Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 746

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

Zhang, Zhao, Zhang, Wei, Zhai, Zhiqiang John, Chen, Qingyan Yan·2007·HVAC&R Research

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10789669.2007.10391460

Cites

10 of 10 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 10 references

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, Z., Zhang, W., Zhai, Z. J., & Chen, Q. Y.
Venue
HVAC&R Research
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.