The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the accuracy of CFD simulations of cross-ventilation flows for a generic isolated building: Comparison of RANS, LES and experiments
Open accessAbstract
Accurate and reliable computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are essential for the assessment of cross-ventilation of buildings. To determine which CFD models are most suitable, validation studies are required. A detailed review of the literature indicates that most CFD validation studies only employed the 3D steady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach and/or focused on a limited set of flow 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, ventilation flow rate, incoming jet angle and incoming jet spreading width. The RANS simulations are conducted with the standard k-ε (SKE), RNG k-ε, realizable k-ε (RLZ), SST k-ω and RSM turbulence models, whereas the LES is performed with the dynamic Smagorinsky subgrid-scale model. SST/RNG/RSM reproduce the experimentally observed direction of the incoming jet, but all RANS models fail in reproducing the turbulent kinetic energy, which is too low especially above and below the jet, because 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 demand with a factor of ≈80–100.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications
Menter, F. R. (1994) · AIAA Journal · doi:10.2514/3.12149 · Cited by 21,593
The numerical computation of turbulent flows
Launder, B. E., & Spalding, D. B. (1974) · Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering · doi:10.1016/0045-7825(74)90029-2 · Cited by 12,833
Wilcox, D. C. (1993) · Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) · Cited by 7,475
A dynamic subgrid–scale eddy viscosity model
Germano, M., Piomelli, U., Moin, P., & Cabot, W. H. (1991) · Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics · doi:10.1063/1.857955 · Cited by 7,305
A new k-ε eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows
Shih, T.-H., Liou, W. W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z., & Zhu, J. (1995) · Computers & Fluids · doi:10.1016/0045-7930(94)00032-t · Cited by 6,119
A proposed modification of the Germano subgrid–scale closure method
Lilly, D. K. (1992) · Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics · doi:10.1063/1.858280 · Cited by 4,077
Development of turbulence models for shear flows by a double expansion technique
Yakhot, V., Orszag, S. A., Thangam, S., Gatski, T. B., & Speziale, C. G. (1992) · Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics · doi:10.1063/1.858424 · Cited by 2,832
AIJ guidelines for practical applications of CFD to pedestrian wind environment around buildings
Tominaga, Y., Mochida, A., Yoshie, R., Kataoka, H., Nozu, T., Yoshikawa, M., & Shirasawa, T. (2008) · Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics · doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2008.02.058 · Cited by 2,470
Self-citationQUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY IN COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
Roache, P. J. (1997) · Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics · doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.29.1.123 · Cited by 2,319
Richards, P. J., & Hoxey, R. P. (1993) · Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics · doi:10.1016/0167-6105(93)90124-7 · Cited by 1,207
Cited by
LES over RANS in building simulation for outdoor and indoor applications: A foregone conclusion?
Blocken, B. (2018) · Building Simulation · doi:10.1007/s12273-018-0459-3 · Cited by 543
Self-citationZhu, L., McCrum, D., Sweeney, C., & Keenahan, J. (2023) · Journal of Civil Structural Health Monitoring · doi:10.1007/s13349-022-00657-2 · Cited by 17
Metadata
- Authors
- van Hooff, T., Blocken, B., & Tominaga, Y.
- Venue
- Building and Environment
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-03
- Volume
- 114
- Pages
- 148-165
- ISSN
- 0360-1323 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2565984791
- Cited by
- 391
- References
- 48
- FWCI
- 14.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On the accuracy of CFD simulations of cross-ventilation flows for a generic isolated building: Comparison of RANS, LES and experiments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.019
- The paper
- van Hooff, T., Blocken, B., & Tominaga, Y. (2017). On the accuracy of CFD simulations of cross-ventilation flows for a generic isolated building: Comparison of RANS, LES and experiments. Building and Environment. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.019
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.