The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evaluation of Various Turbulence Models in Predicting Airflow and Turbulence in Enclosed Environments by CFD: Part 2—Comparison with Experimental Data from Literature
Abstract
Numerous turbulence models have been developed in the past two decades, and many of them can be used in predicting airflows and turbulence in enclosed environments. It is important to evaluate the generality and robustness of the turbulence models for various indoor airflow scenarios. This study evaluated the performance of eight turbulence models, potentially suitable for indoor airflow, in terms of accuracy and computing cost. These models cover a wide range of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) approaches, including Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) modeling, hybrid RANS and large-eddy simulation (or detached-eddy simulation [DES]), and large-eddy simulation (LES). The RANS turbulence models tested include the indoor zero-equation model, three two-equation models (the RNG k-∊, low Reynolds number k-∊, and SST k-ω models), a three-equation model ( model), and a Reynolds-stress model (RSM). The investigation tested these models for representative airflows in enclosed environments, such as forced convection and mixed convection in ventilated spaces, natural convection with medium temperature gradient in a tall cavity, and natural convection with large temperature gradient in a model fire room. The air velocity, air temperature, Reynolds stresses, and turbulent heat fluxes predicted by the models were compared against the experimental data from the literature. The study also compared the computing time used by each model for all cases. The results reveal that LES provides the most detailed flow features, while the computing time is much higher than for RANS models, and the accuracy may not always be the highest. Among the RANS models studied, the RNG k-ω and a modified model perform the best overall in four cases studied. Meanwhile, the other models have superior performance only in particular cases. While each turbulence model has good accuracy in certain flow categories, each flow type favors different turbulence models. Therefore, we summarize in the conclusions and recommendations both the performance of each particular model in different flows and the best suited turbulence models for each flow category.
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
A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows
SPALART, P., & ALLMARAS, S. (1992) · 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit · doi:10.2514/6.1992-439 · Cited by 9,499
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
Renormalization group analysis of turbulence. I. Basic theory
Yakhot, V., & Orszag, S. A. (1986) · Journal of Scientific Computing · doi:10.1007/bf01061452 · Cited by 4,265
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
Launder, B. E., & Sharma, B. I. (1974) · Letters in Heat and Mass Transfer · doi:10.1016/0094-4548(74)90150-7 · Cited by 2,774
Renormalization-Group Analysis of Turbulence
Yakhot, V., & Orszag, S. A. (1986) · Physical Review Letters · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.57.1722 · Cited by 1,708
Ground effects on pressure fluctuations in the atmospheric boundary layer
Gibson, M. M., & Launder, B. E. (1978) · Journal of Fluid Mechanics · doi:10.1017/s0022112078001251 · Cited by 1,552
Zhai, Z. J., Zhang, Z., Zhang, W., & Chen, Q. Y. (2007) · HVAC&R Research · doi:10.1080/10789669.2007.10391459 · Cited by 457
Self-citationComputations of transonic flow with the v2–f turbulence model
Lien, F.-S., & Kalitzin, G. (2001) · International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow · doi:10.1016/s0142-727x(00)00073-4 · Cited by 192
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, Z., Zhang, W., Zhai, Z. J., & Chen, Q. Y.
- Venue
- HVAC&R Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2007-11
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 871-886
- ISSN
- 1078-9669 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-5587
- OpenAlex
- W2034070975
- Cited by
- 746
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 16.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Evaluation of Various Turbulence Models in Predicting Airflow and Turbulence in Enclosed Environments by CFD: Part 2—Comparison with Experimental Data from Literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10789669.2007.10391460
- The paper
- Zhang, Z., Zhang, W., Zhai, Z. J., & Chen, Q. Y. (2007). Evaluation of Various Turbulence Models in Predicting Airflow and Turbulence in Enclosed Environments by CFD: Part 2—Comparison with Experimental Data from Literature. HVAC&R Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/10789669.2007.10391460
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.