
study, natural cross-ventilation with openings at non-symmetrical locations is examined experimentally
in a test chamber and numerically using advanced computational fluid dynamics techniques. The
experimental part consisted of temperature and velocity measurements at strategically selected
locations in the chamber, during noon and afternoon hours of typical summer days. External weather
conditions were recorded by a weather station at the chamber’s site. The computational part of the study
consisted of the steady-state application of three Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models
modified to account for both wind and buoyancy effects: the standard k–e, the RNG k–e and the so-called
‘‘realizable’’ k–e models. Two computational domains were used, corresponding to each recorded wind
incidence angle. It is concluded that all turbulence models applied agree relatively well with the
experimental measurements. The indoor thermal environment was also studied using two thermal
comfort models found in literature for the estimation of thermal comfort under high-temperature
experimental conditions.
ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +30 210772 3126; fax: +30 210772 3228.
E-mail addresses: gstavr@mail.ntua.gr, N.Markatos@ntua.gr (N.C. Markatos).
Cont ent s l i st s avai l abl e at Sci enceDi r ect
Energy and Buildings
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ enbui l d
0378-7788/$ – see front matter ß 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2008.02.022
building, thus they produce little information about pollutant
transport and local thermal discomfort. When experimental data
do not exist, network models could be used for validation of
implemented CFD models, such as in reference [7]. On the other
hand, zonal modelling may predict both the airflow rates and air
distribution with relatively high accuracy, especially when
temperature variations are concerned. However, applications of
these models in cases of mixed convection in indoor spaces
showed that zonal models did not provide satisfactory predictions
for velocity distribution concerning indoor airflow [8]. In this last
investigation, CFDand zonal models were compared with available
experimental data. The main conclusion was that zonal modelling
under-predicted velocity distribution compared to the CFD model
which provided higher accuracy concerning the airflow field and
thus gave a better prediction of the recirculation region. The same
conclusion may be found in reference [9], where isothermal indoor
airflowis investigated. This work shows that airflowpredictions in
large spaces are substantially more accurate when obtained by a
CFD model, even with coarse grids, than that obtained by various
zonal models. Finally, for complicated flow fields the specification
of ‘‘zones’’ is at best speculative. For this reason, field modelling is
considered to be a more accurate method to deal with the problem
of natural cross ventilation. Especially when the airflow is
represented by strong streamline curvature, due to wind forces,
CFD modelling is considered as the most suitable tool for reliable
airflow simulation. The more accurate the information of any
recirculation region the more advanced the knowledge about local
thermal discomfort (especially due to air draughts) and pollutant
distribution; for example, the possibility of pollutant confinement
in certain regions of the indoor space.
Natural ventilation has been widely investigated by many
researchers. Jiang et al. [10] presented an extensive experimental
and computational study (LES, large eddy simulation) of natural
ventilation, driven only by wind forces for simple geometries
representing cross-ventilation and single-sided ventilation con-
figurations. In order to reduce the computational cost, Evola and
Popov [11] applied Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
models, the standard and the RNGk–e models, for the experimental
set up described in reference [10], and also obtained reasonable
accuracy for the velocity distributioninside the building model and
also for the ventilation flow rates. In most cases, research for wind
forces effects on natural cross-ventilation is focused on wind
tunnel experiments for symmetric building-like models, and is
often associated with advanced turbulence models such as LES
[11–15]. These investigations provide useful information about the
air movement inside buildings, but the geometrical symmetry and
the controlled conditions in wind tunnels mean that the flowtakes
place under idealized conditions. Building-scale experimental
results of the wind effect for a single-sided ventilation case were
presented by Dascalaki et al. [16]. A validated LES model for this
case may also be found in reference [15]. Buoyancy-driven single-
sided natural ventilation has also been studied widely for the
assessment of any heat gain by internal heat sources in enclosed
spaces [17,18]. Experimental measurements and numerical
analysis of this type of natural ventilation may be found in
reference [17], where an LES model is validated with experimental
data for a simple geometry. In case of problems with more complex
geometries, for which the demand of computational resources is
high, RANS modelling may produce reasonably accurate results
[18,2]. The first application of such models was back in 1983 by
Markatos [19]. A case of combining wind and buoyancy forces was
presented by Chen [20], for the discussion of the potential of CFDin
order to design buildings that take advantage of the wind, with
internal heat gains taken into account. Thermal comfort provided
by natural ventilation has also been studied in reference [21]. The
main conclusion was that indoor thermal comfort in summer can
be improved by appropriately controlling window opening, in
accordance with the temporal variations of indoor and outdoor
climatic conditions.
The objective of the present study is to investigate the potential
of RANS modelling in natural cross-ventilation for an experimental
chamber with two openings (doors) at non-symmetrical locations.
The research focuses on the numerical analysis of indoor airflow
using CFD techniques and the validation of the numerical
predictions with the experimental results. Both wind and buoy-
ancy forces were taken into account to obtain results for velocity
and temperature distributions. The numerical results were
validated with the experimental measurements for two typical
summer days. The reliability of the mathematical models applied
was also investigated using two different computational domains,
according to the wind incidence angle and also accounting for
internal–external flow effects. Finally, thermal conditions of the
chamber were examined by integrating two additional mathema-
tical models, found in literature [22–26], standing for thermal
comfort.
2. Method of analysis
2.1. General
In the present study, natural cross-ventilation is examined
experimentally and numerically. The experiments took place in a
chamber, also presented in reference [27], that was built, among
others, for indoor air quality examination purposes and consisted
of a roof covered with roman tiles and a radiant barrier reflective
insulation system(Fig. 1, Section 2.2 for further details). Two doors
are located at the north and south facing walls and the room is
ventilated through these openings. A small internal partition of
1 mheight is also located adjacent to the north wall. As far as wind
forces are concerned, both doors were kept wide open (cross-
ventilation) to ensure relatively large pressure differences. The
reflective insulation of the side walls causes temperature
differences between internal and external surfaces of the walls.
This creates temperature difference among internal wall surfaces
Fig. 1. (a) Experimental chamber and (b) geometrical details.
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1667
and incoming outdoor thermal masses and consequently genera-
tion of buoyancy forces. The above-mentioned arrangement of the
building establishes an internal air movement governed by both
wind and buoyancy forces.
Referring to the numerical simulation, a mathematical model
was developed for the prediction of indoor air movement, within
the general framework provided by a commercial CFD code
(FLUENT 6.3.26). The model is based on three high Reynolds
number RANS turbulence models, modified for buoyancy effects,
that were tested following the procedure reported in reference
[28]. Boundary conditions were provided by measurements
accomplished for internal flow by thermo-couples or for external
flow by a weather station. The simulated airflow was examined in
terms of two different computational domains, due to various wind
incidence angles, and finally the temperature and velocity
distributions were the outcome of the solution procedure.
Thermal comfort predictions in the occupied zone were also
included using two models found in literature, assessing local and
global (general) discomfort. The first one, used for local discomfort
assessment, is the well-known PMV/PPD model [22–24], extended
to account for non-air-conditioned buildings in warm climates
[25]. The factors predicted mean vote (PMV), predicted percentage
dissatisfied (PPD) and percentage dissatisfied (PD) represent a
quantification of thermal dissatisfaction of occupants under
several activity levels and clothing, with respect to air tempera-
ture, air velocity, turbulence, wall temperatures and relative
humidity. The second thermal comfort model, used for global
discomfort assessment, is the so-called ‘‘adaptive model’’ of
thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings found in
references [26] and [29], where it is presented as an optional
model. It is based on an extensive field study by de Dear et al. [30]
and determines a range of indoor comfort temperatures that
correspond to a percentage of thermal acceptability, as a function
of the mean monthly outdoor temperature. Details for both models
are given in Section 2.3 below.
2.2. Experimental equipment, methodology and results
The test room is of dimensions 6 m 4 m 5.5 m (Fig. 1a and
b). The side walls are a two series brick construction with a bubble
material lamination among layers of aluminum foil placed in the
20 mm gap of the brick layers. The total wall thickness consists of
90 mm brick, 10 mm air gap, 1 or 2 mm reflective insulation,
10 mmair gap and 90 mmbrick. The walls can be coated internally
and externally resulting to a total width ranging from 200 to
240 mm (including a 20 mm thickness of the wall sheathing-
plaster on each side). The experimental measurements referring to
velocity and temperature, obtained at various locations of the test
room were selected according to regulations found in reference
[24]. The schedule of the experiments included 3 h total sampling
period for two typical summer days and the time-interval
sampling between consecutive measurements was 60 s. Under
those imposed conditions, there were simultaneous recordings of
temperature and velocity at the middle of the inlet door A1 or A2
(being south or north doors, respectively, according to wind data
taken by a weather station), at positions B1, B2, C1, C2, C3 and of
temperature at point D (middle of the room) (Fig. 2a). That was for
the first day’s arrangement (case A). For the second day’s
experimental arrangement (case B), the sampling points were
different and measurements were obtained as follows: velocity
and temperature at A1 or A2, B1, B2, B3, C1, C2, C3 (Fig. 2b). For
both experiments, temperatures at the middle of the internal
surface of each wall were also recorded. The exact location,
measured flow property at each sampling point and which door
plays the role of inlet are given in Table 1. Temperature and
(one-dimensional) velocity measurements in the test room were
obtained using the KIMO thermo-anemometer multi-probes VT
200F [31] with accuracy of Æ3% for readings of 0–3 m/s and Æ2% for
reading of 0.1 8C.
Temperature of internal wall surfaces of the walls was
measured using UTECO thermo-couples DIN 43732, connected
to a data logging system [32] for the collection of the experimental
results.
Sample experimental results obtained (also presented in
reference [33]), for example, for case A, referring to velocity and
temperature at the selected locations and the temperature of the
building walls are presented in Figs. 3 and 4, respectively.
Bi-directional flow may occur through the openings due to
buoyancy forces. In this case, information about the infiltrating air
may be lost by placing the air speed sensor at the middle of the
inlet door. Thus, it is important to investigate this possibility under
the current experimental conditions for both cases. The measured
temperature differences between indoor and outdoor airflows
were 1.9 and 1.0 8C for cases A and B (see Table 2; Fig. 3),
respectively. According to the above temperature differences, the
comparison of the importance of wind and buoyancy forces is
obtained using the Archimedes number as follows [15]:
Ar ¼
Grashof
Reynolds
2
¼
bgH
3
DT
U
2
D
2
(1)
where b = 1/T
ref
is the thermal expansion coefficient, T
ref
the
reference temperature taken as T
ref
¼ ðT
outdoor
þT
walls average
Þ=2,
g = 9.81 m/s
2
the gravitational force, DT ¼
1:9

Cfor case A
1:0

Cfor case B

, U
the wind speed at the building height. Its value is taken by the
power-law profile of the incoming wind using Eq. (3). H is the
height of the inlet door and D is the chamber’s depth equal to 4 m
(see Fig. 1b).
Fig. 2. Arrangement of probes for: (a) case A and (b) case B.
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1668
Using the above data, Eq. (1) gives an Ar number equal to 0.02
and 0.0029 for cases A and B, respectively. Thus, because of Ar (1
for both cases, natural convection due to the buoyancy effect is
much smaller than forced convection due to the wind effect.
Furthermore, the chamber is free of internal thermal sources and
also, even though the height at which wind speed is recorded is
relatively low (7.5 m), the chamber is built in a rural environment
free of thermal sources. All the above advocate that the airflow
inside and outside the chamber is wind dominant. However, the
buoyancy effect is not neglected in the CFD model due to the
presence of experimental results for temperature, used for further
verification of the numerical results.
Under the action of the wind, and taking into account that both
openings have the same dimensions and also that the internal
space has no obstacles except the small partition, the air flows in
through the one opening leading to high pressures at this area. The
pressure at the opposite door is lower and due to this pressure
difference between the two doors, the air is finally leaving the
chamber through the opposite door. According to the above
analysis, the flow through the openings is not bi-directional (if it
were it would have been predicted by the CFD model, which is
described below, as, for example, in reference [2]). Thus, the
velocity at the middle of the opening is representative of the air
entering the chamber.
2.3. Mathematical modelling
2.3.1. The governing equations
Natural ventilation is a phenomenon of random nature due to
the constant changes of external weather conditions. Thus, any
mathematical model applied for the prediction of natural
ventilation should include the dynamic nature of the external
conditions. In applying a CFD method one should ideally use a
time-dependent approach, which, however, would require knowl-
edge of the time-dependent variations of the boundary conditions
used. This technique would provide very detailed and useful
information about natural ventilation but it requires excessive
computational resources for practical applications. An engineer’s
approach to overcome such technical restrictions is the steady-
state assumption, as most phenomena take place at almost steady-
state conditions over long periods of time. Furthermore, during
day-time cycles in real buildings, temperature changes occur but
the steady-state assumption is considered to be valid over long
periods, because the time needed for the development of the
airflow pattern is short compared to the duration of the day-time
cycle and the values of the time constants of the massive building
elements required for passive ventilation. Thus, in order to
recognize potential time-averaged values of temperatures and
velocities, two temporal sub-domains were chosen, representative
of minimum fluctuations of monitored flow properties for noon
and afternoon hours of cases A and B, respectively. The selected
time periods were 13:00–13:30 h (case A) and 19:00–19:30 h (case
B). In any case, the mathematical model developed is general and
may be applied to both steady-state and transient problems, as
required.
The ensemble-averaged values of the external wind were
selected for time periods not exceeding the recommended time
period limit of 30 min, as found in reference [34] for field
measurements. Following this, the selected 30 min time periods of
the experimental cases studied were identified according to – as
Table 1
x, y, z coordinates of experimental locations
Case A A1 A2 (inlet) B1 B2 C1 C2 C3 D
Coordinates (x, y, z) 5.25, 0, 1.1 0.75, 4, 1.1 4.7, 0.7, 0.5 4.7, 0.7, 1.25 1.8, 1.6, 0.77 1.8, 1.6, 1.4 1.8, 1.6, 1.93 3, 2, 2.75
Temperature O X X X X X X X
Velocity O X X X X X X O
Case B A1 (inlet) A2 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3
Coordinates (x, y, z) 5.25, 0, 1.1 0.75, 4, 1.1 3, 2, 0.2 3, 2, 2 3, 2, 3 0.7, 2, 0.5 0.7, 2, 1 0.7, 2, 2
Temperature X O X X X X X X
Velocity X O X X X X X X
Symbols: X for measured property, O for non-measured property.
Fig. 3. Typical experimental results for velocity and temperature, case A. Fig. 4. Temperature at the middle of the internal surface of each wall, case A.
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1669
stable as possible – recordings of external and internal conditions
provided by the weather station and the hot-wires, respectively. A
similar technique can also be found in reference [35]. Significant
information is provided by the steady-state solution concerning
the effects of the prevailing ensemble-averaged values of winds of
any building’s site on the internal structure of the flow. Since CFDis
based on mean representative wind data, it could lead to optimal
designs even in the pre-construction phase of a building, with the
external ‘‘fluid mechanics’’ taken into account.
The mathematical model applies numerical techniques to solve
the Navier-Stokes (N-S), continuity and energy equations for 3D,
turbulent fluid flow. All the governing conservation equations, for
steady-state conditions, can be written in the following general
form [36]:
divðr~u’ ÀG

grad’Þ ¼ S

(2)
where w is the dependent variable, i.e. 1 for mass continuity, ~u for
velocity, T for temperature, C
i
for the concentration of various
chemical species i, G
w
the ‘‘effective’’ exchange coefficient of
variable w and S
w
is the source/sink term of variable w [36]. The
transferred quantity w also stands for turbulence dependent
variables, here k the kinetic energy of turbulence and e the eddy
dissipation rate. In this study, three RANS models were applied, the
standard k–e, the RNG k–e [37] and the so-called ‘‘realizable’’ k–e
[38] model, all modified to account for buoyancy effects due to
density differences [28]. All models treat flow effects close to walls
usingstandardwall functions [39,40]. The assumptions madefor the
problem were: (a) single phase, steady-state flow for a Newtonian
fluid and (b) heat transfer at the walls by either conduction or
radiation was neglected due to the already measured internal-wall-
surface temperature and the use of reflective insulation.
The CFD code used for the numerical simulations employs a
standard finite-volume method and a body-fitted structured grid
[41], which is adopted to account for two different computational
domains, corresponding to 358 (grid A) and 908 (grid B) wind
incidence angle for cases A and B, respectively (Section 2.3.2 for
further details). The first-order upwind discretization scheme and
the SIMPLE solution algorithm for handling pressure were used
[42]. Simulations were performed on a Windows PC with one
2.4 GHz CPUs and 1 GB of RAMand required approximately 36 and
24 h for the optimum grids A and B, respectively.
2.3.2. Computational domains and spatial discretization
As mentioned earlier, two grid methodologies were applied for
the simulation according to the wind incidence angle. The main
purpose was to simulate the air movement in the chamber as a
result of the interaction among internal and external flow effects,
within reasonable computational resources. The problem follows
the general theoretical aspects of the flow around a bluff body.
Consequently, specific techniques found in literature [43,44] were
applied concerning the computational domain. Thus, in case of
vertical wind direction (case B) the computational domain, for
which grid B was constructed, had a downstreamlength of 10H(H:
chamber’s height), an upstream length of 5H, a lateral length of 5H
on both sides of the chamber and a height of 18.2H, in order to
impose, as inflow boundary conditions, the appropriate velocity
and turbulence distribution, corresponding to the atmospheric
boundary layer. In case of non-vertical wind direction (case A), two
inflowboundaries are needed to account for the incoming wind. In
order to capture the reattachment point downwind to the chamber
correctly, two outflow boundaries were imposed being the
downwind faces of the flow domain. This leads to a computational
domain, resulting to grid A, which consisted of 10H length among
the chamber’s external walls and all lateral boundaries with the
high boundary being at the same height as in the case of vertical
wind direction. The computational domains constructed for each
experimental case and the corresponding inlet door are presented
in Fig. 5.
Since grid Ais simply a result of dimensional expansion of grid B
in regions where no flow obstructions occur, a grid-independency
study was only performed for grid B. The optimummesh produced
for grid B led to the optimumgrid A with additional meshing in the
extra regions of the computational domain in the case of non-
vertical flow direction. Spatial discretization of the flow domain
was examined by repeating runs for grids with continuously
increased grid-nodes density. A comparison for the vertical
velocity distribution at the middle of the test room, obtained
using various grids is presented in Fig. 6.
The solution obtained using each grid was also examined for
other independent variables at various physical locations of the
domain and, as demonstrated in Fig. 6, a grid-independent solution
was achieved using a grid consisting of 636,456 hexahedral cells
for grid B and, consequently, a grid of 730,488 hexahedral cells for
grid A, corresponding to experimental cases B and A, respectively.
Table 2
Experimental conditions
External conditions
Cases Inflow planes (Fig. 5) Relative humidity (%) Outdoor temperature (K) Wind speed at 7.5 m (m/s) Incidence angle (u)
Case A A1, A2 19.2 308.90 1.48 358
Case B B1 24.8 305.50 2.85 908
Internal conditions
Cases T
north wall
T
south wall
T
west wall
T
east wall
Case A 300.9 303.0 301.4 302.0
Case B 302.0 302.1 302.0 302.1
Fig. 5. Computational domains for each case: A1 and A2, inflow boundaries for case
A; B1, inflow boundary for case B.
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1670
The optimum discretization for both grids A and B is presented in
Fig. 7. The selection of a structured grid, instead of a more
convenient unstructured was due to more accurate results that
may be obtained, at least for the case of the flow around a bluff
body, using a structured grid, as found in reference [45].
The grids used were highly non-uniformcharacterised by high
grid-nodes density near solid surfaces. The minimum cell size
near each wall was 0.05 m, leading to y
+
values less than 150 in
order to apply properly ‘‘wall-function’’ boundary conditions
[39,46].
2.3.3. Boundary conditions and special sources
For some of the imposed boundary conditions measured data
representing external and internal conditions have been used,
while the rest are set according to well-known practices
[2,11,21]. For the selected time periods (Section 2.2) of
experimental monitoring, time-averaged values were produced
referring to outdoor temperature, relative humidity, wind speed
and direction at 7.5 m from the ground, as provided by a weather
station. At the interior, wall temperatures were measured at the
middle of each internal wall surface. The measured boundary
values are summarized in Table 2. According to these measured
flow variables, the boundary conditions were categorized as
follows:
(1) Solid planes: No-slip, no-penetration condition for momentum
and fixed temperatures.
(2) Symmetry planes: Zero normal velocity and zero normal
gradients of all variables.
(3) Outflow planes: Zero diffusion flux for all variables and overall
mass balance correction [47].
Fig. 7. Optimum mesh for both grids A and B: (a) three-dimensional meshing, (b) longitudinal meshing, (c) partition’s height plane meshing and (d) traverse plane meshing.
Fig. 6. Velocity distribution with height at the middle of the test room for various
grids (case of grid B).
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1671
(4) Inflow planes: Specified external temperature and moisture
mass fraction as given by the weather station. Modified
equations of the atmospheric boundary layer [48] were
used to account also for incidence angles other than
vertical:
u ¼ u
ref
z
h

1=7
(3)
v ¼ v
ref
z
h

1=7
(4)
k
inflow
¼
u
2
Ã
ffiffiffiffiffiffi
C
m
1 À
z
h

2
(5)
e
inflow
¼
C
3=4
m
k
3=2
l
(6)
where u, v, k
inflow
, e
inflow
are the inflow velocity and turbulence
properties; u
ref
¼ vel
ref
sin u and v
ref
¼ vel
ref
cos u, h = 300 m. u stands
for wind incidence angle. If u = 908 then Eqs. (3)–(6) were imposed
only at the upwind boundary (plane B1, see Fig. 5). If u < 908 then
Eqs. (3)–(6) were imposed at the upwind (west) and at the one
lateral (north) boundary (planes A1 and A2, see Fig. 5). u
*
is the
friction velocity, u
Ã
¼
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
t
w
=r

. t
w
is the shear stress and t
w
¼
f rvel
2
ref
=2 is the density of the mixture of air and moisture. f is the
friction coefficient f ¼ 0:045ðvel
ref
h=vÞ
À1=4
. v is the kinematic
viscosity of air. vel
ref
is the wind velocity at 100 m provided by the
recorded velocity and the calculated one (Eq. (3)) at 7.5 and at
300 m, respectively, by the weather station using Eq. (3). l is the
mixing length, l = min[kz, 0.085h]. k = 0.41 stands for the Von
Karman constant and C
m
= 0.09.
The main difference of the ‘‘realizable’’ k–e model against the
other two models is that it is based on the dynamic equation for
fluctuating vorticity. This leads to a C
m
value expressed as function
of vorticity and not just as a fixed value [38]. However, the imposed
C
m
at the inflow boundaries is considered acceptable as the
incoming flow is simulated as a flat boundary layer, for which
experiments have shown that C
m
% 0.09 in the inertial sublayer
[38].
The experimental chamber is built in a flat rural environment
(Psachna area, Evia, Greece) surrounded by low-rise trees and low-
rise residences at a sufficiently away distance. Thus, any external
disturbance of the incoming wind is assumed to be eliminated and
the flow is re-established at its form of the atmospheric boundary
layer equations. Therefore, for full-scale 3D modelling, a stand-
alone rural-type chamber is assumed. The exponent of the power-
law for a surface terrain that represents a flat rural site is taken as
1/7 (Eqs. (3) and (4)). Two additional runs have been performed for
the investigation of the terrain’s roughness impact on the
numerical results, using the standard k–e model. For this reason,
1/7 and 1/6 power-law profiles were applied, corresponding to flat
and typical rural environment, respectively [49]. The results
obtained are presented, for example, along the vertical direction of
C1, C2 and C3 experimental locations, in Fig. 8. It is observed that
no significant differences occur and thus both profiles could be
Fig. 8. Numerical results for 1/7 and 1/6 power-law inlet profiles for: (a) incoming wind velocity, (b) x-velocity and (c) temperature along the vertical direction of C1, C2 and
C3 experimental locations (case B, u = 908).
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1672
used to predict natural ventilation of the chamber with the same
accuracy.
2.3.4. Water vapour transportation modelling
The basic assumption of moisture transport modelling is that
air is considered as a mixture of dry air and water vapour. Water
vapour represents a scalar transported by the airflow (dry air:
carrier gas), according to the general Eq. (2), that becomes:
divðr~uY
H
2
O
þ
~
J
H
2
O
Þ ¼ S
H
2
O
(7)
where Y
H
2
O
is the water vapour mass fraction in the mixture,
~
J
H
2
O
the diffusion flux and S
H
2
O
is the source (water vapour production)
imposed as a fixed mass fraction at the inflow boundary as a
function of the measured relative humidity, temperature and
vapour pressure at the chamber’s site.
The diffusion flux,
~
J
H
2
O
, can be written as:
~
J
H
2
O
¼ À rD
H
2
O;m
þ
m
t
Sc
t

rY
H
2
O
ÀD
T;H
2
O
rT
T
(8)
where D
H
2
O;m
is themass diffusioncoefficient for water vapour inthe
mixture and D
T;H
2
O
is the thermal diffusion coefficient. The first one
found in literature [50] with respect to the reference temperature
(definedas anaveragedvalue among internal andexternal tempera-
ture), while the second one was calculated using the kinetic-theory
method [47]. As far as the other factors are concerned, Sc
t
is the
turbulence Schmidt number and m
t
is the turbulence viscosity.
Referring to the physical properties of the mixture, they were
imposed using the ideal gas law for an incompressible flow for
density, the ideal gas mixing lawfor both thermal conductivity and
viscosity, while the heat capacity is expressed as a mass-fraction-
average of moisture and air’s heat capacities [47]. The above
methods use constant values of the species properties at the
reference temperature.
2.3.5. Thermal comfort modelling
For thermal comfort evaluation, under the already described
extreme summer experimental conditions, the extended PMV
model was firstly implemented in the mathematical CFD model.
The extended PMV model for non-air-conditioned buildings is
based on the inclusion of the expectancy factor, e, which is
assumed to depend on the duration of the warm weather over the
year and whether non-air-conditioned buildings can be compared
with many others in the region that are air-conditioned. For
example, if the weather is warm all year or most of the year and
there are no or few other air-conditioned buildings, e may be 0.5,
while it may be 0.7 if there are many other buildings with air-
conditioning. In regions with only brief periods of warm weather
during the summer, the expectancy factor may be 0.9–1. Another
critical factor which contributes to the reported difference
between the calculated PMV and actual thermal sensation in
non-air-conditioned buildings is the estimated activity. People,
unconsciously, tend to slow down their activity and thus they
adapt to the warmenvironment by decreasing their metabolic rate.
It has been found that the metabolic rate is reduced by 6.7% for
every scale unit of PMV above neutral. Further details of the
extended PMV can be found in reference [25]. The numerical
procedure includes the calculation of the traditional PMV (for air-
conditioned spaces) and the reduction of the metabolic rate by 6.7%,
using linear interpolation techniques to account for intermediate
values of PMV in the intervals {0,1}, {1,2}, {2,3} (Eq. (16)). After that,
the PMV is recalculated and the emerged value is multiplied by the
expectancy factor, e. PMV ranges from À3 to +3 for cold and hot
sensations, respectively, with mid values representing intermediate
thermal perception states. On the other hand, this factor can be
expressed in terms of dissatisfied occupants’ percentage using the
PPD factor. As far as discomfort due to air draughts is concerned, it
can be quantified with respect to local air velocity, temperature and
turbulence intensity using the PD factor. The algebraic expressions
of this integrated model are as follows.
2.3.5.1. PMV for natural ventilation.
PMV
trad
¼ ½0:303expðÀ0:036MÞ þ0:028ŠL (9)
where PMV
trad
is the traditional PMV (for HVAC), M the metabolic
rate (W/m
2
), applied for standing sedentary activity in the present
study [24] and L is the thermal load on the body expressed as
follows:
L ¼ internal heat production
Àheat loss to the actual environment
L ¼ MÀW Àf3:96 Â10
À8
f
cl
½ðT
cl
þ273Þ
4
ÀðT
r
þ273Þ
4
Š
þ f
cl
h
c
ðT
cl
ÀTÞ þ3:05 Â10
À3
½5733 À6:99ðMÀWÞ
À p
v
Š þ0:42ðMÀW À58:15Þ þ1:7 Â10
À5
Mð5867
À p
v
Þ þ0:0014Mð34 ÀTފg (10)
where W stands for active work or shivering (W/m
2
) and f
cl
is the
garment insulation factor (1 clo = 0.155 m
2
K/W) expressed as:
f
cl
¼
1:05 þ0:645I
cl
; I
cl
!0:078
1 þ1:29I
cl
; I
cl
<0:078

(11)
The term I
cl
stands for the resistance to sensible heat transfer
provided by a clothing ensemble (clo) and its value was taken for
typical clothing insulation under summer conditions (0.5 clo). The
T
cl
(8C) term is defined as the cloth temperature and is determined
below as:
T
cl
¼ 35:7 À0:028ðMÀWÞ ÀI
cl
f3:96
Â10
À8
f
cl
½ðT
cl
þ273Þ
4
ÀðT
r
þ273Þ
4
Š þ f
cl
h
c
ðT
cl
ÀTÞg (12)
In Eqs. (10) and (12), T (8C) is the calculated local air
temperature by the CFD model, h
c
is the heat-transfer coefficient
between the cloth and air (W/m
2
K) and T
r
(8C) is the mean radiant
temperature (Eq. (14)). The heat-transfer coefficient is given by:
h
c
¼
2:38ðT
cl
ÀTÞ
0:25
for 2:38ðT
cl
ÀTÞ
0:25
!12:1u
0:5
12:1u
0:5
for 2:38ðT
cl
ÀTÞ
0:25
<12:1u
0:5

(13)
where u is the local velocity calculated by the CFD model.
The mean radiant temperature is computed for an averaged
wall temperature, since there were no significant differences
between wall temperatures during the experiments, i.e.:
T
r
¼
¸
4
i¼1
T
i
F
pÀi
(14)
where T
i
is the temperature value at the i wall and F
pÀi
stands for
the radiation shape factor from face p of a grid cell to the visible
room surface i.
The water vapour pressure, which participates in Eq. (10), was
calculated using the following equation:
p
v
¼
PY
H
2
O
=ð1 ÀY
H
2
O
Þ
0:622 þY
H
2
O
=ð1 ÀY
H
2
O
Þ
(15)
where P is the local absolute pressure calculated by the CFDmodel.
The PMV is then recalculated using Eqs. (9)–(15) with a reduced
metabolic rate (M
red
) according to Eq. (16) below:
M
red
¼
À0:067MÂPMV
trad
þM; PMV
trad
2½0; 1Š
À0:067MÂPMV
trad
þ1:004M; PMV
trad
2ð1; 2Š
À0:067MÂPMV
trad
þ1:013M; PMV
trad
2ð2; 3Š

(16)
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1673
Consequently, PMV for natural ventilation (PMV
NV
) is deter-
mined as follows:
PMV
NV
¼ e½0:303expðÀ0:036M
red
Þ þ0:028ŠL (17)
where e is the expectancy factor (e = 0.7 for Athens [25]).
2.3.5.2. PPD and PD. Finally, the factors PPD and PD are computed
as follows:
PPD
PPDð%Þ ¼ 100 À95exp½À0:03353ðPMV
NV
Þ
4
À0:2179ðPMV
NV
Þ
2
Š (18)
PD
PDð%Þ ¼ ð34 ÀTÞðu À0:05Þ
0:62
ð3:14 þ0:37uT
u
Þ (19)
for u < 0.05, use u = 0.05 m/s and for PD > 100%, use PD = 100%,
where T
u
is the turbulence intensity T
u
(%) = 100(2k)
0.5
/u.
The adaptive comfort standard has a mean comfort zone band
of 5 K for 90% acceptance, and another of 7 K for 80% acceptance,
both centered around the optimum comfort temperature calcu-
lated as follows [26,29]:
T
opt:comf:
¼ 0:31T
a;outdoor
þ17:8ð

CÞ (20)
where T
opt.comf.
is the optimum indoor temperature for thermal
neutrality and T
a,outdoor
is the mean monthly outdoor temperature.
The adaptive model can be applied within a mean outdoor
temperature range from 10 to 33 8C and thus it cannot provide
information for more severe weather conditions, such as those
described in case A. On the other hand, the PMV model [25] is
acceptable for all conditions. According to this restriction both
thermal comfort models were applied for case B. For case A, only
the extended PMV is used since the recorded outdoor temperature
(35.9 8C) was out of the range of the adaptive model’s applicability.
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Airflow patterns
Due to the dynamic nature of the external wind, speed and
direction, the specification of the incoming wind’s boundary
conditions is highly uncertain. Thus, any mathematical approach
Fig. 9. Numerical results by various wind velocities at 7.5 m height for: (a) incoming wind velocity, (b) x-velocity and (c) temperature along the vertical direction of
experimental locations C1, C2 and C3 (case B, u = 908).
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1674
requires a parametric study to quantify the effect of boundary
conditions (bc’s) on the interior results. For this reason, such
sensitivity study was performed concerning vertical incidence
angle of the incoming wind (case B), using the standard k–e model.
This study produced results obtained for different wind speeds
measured at 7.5 m height, corresponding to possible fluctuating
recordings by the weather station. A Æ10% fluctuation factor to the
mean value of 2.85 m/s is applied to investigate the response of the
numerical results. According to this, recorded wind speeds of 2.565,
2.7075, 2.85, 2.9925 and 3.135 m/s were used. The corresponding bc
velocity profiles of the incoming wind are presented in Fig. 9(a), fitted
by the power-law equation (Eq. (3)). Runs were performed using
these profiles restarting the CFDprogramby the solution obtained for
u
7.5m
= 2.8 m/s to accelerate convergence. The numerical results
along the vertical direction of C1, C2 and C3 experimental locations
are presented in Fig. 9(b) and (c) for the x-component of velocity and
for temperature, respectively. It is observed that the solution is little
sensitive to a 10% variation of external wind speeds. Specifically, the
maximum divergence among the numerical results obtained for
2.85 m/s wind speed with those obtained for the other wind speeds is
ranging from 0.5% to 4% and 0.16% to 0.3% for x-velocity and
temperature, respectively.
The previous analysis verifies the assumption of using just one
mean wind-speed value as a time-averaged value and thus makes
the steady-state assumption to be valid, at least for practical
engineering purposes. Furthermore, the solution is not substan-
tially affected by the turbulence distributions at the inlet
boundaries as presented in reference [33]. In this last investigation,
the problem was solved using the equations of atmospheric
boundary layer for the extended domain and also for a limited,
between the two doors, domain applying a uniform velocity at the
inlet door. No significant qualitative difference was observed
among the two approaches with the first one, adopted in the
present study, leading to more accurate results.
The problemis also solved for different wind incidence angles,
using the standard k–e model, to evaluate the sensitivity of the
Fig. 10. Impact of the incoming wind’s incidence angle on the: (a) incoming wind x-velocity, (b) incoming wind y-velocity, (c) x-velocity and (d) temperature along the vertical
direction of experimental locations B1 and B2 (case A, u = 358).
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1675
results to this parameter. The mean recorded value of the wind
speed for the case A is 1.48 m/s (Table 2). Three incidence angles
were tested numerically: 308, 358 and 408 corresponding to a
time-averaged value of 358, used for comparisons with the
experimental results. In Fig. 10(a) and (b), the velocity
components of the incoming wind (Eqs. (3) and (4)) that
represent the tested wind directions are presented. The impact of
the incoming wind’s incidence angle on the x-velocity and
Fig. 11. Experimental andnumerical results for: (a) x-velocity(caseA, u = 358), (b) temperature (caseA, u = 358), (c) x-velocity(caseB, u = 908) and(d) temperature (caseB, u = 908).
Fig. 12. Velocity vectors at partition’s height for case A: (a) standard k–e; (b) realizable k–e and (c) RNG k–e.
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1676
temperature is presented in Fig. 10(c) and (d) along the vertical
direction of experimental locations B1 and B2. It is seen that the
results are little sensitive to a Æ15% change of the mean incidence
angle.
It should be emphasized that the usefulness of the developed
model lies in the fact that the same uncertainty in the results exists
for all designs that may be studied. In other words, although the
error in predicting a variable may be small or large it is going to be
also the same for all alternative designs considered. Thus, the
relative change to the results introduced by a design change will be
certainly predicted correctly.
Results obtained by both experimental measurements and
numerical predictions are presented in Fig. 11. Absolute values of
x-velocities are used for validation, i.e. absolute values of velocities
presented in Figs. 9(b) and 10(c) at each experimental location, as
only one-dimensional velocity magnitude measurements were
performed.
There are significant points to be noted resulting from the
comparison among experimental and numerical results. First of all,
it can be noticed that for case A, which represents noon hours with
358 incidence angle, the discrepancy for temperature at the inlet
door (A2) was only 0.8% using the standard k–e model, being
slightly higher using the other two models but in any case not
exceeding 1.5% when applying the RNG model. Low differences
were also obtained referring to the middle location of the chamber
(point D), especially by the RNGk–e model for which the calculated
minimum error was only 0.9%. As far as any other location is
concerned, it is observed that the discrepancy for temperature is a
little higher and obtains its maximum value at the location B2,
approximately 4.1% using the RNG model, which represents the
lower discrepancy among all the applied models. This difference
may be partly due to experimental errors but it may also occur
because of the possibility of air infiltration through the opposite
door (A1, Fig. 2a), considered as outlet in the mathematical model,
due to random direction variations, since B2 was placed next to the
outlet door. That is why the error at locationB1, whichwas placedat
the same vertical direction, was also high. Specifically, it was around
4% using the RNG model, which presents the lower discrepancy
value compared to the other models. Referring to the rest of the
experimental locations, the difference varied from 2% to 4% for all
models, while the ‘‘realizable’’ model was found to lead to slightly
higher differences. The x-velocity discrepancies were higher but
could be considered acceptable because of the inevitable uncer-
tainties during the experiments, due to uncontrolled weather
conditions suchas external windspeedand turbulence. Particularly,
the predicted inlet x-velocity (point A2, Fig. 2a) differed from
measurements about 11–12% using the standard and the ‘‘realiz-
able’’ models, respectively, being much lower using the RNG model
(around 2%). On the contrary, the standard k–e model provided a
better solution at B1 and B2 (close to the outlet door) with the
discrepancy being 16% and 9.5%, respectively. However, using the
‘‘realizable’’ model, a better prediction was obtained for the
locations in front of the inlet door (C1, C2, C3), i.e. the discrepancy
at the location C1 was approximately 8% rather than 25% and 18%
using the other two models. Much lower discrepancies can be
observed concerning experimental case B which represents the
afternoon hours. For example, the difference of the computed x-
velocity decreased and it was about the same for all models leading
to an adequate prediction, i.e. the discrepancy at the inlet (A1), B3,
C1 and C2 does not exceed 6%. The same conclusion may be stated
for the temperature prediction with all models performing well
enough, compared to the experimental results.
Fig. 13. Velocity vectors at partition’s height for case B: (a) standard k–e; (b) realizable k–e and (c) RNG k–e.
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1677
It is obvious that at the afternoon hours the proposed models
performed better for both velocity and temperature predictions.
This may be due to the omission of heat conductioninside the walls
and of solar radiation. According to the assumptions used, the
imposed boundary conditions at internal wall surfaces were the
experimental results at just one point of each wall, so in reality a
mean value of temperature applied at each wall, rather than a
distribution of temperature (which would be an outcome of the
solution procedure if conduction had been taken into considera-
tion). Furthermore, solar radiation may have a significant impact
on the physical phenomenon, especially during the noon hours,
thus providing a different temperature distribution than that
calculated when this mechanism is neglected. Other errors could
be due to the possibility of air infiltration through small
experimental building cracks and also due to the existence of
small obstacles such as packets used for the equipment storage.
Finally, it may be concluded that all models used for the
numerical simulation are satisfactory, giving qualitatively similar
performance, for both experimental arrangements, while giving
also acceptable quantitative predictions in the sense of relative
designs. Due to the existing uncertainties depending on the
constant variation of the external weather conditions, the
proposed approach is considered sufficient enough to represent
natural cross-ventilation.
The distributions of velocity magnitude vectors, obtained by all
models for each case studied, are presented in Figs. 12 and 13. It
can be noticed that all models lead to almost identical internal flow
behaviour and, at least qualitatively, the recirculations occur at the
same place. On the contrary, interesting differences may be
observed for the external flow. The main difference is that the
standard k–e leads to larger vortices downwind of the test chamber
compared to the vortices calculated by the other two models.
Especially the ‘‘realizable’’ model leads to the smallest vortices at
this particular area of the flow. However, since there were no
experimental data at this area, these differences serve just for air
movement evaluation purposes. Furthermore, the area of impor-
tance is mainly the internal flow domain, as indoor air quality
issues are investigated in the present study.
Fig. 14. Experimental case A: (a) velocity magnitude (m/s), (b) temperature distribution (K), (c) iso-relative humidity (%), (d) iso-PMVNV and (e) iso-PPD (%).
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1678
3.2. Thermal comfort study
Thermal comfort was examined under the experimental
conditions which correspond to summer days and consequently
to high temperatures. Space restrictions dictate that only results
obtained by the RNG k–e model are presented, as this model
presents the best agreement with experiments especially for
temperature for both cases studied. For example, in case A, the
‘‘realizable’’ model led to the highest temperature differences at all
experimental locations (see Fig. 11b) and thus it leads to under-
prediction of occupant’s thermal perception. The standard k–e
could also be chosen due to similar discrepancies with those of the
RNG. However, because of the better formulation validity of the
latter for flows that include strong streamline curvature and
vortices [37], like in the present one, it has been selected for
presentation. It should be emphasized that thermal comfort could
equally well be studied using the other two models, because of the
flexibility of the computer program developed for the present
work, which calculates thermal comfort parameters, and is
compatible with any available flow distribution.
The distributions of local velocity, relative humidity, tempera-
ture, PMV
NV
and PPD, for both experimental cases, are presented in
Figs. 14 and 15 at the traverse plane of the chamber. Referring to the
experimental case A (Fig. 14), it can be observed that the tem-
perature difference at all vertical sites that represent occupiedzones
does not exceed 3 8C (threshold value for thermal comfort [24]).
Fig. 15. Experimental case B: (a) velocity magnitude (m/s), (b) temperature distribution (K), (c) iso-relative humidity (%), (d) iso-PMVNV, (e) iso-PPD (%) and (f) iso-PD (%).
Fig. 16. Temperature variation at the middle of the chamber.
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1679
In Fig. 16, for example, the maximum temperature at the middle
vertical direction of the chamber is 307.1 K, while its minimum
value is 305.8 K, even though the external temperature was 7 8C
above the initial wall temperatures.
As far as relative humidity is concerned, it is observed that the
internal values are higher than the external, due to the
temperature decrease inside the chamber and the small pressure
differences between the calculated local pressure and the external
atmospheric pressure. The PMV
NV
values reveal an unacceptable
internal thermal environment due to high external temperatures.
Specifically, this factor ranges from a mean value of 1.9 in the bulk
flow to 2.91 near the inlet-door area, representing warm and hot
sensations in the occupied zone, respectively. This is also obvious
using the PPDfactor which received high values especially near the
partition (65%) and in front of the inlet door (87%). Consequently, in
case of both doors being open, the reflective insulation applied for
the walls is not enough for the establishment of the desired
thermal comfort conditions, due to the strong thermal load
entering the room by the external hot air masses. In case of
moderate external temperatures, PPD could be minimized due to
sufficient mixing, provided by the non-symmetrical locations of
the openings. The same conclusions are valid for the experimental
case B (Fig. 15). The maximum PPD is calculated 76.1% and is now
observed near the partition (Fig. 15e), rather than near the south
wall as in case A (Fig. 14e). This is due to the change of wind
direction that leads to hot air infiltration through the east door. The
mean value of PPD in the occupied zone is around 62% and 55% for
cases A and B, respectively, corresponding to 38% and 45%
acceptability of the indoor conditions. For both cases, internal
wall temperatures are similar. While the infiltrating air’s
temperature is reduced by 3.4 8C from case A to case B, the
corresponding PPD reduced by approximately 7% in the occupied
zone. Thus, indoor thermal environment was slightly improved
during the afternoon hours (case B) but still remains unacceptable.
This is not surprising as the infiltrating outdoor air enters the
chamber at a vertical incidence angle and thus provides maximum
thermal load. Since the recommended PPDvalues for an acceptable
indoor environment are below 20% (80% acceptability) [26], the
current indoor environment is prohibitive for both cases studied.
This is also true, using the adaptive model for case B concerning
global thermal comfort assessment. The optimum indoor tem-
perature for thermal comfort is calculated 27.875 8C, using Eq. (20),
by setting the external temperature as the mean value of the
30 min measurements. Thus, the maximum indoor temperature
for 80% acceptability should be 31.375 8C, while the average
temperature predicted by the CFD model is approximately 31.8 8C
(Fig. 15b). This means that indoor environment is again predicted
out of the optimum temperature range. Referring to local thermal
comfort using the adaptive model, the same conclusion is true,
especially near the partition. Due to high temperatures of the
infiltrating air at this area, predicted temperature is at least 1 8C
higher than the optimum one for 80% acceptability. However,
temperature differences at all vertical directions are below the
threshold value, as in case A (see Fig. 16). It is meaningful, for this
case, to investigate also the local PD factor, standing for air
draughts occurring when temperatures are lower than the value of
human thermal neutrality (34 8C) under sedentary activity. It is
observed that, even though the indoor thermal conditions could be
considered unacceptable in terms of thermal perception (PMV
NV
/
PPD, adaptive), the draught sensation of any occupant remained at
low acceptable values (<20%) [24] in the bulk flow (see Fig. 15f).
This was due to the low indoor velocities, especially in the
recirculation zones, and also to lowturbulence intensity. However,
PD can exceed recommended values in front of an inlet door
because of the dominant maximum velocity of the internal
domain, while it can obtain relatively high values near the
partition, due to high velocity gradients that occur there.
4. Conclusions
An experimental method has been developed to determine the
airflow pattern and indoor thermal environment in case of natural
cross-ventilation. Two experimental arrangements were examined
for noon and afternoon hours under hot summer- and moderate
wind-conditions. Furthermore, a mathematical model was devel-
oped and applied to study the indoor environment computation-
ally, using finite-volume techniques and three high-Reynolds
RANS models. Steady-state simulations were performed incorpor-
ating – as stable as possible – measurements for some of the
boundary conditions applied. A sensitivity study was performed
concerning the impact of the terrain’s roughness and also of the
fluctuating recorded wind speeds and incidence angles on the
numerical results. It was found that no significant differences
occurred for flat- and typical-rural’s terrain roughness. A similar
observation is true referring to a Æ10% fluctuating wind speed and a
Æ15% fluctuating incidence angle. The numerical predictions
obtained by all turbulence models were generally in acceptable
agreement with the experimental measurements; and, thus, they
provide an ‘‘image’’ of the airflow which may represent natural
ventilation as a result of prevailing wind effects. The RNG k–e model
performed relatively better, especially for temperature predictions
and it was chosen and used further for thermal comfort estimation
purposes, under both measured experimental conditions. For this
reason, the extended PMV model was implemented in the CFD model
using the expectancy factor and the reduction of the metabolic rate
according to a linear interpolation technique. The adaptive model for
natural ventilation was also used for additional thermal comfort
estimation purposes. It is concluded that the indoor thermal
environment considered is unsatisfactory in terms of thermal
perception using either model (for case B), as for both cases studied
thermal acceptability was calculated below the recommended 80%,
referring to both local and global assessment. However, due to the
non-symmetrical locations of the openings, natural cross-ventilation
can provide well-mixed conditions, leading to low temperature
differences in the occupied zone and minimize local air draughts,
even in regions close to internal obstacles which may represent
furnishings or any building equipment. Finally, it is concluded that
reliable predictions may be obtained using numerical simulations,
within relatively modest computer resources.
Acknowledgments
This research work was co-funded by the European Social Fund
(75%) and National resources (25%) through the Operational
Program for Educational and Vocational Training II (EPEAEK II)
‘‘Archimedes II’’.
References
[1] M. Orme, Estimates of the energy impact of ventilation and associated financial
expenditures, Energy and Buildings 33 (3) (2001) 199–205.
[2] C. Alloca, Q. Chen, L.R. Glicksman, Design analysis of single-sided natural ventila-
tion, Energy and Buildings 35 (8) (2003) 785–795.
[3] Energy consumption guide 19, Energy efficiency in offices, Energy efficiency
office/HMSO, London, 1993.
[4] P.F. Linden, The fluid mechanics of natural ventilation, Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics 31 (1999) 201–238.
[5] E. Gratia, I. Bruyere, A. De Herde, How to use natural ventilation to cool narrow
office buildings, Building and Environment 39 (10) (2004) 1157–1170.
[6] Hazim B. Awbi, Chapter 7—Ventilation, Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews 2 (1–2) (1998) 157–188.
[7] O.S. Asfour, M.B. Gadi, A comparison between CFD and network models for
predicting wind-driven ventilation in buildings, Building and Environment 42
(12) (2007) 4079–4085.
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1680
[8] L. Mora, A.J. Gadgil, E. Wurtz, C. Inard, Comparing zonal and CFD model predic-
tions of indoor airflows under mixed convection conditions to experimental data,
in: Proceedings of 3rd European Conference on Energy Performance and Indoor
Climate in Buildings, Lyon, France, October 23–26, 2002.
[9] L. Mora, A.J. Gadgil, E. Wurtz, Comparing zonal and CFD model predictions of
isothermal indoor airflows to experimental data, Indoor Air 13 (2003) 77–85.
[10] Y. Jiang, D. Alexander, H. Jenkins, R. Arthur, Q. Chen, Natural ventilation in
buildings: measurement in a wind tunnel and numerical simulation with large
eddy simulation, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 91 (3)
(2003) 331–353.
[11] G. Evola, V. Popov, Computational analysis of wind driven natural ventilation in
buildings, Energy and Buildings 38 (5) (2006) 491–501.
[12] S. Kato, S. Murakami, A. Mochida, S. Akabayashi, Y. Tominaga, Velocity-pressure
field of cross ventilation with open windows analysed by wind tunnel and
numerical simulation, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics
41–44 (1–3) (1992) 2575–2586.
[13] M. Ohba, K. Irie, T. Kurabuchi, Study on airflowcharacteristics inside and outside a
cross-ventilation model, and ventilation flow rates using wind tunnel experi-
ments, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 89 (14–15)
(2001) 1513–1524.
[14] D.R. Ernest, F.S. Bauman, E.A. Arens, The effects of external wind pressure
distributions on wind-induced air motion inside buildings, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 41–44 (1–3) (1992) 2539–2550.
[15] Y. Jiang, Q. Chen, Study of natural ventilation in buildings by large eddy simula-
tion, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 89 (13) (2001)
1155–1178.
[16] E. Dascalaki, M. Santamouris, A. Argiriou, C. Helmis, D. Asimakopoulos, K. Papa-
dopoulos, A. Soilemes, Predicting single sided natural ventilation rates in build-
ings, Solar Energy 55 (5) (1995) 327–341.
[17] Y. Jiang, Q. Chen, Buoyancy driven single-sided natural ventilation in buildings
with large openings, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 46 (6) (2003)
973–988.
[18] K.A. Papakonstantinou, C.T. Kiranoudis, N.C. Markatos, Numerical simulation of
air flow field in single-sided ventilated buildings, Energy and Buildings 33 (1)
(2000) 41–48.
[19] N.C. Markatos, Computer analysis of building ventilation and heating problems,
in: Proc. Int. Conf. on Passive and LowEnergy Architecture, Pergamon Press, Crete,
1983, pp. 667–675.
[20] Q. Chen, Using computational tools to factor wind into architectural environment
design, Energy and Buildings 36 (12) (2004) 1197–1209.
[21] A. Mochida, H. Yoshino, T. Takeda, T. Kakegawa, S. Miyauchi, Methods for
controlling airflow in and around a building under cross-ventilation to improve
indoor thermal comfort, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerody-
namics 93 (6) (2005) 437–449.
[22] ISO Standard 7730-94, Moderate thermal environments—determination of PMV
and PPD indices and specification of the conditions for thermal comfort, Inter-
national Standards Organization, Geneva, 1994.
[23] P.O. Fanger, A.K. Melikov, H. Hanzawa, J. Ring, Air turbulence and sensation of
draught, Energy and Buildings 12 (1) (1988) 21–39.
[24] Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy, ANSI/ASHRAE 55, 1992.
[25] P.O. Fanger, J. Toftum, Extension of the PMV model to non-air-conditioned
buildings in warm climates, Energy and Buildings 34 (6) (2002) 533–536.
[26] Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy, ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
55, 2004.
[27] E. Bacharoudis, M.Gr. Vrachopoulos, M.K. Koukou, D. Margaris, A.E. Filios, S.A.
Mavromatis, Study of the natural convection phenomena inside a wall solar
chimney with one adiabatic and one wall under a heat flux, Applied Thermal
Engineering 27 (13) (2007) 2266–2275.
[28] N.C. Markatos, G. Cox, M.R. Malin, Mathematical modeling of buoyancy-induced
smoke flow in enclosures, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 25 (1)
(1982) 63–75.
[29] R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager, Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and
preference, ASHRAE Transactions 104 (1a) (1998) 145–167.
[30] R.J. de Dear, G.S. Brager, D. Cooper, Developing an adaptive model of thermal
comfort and preference, ASHRAE RP-884 Final report, American Society of Heat-
ing, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, Atlanta, 1997.
[31] KIMO thermo-anemometer multi-probes VT 200F, technical data sheet.
[32] Supco DLTH temperature/humidity data loggers, Instruction manual, USA, 2002.
[33] G.M. Stavrakakis, M.K. Koukou, M.Gr. Vrachopoulos, N.C. Markatos, Study of
airflow pattern and thermal environment in naturally ventilated buildings, in:
CD Proceedings ENERTECH2007, Athens, Greece, October 18–21, 2007.
[34] J. Franke, C. Hirsch, A.G. Jensen, H.W. Kru¨ s, M. Schatzmann, P.S. Westbury, S.D.
Miles, J.A. Wisse, N.G. Wright, Recommendations on the use of CFD in wind
engineering, COST C14 International Conference on Urban Wind Engineering and
Buildings Aerodynamics, von Karman Institute, Rhode-Saint-Gene` se, Belgium,
05.-07.05, 2004.
[35] T. Bartzanas, T. Boulard, C. Kittas, Effect of vent arrangement on windward ventila-
tion of a tunnel greenhouse, Biosystems Engineering 88 (4) (2004) 479–490.
[36] N.C. Markatos, Computational fluid flow capabilities and software, Ironmaking
and Steelmaking 16 (4) (1989) 266–273.
[37] A. Yakhot, S. Orszag, Renormalisation group analysis of turbulence: I. Basic theory,
Journal of Scientific Computing 1 (1) (1986) 1–51.
[38] T.H. Shih, W.W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang, J. Zhu, A new k–e eddy viscosity model
for high Reynolds number turbulent flows, Computers Fluids 24 (3) (1995)
227–238.
[39] B.E. Launder, D.B. Spalding, Mathematical Models of Turbulence, Academic press,
1972.
[40] G.M. Stavrakakis, N.C. Markatos, Computational prediction of buoyancy-driven
airflowin air-conditioned enclosures, in: Proceedings of 2nd IC-SCCE, Athens, July
5–8, 2006.
[41] E. Galea, N.C. Markatos, The mathematical modeling and computer simulation of
fire development in aircraft, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 34
(1) (1991) 181–197.
[42] S.V. Patankar, D.B. Spalding, A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momen-
tum transfer in three-dimensional parabolic flows, International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer 15 (10) (1972) 1787–1806.
[43] J.H. Ferziger, M. Peric, Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics, third ed.,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 2002.
[44] K.B. Shah, J.H. Ferziger, A fluid mechanicians viewof wind engineering: large eddy
simulation of flow past a cubic obstacle, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics 67&68 (1997) 211–224.
[45] J. Franke, Introduction to the prediction of wind effects on buildings with
computational wind engineering (CWE), Lecture III: Boundary conditions, com-
putational domains and grids, Advanced schools 2006 at International Centre for
Mechanical Sciences (CISM), Udine, Italy, September 18–22, 2006.
[46] N.C. Markatos, The mathematical modeling of turbulent flows, Applied Mathe-
matical Modeling 10 (3) (1986) 190–220.
[47] Fluent Inc. Fluent User’s Guide, Version 6.2, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, NH, USA, 2005.
[48] Huser Asmund, Nilsen Pa1 Jahre, Skatun Helge, Application of k–e model to the
stable ABL: pollution in complex terrain, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics 67 and 68 (1997) 425–436.
[49] N.J. Cook, The Deavis and Harris ABL model applied to heterogeneous
terrain, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 66 (3)
(1997) 197–214.
[50] R.H. Perry, D.W. Green, Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook, McGraw-Hill,
1999.
G.M. Stavrakakis et al. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1681

In this last investigation. A small internal partition of 1 m height is also located adjacent to the north wall. The research focuses on the numerical analysis of indoor airflow using CFD techniques and the validation of the numerical predictions with the experimental results. These investigations provide useful information about the air movement inside buildings. where an LES model is validated with experimental data for a simple geometry. where isothermal indoor airflow is investigated.M. (a) Experimental chamber and (b) geometrical details. The reflective insulation of the side walls causes temperature differences between internal and external surfaces of the walls. Both wind and buoyancy forces were taken into account to obtain results for velocity and temperature distributions. [16]. driven only by wind forces for simple geometries representing cross-ventilation and single-sided ventilation configurations. Method of analysis 2. On the other hand. Especially when the airflow is represented by strong streamline curvature. also presented in reference [27]. The main conclusion was that zonal modelling under-predicted velocity distribution compared to the CFD model which provided higher accuracy concerning the airflow field and thus gave a better prediction of the recirculation region. the possibility of pollutant confinement in certain regions of the indoor space. Section 2. A validated LES model for this case may also be found in reference [15]. research for wind forces effects on natural cross-ventilation is focused on wind tunnel experiments for symmetric building-like models. CFD modelling is considered as the most suitable tool for reliable airflow simulation. However. for which the demand of computational resources is high. such as in reference [7]. but the geometrical symmetry and the controlled conditions in wind tunnels mean that the flow takes place under idealized conditions. 1. RANS modelling may produce reasonably accurate results [18. For this reason. The reliability of the mathematical models applied was also investigated using two different computational domains. for complicated flow fields the specification of ‘‘zones’’ is at best speculative. In case of problems with more complex geometries. Jiang et al. natural cross-ventilation is examined experimentally and numerically. than that obtained by various zonal models. Experimental measurements and numerical analysis of this type of natural ventilation may be found in reference [17]. The first application of such models was back in 1983 by Markatos [19]. applications of these models in cases of mixed convection in indoor spaces showed that zonal models did not provide satisfactory predictions for velocity distribution concerning indoor airflow [8]. Building-scale experimental results of the wind effect for a single-sided ventilation case were presented by Dascalaki et al. with internal heat gains taken into account.18]. in accordance with the temporal variations of indoor and outdoor climatic conditions. the standard and the RNG k–e models. thermal conditions of the chamber were examined by integrating two additional mathematical models. General In the present study. field modelling is considered to be a more accurate method to deal with the problem of natural cross ventilation. large eddy simulation) of natural ventilation. A case of combining wind and buoyancy forces was presented by Chen [20]. especially when temperature variations are concerned. for example. Thermal comfort provided by natural ventilation has also been studied in reference [21].2]. Finally. that was built. zonal modelling may predict both the airflow rates and air distribution with relatively high accuracy. Stavrakakis et al. Natural ventilation has been widely investigated by many researchers.G. among others. Finally. In most cases. even with coarse grids.2 for further details). As far as wind forces are concerned. The objective of the present study is to investigate the potential of RANS modelling in natural cross-ventilation for an experimental chamber with two openings (doors) at non-symmetrical locations. The more accurate the information of any recirculation region the more advanced the knowledge about local thermal discomfort (especially due to air draughts) and pollutant distribution. network models could be used for validation of implemented CFD models. 1. The same conclusion may be found in reference [9]. for indoor air quality examination purposes and consisted of a roof covered with roman tiles and a radiant barrier reflective insulation system (Fig. . This work shows that airflow predictions in large spaces are substantially more accurate when obtained by a CFD model. [10] presented an extensive experimental and computational study (LES. This creates temperature difference among internal wall surfaces Fig. The experiments took place in a chamber. both doors were kept wide open (crossventilation) to ensure relatively large pressure differences. In order to reduce the computational cost.1. and is often associated with advanced turbulence models such as LES [11–15]. Two doors are located at the north and south facing walls and the room is ventilated through these openings. found in literature [22–26]. and also obtained reasonable accuracy for the velocity distribution inside the building model and also for the ventilation flow rates. for the discussion of the potential of CFD in order to design buildings that take advantage of the wind. standing for thermal comfort. due to wind forces. CFD and zonal models were compared with available experimental data. Buoyancy-driven singlesided natural ventilation has also been studied widely for the assessment of any heat gain by internal heat sources in enclosed spaces [17. 2. When experimental data do not exist. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1667 building. according to the wind incidence angle and also accounting for internal–external flow effects. for the experimental set up described in reference [10]. thus they produce little information about pollutant transport and local thermal discomfort. The main conclusion was that indoor thermal comfort in summer can be improved by appropriately controlling window opening. Evola and Popov [11] applied Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) models. The numerical results were validated with the experimental measurements for two typical summer days.

air velocity. temperatures at the middle of the internal surface of each wall were also recorded. The simulated airflow was examined in terms of two different computational domains. for example. respectively. The side walls are a two series brick construction with a bubble material lamination among layers of aluminum foil placed in the 20 mm gap of the brick layers. [30] and determines a range of indoor comfort temperatures that correspond to a percentage of thermal acceptability. 1a and b).M. at positions B1. 2. predicted percentage dissatisfied (PPD) and percentage dissatisfied (PD) represent a quantification of thermal dissatisfaction of occupants under several activity levels and clothing. with respect to air temperature. methodology and results The test room is of dimensions 6 m  4 m  5. Sample experimental results obtained (also presented in reference [33]). is the well-known PMV/PPD model [22–24]. B2. C3 (Fig. In this case.0 8C for cases A and B (see Table 2. 2a). 2b). Arrangement of probes for: (a) case A and (b) case B. 1 or 2 mm reflective insulation. turbulence. C1. the comparison of the importance of wind and buoyancy forces is obtained using the Archimedes number as follows [15]: Ar ¼ Grashof bgH3 DT ¼ 2 Reynolds U 2 D2 (1) where b = 1/Tref is the thermal expansion coefficient. Under those imposed conditions. Thermal comfort predictions in the occupied zone were also included using two models found in literature. that were tested following the procedure reported in reference [28]. 3). That was for the first day’s arrangement (case A). The experimental measurements referring to velocity and temperature. and finally the temperature and velocity distributions were the outcome of the solution procedure. The measured temperature differences between indoor and outdoor airflows were 1. a mathematical model was developed for the prediction of indoor air movement.9 and 1. The above-mentioned arrangement of the building establishes an internal air movement governed by both wind and buoyancy forces. 10 mm air gap and 90 mm brick. it is important to investigate this possibility under the current experimental conditions for both cases. respectively.81 m/s2 the gravitational force. Tref the reference temperature taken as T ref ¼ ðT outdoor þ T walls average Þ=2. respectively. 2. Temperature of internal wall surfaces of the walls was measured using UTECO thermo-couples DIN 43732.26). as a function of the mean monthly outdoor temperature. Referring to the numerical simulation. The first one. 3 and 4. B1.3. used for global discomfort assessment. obtained at various locations of the test room were selected according to regulations found in reference [24].1668 G. C3 and of temperature at point D (middle of the room) (Fig. the sampling points were different and measurements were obtained as follows: velocity and temperature at A1 or A2. It is based on an extensive field study by de Dear et al.   1:9  C for case A . The exact location. (one-dimensional) velocity measurements in the test room were obtained using the KIMO thermo-anemometer multi-probes VT 200F [31] with accuracy of Æ3% for readings of 0–3 m/s and Æ2% for reading of 0.1 8C. DT ¼  1:0 C for case B the wind speed at the building height. (3). The total wall thickness consists of 90 mm brick.3 below. within the general framework provided by a commercial CFD code (FLUENT 6. used for local discomfort assessment. Experimental equipment. according to wind data taken by a weather station). C1. 10 mm air gap. C2. U g = 9. The model is based on three high Reynolds number RANS turbulence models. Its value is taken by the power-law profile of the incoming wind using Eq. measured flow property at each sampling point and which door plays the role of inlet are given in Table 1. H is the height of the inlet door and D is the chamber’s depth equal to 4 m (see Fig. The walls can be coated internally and externally resulting to a total width ranging from 200 to 240 mm (including a 20 mm thickness of the wall sheathingplaster on each side). The second thermal comfort model. Fig. Stavrakakis et al. assessing local and global (general) discomfort. Details for both models are given in Section 2.5 m (Fig. information about the infiltrating air may be lost by placing the air speed sensor at the middle of the inlet door. for case A. extended to account for non-air-conditioned buildings in warm climates [25]. connected to a data logging system [32] for the collection of the experimental results. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 and incoming outdoor thermal masses and consequently generation of buoyancy forces. Boundary conditions were provided by measurements accomplished for internal flow by thermo-couples or for external flow by a weather station. The schedule of the experiments included 3 h total sampling period for two typical summer days and the time-interval sampling between consecutive measurements was 60 s.2. where it is presented as an optional model. wall temperatures and relative humidity. Temperature and Fig. due to various wind incidence angles. is the so-called ‘‘adaptive model’’ of thermal comfort in naturally ventilated buildings found in references [26] and [29]. referring to velocity and temperature at the selected locations and the temperature of the building walls are presented in Figs. B2. Bi-directional flow may occur through the openings due to buoyancy forces. there were simultaneous recordings of temperature and velocity at the middle of the inlet door A1 or A2 (being south or north doors. According to the above temperature differences. modified for buoyancy effects. For both experiments. For the second day’s experimental arrangement (case B). The factors predicted mean vote (PMV). 1b). Thus. C2. . B3.

even though the height at which wind speed is recorded is relatively low (7. Using the above data.0029 for cases A and B. 2.5 X X B1 3. the buoyancy effect is not neglected in the CFD model due to the presence of experimental results for temperature. Thus. z) Temperature Velocity A1 5.7. 0. temperature changes occur but the steady-state assumption is considered to be valid over long periods. Furthermore.1 X X A2 0. z) Temperature Velocity Case B Coordinates (x. the velocity at the middle of the opening is representative of the air entering the chamber. Typical experimental results for velocity and temperature.8.1. 1. the air is finally leaving the chamber through the opposite door. 2. natural convection due to the buoyancy effect is much smaller than forced convection due to the wind effect. This technique would provide very detailed and useful information about natural ventilation but it requires excessive computational resources for practical applications. The pressure at the opposite door is lower and due to this pressure difference between the two doors. 2 X X C1 1.7. Thus. which is described below. the chamber is free of internal thermal sources and also. Thus. 0. 0. 1.93 X X C2 0. The selected time periods were 13:00–13:30 h (case A) and 19:00–19:30 h (case B). representative of minimum fluctuations of monitored flow properties for noon and afternoon hours of cases A and B.5 m). In applying a CFD method one should ideally use a time-dependent approach. because the time needed for the development of the airflow pattern is short compared to the duration of the day-time cycle and the values of the time constants of the massive building elements required for passive ventilation.7.7.02 and 0. O for non-measured property. 4. case A. Mathematical modelling 2.M. 1.6. used for further verification of the numerical results. because of Ar ( 1 for both cases. the chamber is built in a rural environment free of thermal sources. The ensemble-averaged values of the external wind were selected for time periods not exceeding the recommended time period limit of 30 min.25 X X B2 3. y.6. .7. Temperature at the middle of the internal surface of each wall. 0. during day-time cycles in real buildings. 1. as most phenomena take place at almost steadystate conditions over long periods of time. Stavrakakis et al. 0. the mathematical model developed is general and may be applied to both steady-state and transient problems. 1. 1. 2 X X Symbols: X for measured property. as found in reference [34] for field measurements.1 X X A2 (inlet) 0. An engineer’s approach to overcome such technical restrictions is the steadystate assumption. 1. the selected 30 min time periods of the experimental cases studied were identified according to – as Fig. 3. z coordinates of experimental locations Case A Coordinates (x. Thus. two temporal sub-domains were chosen. 2. According to the above analysis. Under the action of the wind. y. however.25. Fig. would require knowledge of the time-dependent variations of the boundary conditions used. the air flows in through the one opening leading to high pressures at this area. 3 X X C2 1. in reference [2]).7. Furthermore. (1) gives an Ar number equal to 0.75.4 X X C1 0.77 X X B3 3.6. as required.3. 1 X X D 1669 3. 1. 2.3. 4. 1. and taking into account that both openings have the same dimensions and also that the internal space has no obstacles except the small partition.8. as. case A. Following this. Eq. respectively. for example. 2. All the above advocate that the airflow inside and outside the chamber is wind dominant. respectively. any mathematical model applied for the prediction of natural ventilation should include the dynamic nature of the external conditions. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 Table 1 x.8. 0. 2. the flow through the openings is not bi-directional (if it were it would have been predicted by the CFD model.7. 2. 2. 0. The governing equations Natural ventilation is a phenomenon of random nature due to the constant changes of external weather conditions.1 O O B1 4.75 X O C3 0. 1. 2. In any case. 0. which.2 X X B2 4. However.25.75. in order to recognize potential time-averaged values of temperatures and velocities.1 O O A1 (inlet) 5.G. 4. y.5 X X C3 1.

1670 Table 2 Experimental conditions External conditions Cases Case A Case B Inflow planes (Fig. Gw the ‘‘effective’’ exchange coefficient of variable w and Sw is the source/sink term of variable w [36]. The transferred quantity w also stands for turbulence dependent variables. all modified to account for buoyancy effects due to density differences [28]. continuity and energy equations for 3D. Ci for the concentration of various chemical species i. Thus.40]. the standard k–e. Significant information is provided by the steady-state solution concerning the effects of the prevailing ensemble-averaged values of winds of any building’s site on the internal structure of the flow.2H. resulting to grid A.4 302. All the governing conservation equations.e. respectively. inflow boundaries for case A. obtained using various grids is presented in Fig.0 302. 5. Consequently.2 24. 6.M. in case of vertical wind direction (case B) the computational domain. The assumptions made for the problem were: (a) single phase.456 hexahedral cells for grid B and. which is adopted to account for two different computational domains. inflow boundary for case B.3. 2. Computational domains for each case: A1 and A2. In order to capture the reattachment point downwind to the chamber correctly. as demonstrated in Fig. consequently. In case of non-vertical wind direction (case A). This leads to a computational domain. two grid methodologies were applied for the simulation according to the wind incidence angle.488 hexahedral cells for grid A.8 Outdoor temperature (K) 308. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 Relative humidity (%) 19. an upstream length of 5H. respectively. Simulations were performed on a Windows PC with one 2. for steady-state conditions. 1 for mass continuity.3. as inflow boundary conditions. which consisted of 10H length among the chamber’s external walls and all lateral boundaries with the high boundary being at the same height as in the case of vertical wind direction. Fig.50 Wind speed at 7. . corresponding to experimental cases B and A.0 302. respectively (Section 2. the RNG k–e [37] and the so-called ‘‘realizable’’ k–e [38] model.1 stable as possible – recordings of external and internal conditions provided by the weather station and the hot-wires.44] were applied concerning the computational domain.4 GHz CPUs and 1 GB of RAM and required approximately 36 and 24 h for the optimum grids A and B. The problem follows the general theoretical aspects of the flow around a bluff body. within reasonable computational resources. here k the kinetic energy of turbulence and e the eddy dissipation rate. two inflow boundaries are needed to account for the incoming wind.9 302. A similar technique can also be found in reference [35].5 m (m/s) 1. The optimum mesh produced for grid B led to the optimum grid A with additional meshing in the extra regions of the computational domain in the case of nonvertical flow direction. The computational domains constructed for each experimental case and the corresponding inlet door are presented in Fig.2 for further details). T for temperature. corresponding to 358 (grid A) and 908 (grid B) wind incidence angle for cases A and B.0 wall Tsouth 303. The CFD code used for the numerical simulations employs a standard finite-volume method and a body-fitted structured grid [41]. Computational domains and spatial discretization As mentioned earlier. in order to impose. The main purpose was to simulate the air movement in the chamber as a result of the interaction among internal and external flow effects. a grid-independent solution was achieved using a grid consisting of 636. 6. corresponding to the atmospheric boundary layer. The solution obtained using each grid was also examined for other independent variables at various physical locations of the domain and. steady-state flow for a Newtonian fluid and (b) heat transfer at the walls by either conduction or radiation was neglected due to the already measured internal-wallsurface temperature and the use of reflective insulation. a grid-independency study was only performed for grid B. Stavrakakis et al. In this study. respectively. a lateral length of 5H on both sides of the chamber and a height of 18. three RANS models were applied. a grid of 730. for which grid B was constructed. had a downstream length of 10H (H: chamber’s height). A comparison for the vertical velocity distribution at the middle of the test room.90 305.48 2. with the external ‘‘fluid mechanics’’ taken into account. can be written in the following general form [36]: divðr~’ À G ’ grad’Þ ¼ S’ u (2) where w is the dependent variable. Spatial discretization of the flow domain was examined by repeating runs for grids with continuously increased grid-nodes density.2. All models treat flow effects close to walls using standard wall functions [39.85 Incidence angle (u) 358 908 Internal conditions Cases Case A Case B Tnorth 300.0 302. it could lead to optimal designs even in the pre-construction phase of a building. turbulent fluid flow. 5. specific techniques found in literature [43. ~ for u velocity. 5) A1. The mathematical model applies numerical techniques to solve the Navier-Stokes (N-S). Since grid A is simply a result of dimensional expansion of grid B in regions where no flow obstructions occur. the appropriate velocity and turbulence distribution. two outflow boundaries were imposed being the downwind faces of the flow domain. i. Since CFD is based on mean representative wind data. A2 B1 G. B1. The first-order upwind discretization scheme and the SIMPLE solution algorithm for handling pressure were used [42].1 wall Twest wall Teast wall 301.

/ Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1671 near each wall was 0.2) of experimental monitoring.05 m. relative humidity. wall temperatures were measured at the middle of each internal wall surface. The grids used were highly non-uniform characterised by high grid-nodes density near solid surfaces. The selection of a structured grid. According to these measured flow variables. For the selected time periods (Section 2. wind speed and direction at 7. 2.G. (3) Outflow planes: Zero diffusion flux for all variables and overall mass balance correction [47]. no-penetration condition for momentum and fixed temperatures. Velocity distribution with height at the middle of the test room for various grids (case of grid B). 7. instead of a more convenient unstructured was due to more accurate results that may be obtained. while the rest are set according to well-known practices [2. Optimum mesh for both grids A and B: (a) three-dimensional meshing.3. the boundary conditions were categorized as follows: (1) Solid planes: No-slip. as provided by a weather station. at least for the case of the flow around a bluff body. Boundary conditions and special sources For some of the imposed boundary conditions measured data representing external and internal conditions have been used.3. The measured boundary values are summarized in Table 2. 6. The optimum discretization for both grids A and B is presented in Fig.21]. The minimum cell size Fig. (c) partition’s height plane meshing and (d) traverse plane meshing. .M. 7. time-averaged values were produced referring to outdoor temperature. (2) Symmetry planes: Zero normal velocity and zero normal gradients of all variables. Stavrakakis et al.5 m from the ground. leading to y+ values less than 150 in order to apply properly ‘‘wall-function’’ boundary conditions [39. (b) longitudinal meshing.46]. Fig.11. At the interior. as found in reference [45]. using a structured grid.

The exponent of the powerlaw for a surface terrain that represents a flat rural site is taken as 1/7 (Eqs.5 and at 300 m. 5).M. u stands for wind incidence angle. tw is the shear stress and tw ¼ f rvel2 =2 is the density of the mixture of air and moisture. (3)–(6) were imposed at the upwind (west) and at the one lateral (north) boundary ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi p (planes A1 and A2. If u = 908 then Eqs. u* is the friction velocity.41 stands for the Von Karman constant and Cm = 0. l = min[kz. velref is the wind velocity at 100 m provided by the recorded velocity and the calculated one (Eq. It is observed that no significant differences occur and thus both profiles could be Fig.09. 5). using the standard k–e model. k = 0. Numerical results for 1/7 and 1/6 power-law inlet profiles for: (a) incoming wind velocity. respectively [49]. Modified equations of the atmospheric boundary layer [48] were used to account also for incidence angles other than vertical:  z 1=7 h u ¼ uref v ¼ vref (3)  z 1=7 h (4) u2  z 2 à kinflow ¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 À h Cm 3=4 Cm k l 3=2 (5) einflow ¼ (6) where u. If u < 908 then Eqs. 8. l is the mixing length. along the vertical direction of C1. (b) x-velocity and (c) temperature along the vertical direction of C1. in Fig. Evia. Greece) surrounded by low-rise trees and lowrise residences at a sufficiently away distance. the imposed Cm at the inflow boundaries is considered acceptable as the incoming flow is simulated as a flat boundary layer. However. . a standalone rural-type chamber is assumed. see Fig. C2 and C3 experimental locations (case B. v. 0. for full-scale 3D modelling.085h]. corresponding to flat and typical rural environment. by the weather station using Eq. see Fig. C2 and C3 experimental locations. any external disturbance of the incoming wind is assumed to be eliminated and the flow is re-established at its form of the atmospheric boundary layer equations. This leads to a Cm value expressed as function of vorticity and not just as a fixed value [38]. (3)) at 7. 1/7 and 1/6 power-law profiles were applied. h = 300 m. Therefore.1672 G. uà ¼ tw =r. (3). f is the ref À1=4 friction coefficient f ¼ 0:045ðvelref h=vÞ . (3) and (4)). The experimental chamber is built in a flat rural environment (Psachna area. 8. Thus. uref ¼ velref sin u and vref ¼ velref cos u. v is the kinematic viscosity of air. for example. The results obtained are presented.09 in the inertial sublayer [38]. The main difference of the ‘‘realizable’’ k–e model against the other two models is that it is based on the dynamic equation for fluctuating vorticity. u = 908). respectively. (3)–(6) were imposed only at the upwind boundary (plane B1. einflow are the inflow velocity and turbulence properties. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 (4) Inflow planes: Specified external temperature and moisture mass fraction as given by the weather station. Stavrakakis et al. for which experiments have shown that Cm % 0. Two additional runs have been performed for the investigation of the terrain’s roughness impact on the numerical results. For this reason. kinflow.

which is assumed to depend on the duration of the warm weather over the year and whether non-air-conditioned buildings can be compared with many others in the region that are air-conditioned. The algebraic expressions of this integrated model are as follows. 2. The water vapour pressure. while the heat capacity is expressed as a mass-fractionaverage of moisture and air’s heat capacities [47].H2 O T Sct where DH2 O. which participates in Eq. À0:067M  PMVtrad þ 1:013M. e. (14)). respectively. The heat-transfer coefficient is given by:   2:38ðT cl À TÞ0:25 for 2:38ðT cl À TÞ0:25 ! 12:1u0:5 (13) hc ¼ 0:25 0:5 0:5 12:1u for 2:38ðT cl À TÞ < 12:1u where u is the local velocity calculated by the CFD model.3. PMV ranges from À3 to +3 for cold and hot sensations. hc is the heat-transfer coefficient between the cloth and air (W/m2 K) and Tr (8C) is the mean radiant temperature (Eq. can be written as: JH   m rT ~ (8) J H2 O ¼ À rDH2 O. under the already described extreme summer experimental conditions.1. PMVtrad ¼ ½0:303expðÀ0:036MÞ þ 0:028ŠL (9) where Y H2 O is the water vapour mass fraction in the mixture. 3Š .5. As far as discomfort due to air draughts is concerned. (10). The PMV is then recalculated using Eqs.5. the expectancy factor may be 0. unconsciously.3. was calculated using the following equation: pv ¼ PY H2 O =ð1 À Y H2 O Þ 0:622 þ Y H2 O =ð1 À Y H2 O Þ (15) where P is the local absolute pressure calculated by the CFD model. Another critical factor which contributes to the reported difference between the calculated PMV and actual thermal sensation in non-air-conditioned buildings is the estimated activity. if the weather is warm all year or most of the year and there are no or few other air-conditioned buildings. Water vapour transportation modelling The basic assumption of moisture transport modelling is that air is considered as a mixture of dry air and water vapour. it can be quantified with respect to local air velocity. PMV for natural ventilation. T (8C) is the calculated local air temperature by the CFD model. temperature and turbulence intensity using the PD factor. After that.3} (Eq. the PMV is recalculated and the emerged value is multiplied by the expectancy factor. 2. since there were no significant differences between wall temperatures during the experiments. Sct is the turbulence Schmidt number and mt is the turbulence viscosity. {1. 1Š = (16) Mred ¼ À0:067M  PMVtrad þ 1:004M.2}. The Tcl (8C) term is defined as the cloth temperature and is determined below as: T cl ¼ 35:7 À 0:028ðM À WÞ À Icl f3:96  10À8 f cl ½ðT cl þ 273Þ4 À ðT r þ 273Þ4 Š þ f cl hc ðT cl À TÞg (12) In Eqs. this factor can be expressed in terms of dissatisfied occupants’ percentage using the where PMVtrad is the traditional PMV (for HVAC).: Tr ¼ 4 X T i F pÀi i¼1 (14) where Ti is the temperature value at the i wall and FpÀi stands for the radiation shape factor from face p of a grid cell to the visible room surface i. ~ 2 O . PMVtrad 2 ð2. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1673 used to predict natural ventilation of the chamber with the same accuracy. i. temperature and vapour pressure at the chamber’s site. For example. while it may be 0. applied for standing sedentary activity in the present study [24] and L is the thermal load on the body expressed as follows: L ¼ internal heat production À heat loss to the actual environment L ¼ M À W À f3:96  10À8 f cl ½ðT cl þ 273Þ4 À ðT r þ 273Þ4 Š þ f cl hc ðT cl À TÞ þ 3:05  10À3 ½5733 À 6:99ðM À WÞ À pv Š þ 0:42ðM À W À 58:15Þ þ 1:7  10À5 Mð5867 À pv Þ þ 0:0014Mð34 À Tފg 2 (10) where W stands for active work or shivering (W/m ) and fcl is the garment insulation factor (1 clo = 0.G. the extended PMV model was firstly implemented in the mathematical CFD model.1}.e. Referring to the physical properties of the mixture. Further details of the extended PMV can be found in reference [25]. The above methods use constant values of the species properties at the reference temperature.H2 O is the thermal diffusion coefficient. 2. e may be 0.7%.m is the mass diffusion coefficient for water vapour in the mixture and DT.m þ t rY H2 O À DT. Stavrakakis et al. In regions with only brief periods of warm weather during the summer.3. The first one found in literature [50] with respect to the reference temperature (defined as an averaged value among internal and external temperature). e. tend to slow down their activity and thus they adapt to the warm environment by decreasing their metabolic rate. that becomes: divðr~Y H2 O þ ~ 2 O Þ ¼ SH2 O u JH (7) PPD factor. (2). The extended PMV model for non-air-conditioned buildings is based on the inclusion of the expectancy factor. (10) and (12). People. Icl ! 0:078 (11) f cl ¼ 1 þ 1:29Icl . (9)–(15) with a reduced metabolic rate (Mred) according to Eq.7% for every scale unit of PMV above neutral. 2Š : . ~ 2 O JH the diffusion flux and SH2 O is the source (water vapour production) imposed as a fixed mass fraction at the inflow boundary as a function of the measured relative humidity. The mean radiant temperature is computed for an averaged wall temperature. while the second one was calculated using the kinetic-theory method [47]. according to the general Eq. with mid values representing intermediate thermal perception states.7 if there are many other buildings with airconditioning. PMVtrad 2 ð1.4. M the metabolic rate (W/m2). they were imposed using the ideal gas law for an incompressible flow for density. The diffusion flux. using linear interpolation techniques to account for intermediate values of PMV in the intervals {0. Thermal comfort modelling For thermal comfort evaluation.155 m2 K/W) expressed as:   1:05 þ 0:645Icl .9–1. the ideal gas mixing law for both thermal conductivity and viscosity. Icl < 0:078 The term Icl stands for the resistance to sensible heat transfer provided by a clothing ensemble (clo) and its value was taken for typical clothing insulation under summer conditions (0. (16) below: 8 9 < À0:067M  PMVtrad þ M.M.5 clo).5. The numerical procedure includes the calculation of the traditional PMV (for airconditioned spaces) and the reduction of the metabolic rate by 6. (16)). It has been found that the metabolic rate is reduced by 6. {2. Water vapour represents a scalar transported by the airflow (dry air: carrier gas). As far as the other factors are concerned. PMVtrad 2 ½0. On the other hand.

2.1674 G.outdoor is the mean monthly outdoor temperature.29]: T opt:comf: ¼ 0:31T a.05 m/s and for PD > 100%.3.9 8C) was out of the range of the adaptive model’s applicability.comf. use PD = 100%. speed and direction. Stavrakakis et al.1.5. such as those described in case A. According to this restriction both thermal comfort models were applied for case B.M. The adaptive comfort standard has a mean comfort zone band of 5 K for 90% acceptance. On the other hand. Fig. Airflow patterns Due to the dynamic nature of the external wind. use u = 0. where Tu is the turbulence intensity Tu(%) = 100(2k)0. any mathematical approach for u < 0.5 m height for: (a) incoming wind velocity.2. and another of 7 K for 80% acceptance. 3. C2 and C3 (case B. PPD and PD.7 for Athens [25]). (b) x-velocity and (c) temperature along the vertical direction of experimental locations C1. the factors PPD and PD are computed as follows: PPD PPDð%Þ ¼ 100 À 95exp½À0:03353ðPMVNV Þ4 À 0:2179ðPMVNV Þ2 Š PD PDð%Þ ¼ ð34 À TÞðu À 0:05Þ0:62 ð3:14 þ 0:37uTu Þ (19) (18) (17) both centered around the optimum comfort temperature calculated as follows [26.5/u. Finally. the specification of the incoming wind’s boundary conditions is highly uncertain. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 Consequently. The adaptive model can be applied within a mean outdoor temperature range from 10 to 33 8C and thus it cannot provide information for more severe weather conditions. the PMV model [25] is acceptable for all conditions. PMV for natural ventilation (PMVNV) is determined as follows: PMVNV ¼ e½0:303expðÀ0:036M red Þ þ 0:028ŠL where e is the expectancy factor (e = 0. For case A. Thus. .outdoor þ 17:8 ð CÞ (20) where Topt. only the extended PMV is used since the recorded outdoor temperature (35. is the optimum indoor temperature for thermal neutrality and Ta. 9. Numerical results by various wind velocities at 7. u = 908).05. Results and discussion 3.

Stavrakakis et al. According to this. 9(a). / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1675 requires a parametric study to quantify the effect of boundary conditions (bc’s) on the interior results. In this last investigation. Impact of the incoming wind’s incidence angle on the: (a) incoming wind x-velocity. the maximum divergence among the numerical results obtained for 2.85. For this reason. respectively.8 m/s to accelerate convergence. between the two doors. 9(b) and (c) for the x-component of velocity and for temperature. The previous analysis verifies the assumption of using just one mean wind-speed value as a time-averaged value and thus makes the steady-state assumption to be valid.5% to 4% and 0. The corresponding bc velocity profiles of the incoming wind are presented in Fig.85 m/s is applied to investigate the response of the numerical results. Runs were performed using these profiles restarting the CFD program by the solution obtained for u7.3% for x-velocity and temperature. recorded wind speeds of 2. leading to more accurate results. 2. using the standard k–e model. 10.7075.5m = 2. (b) incoming wind y-velocity. u = 358). fitted by the power-law equation (Eq. This study produced results obtained for different wind speeds measured at 7. C2 and C3 experimental locations are presented in Fig. the problem was solved using the equations of atmospheric boundary layer for the extended domain and also for a limited. Furthermore. 2. such sensitivity study was performed concerning vertical incidence angle of the incoming wind (case B).G.5 m height. using the standard k–e model. respectively. . (c) x-velocity and (d) temperature along the vertical direction of experimental locations B1 and B2 (case A. The problem is also solved for different wind incidence angles. (3)). A Æ10% fluctuation factor to the mean value of 2.16% to 0. Specifically.9925 and 3.565. to evaluate the sensitivity of the Fig.M.135 m/s were used. the solution is not substantially affected by the turbulence distributions at the inlet boundaries as presented in reference [33].85 m/s wind speed with those obtained for the other wind speeds is ranging from 0. corresponding to possible fluctuating recordings by the weather station. The numerical results along the vertical direction of C1. No significant qualitative difference was observed among the two approaches with the first one. domain applying a uniform velocity at the inlet door. adopted in the present study. at least for practical engineering purposes. It is observed that the solution is little sensitive to a 10% variation of external wind speeds. 2.

Three incidence angles were tested numerically: 308. used for comparisons with the experimental results.M.1676 G. . (3) and (4)) that represent the tested wind directions are presented. results to this parameter. the velocity components of the incoming wind (Eqs. Experimental and numerical results for: (a) x-velocity (case A. 12. (b) realizable k–e and (c) RNG k–e. u = 908) and (d) temperature (case B. (b) temperature (case A. 11.48 m/s (Table 2). / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 Fig. u = 358). Stavrakakis et al. u = 358). 10(a) and (b). The mean recorded value of the wind speed for the case A is 1. 358 and 408 corresponding to a time-averaged value of 358. The impact of the incoming wind’s incidence angle on the x-velocity and Fig. (c) x-velocity (case B. Velocity vectors at partition’s height for case A: (a) standard k–e. u = 908). In Fig.

On the contrary. Specifically. the predicted inlet x-velocity (point A2. However. i. a better prediction was obtained for the locations in front of the inlet door (C1. 9(b) and 10(c) at each experimental location. (b) realizable k–e and (c) RNG k–e. C2.G.e. C1 and C2 does not exceed 6%. respectively. Velocity vectors at partition’s height for case B: (a) standard k–e. the relative change to the results introduced by a design change will be certainly predicted correctly. while the ‘‘realizable’’ model was found to lead to slightly higher differences. the discrepancy at the location C1 was approximately 8% rather than 25% and 18% using the other two models. Results obtained by both experimental measurements and numerical predictions are presented in Fig. which represents noon hours with 358 incidence angle. the discrepancy for temperature at the inlet door (A2) was only 0. B3. First of all. Referring to the rest of the experimental locations. which was placed at the same vertical direction. due to uncontrolled weather conditions such as external wind speed and turbulence. In other words. respectively. It is seen that the results are little sensitive to a Æ15% change of the mean incidence angle. 10(c) and (d) along the vertical direction of experimental locations B1 and B2. There are significant points to be noted resulting from the comparison among experimental and numerical results. As far as any other location is concerned. which represents the lower discrepancy among all the applied models.5% when applying the RNG model. For example.e. . since B2 was placed next to the outlet door. the standard k–e model provided a better solution at B1 and B2 (close to the outlet door) with the discrepancy being 16% and 9. 11. the discrepancy at the inlet (A1). i. The x-velocity discrepancies were higher but could be considered acceptable because of the inevitable uncertainties during the experiments. Absolute values of x-velocities are used for validation. the difference of the computed xvelocity decreased and it was about the same for all models leading to an adequate prediction. using the ‘‘realizable’’ model.1% using the RNG model. due to random direction variations. i. it was around 4% using the RNG model. especially by the RNG k–e model for which the calculated minimum error was only 0. the difference varied from 2% to 4% for all models. Fig. 13. absolute values of velocities presented in Figs. which presents the lower discrepancy value compared to the other models. Low differences were also obtained referring to the middle location of the chamber (point D). approximately 4. Fig. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1677 temperature is presented in Fig. Thus. it is observed that the discrepancy for temperature is a little higher and obtains its maximum value at the location B2.9%. 2a) differed from measurements about 11–12% using the standard and the ‘‘realizable’’ models. being slightly higher using the other two models but in any case not exceeding 1. It should be emphasized that the usefulness of the developed model lies in the fact that the same uncertainty in the results exists for all designs that may be studied. being much lower using the RNG model (around 2%). The same conclusion may be stated for the temperature prediction with all models performing well enough. it can be noticed that for case A. This difference may be partly due to experimental errors but it may also occur because of the possibility of air infiltration through the opposite door (A1. although the error in predicting a variable may be small or large it is going to be also the same for all alternative designs considered. C3). That is why the error at location B1. Particularly. considered as outlet in the mathematical model.e. Fig. Stavrakakis et al. Much lower discrepancies can be observed concerning experimental case B which represents the afternoon hours.8% using the standard k–e model. 2a). as only one-dimensional velocity magnitude measurements were performed.5%. compared to the experimental results.M. was also high.

the area of importance is mainly the internal flow domain. Experimental case A: (a) velocity magnitude (m/s). Finally. 14. Other errors could be due to the possibility of air infiltration through small experimental building cracks and also due to the existence of small obstacles such as packets used for the equipment storage. The main difference is that the standard k–e leads to larger vortices downwind of the test chamber compared to the vortices calculated by the other two models. while giving also acceptable quantitative predictions in the sense of relative designs. so in reality a mean value of temperature applied at each wall. (c) iso-relative humidity (%). solar radiation may have a significant impact on the physical phenomenon. thus providing a different temperature distribution than that calculated when this mechanism is neglected. Especially the ‘‘realizable’’ model leads to the smallest vortices at this particular area of the flow. these differences serve just for air movement evaluation purposes. especially during the noon hours. Fig. It can be noticed that all models lead to almost identical internal flow behaviour and. the recirculations occur at the same place. at least qualitatively. (d) iso-PMVNV and (e) iso-PPD (%). (b) temperature distribution (K).1678 G. According to the assumptions used.M. giving qualitatively similar performance. obtained by all models for each case studied. for both experimental arrangements. are presented in Figs. . rather than a distribution of temperature (which would be an outcome of the solution procedure if conduction had been taken into consideration). The distributions of velocity magnitude vectors. the proposed approach is considered sufficient enough to represent natural cross-ventilation. it may be concluded that all models used for the numerical simulation are satisfactory. However. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 It is obvious that at the afternoon hours the proposed models performed better for both velocity and temperature predictions. 12 and 13. Furthermore. On the contrary. Furthermore. Due to the existing uncertainties depending on the constant variation of the external weather conditions. interesting differences may be observed for the external flow. the imposed boundary conditions at internal wall surfaces were the experimental results at just one point of each wall. This may be due to the omission of heat conduction inside the walls and of solar radiation. since there were no experimental data at this area. Stavrakakis et al. as indoor air quality issues are investigated in the present study.

because of the flexibility of the computer program developed for the present work. and is compatible with any available flow distribution. it can be observed that the temperature difference at all vertical sites that represent occupied zones does not exceed 3 8C (threshold value for thermal comfort [24]). 16. 11b) and thus it leads to underprediction of occupant’s thermal perception. Experimental case B: (a) velocity magnitude (m/s). PMVNV and PPD. 15. Space restrictions dictate that only results obtained by the RNG k–e model are presented. it has been selected for presentation. Thermal comfort study Thermal comfort was examined under the experimental conditions which correspond to summer days and consequently to high temperatures. The distributions of local velocity. as this model presents the best agreement with experiments especially for temperature for both cases studied. the ‘‘realizable’’ model led to the highest temperature differences at all experimental locations (see Fig. It should be emphasized that thermal comfort could equally well be studied using the other two models. in case A. like in the present one. temperature. for both experimental cases. are presented in Figs. 14). which calculates thermal comfort parameters. (b) temperature distribution (K). (d) iso-PMVNV.M.2. Referring to the experimental case A (Fig.G. (c) iso-relative humidity (%). The standard k–e could also be chosen due to similar discrepancies with those of the RNG. However. 3. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 1679 Fig. Stavrakakis et al. relative humidity. Fig. . 14 and 15 at the traverse plane of the chamber. because of the better formulation validity of the latter for flows that include strong streamline curvature and vortices [37]. For example. Temperature variation at the middle of the chamber. (e) iso-PPD (%) and (f) iso-PD (%).

even in regions close to internal obstacles which may represent furnishings or any building equipment. [6] Hazim B. respectively. 4.and typical-rural’s terrain roughness. 1993. The optimum indoor temperature for thermal comfort is calculated 27. due to the non-symmetrical locations of the openings. due to the strong thermal load entering the room by the external hot air masses. Chapter 7—Ventilation. This was due to the low indoor velocities. provided by the non-symmetrical locations of the openings. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 31 (1999) 201–238. the reflective insulation applied for the walls is not enough for the establishment of the desired thermal comfort conditions. Two experimental arrangements were examined for noon and afternoon hours under hot summer. using Eq.875 8C. 15f). and also to low turbulence intensity. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 In Fig. while it can obtain relatively high values near the partition. The PMVNV values reveal an unacceptable internal thermal environment due to high external temperatures. The fluid mechanics of natural ventilation.S. to investigate also the local PD factor. while its minimum value is 305. PD can exceed recommended values in front of an inlet door because of the dominant maximum velocity of the internal domain. the draught sensation of any occupant remained at low acceptable values (<20%) [24] in the bulk flow (see Fig. Chen. due to high velocity gradients that occur there. Acknowledgments This research work was co-funded by the European Social Fund (75%) and National resources (25%) through the Operational Program for Educational and Vocational Training II (EPEAEK II) ‘‘Archimedes II’’. A.4 8C from case A to case B. for this case. it is concluded that reliable predictions may be obtained using numerical simulations.1 K. Energy efficiency in offices. due to the temperature decrease inside the chamber and the small pressure differences between the calculated local pressure and the external atmospheric pressure. Thus. The numerical predictions obtained by all turbulence models were generally in acceptable agreement with the experimental measurements. using the adaptive model for case B concerning global thermal comfort assessment. the current indoor environment is prohibitive for both cases studied. this factor ranges from a mean value of 1. representing warm and hot sensations in the occupied zone. Referring to local thermal comfort using the adaptive model. For this reason. It was found that no significant differences occurred for flat. especially near the partition. while the average temperature predicted by the CFD model is approximately 31. Energy and Buildings 33 (3) (2001) 199–205. under both measured experimental conditions. by setting the external temperature as the mean value of the 30 min measurements. the maximum indoor temperature for 80% acceptability should be 31. It is observed that. . the same conclusion is true. The mean value of PPD in the occupied zone is around 62% and 55% for cases A and B.8 8C (Fig. Steady-state simulations were performed incorporating – as stable as possible – measurements for some of the boundary conditions applied. This is due to the change of wind direction that leads to hot air infiltration through the east door. natural cross-ventilation can provide well-mixed conditions. leading to low temperature differences in the occupied zone and minimize local air draughts. Specifically. Energy and Buildings 35 (8) (2003) 785–795. Building and Environment 42 (12) (2007) 4079–4085. internal wall temperatures are similar. Q. 15b). This is also obvious using the PPD factor which received high values especially near the partition (65%) and in front of the inlet door (87%). It is meaningful. A sensitivity study was performed concerning the impact of the terrain’s roughness and also of the fluctuating recorded wind speeds and incidence angles on the numerical results. Since the recommended PPD values for an acceptable indoor environment are below 20% (80% acceptability) [26]. This means that indoor environment is again predicted out of the optimum temperature range. even though the indoor thermal conditions could be considered unacceptable in terms of thermal perception (PMVNV/ PPD.1% and is now observed near the partition (Fig. adaptive). Asfour. A comparison between CFD and network models for predicting wind-driven ventilation in buildings.375 8C.91 near the inlet-door area. It is concluded that the indoor thermal environment considered is unsatisfactory in terms of thermal perception using either model (for case B). for example. Thus. I. using finite-volume techniques and three high-Reynolds RANS models. the corresponding PPD reduced by approximately 7% in the occupied zone. However. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 2 (1–2) (1998) 157–188. L. The adaptive model for natural ventilation was also used for additional thermal comfort estimation purposes. While the infiltrating air’s temperature is reduced by 3. Bruyere. The RNG k–e model performed relatively better. Building and Environment 39 (10) (2004) 1157–1170. Gratia. Energy efficiency office/HMSO. Furthermore. a mathematical model was developed and applied to study the indoor environment computationally. referring to both local and global assessment. thus. This is not surprising as the infiltrating outdoor air enters the chamber at a vertical incidence angle and thus provides maximum thermal load. even though the external temperature was 7 8C above the initial wall temperatures. they provide an ‘‘image’’ of the airflow which may represent natural ventilation as a result of prevailing wind effects. Glicksman.9 in the bulk flow to 2. within relatively modest computer resources.R. [2] C. Alloca. the extended PMV model was implemented in the CFD model using the expectancy factor and the reduction of the metabolic rate according to a linear interpolation technique. As far as relative humidity is concerned. 14e). rather than near the south wall as in case A (Fig. [3] Energy consumption guide 19.B. How to use natural ventilation to cool narrow office buildings. it is observed that the internal values are higher than the external.F. 15).1680 G. the maximum temperature at the middle vertical direction of the chamber is 307. especially in the recirculation zones. especially for temperature predictions and it was chosen and used further for thermal comfort estimation purposes. [4] P. predicted temperature is at least 1 8C higher than the optimum one for 80% acceptability. as for both cases studied thermal acceptability was calculated below the recommended 80%. (20). corresponding to 38% and 45% acceptability of the indoor conditions. The maximum PPD is calculated 76. temperature differences at all vertical directions are below the threshold value. Stavrakakis et al. Conclusions An experimental method has been developed to determine the airflow pattern and indoor thermal environment in case of natural cross-ventilation. indoor thermal environment was slightly improved during the afternoon hours (case B) but still remains unacceptable. London. References [1] M. PPD could be minimized due to sufficient mixing. Estimates of the energy impact of ventilation and associated financial expenditures. Due to high temperatures of the infiltrating air at this area. and. De Herde. standing for air draughts occurring when temperatures are lower than the value of human thermal neutrality (34 8C) under sedentary activity. Awbi. However. Linden.and moderate wind-conditions. 16). Consequently. Gadi. This is also true. in case of both doors being open. M. In case of moderate external temperatures. Orme. as in case A (see Fig. A similar observation is true referring to a Æ10% fluctuating wind speed and a Æ15% fluctuating incidence angle.8 K. Design analysis of single-sided natural ventilation. [7] O. Finally.M. [5] E. The same conclusions are valid for the experimental case B (Fig. However. 15e). 16. respectively. For both cases.

[43] J. [41] E. [32] Supco DLTH temperature/humidity data loggers.H. Dascalaki. Energy and Buildings 38 (5) (2006) 491–501. [16] E. M. Krus. Kiranoudis.G. J. Schatzmann. on Passive and Low Energy Architecture. Jensen.J. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 15 (10) (1972) 1787–1806. Version 6. [29] R. Brager. G. Kakegawa. Bartzanas. A. Takeda. [38] T. N. Mavromatis. Geneva.H. NH. Energy and Buildings 36 (12) (2004) 1197–1209. [48] Huser Asmund. de Dear.05. Vrachopoulos. T. von Karman Institute.R. Ernest. 2004. Ring. [9] L. Galea. H. Wright. Computational analysis of wind driven natural ventilation in buildings. 1983. Energy and Buildings 33 (1) (2000) 41–48. 2002. Alexander. Mora. Natural ventilation in buildings: measurement in a wind tunnel and numerical simulation with large eddy simulation. Study of the natural convection phenomena inside a wall solar chimney with one adiabatic and one wall under a heat flux. Bauman. H. July 5–8. Mochida. Y. Wurtz. Westbury. pp. Moderate thermal environments—determination of PMV and PPD indices and specification of the conditions for thermal comfort. Application of k–e model to the stable ABL: pollution in complex terrain. 2006. Extension of the PMV model to non-air-conditioned buildings in warm climates. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 89 (13) (2001) 1155–1178. Jiang.B. Numerical simulation of air flow field in single-sided ventilated buildings. Fanger.C. [18] K. Gadgil. R. ANSI/ASHRAE 55. Shah. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55. Fanger. Stavrakakis et al. S. J. Energy and Buildings 12 (1) (1988) 21–39. Jiang.C. Markatos. [40] G. A. Fluent User’s Guide. New York.M. Toftum.K. Computers Fluids 24 (3) (1995) 227–238. D. S. Argiriou. [33] G. Basic theory. E. 2005. A new k–e eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows. [46] N. Bacharoudis. J. Liou. E.S. . Berlin. in: CD Proceedings ENERTECH2007. France. Methods for controlling airflow in and around a building under cross-ventilation to improve indoor thermal comfort. [27] E. Boulard. G. Chen. C. Lecture III: Boundary conditions. Recommendations on the use of CFD in wind engineering. [10] Y. M. Pergamon Press. Study of airflow pattern and thermal environment in naturally ventilated buildings.2. [15] Y.A. [13] M. [49] N.. S. M. [44] K. Crete. S. Irie. C. Applied Thermal Engineering 27 (13) (2007) 2266–2275.W. Arens. Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. Markatos.C. in: Proceedings of 3rd European Conference on Energy Performance and Indoor Climate in Buildings. Koukou. Computational prediction of buoyancy-driven airflow in air-conditioned enclosures. 2002. Wurtz. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 66 (3) (1997) 197–214. Yoshino. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 91 (3) (2003) 331–353. Study of natural ventilation in buildings by large eddy simulation. Athens. Q.Gr. Markatos. [45] J. [23] P. H. [22] ISO Standard 7730-94. [47] Fluent Inc.K. Z. C. Indoor Air 13 (2003) 77–85. McGraw-Hill.H. Kurabuchi. Ferziger. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 34 (1) (1991) 181–197. T. Belgium. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 67&68 (1997) 211–224.W.O. Evola. [31] KIMO thermo-anemometer multi-probes VT 200F. Q. A. The effects of external wind pressure distributions on wind-induced air motion inside buildings. Murakami. Mathematical modeling of buoyancy-induced smoke flow in enclosures.S. 2007. October 18–21. Akabayashi. S. Developing an adaptive model of thermal comfort and preference. [36] N. Instruction manual. M. Stavrakakis.J. The Deavis and Harris ABL model applied to heterogeneous terrain. D. Q. M. [14] D. and ventilation flow rates using wind tunnel experiments. Chen. Filios. 05. Markatos. Udine. Introduction to the prediction of wind effects on buildings with computational wind engineering (CWE). Helmis. Ironmaking and Steelmaking 16 (4) (1989) 266–273. / Energy and Buildings 40 (2008) 1666–1681 [8] L. C. Ferziger. Orszag. Greece. Santamouris. The mathematical modeling and computer simulation of fire development in aircraft. A. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 25 (1) (1982) 63–75. 667–675. A fluid mechanicians view of wind engineering: large eddy simulation of flow past a cubic obstacle.C. Springer-Verlag. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 67 and 68 (1997) 425–436. Comparing zonal and CFD model predictions of isothermal indoor airflows to experimental data. International Standards Organization. [20] Q. Markatos. Markatos. Air turbulence and sensation of draught.T.S. American Society of Heating. Franke. Cox. Soilemes. Inard. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. V. 1972. J. A calculation procedure for heat. Renormalisation group analysis of turbulence: I.E. A. Spalding. [35] T. K. [37] A. Green. D. Malin. P. 2002. Papadopoulos.H. E. 1999. ASHRAE RP-884 Final report. A. Peric. Arthur. October 23–26. 1994. [42] S. Franke.M. M. Lebanon. D.W. [17] Y. Skatun Helge. Ohba. Journal of Scientific Computing 1 (1) (1986) 1–51. Buoyancy driven single-sided natural ventilation in buildings with large openings. H. Launder. Int. ASHRAE Transactions 104 (1a) (1998) 145–167. Chen. [50] R. N. September 18–22. S.J. [25] P. Fluent Inc. D.A. Advanced schools 2006 at International Centre for Mechanical Sciences (CISM). Miyauchi. G. Koukou. A. COST C14 International Conference on Urban Wind Engineering and ` Buildings Aerodynamics. [12] S. Cooper. mass and momentum transfer in three-dimensional parabolic flows. K.S. Predicting single sided natural ventilation rates in buildings. Shabbir.R. computational domains and grids. D. [24] Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy.B. Zhu. Atlanta. Heidelberg. The mathematical modeling of turbulent flows. Using computational tools to factor wind into architectural environment design. Melikov. Tominaga. Kittas.M.V. Lyon.C. [21] A. Patankar. Spalding. de Dear. Wisse. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 41–44 (1–3) (1992) 2575–2586. T. Margaris.O.G. USA. Papakonstantinou. Shih. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 46 (6) (2003) 973–988. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 41–44 (1–3) (1992) 2539–2550. D. F. 2006. A. 2004. Nilsen Pa1 Jahre. Kato. third ed.K. Markatos. [39] B. J. Applied Mathematical Modeling 10 (3) (1986) 190–220. M. Conf.E. ¨ [34] J.C. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 93 (6) (2005) 437–449. Gadgil. Vrachopoulos. Popov. Yang. Chen. Energy and Buildings 34 (6) (2002) 533–536.-07.D. Markatos. Academic press. Velocity-pressure field of cross ventilation with open windows analysed by wind tunnel and numerical simulation. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 89 (14–15) (2001) 1513–1524. [30] R. Mathematical Models of Turbulence. W. T. Hanzawa.Gr. Jenkins. N. Italy. Athens. Yakhot. USA. Comparing zonal and CFD model predictions of indoor airflows under mixed convection conditions to experimental data. Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. C. Solar Energy 55 (5) (1995) 327–341. Miles. M. Jiang. Biosystems Engineering 88 (4) (2004) 479–490. technical data sheet. Computer analysis of building ventilation and heating problems. Effect of vent arrangement on windward ventilation of a tunnel greenhouse.C. Rhode-Saint-Genese. Mora. in: Proceedings of 2nd IC-SCCE. Stavrakakis. Cook. Study on airflow characteristics inside and outside a cross-ventilation model.C.A. Perry.. Asimakopoulos.B. in: Proc. [19] N. [11] G. Computational fluid flow capabilities and software. A.A. N. Mochida. 1997. Hirsch. [26] Thermal environmental conditions for human occupancy.J. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook. 1992.J. N. 1681 [28] N. Brager.G.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.