2022
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijthermalsci.2022.107792
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of inlet boundary conditions on 3D steady RANS simulations of non-isothermal mechanical ventilation in a generic closure

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 104 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…LES is in better agreement with measurements than RANS and URANS Kang and van Hooff (2022) [33] Non-isothermal side-wall jet Two opposing plane wall jets in an empty airplane cabin In the studies presented in Table 2 and within several older papers, the air movement in the room was caused by air jets such as plane jets [41,46], plane wall jets [31,34,36,38,39,46], 3D circular quasi-free sidewall jets [32,33,42,44], impinging jets [37,40,43], slightly swirling free jets [45], and confluent jets [47]. In order to validate the CFD results in the jet zone, the air velocity measurements were performed using LDA [32,40,41,44,45], a hot-wire anemometer [40,42], a three-hot-wire anemometer [33], PIV anemometry [34,37,41], a low-velocity thermal anemometer (LVTA) [38], and an ultrasonic anemometer [40]. In a previous paper [31], RANS CFD results were validated using LES results.…”
Section: Impact Of Turbulence Model On Cfd Resultsmentioning
confidence: 75%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…LES is in better agreement with measurements than RANS and URANS Kang and van Hooff (2022) [33] Non-isothermal side-wall jet Two opposing plane wall jets in an empty airplane cabin In the studies presented in Table 2 and within several older papers, the air movement in the room was caused by air jets such as plane jets [41,46], plane wall jets [31,34,36,38,39,46], 3D circular quasi-free sidewall jets [32,33,42,44], impinging jets [37,40,43], slightly swirling free jets [45], and confluent jets [47]. In order to validate the CFD results in the jet zone, the air velocity measurements were performed using LDA [32,40,41,44,45], a hot-wire anemometer [40,42], a three-hot-wire anemometer [33], PIV anemometry [34,37,41], a low-velocity thermal anemometer (LVTA) [38], and an ultrasonic anemometer [40]. In a previous paper [31], RANS CFD results were validated using LES results.…”
Section: Impact Of Turbulence Model On Cfd Resultsmentioning
confidence: 75%
“…In all cases comparing the RANS and URANS models with the results of the LES approach it was found that the LES results better reproduce the tested airflows in the room. In previous work [33,34,39,40], it was indicated that the RANS/SST k-ω model better agreed with measurement data compared to other RANS models. Earlier studies [37,38] did not identify the best turbulence model among the RANS models.…”
Section: Recommended Turbulence Modelsmentioning
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The grid size of the openings in this study was less than 0.4 m. At least five boundary layers were generated at pedestrian heights (1.5 m) near the surfaces of the building and the ground. In order to validate the accuracy of the internal model, the mesh dependency test [37] was conducted to create three different mesh models: a coarse mesh model (mesh number: 597,709), a medium mesh model (mesh number: 1,206,857), and a fine grid model (mesh number: 2,421,152), where U is the relative value of the position coordinate and the length of the measuring axis. Figure 5 shows the velocity variation at the outlet reference point.…”
Section: Mesh Dependency Testmentioning
confidence: 99%