## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

**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 mÂ 4 mÂ 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 þ0:028L (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

þ f

cl

h

c

ðT

cl

ÀTÞ þ3:05 Â10

À3

½5733 À6:99ðMÀWÞ

À p

v

þ0:42ðMÀW À58:15Þ þ1:7 Â10

À5

Mð5867

À p

v

Þ þ0:0014Mð34 ÀTÞg (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

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; 1

À0:067MÂPMV

trad

þ1:004M; PMV

trad

2ð1; 2

À0:067MÂPMV

trad

þ1:013M; PMV

trad

2ð2; 3

(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 þ0:028L (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

(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 Â 4 m Â 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 Ã 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. uÃ 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 Â 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 0:028L (9) where Y H2 O is the water vapour mass fraction in the mixture. 3 .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. 1 = (16) Mred ¼ À0:067M Â 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 Â 10À8 f cl ½ðT cl þ 273Þ4 À ðT r þ 273Þ4 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 Â 10À8 f cl ½ðT cl þ 273Þ4 À ðT r þ 273Þ4 þ f cl hc ðT cl À TÞ þ 3:05 Â 10À3 ½5733 À 6:99ðM À WÞ À pv þ 0:42ðM À W À 58:15Þ þ 1:7 Â 10À5 Mð5867 À pv Þ þ 0:0014Mð34 À TÞg 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. 2 : . ~ 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 Â 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 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 0:028L 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.

- Energy Efficiency in Hotels
- Combined CFD-Mean energy balance methode to thermal comfort assessment of buildings in a warm tropical climate
- Using Microclimatic Landscape Design to Create Thermal Comfort and Energy
- GBI Design Reference Guide & Submission Format NRNC
- Indoor Air Quality 18-11-2010موقع
- Thermal Comfort Housing for Malaysia, China and Arab Countries
- Energy Efficiency in Hospitals
- Part 1 - Thermal Comfort
- LEED Version 3 Project Management Tool
- Articulo
- Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies LEEDv4
- Bbse3006 1112 05-Ventilation
- roof insulation
- ICCROM_13_The Role of Architecture in Preventive Conservation
- Textile Based Ventilation for a good indoor climate
- Kitchen Makeup Air
- HVAC Introduction
- HVAC White Paper Classrooms
- Industrial Ventilation
- Nr_2_Ventilation_Effectiveness.pdf
- Energy Efficiency and Indoor Climate of Apartment Buildings in Estonia
- PEFY-P15~96NMHU-E_Submittal[1]
- Mitsubishi - Recuperador entalpico RX4 - Technical Manual.pdf
- Capitol
- EN 15242
- PM2089J
- AccutronMAQS_2013
- CFD for Sustainable Design.pdf

Read Free for 30 Days

Cancel anytime.

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading