Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 391

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 access
van Hooff, T., Blocken, B., Tominaga, Y.·2017·Building and Environment

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.12.019

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 48 references

Cited by

See all 391

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.