Energy 185 (2019) 55e67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/energy

Impacts of wind on solar chimney performance in a building

Long Shi*
Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Discipline, School of Engineering, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia

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

Article history: The interaction between solar chimney and wind were investigated numerically and theoretically. A
Received 28 March 2019 higher wind velocity does not represent a better performance, which depends on wind angle (a), which
Received in revised form is the angle between wind direction and outward normal of the wall with the window. A windward
5 July 2019
situation (0
a < 90
) is suggested, where the scenario with a ¼ 0 shows the best performance. It is
Accepted 8 July 2019
surprising that the leeward scenario with a ¼ 180
presents a slightly positive effect, but scenarios with
Available online 9 July 2019
90
a < 180
show negative effects. Window area (Aw) presents a positive effect on the airflow rate,
0.34 0.46
which shows a linear relationship with Aw and Aw when the a is 0
and 45
, respectively. A theoretical
Keywords:
Solar radiation
model was developed to predict the airflow rate under a < 90
, where for 90
a < 180
the related
Trombe wall predictions can be based on the scenario without wind. The predictions are fitting quite well with nu-
Natural ventilation merical results. Critical wind velocity was also proposed to represent the wind velocity which overrules
Building the performance that solar chimney is no longer dependent on solar radiation but wind. The critical wind
Wind impact velocity keeps increasing under higher solar radiation, where for the analysed model it increases from
Passive ventilation 0.65 to 1.55 m/s when solar radiation rises from 100 to 1300 W/m2.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction integrated with different components of a building.

The significance of reducing energy consumption in buildings
has been proved through many studies as it is estimated to
comprise over 40% of the worldwide primary energy demand [1,2].
To release the current energy crisis, the building sector has started
to transition from traditional to green and sustainable ways, more
relying on renewable energy sources [3,4]. Solar chimney is a reli-
able renewable energy system to save energy in a building, where
its performance has been widely accepted by end-users [5]. Its
practical applications have been frequently taken in many coun-
tries, such as Singapore [6], China [7], United States [8,9], Spain [10],
Netherlands [11], and Thailand [12]. The energy saving of solar
chimney is based on the enhanced natural ventilation of a building
driven by thermal buoyancy under solar radiation. Fig. 1 shows a
typical structure of a wall solar chimney, which is also called a
Trombe wall if it is adopted in buildings. It should be mentioned
that solar chimney also refers to those plant with electricity gen-
eration, which is not the scope of this study. The solar chimney
adopted in building in this study usually includes a chimney cavity
constructed by glazing and absorption wall, which can be flexibly
* Corresponding author: Dr. Long Shi
E-mail addresses: shilong@mail.ustc.edu.cn, long.shi@rmit.edu.au.
Challenges still exist for the optimization design of solar chim-
ney, especially with a large number of influencing factors. Its per-
formance is determined by many factors, which can be classified
into four categories [13], including configuration, installation con-
ditions, material usage, and environment. The related optimum
parameters for solar chimney designs were confirmed through
experiments or numerical modelling, such as chimney cavity
configuration [14e16], inlet/outlet areas [17], inclination angle for
roof solar chimney [18], glazing materials [19], room openings [20],
thermal insulation [21,22], phase change materials [23,24], climate
conditions [25], and solar radiation [26].
Although these influencing factors have been well addressed
previously, the related impacts from wind and their interaction are
still unknown. Wind as one of the critical environmental factors has
been found showing significant influence on solar chimney per-
formance [27]. However, due to the complexity of the problem,
most of the previous studies have just ignored the impact during
experiments or the development of models. For example, the
frequently adopted method for outdoor tests is to use a wall to
block the wind [18,28]. No theoretical model was reported in the
literature for the prediction of solar chimney performance consid-
ering the wind. The related impact analysis is critically needed to
guide the related optimization design as they may be wrongly
implemented that could even contrarily decrease the overall

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.07.056
0360-5442/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
56 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67

Nomenclature Greek letters

a wind angle
A area (m2) f continuous variable
A* coefficient shown in Eq. (23) k absorption coefficient (m1)
A*h coefficient shown in Eq. (34) D change in variable value ()
B buoyancy flux in Eq. (31) r density (kg/m3)
Cd coefficient of discharge 4 difference between two scenarios
Cp specific heat capacity (J/kg∙K) t viscous stress tensor
Cpw Wind pressure coefficient u vorticity vector
Cpi wind pressure coefficient at window
Cpo wind pressure coefficient at outlet Subscripts and superscripts
E specific enthalpy or Eq. (28) 0 ambient condition
g acceleration of gravity (m/s2) b blackbody
H height between centre and floor (m) c chimney cavity
I radiation intensity cri critical value
k thermal conductivity (W/m∙K) E direction of East
P pressure (Pa) e external position
Q_} heat flow rate (W/m2) i internal position or air inlet
s unit vector of radiation intensity m mixture of gases
} NE direction of Northeast
S_ source term
o air outlet of chimney cavity
t time (s)
rad radiation
T temperature (K)
sol solar radiation
u integrated radiation intensity
w room opening or window
U velocity (m/s)
wind wind
V volumetric airflow rate (m3/s)
x, y, z coordinate (m)

Poe
Air outlet
Poi
Absorption wall
Chimney cavity Pwi
Glazing wall
Window
Pie Pii
Air inlet Room floor
Fig. 1. Schematic of solar chimney under the wind. For the first letter in the subscripts,
w, i and o represent a window, air inlet, and outlet, respectively. The second letter of e
and i mean external and internal positions, respectively.
performance of the building.
Although many theoretical models have been developed to
predict the airflow rate through the chimney cavity, the develop-
ment of these models is made without considering the external
wind. Duffie and Beckman [29,30] developed a theoretical model
based on the temperature difference between the mean air tem-
perature in the chimney cavity and the room. Those previously
developed mathematical models can be divided into four types
[13], including proportional relationships, predictions based on air
temperature, air densities and solar radiation. The model devel-
oped by Ryan and Burek [31] is the typical one to address the
proportional relationship with the influencing factors. Shen et al.
[32] developed a typical model based on the temperature differ-
ence. Sakonidou et al.‘s model is based on the air density difference
[33]. My previously developed theoretical and empirical models for
roof and wall solar chimney are based on solar radiation [18,34].
No common agreement has been made for the impacts of wind
as it could be affected by many factors. Tan et al. [35] carried out an
experimental study on a combined solar collector with a roof duct
connected to each floor of the building. It was known that the in-
fluence of ambient wind on chimney air velocity is insignificant
when the wind velocity is less than 2.0 m/s. Al-Kayiem et al. [36]
Pwe indicated that the performance of a roof solar chimney is reduced
Wind
by 25% under 900 W/m2 solar radiation when the wind velocity
rises from 1.6 to 6 m/s. Afonso and Oliveira [37] suggested ignoring
the wind effect during the design of a solar chimney due to the
variable nature of wind, while the consideration of wind can un-
derestimate the ventilation rate. The above difference may be
because of the analysed scenarios, where a uniform agreement and
a clear instruction are urgently required to benefit practical
applications.
Therefore, this study aims to address the impacts of wind on the
solar chimney performance and their interaction under various
situations. The effects of wind direction and velocity on solar
chimney were determined considering its interaction with window
and solar radiation. A theoretical model was also developed to
predict the airflow rate through the chimney cavity, and critical
wind velocity was also proposed to represent the scenario that
solar chimney is no longer dependent on solar radiation but wind.
The research outcomes can provide a useful tool for the optimiza-
tion designs of solar chimney in a building during practical
applications.
2. Methodology
2.1. Experimental test
Experimental tests were taken based on a solar chimney test
platform, which has the same structure as that shown in Fig. 1. The
experiments were taken by Bouchair and more details can refer to
Ref. [38]. The experimental methodologies were briefly introduced
 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67
here for the convenience. The dimension of the room is 1.8 (L)  1.6
(W)  2.0 (H) m3. One side of the room is connected to the ambient
environment, with a window of 0.5 (W)  0.6 (H) m2. The other side
is connected to a chimney cavity through an air inlet, where the
width of the inlet is fixed at 1.4 m with two available heights (size)
of 0.1 and 0.4 m. To prevent the heat penetration from the chimney
cavity to the room, the wall between the chimney cavity and room
was insulated by a 50 mm thick insulation board.
Three parameters were tested, including the inlet height (0.1
and 0.4 m), cavity depth (0.1e1.0 m) and the surface temperature of
the absorption walls (30e60
C). The cavity depth (also called
cavity gap) is the horizontal distance between the glazing and ab-
sorption walls. The surface temperature of the absorption wall was
adjusted through electrical plate heaters to simulate various solar
radiation intensities. A special experimental design should be
mentioned that the two walls, including absorption wall and
external glazing wall, were heated at the same temperature during
the experiments. It should be mentioned that the situation with the
two heated walls is only used for the validation of the numerical
tool, which was not adopted in further analysis after the validation.
The air velocities at the inlet were measured by a heated thermistor
anemometer. All the tests were carried out in an indoor stable
environment to avoid the disturbance from external weather
conditions.
2.2. Numerical theories
Description of airflow inside the room and chimney cavity is
based on several governing equations, and the momentum con-
servation equation is given by,
vU ~  PVð1=rÞ ¼ ½ðr  r Þg þ V,t=r
 U  u þ VP 0 (1)
vt
~ is the total pressure divided by the density.
where P
The continuity equation can be expressed by,
vr }
þ V,ðrUÞ ¼ S_m
vt
Energy conservation equation is given by,
v DP 00
ðrEÞ þ V,ðrEUÞ ¼  V,Q_
vt Dt
} the comparison. Fig. 2 shows a comparison between the numerical
where Q_ represents the conductive, diffusive, and radiative heat
fluxes:
} X } circles are for 0.1 and 0.4 m high air inlet, respectively. And those
Q_ ¼  kVT þ hs;a rDa VZa þ Q_ rad
a
where hs,a is the sensible enthalpy of species a; Da is the diffusion
coefficient; and Za is the species mixture a.
In the above energy conservation equation, the source term for
thermal radiation can be expressed by:
ð
} addressing solar chimney problem can be confirmed here, where
Q_ rad ¼ kðxÞ½uðxÞ  4pIb ðxÞ; uðxÞ ¼ Iðx; sÞds
4p
where Ib ðxÞ is the source term; kðxÞ is the absorption coefficient,
m1; and Iðx; sÞ is the solution of the radiation transport equation
(RTE) for a non-scattering gray gas:
s , VIðx; sÞ ¼ kðxÞ½Ib ðxÞ  Iðx; sÞ
Large eddy simulation (LES) algorithm as an efficient method
was utilized here to solve the above governing equations.
57
Deardorff’s model was adopted to describe the turbulent viscosity.
Those LES equations are derived by applying a low-pass filter of
width D to above governing equations. The filter width is taken to
1=3
be the cube root of the cell volume, D ¼ Vc , Vc ¼ dxdydz. Then for
any continuous field, 4, a filtered field is defined as:
xþdðx=2 yþdðy=2 zþð
dz=2
1
4ðx; y; z; tÞ≡ 4ðx0 ; y0 ; z0 ; tÞdx0 dy0 dz0 (7)
Vc
xdx=2 ydx=2 zdz=2
The air outlet of the chimney cavity was set as an open boundary
that the gases are allowed to flow freely in and out, dependent on
the pressure gradients. The boundaries for the computational
domain are set as the open boundary as well. For those boundaries
with the incoming wind, specified velocity was applied at the
boundary following different directions as needed. During the
simulation, the time step can be automatically adjusted to improve
calculation efficiency. The determination of the time steps is based
on several constrain mechanisms, including the Courant-
Friedrichs-Lewy constraint, the Von Neumann constraint, the
realizable mass density and fluid volume constraints, and the heat
transfer constraint. More details about the boundary conditions
and time step can refer to Ref. [39].
The implementation of solving the above governing equations
was based on Fire Dynamics Simulator (FDS) [40]. FDS has been
popularly utilized in fire safety assessment, where its viability and
modelling accuracy have been confirmed by many types of exper-
iments [41]. Another reason for selecting FDS is its advantages in
constructing the numerical models and parallel calculation, which
is especially helpful to address a large number of scenarios in this
study.
2.3. Validation of numerical modelling
To confirm the viability of the selected numerical tool in
addressing solar chimney problems, numerical results were
compared with those experimental data under three variables,
(2) including air inlet height, cavity depth, and the surface temperature
of absorption wall. My previous study [34] has confirmed that the
grid independence is achieved with a grid size of 0.05 m. In this
study, this grid size was then adopted in the numerical study, un-
(3) less specified.
The experimental data during a stable period were averaged for
and experimental results under various cavity depths (0.1e1.0 m)
for the inlet heights of 0.1 and 0.4 m. In this figure, the squares and
(4) lines represent the numerical results. It can be seen that the nu-
merical results are reasonably fitting with those experimental data
even under various inlet heights, cavity depths and surface tem-
peratures of absorption wall. The numerical results with a bigger
cavity depth, such as 0.5 and 1.0 m, are a little lower than those
experimental data, which may be due to the reverse flow [42,43].
Based on the overall results, the viability of the numerical tool on
(5) more details about the validation can be seen in my previous study
[34]. Therefore, FDS was adopted for further analysis in this study.
2.4. Numerical model
To address the impacts of wind on the solar chimney perfor-
mance, a full-scale numerical model was constructed through FDS,
(6)
as seen in Fig. 3. The internal dimension of the room is 4.0 (L)  4.0
(W)  2.4 (H) m3, with a window in the eastern wall directly con-
necting to the ambient environment. The ambient temperature is
58 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67

Fig. 2. A comparison between experimental and numerical results under various cavity depths: (a) 0.1 m; (b) 0.2 m; (c) 0.3 m; (d) 0.5 m; and (e) 1.0 m [34].

set at 20
C. The dimension of the room is increased in this study to
have the best fit with the real situations for solar chimney appli-
cations, otherwise, the Froude Scaling Law is then applied [44,45].
Usually, during the practical applications, the chimney cavity
should be facing the sun to maximize the absorption of solar ra-
diation. During the numerical modelling, the variable direct solar
radiation on the glazing wall was assumed. Under the
circumstance, there is no different to set the direction of the
chimney cavity. In this study, it was then assumed that the chimney
cavity if facing the West.
The original size of the window size is 1.0 (W)  1.2 (H) m2,
where its width was also changed between 0.8 and 2.0 m in the
following study. The air inlet is fixed at the bottom of the absorp-
tion wall, where its size is 0.3 (H)  4.0 (W) m2, connecting to the
 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67 59

Fig. 3. Numerical model solar chimney constructed by FDS.

chimney cavity. The cavity depth is also fixed at 0.3 m, which is

consistent with the previously obtained optimum value [13]. The
solar chimney performance is determined by the climatic condi-
tions, such as solar radiation and external wind, where the inter-
action will be addressed through this study. It should be mentioned
that only one absorption wall was adopted in this study, repre-
sented by the internal surface of the wall facing the West, shown as
the red surface in Fig. 3, following the configuration of the practice.
As FDS is not capable of simulating the solar radiation change along
with the time and location, constant direct solar radiation in-
tensities on the absorption wall were then assumed to represent
different scenarios that specific solar radiation is reflected by the
net heat flux of the absorption wall, combining both convective and
radiation heat fluxes.
The room was set facing south, and the chimney cavity and
window are facing west and east, respectively, as shown in Fig. 3.
Eight directions of wind were adopted in this study with an interval
of 45
, including east (E), south (S), west (W), north (N), northeast
(NE), southeast (SE), southwest (SW), and northwest (NW). Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis of computational domain.
The computational domain is important to the numerical out-
puts. To address the influences of the computational domain on the
numerical results, different domains were adopted from 3. Results and discussion
8.0  8.0  4.0 (H) to 12.0  12.0  6.0 (H), with an increasing in-
terval of 0.5 m on each side. The numerical results with different 3.1. Wind angle
computational domains can be seen in Fig. 4. It can be seen that the
numerical results decrease with a bigger computational domain. Wind angle (a) is the angle between wind direction and out-
When the computational domain increases to 11.0  11.0  5.5 (H), ward normal of the wall with the window, as shown in Fig. 3. Wind
the decreasing trend is then slowing down that no obvious differ- is important to the optimization design of solar chimney as it
ence can be observed then, especially when it is approaching the provides an additional pressure difference at the window that af-
stable period in the end. Under a domain of 11.0  11.0  5.5 (H) and fects the overall performance. Fig. 5 shows the impacts of the di-
a grid size of 0.05 m, the total grid number is about 5.32 million. rection of 1.0 m/s wind on the solar chimney performance, namely
Continue increasing the domain will largely increase the total grid the volumetric airflow rate at the air inlet of the chimney cavity. It
number that the current computational source is not affordable, can be seen that the wind with a ¼ 0
shows the best performance.
especially with a large number of scenarios in this study, as seen in The reason is quite straightforward that the wind provides the
Table 1. Therefore, in the following analysis, a computational maximum pressure difference at the window. The two scenarios
domain of 11.0  11.0  5.5 (H) is then adopted, unless specified. with a ¼ 45
present the second largest airflow rates. This is
60 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67
Table 1
A summary of numerical scenarios in this study.
No. Factor
1e5 Computational domain
6 Solar chimney without wind
7e14 Wind direction (fixed velocity at 1 m/s)
15e54 Wind velocity under five directions (E, NE, N, NW, and W)*
55e72 Width of window under three wind directions (E, NE, and E)*
Note: The brackets show the considered wind directions.
Fig. 5. Volumetric flow rate at air inlet of the chimney cavity under 1.0 m/s wind with
various directions. One circular grid represents 0.1 m3/s. The scenario without wind
represents the scenario under solar radiation of 400 W/m2 but without any wind. The
wind angle (a) represents the angle between wind direction and outward normal of
the wall with window.
because the only partial wind is perpendicular to the window,
while the other partial wind parallel to the window only make a
limited contribution to the pressure difference.
This can also explain the phenomenon that the scenario with
a ¼ 90
shows the minimum airflow rate when all the wind is
parallel to the window. When a ¼ 90
, reverse flow through the
window can be observed, as shown in Fig. 6(a), which explain the
phenomena that a negative effect is shown under the circumstance.
Under the circumstance, wind stream becomes more and more
twisted after the wind directly touching the windward wall, where
the wall friction and deformation of the wind stream dissipates
energy and then produce a reduction in the ventilation flow rate
[46,47].
The scenario with a ¼ 180
is absolutely leeward with all wind
components are oppositely perpendicular to the window. It could
lead to a negative effect on the solar chimney performance. How-
ever, it is quite surprising from the numerical outputs that the
airflow rate is even higher than the scenario without any wind. The
details can be seen in Fig. 6(c). Two big leeward vortexes were
observed in this figure, which can help the entering of airflow from
outdoors. The scenarios are similar to those flow over cylinder
problem [48,49] that the returned flow behind the obstacle is
actually beneficial to the entering of the air into the room.
Value Unit
8.0  8.0  4.0 (H) m3
9.0  9.0  4.5 (H)
10.0  10.0  5.0 (H)
11.0  11.0  5.5 (H)
12.0  12.0  6.0 (H)
e e
E, S, W, N, NE, SE, SW, NW e
0.2-1.8 m
0.8-2.0 m
The two scenarios with a ¼ 135
show a negative effect on solar
chimney, which can be reflected by the lower airflow rate when
comparing to the scenario without any wind. It can be observed in
Fig. 6(b) that reverse flow is shown through the window due to the
highly turbulent airflow and the two leeward vortexes. It does not
mean that the two vortexes are always leading to the reverse flow,
but during the major time period, it results in reverse flow with
overall slightly reduced performance.
It is also observed from Fig. 5 that the airflow rates under two
symmetric wind directions (a ¼ 45
, 90
, or 135
) along the east-
west line are similar, showing the maximum difference of 8.16%.
The difference between the two scenarios with a ¼ 45
is only
0.33%, which is due to the strong windward situation. The differ-
ence between the two scenarios with a ¼ 135
is between the
above two pairs, namely 3.09%. The symmetric pattern from this
study confirms the reasonability that the two wind directions along
the symmetric line share the same wind pressure coefficient (Cp)
[50]. Therefore, in the following contents, the analysis will focus on
the scenarios with a  180
, unless specified.
The circle with a solid line in Fig. 5 shows the airflow rate
through the room driven solely by the solar chimney, without any
wind. It can be seen that the airflow rates for scenarios with
90
a < 180
are lower than that without any wind, representing a
negative effect from the wind. This may be because of the reverse
flow through the window raised by the enhanced air resistance
under the wind directions. For those leeward scenarios, the sce-
nario with a ¼ 180
shows a relatively higher airflow rate than the
scenario without wind. This is because of the two big vortexes that
promoting the air entering into the room, as shown in Fig. 6(c).
Based on the numerical results in Figs. 5 and 6, it is known that
the windward scenarios (0
a < 90
) show a much better perfor-
mance, which is suggested for the practical optimization design.
Scenario when a ¼ 0
shows the best performance with the highest
airflow rate through the room. The results are the same with those
cross-ventilation cases that a ¼ 0
and a ¼ 90
show the best and
worst performance for a building, respectively [51]. Those leeward
scenarios (90
a < 180
) will worsen the solar chimney perfor-
mance, although the directly leeward scenario (a ¼ 180
) shows a
slightly positive effect.
3.2. Wind velocity
Wind velocity also affects the overall performance of solar
chimney. As a symmetric pattern was observed for wind directions
along the east-west line, various wind velocities with a  180
were
then considered in this section. Fig. 7 shows the volumetric flow
rate at the air inlet under wind with various velocities within
0e1.8 m/s. The range of the analysed wind velocity range is deter-
mined by the theoretical analysis, as shown in Section 4.2, that
under a normal 400 W/m2 solar radiation the airflow rate through
the chimney is very similar when the external wind is around
 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67 61

Fig. 6. Velocity contour with 1.0 m/s wind under: (a) a ¼ 90
; (b) a ¼ 135
; and (c) a ¼ 180
. The south wall of the room was purposely made transparent for better presentation,
which does not represent an opening of the room.

1.8 m/s, although practical wind speed could be much higher than
that. It can be seen that for all the scenarios with a < 90
, it is quite
obvious that the airflow rate keeps increasing under a bigger ve-
locity. The increasing rate should be connected with the intrinsic
features of both chimney and room configurations, such as window
size. It should be mentioned that the increasing trend could be
limited to a specified wind velocity, mostly probably 5.0 m/s based
on cross-ventilation case [52], which is because of the increased
wind flow frequency under very high wind velocity. The very high
wind velocity is beyond the scope of this study, which will be
investigated in future work.
A turning point is shown in Fig. 7 for all scenarios with a < 90
.
For example, when a ¼ 0
, the turning point happens at 0.2 m/s
while above this point the increasing rate gets much higher. A
relatively higher velocity, namely 0.4 m/s, can be seen for the sce-
nario with a ¼ 45
. The accurate turning points can be determined
by further reducing the analysis interval within 0e0.4 m/s wind.
Although they may be different from 0.2 to 0.4 m/s, it indicates that
there exists a special wind velocity under which the related influ-
ence is relatively smaller. This may be because of the initial resis-
tance between the interaction of thermal buoyancy and wind when
the wind is relatively small. Under a relatively higher wind velocity,
62 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67

Fig. 7. Volumetric flow rate at air inlet under various wind velocities with a  180
. Fig. 8. Volumetric flow rate at air inlet with various window size under a 1 m/s wind.
VE and VNE represent the airflow rate with a ¼ 0
and a ¼ 45
, respectively.

the air resistance can be ignored. This special velocity may be

different under various scenarios, such as chimney configuration,
installation conditions, material usages and environmental condi-
tions [13].
The trend for those scenarios with 90
a < 180
is different. As
shown in Fig. 7, the airflow rate shows an increasing and then a
decreasing trend, although the trend is not so obvious when
comparing to those windward scenarios. It can be also seen that the
maximum airflow rates happen at about 0.4 m/s wind. This may be
because of the enhanced turbulence near the window, especially
under the leeward situation, which then leads to a relatively less air
entering the room. The details can be seen in Fig. 6(a) and (b).
Scenarios with a ¼ 180
show an overall increasing trend, where
the increasing rate is relatively bigger than those scenarios with
90
a < 180
but obviously smaller than scenarios with a < 90
.
The increasing trend is because of the two big leeward vortexes
happened near the window. Under a relatively higher wind, the
vortexes could be more turbulent under a higher Reynolds number.
Sohankar [53] and Cheng et al. [48] obtained a similar phenomenon
that a higher Reynolds number can produce more leeward vortexes
that air can be easily flowing into the room.
VE ¼ 0:81A0:34
w (8)
VNE ¼ 0:55A0:46
w (9)
It can be seen from the above two equations that both the ex-
ponents are lower than 1, which presents an increasing rate lower
than those linear regressions. This is because of the overall con-
figurations of the room and solar chimney, which is not just
affected by the window but also the chimney outlet. The air resis-
tance is also affected by the outlet, while a smaller outlet can
greatly increase the overall resistance of the system. This is similar
to those buildings with crosswind ventilation, which is determined
by the areas of both inlet and outlet [56].
The volumetric rate ratio between the two wind directions (VE/
VNE) under various wind sizes is shown in Fig. 9. It can be seen from
this figure that VE/VNE keeps decreasing when with a bigger win-
dow. The ratio drops from 1.46 to 1.29 when the window area in-
creases from 0.96 to 2.4 m2. It can be concluded that for those
windward scenarios (a < 90
), the influences from the wind

3.3. Area of window

It can be known from the above analysis the interaction be-

tween solar chimney and wind is much dependent on the window.
The area for the air supply is a determining factor for the related
pressure distributions and air movement [54,55]. It should be
mentioned that the window in this study not only represents a
window, but also any room opening at building boundaries that
affected by the wind. Furthermore, only those scenarios with
a < 90
were considered here as it directly interacts with the wind.
The window shows significant importance in determining the solar
chimney performance. To address the influence, a series of the
window with fixed height and various widths (0.8e2.0 m) were
considered, as shown in Table 1. It should be noticed that the
window always keeps centered even though the width is changed.
The volumetric airflow rate at the air inlet under various win-
dow areas can be seen in Fig. 8. It was known that the airflow rate
under east (VE) and NE wind (VNE) keeps increasing with a bigger
window, showing an exponential relationship, Fig. 9. Airflow rate ratio of VE/VNE under various window sizes.
 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67 63

direction are gradually decreasing when the area of the window

keeps rising. Therefore, the VN/VNE will be then approaching 1.0 r0 Vw ¼ r0 Vi ¼ rc Vo (20)
infinitely when the window is big enough. It is also applicable to all After combining Eqs. (18) to (20), it is obtained that,
the scenarios when a < 90
.
2 30:5
2ð r  r ÞgðH  H Þ þ 2 DP
Vo ¼ Cd 4 . . 5
o i wind
0 c .  (21)
4. Theoretical analysis r2c r0 A2w þ r2c r0 A2i þ rc A2o
4.1. Theoretical model considering wind The above equation is largely non-linear, to benefit the solving
process, it is assumed rc ¼ r0 in the denominator of the term at the
It is known from above sections that those scenarios with right-hand side. For the studied configuration under a typical
a  90
are less affected by the wind, so the focus of the theoretical temperature range of 20e60
C for the hot air inside the chimney
analysis in this study is on those windward scenarios, namely with cavity, this assumption produces a maximum 4.6% error. The
a < 90
. This actually includes about half of the scenarios under the assumed temperature range of 20e60
C is able to cover the typical
symmetric pattern along the east-west line. For those scenarios scenarios under normal solar radiation. The above equation can be
with 90
a  180
, the related performance may be estimated then rewritten as,
based on the scenario without any wind.
 
The schematic of solar chimney under wind is shown in Fig. 1. ðr0  rc ÞgðHo  Hi Þ þ DPwind 0:5
Vo ¼ Cd A* (22)
Under the solar radiation, airflow is driven by both thermal buoy- rc
ancy and wind pressure, from the window to the air outlet. The air
inside the room and chimney cavity are considered fully fixed with where A* is the coefficient considering the areas of different
uniform densities. The hydrostatic pressure difference at various openings, which is expressed by,
heights can be then given by,
!0:5
2A2w A2i A2o
DP ¼ rgDH (10) *
A ¼ (23)
A2i A2o þ A2w A2o þ A2i A2w
The pressure difference for airflow through an orifice, such as a
window, door or other vents, can be expressed by, It can be assumed based on ideal gas law that the product of air
density and temperature keeps constant under various scenarios,
DP ¼ 0:5rU 2 (11) which produce an error smaller than 0.02% [58],

The pressures at different locations can be seen in Fig. 1. For the r0 T0 ¼ rc Tc (24)
first letter in the subscripts of those pressures, w, i and o represent a
window, air inlet, and outlet, respectively. The second letter of e and The wind pressure difference (DPwind) between the window and
i mean external and internal positions, respectively. Based on Eqs. air outlet in Eq. (17) can be estimated by Ref. [59],
(10) to (11), the pressure differences at or among window, air inlet  
and outlet can be estimated by: DPwind ¼ 0:5r0 Cpi  Cpo Uwind
2
(25)

Pwe  Pwi ¼ 0:5r0 Uw

2
(12) where it should be noticed Uwind is the velocity of wind, which is
different from Uw of the air velocity through the window.
The wind pressure coefficient in the above equation can be
Pwi  Pii ¼ r0 gðHw  Hi Þ (13)
given by Ref. [60]:
2 3
Pii  Pie ¼ 0:5r0 Ui2 (14)
a 2
6 1:2480:703sin 1:175sin ðaÞþ0:131sin ð2aGÞ 7 3
6 2 7
Pie  Poi ¼ rc gðHo  Hi Þ (15) Cpw ¼0:6ln6
6 a  a 7
7
a
4 þ0:769cos þ0:07G2 sin2 2 5
þ0:717cos
2 2 2
Poi  Poe ¼ 0:5rc Uo2 (16)
(26)

Pwe  Poe ¼ r0 gðHo  Hw Þ þ DPwind (17) where a is the angle between wind direction and outward normal
of the wall under consideration, within 0e180
. The details can
According to Eqs. (12) - (17), we can get,
refer to Figs. 3 and 5; G is the natural log of the ratio between the
width of the wall under consideration and the width of the adjacent
r0 Uw2 þ r0 Ui2 þ rc Uo2 ¼ 2ðr0  rc ÞgðHo  Hi Þ þ 2DPwind (18)
wall.
For airflow through the orifice, the overall volumetric airflow After combining Eqs. (24) and (25), Eq. (22) can be rewritten as,
rate can be calculated based on,
  0:5
r Tc  T0 r   2
V ¼ Cd AU (19) Vo ¼ Cd A* g 0 ðHo  Hi Þ þ 0:5 0 Cpi  Cpo Uwind
rc Tc rc
where Cd represents the coefficient of discharge. In this study, Cd of (27)
all the orifices such as window, air inlet, and outlet are considered Based on the principle of energy conservation, it is known that,
the same, namely 0.6 [57].
For the entering and exhausting airflow of the system (room and E ¼ rc Vo Cp ðTc  T0 Þ (28)
chimney cavity), it should follow the principle of mass conserva-
tion, which is expressed by, where E is the total energy absorbed by the chimney cavity,
64 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67

vent shares the same height and there is no height difference,

E ¼ tAsol Qsol (29) which could then differentiate the pressure and result in different
wind pressure coefficient. Eq. (26) is only applicable to those ver-
where t is the transmissivity of the glazing wall, which is assumed tical vents, such as a window in this study. The wind direction on
as 0.76 in this study [61]. the outlet or flat roof seems to be limited, where it can be assumed
Eq. (27) can be directly solved after substituting Eq. (28). that the wind pressure coefficient at the horizontal outlet is fixed
However, it will produce a cubic equation which greatly compli- [56,62]. Based on the regression, the value of 1.83 shows the best
cates the solving process. To solve the problem, we rewrote Eq. (27) fit with those numerical results. The airflow rate through the room
based on Eqs. (24) and (28), under the impact of wind can be then expressed by,

 0:5
B r0 0:5Tc r0   2  2 h  1:5 3 i13
Vo ¼ Cd A* ðHo  Hi Þ þ Cpi  Cpo Uwind Vo ¼ Cd A* 3 BðHo  Hi Þ þ 0:35Cd A*h Cpi þ 1:83 Uwind ; a <90+
Vo rc Tc  T0 g rc
(30) (37)

where B is the buoyancy flux driving the airflow inside the chimney where B and Ah* can be obtained through Eqs. (31) and (34),
cavity, respectively.
The temperature of airflow inside the chimney cavity can be
 
B ¼ Eg r0 Cp T0 (31) estimated by,

The term (Tc-T0) on the right-hand side of Eq. (30) should be Tc ¼T0
simplified to allow an easy form of solution. Considering the whole  2
house as a uniform unit and assuming an equal Cd at the window E Cd A* 3 h  1:5 3 i13
þ BðHo Hi Þþ0:35Cd A*h Cpi þ1:83 Uwind ; a <90+
and chimney outlet, so the overall natural ventilation rate through rc Cp
the house under wind can be estimated by Ref. [56], (38)
!0:5 If we assume no wind is applicable, namely Uwind ¼ 0, Eq. (37)
 0:5 A2w A2o
Vwind ¼ Cd Uwind Cpi  Cpo (32) can be changed to the previously obtained theoretical model
A2o þ A2w without considering the wind [20],
The term (Tc-T0) on the right-hand side of Eq. (30) can be then  2 1

estimated by the overall ventilation raised by the wind by assuming
Vo ¼ Vwind in Eq. (28), which is only for the estimation of the tem-
perature difference. This assumption may overestimate the tem-
perature difference, but it is a good compensation of the below
assumption for Eq. (36). Combining with the energy conservation
equation (Eq. (28)), it can be obtained that,
pffiffiffi  0:5
2E Cpi  Cpo
Tc  T0 ¼
A*h rc Cd Cp Uwind
Vo ¼ Cd A* 3 ½BðHo  Hi Þ3 ; Uwind ¼ 0 (39)
Fig. 10 shows a comparison between the predicted and nu-
merical airflow rates through the room for a < 90
. It can be seen
that those prediction based on Eq. (37) are quite consistent with the
numerical results. For those scenarios with 90
a  180
, it is
suggested to adopt the prediction for the scenario without wind.
(33)
4.2. Critical wind velocity

where A*h is expressed by, Due to a large number of scenarios, only those scenarios with
a ¼ 0
with a velocity of 0.2e1.8 m/s were selected for further
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u analysis. When a ¼ 0
, the airflow rates under 0 and 400 W/m2
u 2A2 A2
A*h ¼ t w o
(34) solar radiation were compared, as seen in Fig. 11. It can be seen that
A2o þ A2w

After substituting the above equation into Eq. (30), we can

obtain that,
 0:5
Cd A* r0 r0 *
 1:5 3
Vo ¼ BðH o  H Þ þ 0:35 C A C  C po U
Vo0:5 rc rc
i d h pi wind

(35)
In the above equation, it can be assumed that rc ¼ r0, which
produces a maximum error of 4.7% for the typical air temperature
within 20e60
C inside the chimney cavity. Therefore, the volu-
metric airflow rate at the chimney outlet can be predicted by,

 2 h  1:5 3 i13
Vo ¼ Cd A* 3 BðHo  Hi Þ þ 0:35Cd A*h Cpi  Cpo Uwind (36)

In this study, the outlet of the chimney cavity is horizontal,

which is different from those vertical vents for the development of
the empirical model in the literature, which is the reason the
estimated wind pressure coefficient for horizontal outlet calculated
by Eq. (26) were not considered. This is due to the difference static Fig. 10. A comparison of predicted (by Eq [37]) and numerical airflow rates when the
pressure, which drops along with the height. The whole horizontal incoming wind is less than 90
.
 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67 65

By combining Eqs. (40) and (41), the critical wind velocity can be
estimated by,

" #1
h i1 BðHo  Hi Þ
3

¼ 1:42 ð1  fÞ3  1 a < 90+

3
Ucri  1:5 ;
Cd A*h Cpi þ 1:83
(42)

where the calculation of B is shown in Eq. (31); A*h is shown in Eq.

(34); and Cpw can be obtained through Eq. (26)
The critical wind velocity can be calculated based on the above
Eq. (42). For example, if we assume a 2% difference between the two
scenarios ignoring and considering solar radiation, namely
4 ¼ 0.02, the critical wind velocity can be calculated after filling
other inputs. In this study, for the analysed configuration of solar
chimney under 400 W/m2 solar radiation, the critical wind velocity
can be obtained as 1.45 m/s according to Eq. (42). It is indicated that
when the wind velocity is higher than 1.45 m/s the difference be-
tween the scenarios ignoring and considering 400 W/m2 solar ra-
diation is less than 2%. In another way, the existence of the 400 W/
Fig. 11. Volumetric flow rate at air inlet ignoring and considering 400 W/m2 solar m2 solar radiation can be ignored when the wind velocity is higher
radiation with a ¼ 0
. than 1.45 m/s for the analysed solar chimney. A comparison of
theoretical and numerical results for 400 W/m2 solar radiation can
be seen in Fig. 11.
the airflow rate keeps increasing under a bigger wind, while the
Fig. 12 shows the airflow rate difference between the scenarios
airflow rates between these two become closer with a ratio
ignoring and considering solar radiation for the analysed solar
approaching 1. It is also observed that the airflow rate under
chimney and room configurations. The critical wind velocity can be
400 W/m2 solar radiation and 1.4 m/s external wind is even slightly
then obtained through the figure. For example, based on Fig. 12, if
lower (0.45% less) than that of the scenario without solar radia-
we consider an acceptable difference of 5% between ignoring and
tion. This is because of the high level of turbulence, as shown in
considering solar radiation, the critical wind velocity increases
Fig. 6, where slight fluctuations are reasonable as the averaged
from 0.65 to 1.55 m/s when the solar radiation rises from 100 to
airflow rates were obtained for those data within 190e200 s of the
1300 W/m2. It can provide a useful tool to determine the influences
stable period. The extra solar radiation could increase the level of
of weather conditions during practical applications of solar
turbulence inside the room due to the increased pressure difference
chimney.
between the chimney cavity and the room. This may then affect the
entry of the fresh air from the ambient environment through the
window.
The results shown in Fig. 11 indicate that there may be a critical 5. Conclusions
wind velocity, which represents the wind velocity which overrules
the performance that solar chimney is no longer dependent on The impacts of wind on solar chimney performance were ana-
solar radiation but wind. Under the circumstance, the airflow rate lysed numerically and theoretically. Several conclusions can be
through the chimney cavity can be then solely estimated by the addressed through this study:
wind. However, this does not mean that solar chimney is unnec-
essary. This is because the results are based on the scenario that the
chimney cavity is also included. Even with zero solar radiation, the
analysed room in this study is still connected with the chimney
cavity. Critical wind velocity could be determined by many factors,
such as solar radiation, cavity and room configuration, and even
materials usage.
Eq. (37) provides a theoretical model to predict the airflow rate
through the room considering wind. As two terms are in the right-
hand side of this equation, an assumed linear relationship between
these two terms can benefit the solving process of the critical wind
velocity,
 1:5 3
BðHo  Hi Þ ¼ a,0:35Cd A*h Cpi þ 1:83 Uwind (40)

where a is the coefficient less than 1.0, representing the ratio be-
tween the above mentioned two terms under a specified wind
velocity.
The difference between the scenarios ignoring and considering
solar radiation is denoted as 4, which is less than 1.0 as well. After
substituting Eq. (40) into Eq. (37), it can be obtained that,

a ¼ ð1  fÞ3  1
Fig. 12. Airflow rate difference for scenarios ignoring and considering solar radiation
(41)
under wind with a ¼ 0
.
66 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67
 It was confirmed that the impacts of wind cannot be ignored
during the practical applications of solar chimney. A higher
wind velocity does not represent a better solar chimney per-
formance, which is dependent on the wind angle (a), namely the
angle between wind direction and outward normal of the wall
with the window. It was known that scenario with a ¼ 0
shows
the best performance, followed by 0
<a < 90
. It is a little sur-
prising that scenario with a ¼ 180
presents a slightly positive
effect on solar chimney performance, but those with
90
a < 180
show negative effects. It was also known that
symmetric pattern is shown for wind directions along the east-
west line;
 The air supply area of the room (Aw), namely window in this
study, shows a positive effect on the solar chimney performance,
where the airflow rate through the room shows a linear rela-
0.34 0.46
tionship with Aw and Aw when a is 0
and 45
, respectively.
The effects from the window area keep decreasing under a
higher wind velocity; and
 A theoretical model (Eq [37]) was developed to predict the
airflow rate through the room considering the wind with
a < 90
. The predictions are fitting quite well with those nu-
merical results. Critical wind velocity was proposed represent-
ing the scenario that solar chimney is no longer dependent on
solar radiation but wind, where a theoretical model (Eq [42])
was also developed to predict the critical wind velocity under
various conditions. It was known that the critical wind velocity
keeps increasing under higher solar radiation.
The above results are based on the analysis under an ambient
temperature of 20
C and a horizontal air outlet, where they could
affect the solar chimney performance. The indoor thermal comfort
based on solar chimney could be determined by many factors, such
as ambient air temperature and indoor heat sources (e.g. occupants
and facilities). These research directions will be taken in the future
work.
Declaration of interests
 The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
 The authors declare the following financial interests/personal
relationships which may be considered as potential competing
interests:
References
[1] Omrany H, Ghaffarianhoseini A, Ghaffarianhoseini A, Raahemifar K, Tookey J.
Application of passive wall systems for improving the energy efficiency in
buildings: a comprehensive review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2016;62:
1252e69.
[2] Lotfabadi P. Analyzing passive solar strategies in the case of high-rise building.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;52:1340e53.
[3] Zuo J, Zhao ZY. Green building researchecurrent status and future agenda: a
review. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2014;30:271e81.
[4] Ahmadi G, Toghraie D, Akbari OA. Solar parallel feed water heating repow-
ering of a steam power plant: a case study in Iran. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2017;77:474e85.
[5] Zhang GM, Shi L. Improving the performance of solar chimney by addressing
the designing factors. IOP Conf Ser Earth Environ Sci 2018;168:1e6.
[6] Tan AYK, Wong NH. Natural ventilation performance of classroom with solar
chimney system. Energy Build 2012;53:19e27.
[7] Zha XY, Zhang J, Qin MH. Experimental and numerical studies of solar
chimney for ventilation in low energy buildings. Procedia Engineering - Pro-
ceedings of the 10th ISHVAC 2017;205:1612e9.
[8] Li HR, Yu YB, Niu FX, Shafik M, Chen B. Performance of a coupled cooling
system with earth-to-air heat exchanger and solar chimney. Renew Energy
2014;62:468e77.
[9] Talele SH. In: A performance analysis of solar chimney passive ventilation.
United States: University of North Texas; 2013.
[10] Arce J, Xaman JP, Alvarez G, Jimenez MJ, Enriquez R, Heras MR. A simulation of
the thermal performance of a small solar chimney already installed in a
building. J Sol Energy Eng 2013;135:1e10.
[11] Kemperman R. A naturally ventilated office building through solar chimneys
and ’venturi’ exhausts. In: Faculty of architecture, urbanism & building sci-
ences. Netherlands: Delft University of Technology; 2012.
[12] Chungloo S, Limmeechokchai B. Application of passive cooling systems in the
hot and humid climate: the case study of solar chimney and wetted roof in
Thailand. Build Environ 2007;42:3341e51.
[13] Shi L, Zhang GM, Yang W, Huang DM, Cheng XD, Setunge S. Determining the
influencing factors on the performance of solar chimney in buildings. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2018;88:223e38.
[14] Zamora B, Kaiser AS. Optimum wall-to-wall spacing in solar chimney shaped
channels in natural convection by numerical investigation. Appl Therm Eng
2009;29:762e9.
[15] Zavala-Guillen I, Xaman J, Hernandez-Perez I, Hernandez-Lopez I, Gijon-
Rivera M, Chavez Y. Numerical study of the optimum width of 2a diurnal
double air-channel solar chimney. Energy 2018;147:403e17.
[16] Cheng XD, Shi L, Dai P, Zhang GM, Yang H, Li J. Study on optimizing design of
solar chimney for natural ventilation and smoke exhaustion. Energy Build
2018;170:145e56.
[17] Li AG, Jones P, Zhao PG, Wang LP. Heat transfer and natural ventilation airflow
rates from single-sided heated solar chimney for buildings. J Asian Archit
Build Eng 2004;3:233e8.
[18] Shi L, Zhang GM, Cheng XD, Guo Y, Wang JH, Chew MYL. Developing an
empirical model for roof solar chimney based on experimental data from
various test rig. Build Environ 2016;110:115e28.
[19] Lee DS, Hung TC, Lin JR, Zhao J. Experimental investigations on solar chimney
for optimal heat collection to be utilized in organic Rankine cycle. Appl Energy
2015;154:651e62.
[20] Shi L. Theoretical models for wall solar chimney under cooling and heating
modes considering room configuration. Energy 2018;165:925e9238.
[21] Hernandez-Lopez I, Xaman J, Chavez Y, Hernandez-Perrez I, Alvarado-
Juarez R. Thermal energy storage and losses in a room-Trombe wall system
located in Mexico. Energy 2016;109:512e24.
[22] Amer EH. Passive options for solar cooling of buildings in arid areas. Energy
2006;31:1332e44.
[23] Vargas-Lopez R, Xaman J, Hernandez-Perez I, Arce J, Zavala-Guillen I,
Jimenez MJ, Heras MR. Mathematical models of solar chimneys with a phase
change materialfor ventilation of buildings: a review using global energy
balance. Energy 2019;170:683e708.
[24] Xaman J, Vargas-Lopez R, Gijon-Rivera M, Zavala-Guillen I, Jimenez MJ, A. J.
Transient thermal analysis of a solar chimney for buildings with three
different types of absorbing materials: copper plate/PCM/concrete wall.
Renew Energy 2019;136:139e58.
[25] Zavala-Guillen I, Xaman J, Hernandez-Perez I, Hernandez-Lopez I, Jimenez-
Xaman C, Moreno-Bernal P, Sauceda D. Ventilation potential of an absorber-
partitioned air channel solar chimney for diurnal use under Mexican
climate conditions. Appl Therm Eng 2019;149:807e21.
[26] Hami K, Draoui B, Hami O. The thermal performances of a solar wall. Energy
2012;39:11e6.
[27] Arce J, Jimenez MJ, Guaman JD, Heras MR, Alvarez G, Xaman J. Epxerimental
study for natural ventilation on a solar chimney. Renew Energy 2009;34:
2928e34.
[28] Mathur J, Bansal NK, Mathur S, Jain M, Anupma. Experimental investigations
on solar chimney for room ventilation. Sol Energy 2006;80:927e35.
[29] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. fourth ed.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2013.
[30] Jaber S, Ajib S. Optimum design of Trombe wall system in mediterranean
region. Sol Energy 2011;85:1891e8.
[31] Ryan D, Burek SAM. Experimental study of the influence of collector height on
the steady state performance of a passive solar air heater. Sol Energy 2010;84:
1676e84.
[32] Shen JB, Lassue S, Zalewski L, Huang DZ. Numerical study on thermal behavior
of classical or composite Trombe solar walls Classical Trombe wall. Energy
Build 2007;39:962e74.
[33] Sakonidou EP, Karapantsios TD, Balouktsis AI, Chassapis D. Modeling of the
optimum tilt of a solar chimney for maximum air flow. Sol Energy 2008;82:
80e94.
[34] Shi L, Zhang GM. An empirical model to predict the performance of typical
solar chimneys considering both room and cavity configurations. Build En-
viron 2016;103:250e61.
[35] Tan AYK, Wong NH. Influences of ambient air speed and internal heat load on
the performance of solar chimney in the tropics. Sol Energy 2014;102:
116e25.
[36] Al-Kayiem HH, Sreejaya KV, Gilani SIU. Mathematical analysis of the influence
of the chimney height and collector area on the performance of a roof top
solar chimney. Energy Build 2014;68:305e11.
[37] Afonso C, Oliveira A. Solar chimneys: simulation and experiment. Energy Build
2000;32:71e9.
[38] Bouchair A. In: Solar induced ventilation in the Algerian and similar climates.
UK: Department of Civil Engineering, University of Leeds; 1989.
[39] McGrattan K, Hostikka S, McDermott R, Floyd J, Weinschenk C, Overholt K. In:
Fire dynamics simulator technical reference guide volume 1: mathematical
model. U.S. National Institute of Standards of Technology; 2015.
 L. Shi / Energy 185 (2019) 55e67
[40] McGrattan K, Hostikka S, McDermott R, Floyd J, Weinschenk C, Overholt K. In:
Fire dynamics simulator User’s guide. U.S. National Institute of Standards and
Technology; 2015.
[41] McGrattan K, Hostikka S, McDermott R, Floyd J, Weinschenk C, Overholt K.
Validation. Fire Dynamics simulator technical reference guide, vol. 3. National
Institute of Standards and Technology; 2017.
[42] Zhai XQ, Dai YJ, Wang RZ. Experimental investigation on air heating and
natural ventilation of a solar air collector. Energy Build 2005;37:373e81.
[43] Imran AA, Jalil JM, Ahmed ST. Induced flow for ventilation and cooling by a
solar chimney. Renew Energy 2015;78:236e44.
[44] Yao YZ, He K, Peng M, Shi L, Cheng XD, Zhang HP. Maximum gas temperature
rise beneath the ceiling in a portals-sealed tunnel fire. Tunn Undergr Space
Technol 2018;80:10e5.
[45] Yao YZ, Cheng XD, Zhang SG, Zhu K, Shi L, Zhang HP. Smoke back-layering
flow length in longitudinal ventilated tunnel fires with vertical shaft in the
upstream. Appl Therm Eng 2016;107:738e46.
[46] Hu CH, Kurabuchi T, Ohba M. Numerical study of cross-ventilation using
TwoEquation RANS. Int J Vent 2005;4:123e31.
[47] Jiru TE, Bitsuamlak GT. Application of CFD in modelling wind-induced natural
ventilation of buildings - a review. Int J Vent 2010;9:131e47.
[48] Cheng M, Tan ShN, Hung KC. Linear shear flow over a square cylinder at low
Reynolds number. Phys Fluids 2005;17:1e5.
[49] Sharma A, Eswaran V. Heat and fluid flow across a square cylinder in the two-
dimensional laminar flow regime. Numer Heat Tran, Part A: Application
2004;45:247e69.
[50] Swami MV, Chandra S. In: Procedures for calculating natural ventilation
airflow rates in buildings. Florida Solar Energy Center; 1987.
[51] Mohamed MF, King S, Behnia M, Prasad D. The effects of balconies on the
67
natural ventilation performance of cross-ventilated high-rise buildings.
Journal of Green Building 2014;9:145e60.
[52] Zhong HY, Zhang DD, Liu D, Zhao FY, Li YG, Wang HQ. Two-dimensional
numerical simulation of wind driven ventilation across a building enclosure
with two free apertures on the rear side: vortex shedding and “pumping flow
mechanism”. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2018;179:449e62.
[53] Sohankar A. Flow over a bluff body from moderate to high Reynolds numbers
using large eddy simulation. Comput Fluid 2006;35:1154e68.
[54] Zhang SG, Cheng XD, Zhu K, Yao YZ, Shi L, Zhang HP. Experimental study on
curved flame characteristics under longitudinal ventilation in a subway tun-
nel. Appl Therm Eng 2017;114:733e43.
[55] Zhu K, Shi L, Yao YZ, Zhang SG, Yang H, Zhang RF, Cheng XD. Smoke move-
ment in a sloping subway tunnel under longitudinal ventilation with
blockage. Fire Technology; 2017.
[56] ASHRAE handbook, fundamentals. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air Conditioning Engineers; 2009.
[57] Linden PF. The fluid mechanics of natural ventilation. Annu Rev Fluid Mech
1999;31:201e38.
[58] Andersen KT. Theory for natural ventilation by thermal buoyancy in one zone
with uniform temperature. Build Environ 2003;38:1281e9.
[59] Hunt GR, Linden PP. The fluid mechanics of natural ventilationddisplacement
ventilation by buoyancy-driven flows assisted by wind. Build Environ
1999;34:707e20.
[60] U.S. Department of energy, EnergyPlus - engineering reference. 2017.
[61] Cengel YA, Boles MA. Thermodynamics: an engineering approach. eighth ed.
McGraw-Hill; 2015.
[62] AS/NZS 1170.2:2002. In: Structural design actions Part 2: wind actions.
Australian/New Zealand Standard; 2002.