Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Building and Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/buildenv

On the accuracy of CFD simulations of cross-ventilation flows for a

generic isolated building: Comparison of RANS, LES and experiments
T. van Hooff a, b, *, B. Blocken a, b, Y. Tominaga c
a
Department of Civil Engineering, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 40 e bus 2447, 3001 Leuven, Belgium
b
Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
c
Department of Architecture and Building Engineering, Niigata Institute of Technology, 1719, Fujihashi, Kashiwazaki, Japan

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Accurate and reliable computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are essential for the assessment of
Received 10 November 2016 cross-ventilation of buildings. To determine which CFD models are most suitable, validation studies are
Received in revised form required. A detailed review of the literature indicates that most CFD validation studies only employed the
9 December 2016
3D steady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach and/or focused on a limited set of flow
Accepted 12 December 2016
Available online 13 December 2016
parameters. Therefore, the objective of this paper is the validation of both 3D steady RANS simulations
and large eddy simulation (LES) of cross-ventilation in a generic isolated enclosure with wind-tunnel
measurements. The evaluation is based on five parameters: mean velocity, turbulent kinetic energy,
Keywords:
Natural cross-ventilation flow
ventilation flow rate, incoming jet angle and incoming jet spreading width. The RANS simulations are
Numerical simulation conducted with the standard k-ε (SKE), RNG k-ε, realizable k-ε (RLZ), SST k-u and RSM turbulence
Atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) flow models, whereas the LES is performed with the dynamic Smagorinsky subgrid-scale model. SST/RNG/
Building aerodynamics RSM reproduce the experimentally observed direction of the incoming jet, but all RANS models fail in
Turbulence model validation reproducing the turbulent kinetic energy, which is too low especially above and below the jet, because
Transient flow features steady RANS does not capture the vertical flapping of the jet. This transient feature is reproduced by LES,
resulting in a better reproduction of all three measured parameters (velocity, turbulent kinetic energy,
volume flow rate). It is concluded that choice of the model (RANS vs. LES) actually depends on which
parameter is the target parameter, noting that the use of LES entails an increase in computational de-
mand with a factor of z80e100.
© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction ventilation occurs through large openings, which makes the

1.1. Literature review
Cross-ventilation is an important ventilation method since it
can provide a fast and effective way to remove large amounts of
pollutants and to quickly release internal heat from a building or
other enclosure (i.e. ventilative cooling). For detailed analysis of
natural ventilation in general, and cross-ventilation in particular,
researchers are resorting more and more to the use of computa-
tional fluid dynamics (CFD) (e.g. Refs. [1e14]). The increased use of
CFD for such studies can be attributed to the strong interaction
between the outdoor wind flow and indoor airflow when natural
* Corresponding author. Building Physics Section, Department of Civil Engineer-
ing, KU Leuven, Kasteelpark Arenberg 40, Bus 2447, 3001 Leuven, Belgium.
E-mail address: twan.vanhooff@kuleuven.be (T. van Hooff).
resulting ventilation flow through an enclosure difficult to predict
using analytical or (semi-)empirical models. For example, Straw
et al. [4] showed in their cross-ventilation study that the use of
pressure coefficients in combination with the orifice equation did
not result in an accurate prediction of volume flow rates when
compared to the measured volume flow rates (deviations of
28e32%). The observed deviations were attributed to either as-
sumptions needed for the values of the discharge coefficient and/or
values for the pressure coefficients obtained from a sealed body
that do not correspond with the pressure distribution on the same
body when (large) openings are present [4]. The coupled CFD
simulation (indoor and outdoor airflow modeled simultaneously in
the same computational domain) reported in their publication did
provide far more accurate results, with a deviation of only 3e9%
from the measurements [4].
Most natural ventilation studies presented in the past used the
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach, in which the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.019
0360-1323/© 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165 149

Reynolds decomposition is used to split the flow variables in a
mean and a fluctuating component. In RANS CFD simulations, the
mean flow is resolved whereas the effects of turbulence (fluctu-
ating components) on the mean flow is modeled using a turbulence
model. Since assumptions have to be made to model these effects, a
proper validation study is imperative to ensure an accurate solution
of the natural ventilation flow using RANS. In large eddy simulation
(LES), the mean flow and the large-scale turbulence with a length
scale larger than the filter size (often taken as the grid size) are
resolved and the small-scale turbulence is modeled using a
subgrid-scale model. Although LES is an intrinsically more accurate
method for CFD simulations of wind flows (e.g. Refs. [15e18]), its
use entails a (very) large increase in computational demand (e.g.
factor > 102 [1]) and it is therefore often not a viable option in
research and consultancy (e.g. Refs. [1,2]).
To assess the performance of RANS and LES for cross-ventilation
flows, detailed validation studies are required using high-resolution,
well-defined and well-documented reduced-scale or full-scale
experiments. A detailed review of the literature has been performed,
resulting in Table 1 that provides an overview of CFD cross-
ventilation studies with validation based on either reduced-scale
wind-tunnel or full-scale on-site measurements, or both. Table 1
shows that the majority of these publications considered valida-
tion for RANS turbulence models only and only a relatively limited
number of these studies compared multiple turbulence models with
experimental data. Table 1 also indicates the type of study (generic
or applied) and the flow parameters for which the validation study
was performed, i.e. validation based on velocities, turbulence levels,
volume flow rates, surface pressures, velocity vector fields, etc. Most
studies listed in Table 1 included one to three parameters in the
validation. For example, Lee et al. [27] performed particle image
velocimetry (PIV) measurements in a generic greenhouse and used
these results for a comparison with results from CFD simulations
using the standard k-ε, renormalization group (RNG) k-ε, and real-
izable k-ε models, and a Reynolds stress model (RSM). Mean velocity
and turbulence intensity were compared along one vertical line in

Table 1
Non-exhaustive overview of wind-induced cross-ventilation validation studies with indication of the type of study (generic or applied), the numerical method used (RANS/LES/
DES), the turbulence models tested, the type of experiments used for the validation study (wind tunnel and/or full scale) and the parameters for which the validation has been
performed (i.e. velocity, velocity vector fields, turbulence levels, volume flow rates, temperatures, concentrations, surface pressures).

Authors (year) Ref. Gen./App. Method Turb. models Exp. Val. param.

Kato et al. (1992) [3] Generic LES Standard Smagorinsky WT V,VF,Q,P

Mistrotis et al. (1997) [19] Applied RANS SKE, CK, RNG WT/FS V,VF,TP
Mistrotis et al. (1997) [20] Applied RANS RNG WT VF,T
Kurabuchi et al. (2000) [21] Generic RANS SKE, LK, MMK WT VF,TP,Q,P
LES Standard Smagorinsky WT
Straw et al. (2000) [4] Generic RANS RNG FS V,Q
Jiang and Chen (2002) [22] Applied LES Standard Smagorinsky WT/FS V,P
Jiang et al. (2003) [6] Generic LES Standard Smagorinsky WT V,VF,TP,P
Bartzanas et al. (2004) [23] Applied RANS SKE FS V,Q,T
Kurabuchi et al. (2004) [24] Generic LES Standard Smagorinsky WT VF,TP,P
Shklyar & Arbel (2004) [25] Generic RANS SKE, RSM FS P
Hu et al. (2005) [26] Generic RANS SKE, RNG, SKO, SST WT VF,TP,Q
Lee et al. (2005) [27] Generic RANS SKE, RNG, RLZ, RSM WT V,VF,TP
Mochida et al. (2005) [28] Applied RANS DKE FS V
Mochida et al. (2006) [29] Applied RANS DKE FS V,Q
Evola and Popov (2006) [30] Generic RANS SKE, RNG WT V,Q,P
Fatnassi et al. (2006) [31] Applied RANS SKE FS Q
Yang et al. (2006) [9] Generic RANS SKE, RNG FS Q,P
Bartzanas et al. (2007) [32] Applied RANS SKE, RNG, RLZ, RSM FS Q
Hu et al. (2008) [33] Generic LES Standard Smagorinsky WT VF,TP,P
Stravakakis et al. (2008) [34] Applied RANS SKE, RNG, RLZ FS V,T
Teitel et al. (2008) [35] Applied RANS SKE WT/FS V
Kobayashi et al. (2009) [36] Generic RANS RSM WT Q,P
Kurabuchi et al. (2009) [37] Applied RANS DKE WT VF,Q,P
Meroney (2009) [38] Generic RANS SKE, RNG, RLZ, SKO, RSM WT V,VF
LES Standard Smagorinsky WT
DES Not reported WT
Norton et al. (2009) [10] Applied RANS SKE RS V,VF
Kobayashi et al. (2010) [39] Generic RANS RSM WT V,VF,P
Norton et al. (2010) [40] Generic RANS SKE FS V
Norton et al. (2010) [41] Applied RANS SKE SCV V,T
Nikas et al. (2010) [42] Generic RANS SKO WT/FS V,Q
van Hooff & Blocken (2010a,b) [11,43] Applied RANS RLZ FS V
Cheung and Liu (2011) [44] Generic RANS SKE WT V,VF,TP,Q
Larsen et al. (2011) [45] Generic RANS SKO WT/FS V
Lo & Novoselac (2011) [46] Applied RANS RNG FS TP,Q
Lo (2012) [47] Generic RANS SKE, RNG WT/FS Q,T,C
Ramponi & Blocken (2012a,2012b) [48,49] Generic RANS SKE, RNG, RLZ, SKO, SST, RSM WT V,VF
Lo & Novoselac (2013) [50] Applied RANS SKE FS Q,T,C
Mohamed et al. (2013) [51] Generic RANS SKE WT Q
van Hooff & Blocken (2013) [52] Applied RANS RLZ FS V,C
Peren et al. (2015a-c, 2016) [53e56] Generic RANS SKE, RNG, RLZ, SKO, SST, RSM WT V,VF
Martins & Carrilho da Graça (2016) [57] Applied RANS SKE, RNG WT P
Tong et al. (2016) [14] Generic LES Dynamic Smagorinsky WT V
Tong et al. (2016) [58] Generic LES Dynamic Smagorinsky WT V

CK ¼ Chen-Kim k-ε model [59], LK ¼ Launder-Kato k-ε model [60], MMK ¼ Murakami-Mochida-Kondo k-ε model [61], DKE ¼ Durbin k-ε model [62], DES ¼ Detached Eddy
Simulation [63]. FS ¼ full scale, RS ¼ reduced scale, WT ¼ wind tunnel. V ¼ velocities, VF ¼ velocity vector fields, TP ¼ turbulence parameters, Q ¼ volume flow rates,
T ¼ temperatures, C ¼ concentrations, P ¼ surface pressures.
150 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165
the middle of the greenhouse and they concluded that the best
agreement was obtained with the RNG k-ε model and the RSM
model, with average errors of 7.9% and 7.6%, respectively, for mean
velocity. However, Lee et al. [27] also stated that the average errors of
turbulence intensity for the RNG k-ε model and the RSM model were
much larger: 37.5% and 43.2%, respectively. A comparison of the
measured velocity vector fields with those obtained from CFD with
the RNG k-ε model showed very similar internal flow patterns [27].
Evola and Popov [30] compared the mean velocity along three ver-
tical lines inside a cubical building as measured by Jiang et al. [6] in a
wind tunnel with the results from steady RANS CFD simulations
with both the standard k-ε model and the RNG k-ε model. The
agreement was better with the RNG k-ε model than with the stan-
dard k-ε model. In terms of volume flow rate, the deviation was 8.7%
for the RNG k-ε model and 13.7% for the standard k-ε model. In
addition, they compared the mean surface-averaged external pres-
sure coefficients for the roof and the four facades of the building. Hu
et al. [26] used the experimental results presented by Kurabuchi
et al. [24] for a validation study of four RANS turbulence models
(standard k-ε, RNG k-ε, standard k-u, shear stress transport (SST) k-
u), and focused on mean velocity vector fields and contours of tur-
bulent kinetic energy, which were qualitatively compared in the
vertical center plane. They concluded that both k-u models showed
a better agreement with the measurements than the k-ε models,
mainly due to a too horizontal jet trajectory predicted by the k-ε
models [26]. In addition, Hu et al. [26] showed that the predicted
values of turbulent kinetic energy inside the enclosure were lower
than the measured ones, while they were higher than the measured
ones in the stagnation region outside the enclosure. Overall, they
concluded that the best agreement between the experimental and
numerical data with respect to the mean velocity vector fields and
turbulent kinetic energy contours was obtained using the SST k-u
model [26]. Finally, Hu et al. [26] compared the experimentally ob-
tained volume flow rates with those obtained using the SST k-u
model for different wind directions; the results were within z12%
for each wind direction with an average deviation of 5%. Ramponi
and Blocken [48,49] and Pere n et al. [53e56] used PIV measure-
ments by Karava et al. [64] to validate steady RANS CFD models of
cross-ventilation flow. Ramponi and Blocken [48,49] made a com-
parison of the performance of the standard k-ε model, realizable k-ε
model, RNG k-ε model, standard k-u model, SST k-u model and a
RSM model with respect to the mean streamwise velocity along a
horizontal line through the center of the two symmetrically placed
window openings (vertical location in middle of facades). Also mean
velocity vector fields were compared with the measured ones. The
best agreement was obtained with the SST k-u model followed by
the RNG k-ε model [48]. These two models were the only ones that
accurately predicted the direction of the incoming jet through the
windward opening. Pere n et al. [53e56] also used the experimental
data by Karava et al. [64], but this time for asymmetrical window
openings; i.e. windward opening in bottom part and leeward
opening in upper part of facade. A comparison was made along a
horizontal line through the windward opening and along a diagonal
line through both the windward and leeward opening. Their vali-
dation study resulted in the same conclusions as by Ramponi and
Blocken [48]; with the best agreement obtained by the SST k-u
model and the RNG k-ε model [53e56]. Turbulent kinetic energy
levels were not assessed in these studies.
A few validation studies were conducted in which only LES was
assessed. The early and pioneering study by Kato et al. [3]
compared LES simulations with the standard Smagorinsky
subgrid-scale model with their own wind-tunnel experiments
finding a good agreement with respect to the mean velocity along
four vertical lines, and also with respect to the volume flow rates
(within 13%). Kato et al. [3] also compared mean external surface
pressure coefficients on the windward and leeward facade and
mean surface pressure coefficients on the floor obtained from the
experiments with those from LES. LES was capable of reproducing
the pressures on the windward facade and ground surface, but
deviations were observed for the leeward facade [3]. Also Jiang et al.
[6], Kurabuchi et al. [24] and Hu et al. [33] compared LES simula-
tions with the standard Smagorinsky subgrid-scale model with
wind-tunnel measurements and found good qualitative agree-
ments as well. Note that no specific quantification of the agreement
between CFD and LES was provided at that time.
Only a very limited number of publications reported validation
studies including both steady RANS and LES simulations. Kurabuchi
et al. [21] compared split-film anemometer measurements with
both steady RANS and LES simulations. In the steady RANS simula-
tions, the standard k-ε model and two modified k-ε models were
used, whereas the LES simulation used the standard Smagorinsky
subgrid-scale model. Based on velocity vector plots and contours of
turbulent kinetic energy they concluded that LES provided an
excellent qualitative agreement with the measurements, and was
more accurate than the RANS simulations. Kurabuchi et al. [21] also
compared the predicted flow rates through the building with flow
rates based on tracer gas (ethylene) measurements obtaining a very
good agreement with LES (2.3% deviation) and a good agreement
with the RANS models (4.6e7% deviation). In addition, it was shown
that the modified k-ε models showed a better qualitative agreement
than the standard k-ε model based on velocity vector plots and
contours of turbulent kinetic energy. Finally, they compared
measured mean external surface pressure coefficients on the
windward and leeward facade and on the roof with results obtained
from steady RANS and LES and found a much better agreement with
LES than with RANS, both at the windward and leeward facade.
1.2. Introduction of current study
The overview of cross-ventilation validation studies in Section
1.1 clearly demonstrates that there is currently no consensus in the
literature on which CFD method provides the best results and the
best balance between accuracy and computational demand, which
is at least partly due to the lack of validation studies based on
detailed experimental data of mean velocity and turbulence in-
tensity and including both RANS simulation and LES simulations;
previous studies generally only assessed one of both methods. For
example, several studies have reported the inability of steady RANS
to accurately predict turbulent kinetic energy inside the enclosure
(e.g. Refs. [26,27]), while the predictions of velocities are often
stated to be sufficiently accurate. In addition, most validation
studies focused on the comparison of mean velocity vector fields,
mean velocity and turbulence kinetic energy or volume flow rates,
or a combination of these. Although several studies pointed to
difficulties in correctly predicting the incoming jet, to the best
knowledge of the authors, no validation study has yet analyzed the
behavior of the incoming jet and its reproduction by CFD simula-
tions (either RANS or LES) in more detail.
Therefore, the objective of this paper is the validation of both 3D
steady RANS simulations and LES of cross-ventilation in a generic
isolated enclosure with wind-tunnel measurements from literature
[65,66]. The RANS simulations are conducted with the standard k-ε
(SKE), RNG k-ε, realizable k-ε (RLZ), SST k-u and RSM turbulence
models, whereas the LES is performed with the dynamic Smagor-
insky subgrid-scale model. The evaluation is based on five param-
eters: mean velocity, turbulent kinetic energy, ventilation flow rate,
incoming jet angle and incoming jet spreading width. The nearly
cubical enclosure is equipped with two windows, one on both the
windward and on the leeward side of the building. To the best
knowledge of the authors, such a detailed validation study for both
 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165
RANS and LES, including an analysis of the jet dynamics, has not
been reported before and can thus be regarded as novel.
The wind-tunnel experiments and the building geometry are
presented in Section 2. In Section 3 the computational settings are
described and the results of the grid-sensitivity analysis are pre-
sented. The comparison of the steady RANS simulations with the
experiments is provided in Section 4. The results of the LES simu-
lation are presented in Section 5 and a more detailed comparison
between the RANS and LES results is provided in Section 6. Section
7 (Discussion) and Section 8 (Conclusions) conclude this paper.
2. Description of experiments
Tominaga and Blocken [65] reported reduced-scale measure-
ments of wind-induced cross-ventilation in the atmospheric
boundary layer (ABL) wind tunnel at Niigata Institute of Technology
in Japan. The wind tunnel has a test section of 13  1.8  1.8 m3 (L x H
x W). An atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) velocity profile was
created using a combination of spires and surface roughness ele-
ments. The velocity was measured using a split fiber probe (SFP)
(Dantec Dynamics; 55R55) and a constant temperature anemom-
etry (CTA) module (Dantec Dynamics; 90C10) to identify the three-
dimensional components of the velocity vector [65]. The measured
vertical approach flow profiles of mean streamwise velocity and
turbulent kinetic energy are depicted in Fig. 1. The mean streamwise
velocity can be fitted to a power law with an exponent of 0.25 [64]:
UðzÞ
z 0:25
¼ (1)
UH H
with UH the velocity at building height H. The turbulent kinetic
Fig. 1. Approach flow profiles of dimensionless mean velocity and turbulent kinetic
energy [65].
Fig. 2. Building geometry. (a) Front view. (b) Vertical cross-section. Dimensions in m.
151
energy values were obtained by three-component measurement of
the variances in the velocity fluctuations. This distribution can be
approximated by the following equation [65]:


0:32
kðzÞ z
¼ 0:033exp
H
(2)
U2H
The velocity at building height H (UH) was equal to 4.3 m/s.
The dimensions of the building model under study were
0.2  0.2  0.16 m3 (D x W x H) (Fig. 2). An opening area of
3.3  103 m2 was present in both the windward and the leeward
facade. The thickness of the walls and ceiling was 3 mm (0.003 m).
3. CFD simulations: computational settings and parameters
3.1. Computation geometry, domain and grid
The computational model represents the reduced-scale model
used in the wind-tunnel measurements. The thickness of the walls
and ceiling of 3 mm is explicitly included in the computational
model.
The computational domain is constructed based on the best
practice guidelines by Franke et al. [67], Tominaga et al. [68] and
Blocken [69]; i.e. a distance of 5H from the building to the top and
sides of the computational domain and a distance of 15H between
the building and the outlet boundary downstream of the building.
The upstream length of the domain is reduced to 3 times the height
of the building to limit the occurrence of unintended streamwise
gradients in the approach flow profiles [69,70]. The resulting di-
mensions of the domain are 5.32  1.8  0.96 m3 (L x W x H)
(Fig. 3a).
The computational grid is created using the surface-grid
extrusion technique by van Hooff and Blocken [11] and is shown
in Fig. 3bed. The computational grid consists of hexahedral cells
only, with a high spatial resolution near the building and its
openings. The grid resolution results from a grid-sensitivity anal-
ysis using three different grids, created by refining and coarsening
the basic grid with a factor of √2 in each direction. The results of
the grid-sensitivity analysis are presented in Section 3.4.
3.2. Boundary conditions
The boundary conditions reproduce the conditions during the
wind-tunnel experiments as much as possible. A logarithmic inlet
velocity profile is constructed based on a fit with the power law
profile described in Eq. (1). The resulting log-law equation is:
152 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165
Fig. 3. (a) Computational domain. Dimensions in m. (b) Computational grid on ground and building surfaces for basic grid (5,321,588 cells) (RANS simulation). (c) Computational
grid on building surfaces and on part of bottom of computational domain for basic grid (5,321,588 cells). (d) Detail of the computational grid. Note that no internal obstructions are
present.
 
uABL z þ z0
UðzÞ ¼ ln
k z0
with u*ABL the ABL friction velocity, k the von Karman constant
(0.42) and z the height coordinate. The log law is preferred over the
power law because it yields the value of u*ABL that is needed for the
profile of the turbulence dissipation rate ε. The aerodynamic
roughness length z0 is determined based on a fitting procedure
using the measured velocity profile yielding z0 ¼ 0.0009 m at
reduced scale. The corresponding value of u*ABL is 0.348 m/s for a
reference velocity at building height of UH ¼ 4.3 m/s (H ¼ 0.16 m).
The turbulent kinetic energy k is given by Eq. (2). The turbulence
dissipation rate ε is calculated using Eq. (4) [71]:
 * 3
uABL
εðzÞ ¼
kðz þ z0 Þ
The specific dissipation rate u for the SST k-u model is calcu-
lated using Eq. (5):
εðzÞ
uðzÞ ¼
Cm kðzÞ
where Cm is an empirical constant taken equal to 0.09. For the LES
computations, a time-dependent inlet profile is generated by using
the vortex method [72] with a number of vortices Nv ¼ 190. As
shown by Sergent [72], the influence of small changes in the
number of vortices on the generated velocity fluctuations is
negligibly small. In addition, this setting was successfully used in
previous LES validation studies by the authors for wind flows
around buildings [73e76] and indoor airflows [77].
At the ground and building surfaces, either an automated wall
treatment is used [78] (for the k-u model) or the standard wall
functions by Launder and Spalding [79] (for the other models) are
used in conjunction with the sand-grain based roughness (kS)
modification defined by Cebeci and Bradshaw [80]. The sand-grain
roughness height is set to zero (kS ¼ 0 m) for the bottom of the
domain (to represent a very smooth turntable) and the building
(3)
surfaces (smooth walls). Fig. 4 shows a check of the horizontal
homogeneity for two RANS simulations (RNG k-ε and SST k-u
model) and the LES simulation [70]. It compares the dimensionless
mean velocity magnitude (jVj/UH) profile at the inlet (x/D ¼ 3)
with the incident profile at the building location (x/D ¼ 0). There is
a very small acceleration near the ground due to the absence of a
surface roughness. Note however that this acceleration will also be
present in the wind tunnel when the air flows over the smooth
turntable of the wind tunnel (no roughness elements present at
turntable [65]) as also shown in previous experimental studies [81].
The incident profiles obtained with the three other RANS turbu-
lence models are identical to those of the RNG k-ε and SST k-u
models and are therefore not shown for the sake of brevity. At the
outlet plane, zero static gauge pressure is applied and at the top and
(4)
lateral sides of the domain, zero normal velocities and zero normal
gradients of all variables are imposed.
3.3. Solver settings
(5)
The finite volume method in the commercial CFD code ANSYS
Fluent 15 [78] is used to solve the approximate forms of the gov-
erning equations. The 3D steady RANS equations are solved in
combination with five turbulence models; 4 two-equation eddy-
viscosity models and one second-order closure model: (1) standard
k-ε model (SKE) [79]; (2) realizable k-ε model (RLZ) [82]; (3) RNG k-
ε model [83,84]; (4) SST k-u model [85]; (5) low-Re stress-omega
RSM model [86]. The SIMPLE algorithm is used for pressure-
velocity coupling, pressure interpolation is second order and
second-order discretization schemes are used for both the con-
vection terms and the viscous terms of the governing equations.
Convergence is assumed to be obtained when all the scaled re-
siduals level off and reach a minimum value. The minimum values
of the residuals vary for the different turbulence models, for
example the minimum values for the SST k-u model are 107 for x,
 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165
Fig. 4. (a) Comparison of inlet and incident dimensionless mean velocity magnitude (jVj/UH) profiles for two RANS simulations and one LES simulation. (b) Schematic cross-section
of the domain (not to scale) with location of inlet profile (x/D ¼ 3) and incident profile (x/D ¼ 0).
y, z momentum, 106 for k, and 105 for continuity and u. Note that
oscillatory convergence is observed in the simulation with the RSM
model, which required averaging over a sufficient number of iter-
ations (e.g. Refs. [48,69]). The LES simulation in this study is per-
formed using the dynamic Smagorinsky subgrid-scale model
[87e89]. The filtered momentum equation is discretized with a
bounded central-differencing scheme and pressure interpolation is
second order. Time integration is second-order implicit. Pressure-
velocity coupling is taken care of by the fractional step algorithm.
The time step Dt is based on a maximum CFL number of 1 and is
equal to Dt ¼ 0.0002 s. The results of the LES computation pre-
sented here are averaged over 375,000 time steps, which corre-
spond to a flow time of 75 s, i.e. 60 times the flow-through time
(through the computational domain). It is verified that the aver-
aging time is sufficient to obtain statistically-steady results by
monitoring the evolution of the mean velocity at several locations
inside the enclosure with time (moving average). The simulation is
terminated when the moving average of the mean velocity at all
location remains within 0.5%.
All simulations are conducted on the HPC cluster (x86_64 ar-
chitecture) at Eindhoven University of Technology in the
Netherlands. For each simulation 14 cores on a node are used
(Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU - X5650 @ 2.67 GHz), and 64 or 96 GB of
system memory is available depending on the node used.
3.4. Grid-sensitivity analysis
A grid-sensitivity analysis is conducted for RANS with the SST k-
u model. The coarse, basic and fine grid contain 1,897,416 cells,
5,321,588 cells, and 14,335,040 cells, respectively. 2, 3, and 4 cells
are used across the wall thickness for the coarse, basic and fine grid,
respectively. Fig. 5 shows the results of the grid-sensitivity analysis
by means of the dimensionless mean streamwise velocity (UX/UH)
along three vertical lines in the vertical center plane (y/W ¼ 0). The
basic and the fine grid provide almost the same results, while the
results obtained with the coarse grid show clear deviations with
the results of the basic grid at all three lines. Differences between
the basic and the fine grid at x/D ¼ 0.125 below z/H ¼ 0.3 go up to
D(UX/UH) ¼ 0.03.
The grid-convergence index (GCI) as proposed by Roache [90] is
used to provide an estimate of the error in UX/UH obtained on the
basic grid:
153
h
. i
rp Ubasic  Ufine UH 

GCIbasic ¼ Fs   (6)
1  rp
with r the linear grid refinement factor (r ¼ √2), p the formal order
of accuracy which is assigned a value of 2 due to the second-order
discretization schemes used for the simulations, and Fs is the safety
factor, taken to be 1.25, which is the recommended value when
three or more grids are considered in the grid-sensitivity analysis
[90]. The GCI provides an estimate of the error in the solution of the
basic grid by comparing it to that of the fine grid. The calculated GCI
along the three vertical lines is shown in Fig. 5def. The average
values of GCI along the three lines are: 2.4%, 1.7% and 1.0%,
respectively. It is concluded that the basic grid provides nearly grid-
independent results and it is therefore used in the remainder of the
study for the RANS simulations. The LES simulation is conducted on
the coarse grid to limit the computational cost, as explained later.
Note that the definition “coarse” with respect to the mesh resolu-
tion is a bit misleading, since the minimum cell size is still as small
as 0.001 m, 54  78 x 56 cells are present inside the enclosure over
the building depth, width and height, and the cell count for the
building including its direct vicinity (within H) is z 1.5 million,
resulting in a high-resolution grid in the area of interest.
4. CFD simulations: RANS results
Fig. 6 shows a comparison of x-velocity (UX/UH) by all five RANS
turbulence models with the corresponding measurements along
seven vertical lines in the vertical center plane (y/W ¼ 0) of the
enclosure. The main observations are:
 The different RANS models provide very different results. The
RNG, SST and RSM models provide about the same vertical
location of maximum UX/UH in the jet region along each vertical
line. It is remarkable that the RNG and the SST models provide
almost identical velocity profiles. On the contrary, the SKE and
RLZ models provide a too high location of maximum velocity.
 SKE and RLZ models also provide a larger width of the incoming
jet and the related smaller velocity gradients in the shear layer
of the incoming jet.
 The RSM model provides substantially higher values for the
maximum velocity in the jet region compared to the RNG and
154 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165

Fig. 5. Grid-sensitivity analysis: (aec) Comparison of dimensionless mean x-velocity (UX/UH) obtained with steady RANS CFD simulations on three different grids (coarse, basic,
fine) along three vertical lines inside the building in the vertical center plane (y/W ¼ 0). (def) Grid-convergence index (GCI) along same three vertical lines. (a,d) x/D ¼ 0.125; (b,e)
x/D ¼ 0.5; (c,f) x/D ¼ 0.875.

SST models; e.g. at x/D ¼ 0.375 UX/UH z 0.50 for the RNG and
SST models, while UX/UH ¼ 0.58 for the RSM model (Fig. 6c).
 The general flow pattern in the lower part of the enclosure is
better reproduced by RNG and SST (better prediction of vertical
location of maximum velocity), and to a lesser extent by the RSM
model, while the flow in the upper part (z/H > 0.6) is more
accurately reproduced by SKE, RLZ and RSM.
Fig. 7 displays the contours of the dimensionless mean velocity
magnitude (jVj/UH) in the vertical center plane including the jet
half-widths d0.5 for each model (visualized with white dots) on
each side of the jet centerline (d0.5;upper and d0.5;lower). The value of
(d0.5;upperþd0.5;lower)/HO at x/D ¼ 0.625, with HO the inlet opening
height, is also reported. The jet half-width d0.5 is defined as the
vertical linear distance between the local maximum jet velocity
magnitude (jVjMAX) and the location where the velocity magnitude
at is equal to half the local jet centerline velocity jVjMAX; i.e.
0.5jVjMAX (see Fig. 7f). Note that due to asymmetry of the incoming
jet the jet half-width below the jet centerline (d0.5;lower) is not
necessarily equal to the one above the jet centerline (d0.5;upper). The
main observations are:
 The direction of the incoming jet is very different for SKE and
RLZ on the one hand, versus RNG, SST and RSM on the other
hand. The SKE and RLZ models provide an incoming jet that is
more horizontal, in line with the observations from Fig. 6.
 Fig. 7 also clearly shows the larger jet spreading with SKE and
RLZ compared to RNG, SST and RSM. The jet spreading param-
eter (d0.5;upperþd0.5;lower)/HO is largest for RLZ and SKE, with
values of 1.7 and 1.6, respectively, followed by SST (1.2), RNG
(1.1) and RSM (1.0).
 Fig. 7e shows the higher velocity in the incoming jet predicted
by the RSM model, also visible in Fig. 6, which is directly related
to the lesser spreading rate.
Fig. 8 provides a comparison of the dimensionless turbulent
kinetic energy (k/U2H) along the seven vertical lines in the vertical
center plane. The most important observations are:
 Turbulent kinetic energy is underpredicted in large areas above
and below the incoming jet by all RANS turbulence models. This
can be explained by the fact that steady RANS does not correctly
model the effect of transient flow features on the resolved flow
pattern, while the experiments [65] clearly indicate the pres-
ence of pronounced transient effects, such as the jet flapping
 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165 155

Fig. 6. Comparison of dimensionless mean x-velocity (UX/UH) obtained with steady RANS CFD simulations with different turbulence models (solid and dashed lines), and with
wind-tunnel measurements (A), along seven vertical lines inside the building in the vertical center plane (y/W ¼ 0). (a) x/D ¼ 0.125; (b) x/D ¼ 0.25; (c) x/D ¼ 0.375; (d) x/D ¼ 0.5;
(e) x/D ¼ 0.625; (f) x/D ¼ 0.75; (g) x/D ¼ 0.875.

Fig. 7. Contours of dimensionless mean velocity magnitude (jVj/UH) obtained with steady RANS CFD simulations with different turbulence models in the vertical center plane (y/
W ¼ 0). (a) SKE. (b) RNG. (c) RLZ. (d) SST. (e) RSM. (f) Schematic indication of location of maximum jet velocity (jVMAXj), 0.5jVjMAX and jet half-widths d0.5;upper and d0.5;lower. The
white dots in (aee) indicate the location of jet half-widths d0.5;upper and d0.5;lower.
156 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165

Fig. 8. Comparison of dimensionless mean turbulent kinetic energy (k/U2H) obtained with steady RANS CFD simulations with different turbulence models (solid and dashed lines),
and with wind-tunnel measurements (A), along seven vertical lines inside the building in the vertical center plane (y/W ¼ 0). (a) x/D ¼ 0.125; (b) x/D ¼ 0.25; (c) x/D ¼ 0.375; (d) x/
D ¼ 0.5; (e) x/D ¼ 0.625; (f) x/D ¼ 0.75; (g) x/D ¼ 0.875.

(vertical motion of the jet) and the Kelvin-Helmholtz type
instability in the shear layers of the incoming jet.
 Along the first two vertical lines (x/D ¼ 0.125 and x/D ¼ 0.25),
the RANS models predict values of k/U2H z 0.0025, while the
measured values are around k/U2H z 0.015 and 0.02, depending
on the measurement location.
 Turbulent kinetic energy in the jet region (0.35 < z/H < 0.6) is
strongly overpredicted by SKE and RLZ at the lines x/D ¼ 0.125
and x/D ¼ 0.25, which is related to the larger jet spreading
observed in Fig. 7a,c.
 RSM predicts the lowest values of turbulent kinetic energy in
the jet region at x/D ¼ 0.125 and x/D ¼ 0.25 and provides a very
close agreement with the measurements.
 The higher values obtained with the three k-ε eddy-viscosity
RANS models, and especially with SKE and RLZ, are due to the
excessive production of turbulent kinetic energy in stagnation
zones, i.e. the stagnation point anomaly (e.g. Refs. [17,62,91,92]).
Four validation metrics are used to obtain an overall and
quantitative evaluation of the performance of all five RANS turbu-
lence models; the factor of 2 of the observations (FAC2), the factor
of 1.3 of the observations (FAC1.3), the fractional bias (FB), and the
normalized mean square errors (NMSE). For the streamwise ve-
locity only FAC2 and FAC1.3 are used, while for turbulent kinetic
energy FAC2, FB, and NMSE are calculated. The metrics are calcu-
lated using Eq. (7) until Eq. (10):

Fig. 9 depicts contours of k/U2H. The main observations are:

8 9
>
<1 Pi >
 Turbulent kinetic energy in the incoming jet region is higher 1 XN for 0:5   2=
FAC2 ¼ n with ni ¼ Oi (7)
with SKE and RLZ (Fig. 9a,c). The higher values seem to originate N i¼1 i >
: >
;
from outside the enclosure, i.e. from the stagnation region, 0 else
where a large area with high values of turbulent kinetic energy
(k/U2H > 0.08) is present. This area with high values of k/U2H is
much larger for SKE and RLZ than for RNG, SST and RSM. Tur- 8 9
>
<1 Pi >
bulent kinetic energy is transported to the interior volume and 1 XN for 0:77   1:3 =
FAC1:3 ¼ n with ni ¼ Oi
leads to higher indoor values of k/U2H for the SKE and RLZ N i¼1 i >
: >
;
models, especially near the windward opening (see Figs. 8 and 0 else
9). (8)
 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165 157

Fig. 9. Contours of dimensionless turbulent kinetic energy (k/U2H) obtained with steady RANS CFD simulations with different turbulence models in the vertical center plane (y/
W ¼ 0). (a) SKE. (b) RNG. (c) RLZ. (d) SST. (e) RSM.

Table 2 and RSM the worst performance. The other three models score very
Validation metrics for dimensionless x-velocity (UX/UH) and turbulent kinetic en- differently in the ranking for each of the three validation metrics
ergy (k/U2H): FAC2: factor of two observations; FAC1.3: factor of 1.3 observations;
used; i.e. RLZ scores better than the RNG and SST for FAC2 and FB,
NMSE: normalized mean square error; FB: fractional bias.
while it scores worse than RNG and SST for NMSE. The results from
Method Turbulence model UX/UH k/U2H Table 2 might seem to differ from the findings extracted from Fig. 6,
FAC2 FAC1.3 FAC2 FB NMSE however, it must be noted that in the calculation of the validation
RANS SKE 0.63 0.33 0.52 0.25 0.46
metrics all locations are given the same weight, where the locations
RNG 0.56 0.27 0.38 0.67 1.02 in the jet region e often regarded as the most important region e
RLZ 0.52 0.24 0.46 0.49 1.45 are considered equally important as the locations above and below
SST 0.56 0.32 0.38 0.69 1.38 the jet region. The overall best performance of SKE compared to the
RSM 0.59 0.25 0.32 0.76 1.99
more sophisticated models is noteworthy. It is attributed to the
LES Dynamic Smagorinsky 0.83 0.48 0.95 0.20 0.30
Ideal values 1 1 1 0 0 observed overprediction of turbulent kinetic energy in the stag-
nation region outside the building (Fig. 9), which counteracts the
lack of turbulence above and below the incoming jet region due to
the use of the steady RANS approach. Since the excessive genera-
tion of turbulent kinetic energy was most pronounced for SKE (see
½O  ½P
FB ¼ (9) Fig. 9), the results obtained with this model show a good agreement
0:5ð½O þ ½PÞ with experimental results, especially above and below the
incoming jet region.
h i Finally, the volume flow rates through the building are
ðOi  Pi Þ2 compared with the experimentally obtained value [65]. The volume
NMSE ¼ (10)
½Oi ½Pi  flow rate is made dimensionless using the velocity at building
height (UH) and the window area (Ainlet); i.e. Q/UHAinlet [65]. Table 3
with Pi the predicted (CFD) value, Oi the observed (measured) value shows the values obtained from the steady RANS simulations and
and n the number of measurement locations, which is equal to 63
(7  9). The square brackets indicate averaging over all data points.
The results are shown in Table 2, with an indication of the ideal
Table 3
values at the bottom row; i.e. 1 for FAC2 and FAC1.3, 0 for FB and Dimensionless volume flow rate (Q/UHAinlet) obtained from the experiments and the
0 for NMSE. CFD simulations.
FAC2 for UX/UH for all RANS models lies between 0.52 and 0.63,
Method Turbulence model Q/UHAinlet [-] Deviation [%]
with the highest value for SKE (0.63), followed by RSM (0.59), and
Experiments [65] 0.50
the lowest value for RLZ (0.52). However, the calculation of FAC1.3
RANS SKE 0.483 3.5
results in a different ranking with the best performance with SKE RNG 0.506 1.2
(0.33), closely followed by SST (0.32), and then by RNG (0.27), RSM RLZ 0.503 0.6
(0.25), RLZ (0.24). For turbulent kinetic energy, the FAC2 values are SST 0.516 3.1
highest for SKE (0.52) and lowest for RSM (0.32). The same holds for RSM 0.543 8.6
LES Dynamic Smagorinsky 0.538 7.6
FB and NMSE; for both metrics SKE shows the best performance
158 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165

Fig. 10. Comparison of dimensionless mean x-velocity (UX/UH) obtained with LES (dashed line), with RANS with the SKE model (dotted line) and SST k-u model (solid line), and
with wind-tunnel measurements (A), along seven vertical lines inside the building in the vertical center plane (y/W ¼ 0). (a) x/D ¼ 0.125; (b) x/D ¼ 0.25; (c) x/D ¼ 0.375; (d) x/
D ¼ 0.5; (e) x/D ¼ 0.625; (f) x/D ¼ 0.75; (g) x/D ¼ 0.875.

Fig. 11. Contours of dimensionless mean velocity magnitude (jVj/UH) obtained with steady RANS CFD simulation and LES simulation in the vertical center plane (y/W ¼ 0). (a) SKE.
(b) SST. (c) LES. The white dots indicate the location of jet half-widths d0.5;upper and d0.5;lower.

the experimental one (Q/UHAinlet ¼ 0.5). The largest deviation is
present for RSM (8.6%) followed by SKE and SST, with deviations of
3.5% and 3.1%, respectively. The best agreement is provided by RLZ
(0.6% deviation) followed by RNG (1.2% deviation).
5. CFD simulations: LES results
Figs. 10e13 show the dimensionless mean velocity and turbu-
lent kinetic energy obtained by LES using the dynamic Smagorinsky
subgrid-scale model on the coarse grid. The results of SKE and SST
 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165 159

Fig. 12. Comparison of dimensionless mean turbulent kinetic energy (k/U2H) obtained with LES (dashed line), with RANS with the SKE model (dotted line) and SST k-u model (solid
line), and with wind-tunnel measurements (A), along seven vertical lines inside the building in the vertical center plane (y/W ¼ 0). (a) x/D ¼ 0.125; (b) x/D ¼ 0.25; (c) x/D ¼ 0.375;
(d) x/D ¼ 0.5; (e) x/D ¼ 0.625; (f) x/D ¼ 0.75; (g) x/D ¼ 0.875.

Fig. 13. Contours of dimensionless turbulent kinetic energy (k/U2H) obtained with steady RANS CFD simulations and LES simulation in the vertical center plane. (a) SKE. (b) SST. (c)
LES.

on the basic grid are added to the figures for comparison. The
following main observations are made for Fig. 10 (UX/UH in the
vertical center plane):
 A very good agreement is present between LES and experiments,
clearly better than the best performing RANS models (SKE and
SST).
 Especially in the areas below and above the incoming jet, LES
outperforms RANS. For example, at x/D ¼ 0.5 (Fig. 10d) the LES
results closely follow the measured values below z/H ¼ 0.3 and
above z/H ¼ 0.5, while clear discrepancies are present at these
locations between RANS and the experimental results. Also
further downstream, at x/D ¼ 0.625, x/D ¼ 0.75 and x/D ¼ 0.875,
the results obtained with LES are much better, with the
160 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165
strongest improvements above the incoming jet for RANS SST
and below the jet for RANS SKE.
 In general, the velocity gradients are smaller in the profiles
obtained with LES compared to RANS SST, which can be attrib-
uted to the transient flow features that are captured with LES
and which lead to a stronger redistribution of momentum and
turbulence levels. The smaller velocity gradients and the
broader jet (more spread) are for example clearly visible in
Fig. 10d. The velocity gradients with RANS SKE are similar to
those of LES, however, in RANS SKE they are the result of an
overestimation of turbulent kinetic energy in the stagnation
region outside the enclosure.
Fig. 11 shows contours of jVj/UH in the vertical center plane. The
most important observations are:
 The LES results provide a slightly higher velocity magnitude in
the incoming jet compared to RANS.
 The incoming jet is slightly more horizontal in LES than with
RANS SST.
 The spreading of the jet is more pronounced in LES. For example,
at x/D ¼ 0.625 the jet predicted by LES is wider compared to the
jet predicted by SST, as quantified in Fig. 10. The calculated
spreading of the incoming jet in the LES simulation based on the
jet half-widths ((d0.5;upperþd0.5;lower)/HO) at x/D ¼ 0.625 is about
equal to those predicted by SKE and RLZ, i.e. (d0.5;upper-
þd0.5;lower)/HO ¼ 1.7 (see Fig. 7a,c).
Fig. 12 shows values of k/U2H, for which the following main ob-
servations are made:
 The turbulent kinetic energy levels above and below the jet are
generally much higher in the LES simulation compared to RANS
and generally show a better agreement with the experimentally
obtained values.
 LES overpredicts turbulent kinetic energy in the jet region at x/
D ¼ 0.25 until x/D ¼ 0.875.
 At x/D ¼ 0.125 and x/D ¼ 0.25, LES predicts a turbulent kinetic
profile with two clear peaks in the shear layer of the incoming
jet (at z/H ¼ 0.38 and z/H ¼ 0.55 at x/D ¼ 0.125; at z/H ¼ 0.35
and z/H ¼ 0.5 at x/D ¼ 0.25), which are not visible in both RANS
results.
Fig. 13 shows contours of k/U2H by RANS SKE, RANS SST and LES
in the vertical center plane. The following main observations are
made:
 As opposed to SKE and SST, LES provides a region of high tur-
bulence in front of the building, which can be attributed to the
standing vortex in front of the building which is a highly tran-
sient flow feature (moving back and forward along the ground
surface).
 The interior distribution of k/U2H is very different. As indicated
before, RANS SKE predicts very high values near the windward
window opening due to the overprediction of turbulent kinetic
energy in the stagnation zone outside the enclosure. RANS SST
mainly predicts higher indoor values near the upstream window
due to transport of turbulent kinetic energy from the stagnation
zone outdoors to the indoor environment and in the shear layer
of the incoming jet. LES on the other hand provides higher
values downstream of the opening and in a far larger region
around the jet.
Also for the LES results the agreement with the experimental
data is quantified using four validation metrics (Eqs. (7)e(10)).
Table 2 shows that the agreement between LES and the measure-
ment data is much better than for the RANS simulations. The FAC2
and FAC1.3 values for the x-velocities are equal to 0.83 and 0.48,
and FAC2 is equal to 0.95 for turbulent kinetic energy, while the
highest FAC2 value for turbulent kinetic energy for the RANS was
0.52. Also the FB and NMSE scores are clearly better for LES; 0.2
and 0.3, respectively.
Table 3 shows the mean volume flow rate through the building
predicted by LES, together with the steady RANS results. The vol-
ume flow rate deviates with 7.6% from the experimentally obtained
value. This deviation is larger than the deviation with the best
performing steady RANS model; i.e. RLZ (deviation of 0.6%). Note
that the use of tracer gas measurements to obtain volume flow
rates has its limitations with respect to accuracy and it is therefore
difficult to draw strong conclusions on the performance of each of
the tested models.
6. Comparison RANS vs. LES
The results from Section 4 (RANS) and Section 5 (LES) show clear
differences in the predicted flow fields with respect to mean ve-
locity, turbulent kinetic energy and general flow pattern. In this
section, a more detailed analysis is provided with respect to the
observed differences and their physical background.
Comparison of Figs. 9 and 13c shows that the interior distribu-
tion of turbulent kinetic energy obtained with LES is clearly
different from that of the steady RANS simulations. There is a
different origin of turbulence inside the enclosure between RANS
and LES. In the case of SKE and RLZ, the indoor turbulent kinetic
energy levels can largely be attributed to the excessive generation
of turbulent kinetic energy in the stagnation zone outside the
enclosure (Fig. 9a,c), which is subsequently transported indoors. In
LES, this excessive generation of turbulent kinetic energy in the
stagnation region is not present at all (Fig. 13c) and the increased
levels of turbulence are the result of velocity gradients and local
unsteadiness of the flow inside the enclosure; i.e. the jet flapping
(vertical motion of the jet) and the instabilities in the shear layer of
the jet flow. To illustrate the presence of one of the unsteady flow
features inside the enclosure (i.e. vertical jet flapping), Fig. 14 shows
instantaneous images from the flow visualizations and the LES
simulation. Vertical jet flapping is present in both the experiments
and the LES simulation; the jet direction varies considerably in
time, from an upward direction over a nearly horizontal direction
with a small downward bend when the jet enters the enclosure to a
downward direction. The absence of this distinct vertical flapping
motion in the steady RANS simulations results in deviations of the
simulation results when compared to the measurement data.
Fig. 14aec also shows Kelvin-Helmholtz type instabilities in the
shear layer of the incoming jet, which is not visible in the LES
simulation. The accurate prediction of this type of instability in the
shear layer requires a much higher grid resolution, which for the
present study exceeded the available computational resources. The
computational cost for the LES simulation on the coarse grid is
already about 80e100 times higher than for steady RANS on the
basic grid. LES on the basic grid would add a factor of 2e4, resulting
in 160e400 times the computation time of a steady RANS simu-
lation on the same grid.
Fig. 15a shows the predicted jet trajectory for all evaluated
models based on the jet centerline velocity (i.e. jVjMAX). The sym-
bols represent the vertical location (zMAX) of the local maximum jet
velocity magnitude (jVjMAX) along all seven vertical lines inside the
enclosure. There is no RANS model that predicts the same trajectory
as the LES model; SKE and RLZ predict a more horizontal jet di-
rection (as discussed earlier), while RNG, SST and RSM predict a
more downward direction of the incoming jet (Fig. 15a).
 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165
Fig. 14. Comparison of instantaneous images from flow visualization [65] (aec) with images from LES simulation (def). The figures indicate the observation and prediction of jet
flapping inside the enclosure. (a,d) Upwards directed jet (bended jet). (b,e) Horizontally directed jet with small downward bend after jet entry. (c,f) Downward directed jet.
Fig. 15b compares the incoming jet angle a. It is defined based on
the vertical location of maximum velocity magnitude (jVjMAX) at x/
D ¼ 0 (windward opening) and at x/D ¼ 0.5 (middle of enclosure)
and Eq. (11):
 
zMAX;x=D¼0  zMAX;x=D¼0:5
a ¼ tan1
x different turbulence models in predicting volume flow rates as
The value of a ranges from 13.6 to 24.6 for the five RANS
models and the LES model. The SST, RSM, RNG models predict a
value for a (22.7 e24.6 ) close to that of the LES model (a ¼ 23.0 ).
SKE and RLZ provide low values of a due to the more horizontal jet
direction. Note that a not only depends on the location of jVjMAX at
x/D ¼ 0.5 as depicted in Fig. 15a, but also on the location of jVjMAX at
x/D ¼ 0, which differs considerably for all models due to different
velocity distributions over the height of the windward window
opening.
Fig. 15c compares UX/UH obtained with RANS and LES with the
measurement data along a horizontal line through the middle of
the two window openings. The RANS models either underpredict or
overpredict the mean velocity along this line, which can directly be
attributed to the jet being too horizontal (SKE and RLZ) or too in-
clined (RNG, SST, RSM) compared to the measurements. The results
of the LES simulation provide a good agreement with the mea-
surement data, with an overprediction of UX/UH along the line.
Fig. 15d shows k/U2H along the same horizontal line (Fig. 15e). LES
overpredicts the values of k/U2H in the middle of the enclosure
(0.25 < x/D < 0.875), while RNG, SST and RSM underpredict k/U2H
along this line. SKE and RLZ strongly overpredict k/U2H in the up-
stream part of the enclosure (x/D < 0.25), but subsequently predict
similar levels of k/U2H as measured in the wind tunnel between
0.375 < x/D < 0.875.
7. Discussion
7.1. Comparison with other studies
A comparison of the performance of the five different RANS
turbulence models is not straightforward due to the different
assessment criteria that can be used; e.g. different validation
metrics, emphasis on different parts of the flow (e.g. jet region vs.
entire enclosure), emphasis on one parameter over another (e.g.
161
velocity vs. turbulence levels), etc. A comparison with conclusions
from previous validation studies from literature also becomes
difficult due to the issues mentioned above and it can be compli-
cated even more due to different geometries used, different loca-
tions at which velocities and turbulence levels are compared, etc.
Despite all difficulties mentioned above, the performance of
(11)
found in literature is compared with the performance found in the
current study. Table 3 showed that all models predict volume flow
rates within 8.6% of the measured value, with the RLZ model
showing the best performance (0.6% deviation). One must note that
the tracer gas method has its limitations with respect to accuracy
and that strong conclusions are difficult to make. In literature,
Straw et al. [4] for example found higher differences in volume flow
rate using RANS with RNG (3e9%), however, they did not test other
turbulence models in their study. Evola and Popov [30] found de-
viations of 8.7% for RNG and 13.7% for SKE when they compared
steady RANS CFD with wind-tunnel measurements of the volume
flow rate by Jiang et al. [6]. The better performance of RNG
compared to SKE in Evola and Popov [30] is found in the current
study as well. Hu et al. [26] found deviations within z12% for each
wind direction with an average deviation of 5%, using SST, which is
higher than the deviation in the current study (3.1%). As mentioned
before, the results from different studies are very difficult to
compare, due to the different experimental techniques used, the
wide range of computational settings that all affect the outcome of
the simulations, etc.
7.2. Limitations and future work
This paper presented the results of a validation study of cross-
ventilation flow in a generic enclosure. Both RANS and LES simu-
lations were compared with experimental data from wind-tunnel
measurements by Tominaga and Blocken [65]. The following
points of discussion and of future work can be raised:
 Due to computational limitations in the present study it was not
possible to run a LES simulation on the basic grid. Future
research might include this simulation and also include a more
detailed parameter study for LES for cross-ventilation flow. For
example, a more uniform grid distribution could be tested, as
162 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165

Fig. 15. (a) Vertical location (zMAX/H) of maximum velocity (jVjMAX) along seven vertical lines in the vertical center plane. (b) Definition of incoming jet angle a based on vertical
location of jVjMAX at x/D ¼ 0 and x/D ¼ 0.5 (zMAX;x/D¼0-zMAX;x/D¼0.5) (not to scale). (c,d) Dimensionless mean x-velocity (UX/UH) (c), and dimensionless mean turbulent kinetic energy
(k/U2H) (d) obtained with RANS, LES and wind-tunnel measurements (A), along a horizontal line through the middle of the window openings (z/H ¼ 0.5; see (e)) in the vertical
center plane (y/W ¼ 0).

well as other subgrid-scale models, inflow turbulence genera- unsteady motion of the flow (e.g. Ref. [93]), and it is worthwhile
tors, etc. The use of the coarse grid among others resulted in the to study it since the computational demand is less than that of
absence of Kelvin-Helmholtz type instabilities in the LES simu- LES.
lation, while this phenomenon could be observed in the flow  In this study, five commonly used turbulence models were
visualizations by Tominaga and Blocken [65]. Note that the grid- included. The study can be extended by including for example
resolution for the “coarse” grid was still very high with around other second-order closure models, eddy-viscosity models, or
1.5 million hexahedral cells for the building and its direct vi- hybrid RANS/LES models (e.g. Ref. [94]).
cinity (within H of the building) and that LES on this grid pro-
vided a very good agreement with the experimental results.
8. Conclusions
 Future work will focus on the use of unsteady RANS (URANS) to
capture the flow field in the cross-ventilated building. Although
The objective of the study presented is the validation of cross-
the use of URANS is not straightforward, past research has also
ventilation flow through a generic enclosure for five different
shown the potential of URANS with respect to obtaining the
RANS turbulence models and for a LES model in combination with
 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165
the dynamic Smagorinsky subgrid-scale model. A comparison with
a range of RANS models as well as LES is not common, as can be
seen in the overview of validation studies earlier in this introduc-
tion section, although such comparisons are of primary importance
when deciding which numerical method to use and to aid in
drafting guidelines on the use of CFD for the analysis and optimi-
zation of cross-ventilated buildings. Mean velocity, turbulent ki-
netic energy, and volume flow rate are compared with
experimental data from literature. In addition, an evaluation of the
jet half-widths (d0.5;upper and d0.5;lower), incoming jet angle (a) and
transient flow features (i.e. jet flapping) is presented, which is
regarded as an innovative aspect compared to previous studies
from literature. From this study, the following main conclusions can
be made:
 The five different steady RANS models provide very different
results. The RNG, SST and RSM models provide about the same
location of maximum velocity (and thus jet direction) along
each vertical line. SKE and RLZ provide a too high location of
maximum velocity (too horizontal direction compared to ex-
periments). In addition, SKE and RLZ predict a larger width of
the incoming jet (larger value for ((d0.5;upperþd0.5;lower)/HO) and
smaller velocity gradients in the shear layer of the incoming jet
than RNG, SST and RSM.
 The general flow pattern in the lower part of the enclosure is
better reproduced by RNG and SST, and to a lesser extent by
RSM, while the flow in the upper part is more accurately
reproduced by SKE, RLZ and RSM.
 Turbulent kinetic energy is underpredicted in large areas above
and below the incoming jet by all five RANS turbulence models.
 SKE and RLZ predict too high levels of turbulent kinetic energy
in the incoming jet region, which originate from outside the
enclosure (stagnation region). This stagnation region with high
values of k/U2H is much larger for SKE and RLZ than for RNG, SST
and RSM.
 SKE provides the best agreement with the experiments in terms
of the validation metrics (FAC2, FAC1.3, FB, NMSE) for x-velocity
and turbulent kinetic energy; the worst agreement is obtained
with RLZ and RSM.
 The LES simulation provides a very good agreement with the
experimental data, both with respect to the mean velocities,
flow pattern (jet direction), and turbulent kinetic energy,
although the latter is overestimated in the jet region in the LES
simulation.
 LES performs better than the steady RANS models, which is
supported by the results of the four validation metrics (FAC2,
FAC1.3, FB, NMSE). The better performance of LES can largely be
attributed to the unsteady flow features (e.g. vertical jet flap-
ping) present in the flow, as also observed in the experiments,
which is reproduced by the LES model and not by the steady
RANS models.
 The use of LES entails an increase in computational demand
with a factor of z80e100, which is a strong increase, especially
when considering that LES is performed on the coarse grid and
RANS on the basic grid. The majority of the RANS simulations
took a bit less than 12 h, while the LES simulation lasted about
40 days.
Acknowledgements
Twan van Hooff is currently a postdoctoral fellow of the
Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) and acknowledges its finan-
cial support (project FWO 12R9715N). The authors also gratefully
acknowledge the academic partnership with ANSYS CFD.
163
References
[1] Q. Chen, Ventilation performance prediction for buildings: a method overview
and recent applications, Build. Environ. 44 (4) (2009) 848e858.
[2] B. Blocken, 50 years of computational wind engineering: past, present and
future, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 129 (2014) 69e102.
[3] S. Kato, S. Murakami, A. Mochida, S. Akabayashi, Y. Tominaga, Veloc-
ityepressure field of cross ventilation with open windows analyzed by wind
tunnel and numerical simulation, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 44 (1992)
2575e2586.
[4] M.P. Straw, C.J. Baker, A.P. Robertson, Experimental measurements and
computations of the wind-induced ventilation of a cubic structure, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 88 (2e3) (2000) 213e230.
[5] C. Allocca, Q. Chen, L.R. Glicksman, Design analysis of single-sided natural
ventilation, Energy Build. 35 (8) (2003) 785e795.
[6] 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, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 91 (3) (2003) 331e353.
[7] P. Heiselberg, Y. Li, A. Andersen, M. Bjerre, Z. Chen, Experimental and CFD
evidence of multiple solutions in a naturally ventilated building, Indoor Air 14
(2003) 43e54.
[8] M.J. Cook, Y. Ji, G.R. Hunt, CFD modeling of natural ventilation: combined wind
and buoyancy forces, Int. J. Vent. 1 (3) (2003) 169e180.
[9] T. Yang, N.G. Wright, D.W. Etheridge, A.D. Quinn, A comparison of CFD and
full-scale measurements for analysis of natural ventilation, Int. J. Vent. 4 (4)
(2006) 337e348.
[10] T. Norton, J. Grant, R. Fallon, D.-W. Sun, Assessing the ventilation effectiveness
of naturally ventilated livestock buildings under wind dominated conditions
using computational fluid dynamics, Biosyst. Eng. 103 (1) (2009) 78e99.
[11] T. van Hooff, B. Blocken, Coupled urban wind flow and indoor natural venti-
lation modelling on a high-resolution grid: a case study for the Amsterdam
ArenA stadium, Environ. Modell. Softw. 25 (1) (2010) 51e65.
[12] Z.T. Ai, C.M. Mak, Determination of single-sided ventilation rates in multistory
buildings: evaluation of methods, Energy Build. 69 (2014) 292e300.
[13] Z.T. Ai, C.M. Mak, Modeling of coupled urban wind flow and indoor air flow on
a high-density near-wall mesh: sensitivity analyses and case study for single-
sided ventilation, Environ. Model. Softw. 60 (2014) 57e68.
[14] Z. Tong, Y. Chen, A. Malkawi, Defining the Influence Region in neighborhood-
scale CFD simulations for natural ventilation design, Appl. Energy 182 (2016)
625e633.
[15] S. Murakami, A. Mochida, Y. Hayashi, Examining the k-ε model by means of a
wind tunnel test and large-eddy simulation of the turbulence structure
around a cube, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 35 (1990) 87e100.
[16] S. Murakami, A. Mochida, Y. Hayashi, S. Sakamoto, Numerical study on
velocity-pressure field and wind forces for bluff bodies by keε, ASM and LES,
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 44 (1e3) (1992) 2841e2852.
[17] S. Murakami, Comparison of various turbulence models applied to a bluff
body, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 46e47 (1993) 21e36.
[18] C.J. Baker, Wind engineering e past, present and future, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 95 (9e11) (2007) 843e870.
[19] A. Mistriotis, G. Bot, P. Picuno, G. Scarascia-Mugnozza, Analysis of the effi-
ciency of greenhouse ventilation using computational fluid dynamics, Agric
For Meteorol. 85 (1997) 217e228.
[20] A. Mistriotis, C. Arcidiacono, P. Picuno, G.P.A. Bot, G. Scarascia-Mugnozza,
Computational analysis of ventilation in greenhouses at zero-and low-wind-
speeds, Agric For Meteorol. 88 (1997) 121e135.
[21] T. Kurabuchi, M. Ohba, A. Arashiguchi, T. Iwabuchi, Numerical study of airflow
structure of a cross-ventilated model building, in: Air Distribution in Rooms,
2000 (ROOMVENT 2000). Edited by Awbi HB.
[22] Y. Jiang, Q. Chen, Effect of fluctuating wind direction on cross natural venti-
lation in buildings from large eddy simulation, Build. Environ. 37 (4) (2002)
379e386.
[23] T. Bartzanas, T. Boulard, C. Kittas, Effect of vent arrangement on windward
ventilation of a tunnel greenhouse, Biosyst. Eng. 88 (2004) 479e490.
[24] T. Kurabuchi, M. Ohba, T. Endo, Y. Akamine, F. Nakayama, Local dynamic
similarity model of cross-ventilation Part 1-Theoretical framework, Int. J.
Vent. 2.4 (2004) 371e382.
[25] A. Shklyar, A. Arbel, Numerical model of the three-dimensional isothermal
flow patterns and mass fluxes in a pitched-roof greenhouse, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 92 (2004) 1039e1059.
[26] C.-H. Hu, T. Kurabuchi, M. Ohba, Numerical study of cross-ventilation using
two-equation RANS turbulence models, I J. Vent. 4 (2) (2005) 123e132.
[27] I. Lee, S. Lee, G. Kim, J. Sung, S. Sung, Y. Yoon, PIV verification of greenhouse
ventilation air flows to evaluate CFD accuracy, Trans. ASAE Am. Soc. Agric.
Eng. 48 (2005) 2277e2288.
[28] 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, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 93 (2005)
437e449.
[29] A. Mochida, H. Yoshino, S. Miyauchi, T. Mitamura, Total analysis of cooling
effects of cross-ventilation affected by microclimate around a building, Sol.
Energy 80 (2006) 371e382.
[30] G. Evola, V. Popov, Computational analysis of wind driven natural ventilation
in buildings, Energy Build. 38 (5) (2006) 491e501.
164 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165
[31] H. Fatnassi, T. Boulard, C. Poncet, M. Chave, Optimisation of greenhouse insect
screening with computational fluid dynamics, Biosyst. Eng. 93 (2006)
301e312.
[32] T. Bartzanas, C. Kittas, A.A. Sapounas, C. Nikita-Martzopoulou, Analysis of
airflow through experimental rural buildings: sensitivity to turbulence
models, Biosyst. Eng. 97 (2007) 229e239.
[33] C.-H. Hu, M. Ohba, R. Yoshie, CFD modelling of unsteady cross ventilation
flows using LES, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 96 (10e11) (2008) 1692e1706.
[34] G.M. Stavrakakis, M.K. Koukou, M.G. Vrachopoulos, N.C. Markatos, Natural
cross-ventilation in buildings: building-scale experiments, numerical simu-
lation and thermal comfort evaluation, Energy Build. 40 (2008) 1666e1681.
[35] M. Teitel, G. Ziskind, O. Liran, V. Dubovsky, R. Letan, Effect of wind direction on
greenhouse ventilation rate, airflow patterns and temperature distributions,
Biosyst. Eng. 101 (2008) 351e369.
[36] T. Kobayashi, K. Sagara, T. Yamanaka, H. Kotani, S. Takeda, M. Sandberg,
Stream tube based analysis of problems in prediction of cross-ventilation rate,
Int. J. Vent. 7 (2009) 321e334.
[37] T. Kurabuchi, M. Ohba, T. Nonaka, Domain decomposition technique applied
to the evaluation of cross-ventilation performance of opening positions of a
building, I J. Vent. 8 (3) (2009) 207e217.
[38] R.N. Meroney, CFD prediction of airflow in buildings for natural ventilation, in:
Proceedings 11th Americas Conference on Wind Engineering, San Juan, Puerto
Rico, 2009, pp. 1e11.
[39] T. Kobayashi, M. Sandberg, H. Kotani, L. Claesson, Experimental investigation
and CFD analysis of cross-ventilated flow through single room detached house
model, Build. Environ. 45 (2010) 2723e2734.
[40] T. Norton, J. Grant, R. Fallon, D.W. Sun, Optimising the ventilation configura-
tion of naturally ventilated livestock buildings for improved indoor environ-
mental homogeneity, Build. Environ. 45 (2010) 983e995.
[41] T. Norton, J. Grant, R. Fallon, D.W. Sun, Improving the representation of
thermal boundary conditions of livestock during CFD modelling of the indoor
environment, Comput. Electron Agric. 73 (2010) 17e36.
[42] K.S. Nikas, N. Nikolopoulos, A. Nikolopoulos, Numerical study of a naturally
cross-ventilated building, Energy Build. 42 (2010) 422e434.
[43] T. van Hooff, B. Blocken, On the effect of wind direction and urban sur-
rounding on natural ventilation of a large semi-enclosed stadium, Comput.
Fluids 39 (2010) 1146e1155.
[44] J.O.P. Cheung, C.H. Liu, CFD simulations of natural ventilation behaviour in
high-rise buildings in regular and staggered arrangements at various spacings,
Energy Build. 43 (2011) 1149e1158.
[45] T.S. Larsen, N. Nikolopoulos, A. Nikolopoulos, G. Strotos, K.S. Nikas, Charac-
terization and prediction of the volume flow rate aerating a cross ventilated
building by means of experimental techniques and numerical approaches,
Energy Build. 43 (2011) 1371e1381.
[46] L.J. Lo, A. Novoselac, CFD simulation of cross-ventilation using fluctuating
pressure boundary conditions, ASHRAE Trans. 117 (1) (2011). LVe11eC075.
[47] L.J. Lo, Predicting Wind Driven Cross Ventilation in Buildings with Small
Openings, PhD thesis, University of Texas, USA, 2012.
[48] R. Ramponi, B. Blocken, CFD simulation of cross-ventilation for a generic
isolated building: impact of computational parameters, Build. Environ. 53
(2012) 34e48.
[49] R. Ramponi, B. Blocken, CFD simulation of cross-ventilation flow for different
isolated building configurations: validation with wind tunnel measurements
and analysis of physical and numerical diffusion effects, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 104e106 (2012) 408e418.
[50] L.J. Lo, A. Novoselac, Effect of indoor buoyancy flow on wind-driven cross
ventilation, Build. Simul. 6 (2013) 69e79.
[51] M.F. Mohamed, S. King, M. Behnia, D. Prasad, Coupled outdoor and indoor
airflow prediction for buildings using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD),
Build 3 (2013) 399e421.
[52] T. van Hooff, B. Blocken, CFD evaluation of natural ventilation of indoor en-
vironments by the concentration decay method: CO2 gas dispersion from a
semi-enclosed stadium, Build. Environ. 61 (2013) 1e17.
[53] J.I. Peren, T. van Hooff, R. Ramponi, B. Blocken, B.C.C. Leite, Impact of roof
geometry of an isolated leeward sawtooth roof building on cross-ventilation:
straight, concave, hybrid or convex? J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 145 (2015)
102e114.
[54] J.I. Peren, T. van Hooff, B.C.C. Leite, B. Blocken, Impact of eaves on cross-
ventilation of a generic leeward sawtooth roof building: windward eaves,
leeward eaves and eaves inclination, Build. Environ. 92 (2015) 578e590.
[55] J.I. Peren, T. van Hooff, B.C.C. Leite, B. Blocken, CFD analysis of cross-ventilation
of a generic isolated building with asymmetric opening positions: impact of
roof angle and opening location, Build. Environ. 85 (2015) 263e276.
[56] J.I. Peren, T. van Hooff, B.C.C. Leite, B. Blocken, CFD simulation of wind-driven
upward cross ventilation and its enhancement in long buildings: impact of
single-span versus double-span leeward sawtooth roof and opening ratio,
Build. Environ. 96 (2016) 142e156.
[57] N.R. Martins, G. Carrilho da Graça, Validation of numerical simulation tools for
wind-driven natural ventilation design, Build. Sim 9 (2016) 75e87.
[58] Z. Tong, Y. Chen, A. Malkawi, G. Adamkiewicz, J.D. Spengler, Quantifying the
impact of traffic-related air pollution on the indoor air quality of a naturally
ventilated building, Environ. Int. 89e90 (2016) 138e146.
[59] Y.S. Chen, S.W. Kim, Computation of Turbulent Flows Using an Extended K-ε
Turbulence Closure Model, NASA STI/Recon Tech Rep N 88, 1987, p. 11969.
[60] M. Kato, B.E. Launder, The modeling of turbulent flow around stationary and
vibrating square cylinders, in: 9th Symposium on Turbulent Shear Flows,
Tokyo, 1993, pp. 1041e1046.
[61] M. Tsuchiya, S. Murakami, A. Mochida, K. Kondo, Y. Ishida, Development of a
new k-ε model for flow and pressure fields around bluff body, J. Wind Eng.
Ind. Aerodyn. 67 (1997) 169e182.
[62] P. Durbin, On the k-ε stagnation point anomaly, Int. J. Heat. Fluid Flow. 17
(1996) 89e90.
[63] P.R. Spalart, W.H. Jou, M. Strelets, S.R. Allmaras, Comments on the Feasibility
of LES for Wings and on the Hybrid RANS/LES Approach, 1997. Advances in
DNS/LES. In: Proceedings of the first AFOSR international conference on DNS/
LES; 1997.
[64] P. Karava, T. Stathopoulos, A.K. Athienitis, Airflow assessment in cross-
ventilated buildings with operable facade elements, Build. Environ. 46
(2011) 266e279.
[65] Y. Tominaga, B. Blocken, Wind tunnel experiments on cross-ventilation flow
of a generic building with contaminant dispersion in unsheltered and shel-
tered conditions, Build. Environ. 92 (2015) 452e461.
[66] Y. Tominaga, B. Blocken, Wind tunnel analysis of flow and dispersion in cross-
ventilated isolated buildings: impact of opening positions, J. Wind Eng. Indus
Aerodyn. 155 (2016) 74e88.
[67] J. Franke, A. Hellsten, H. Schlünzen, B. Carissimo (Eds.), Best Practice Guideline
for the CFD Simulation of Flows in the Urban Environment, COST Office
Brussels, 2007. ISBN 3-00-018312-4.
[68] Y. Tominaga, A. Mochida, R. Yoshie, H. Kataoka, T. Nozu, M. Yoshikawa,
T. Shirasawa, AIJ guidelines for practical applications of CFD to pedestrian
wind environment around buildings, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 96 (2008)
1749e1761.
[69] B. Blocken, Computational Fluid Dynamics for urban physics: importance,
scales, possibilities, limitations and ten tips and tricks towards accurate and
reliable simulations, Build. Environ. 91 (2015) 219e245.
[70] B. Blocken, T. Stathopoulos, J. Carmeliet, CFD simulation of the atmospheric
boundary layer: wall function problems, Atmos. Environ. 41 (2) (2007)
238e252.
[71] P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey, Appropriate boundary conditions for computational
wind engineering models using the k-ε turbulence model, J. Wind Eng. Ind.
Aerodyn. 46&47 (1993) 145e153.
[72] E. Sergent, Vers une me thode de couplage entre la simulation des grandes
chelles et les mode
e les statistiques (in French), PhD thesis at Ecole doctoral
MEGA, L'Ecole Centrale de Lyon, France, 2002.
[73] P. Gousseau, B. Blocken, T. Stathopoulos, G.J.F. van Heijst, Near-field pollutant
dispersion in an actual urban area: analysis of the mass transport mechanism
by high-resolution Large Eddy Simulations, Comput. Fluids 114 (2015)
151e162.
[74] P. Gousseau, B. Blocken, G.J.F. van Heijst, Quality assessment of Large-Eddy
Simulation of wind flow around a high-rise building: validation and solu-
tion verification, Comput. Fluids 79 (2013) 120e133.
[75] P. Gousseau, B. Blocken, G.J.F. van Heijst, CFD simulation of pollutant disper-
sion around isolated buildings: on the role of convective and turbulent mass
fluxes in the prediction accuracy, J. Hazard Mater 194 (2011) 422e434.
[76] P. Gousseau, B. Blocken, T. Stathopoulos, G.J.F. van Heijst, CFD simulation of
near-field pollutant dispersion on a high-resolution grid: a case study by LES
and RANS for a building group in downtown Montreal, Atmos. Environ. 45 (2)
(2011) 428e438.
[77] T. van Hooff, B. Blocken, P. Gousseau, G.J.F. van Heijst, Counter-gradient
diffusion in a slot-ventilated enclosure assessed by LES and RANS, Comput.
Fluids 96 (2014) 63e75.
[78] ANSYS, Fluent 12 User's Guide, Fluent Inc, Lebanon, 2009.
[79] B.E. Launder, D.B. Spalding, The numerical computation of turbulent flows,
Comput. Method Appl. M. 3 (1974) 269e289.
[80] T. Cebeci, P. Bradshaw, Momentum Transfer in Boundary Layers, Hemisphere
Publishing Corporation, 1977.
[81] B. Blocken, T. Stathopoulos, J. Carmeliet, Wind environmental conditions in
passages between two long narrow perpendicular buildings, J. Aerosp. Eng.
ASCE 21 (4) (2008) 280e287.
[82] T.H. Shih, W.W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z.G. Yang, J. Zhu, A new kappa-epsilon eddy
viscosity model for high Reynolds-number turbulent flows, Comput. Fluids 24
(3) (1995) 227e238.
[83] V. Yakhot, S.A. Orszag, S. Thangam, T.B. Gatski, C.G. Speziale, Development of
turbulence models for shear flows by a double expansion technique, Phys.
Fluids A 4 (1992) 1510e1520.
[84] D. Choudhury, Introduction to the Renormalization Group Method and Tur-
bulence Modeling, 1993.
[85] F.R. Menter, Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications, AIAA J. 32 (1994) 1598e1605.
[86] D.C. Wilcox, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, Inc., La Canada,
California, 1998.
[87] J. Smagorinsky, General circulation experiments with the primitive equations.
I. The basic experiment, Mon. Weather Rev. 91 (1963) 99e164.
[88] M. Germano, U. Piomelli, P. Moin, W.H. Cabot, A dynamic subgrid-scale eddy
viscosity model, Phys. Fluids A 3 (1991) 1760e1765.
[89] D.K. Lilly, A proposed modification of the Germano subgrid-scale closure
 T. van Hooff et al. / Building and Environment 114 (2017) 148e165 165

method, Phys. Fluids A 4 (1992) 633e635.
[90] P.J. Roache, Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics,
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 29 (1997) 123e160.
[91] S. Murakami, Overview of turbulence models applied in CWE-1997, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 74e76 (1998) 1e24.
[92] G. Medic, P.A. Durbin, Toward improved prediction of heat transfer on turbine
blades, J Turbomach. 124 (2002) 187e192.
[93] Y. Tominaga, Flow around a high-rise building using steady and unsteady
RANS CFD: effect of large-scale fluctuations on the velocity statistics, J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 142 (2015) 93e103.
[94] M. Wang, Q. Chen, On a hybrid RANS/LES approach for indoor airflow
modeling e RP1271, HVAC&R Res. 16 (2010) 731e747.