Contents

Index of Figures ................................................................................................................................... 2

Index of Tables .................................................................................................................................... 3
Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 4
Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 4
Natural Ventilation.............................................................................................................................. 4
Buoyant natural ventilation ................................................................................................................ 5
Wind Driven Natural Ventilation ........................................................................................................ 5
Combined Strategies ........................................................................................................................... 5
Computational Fluid Dynamics ........................................................................................................... 5
The boussinesq approximation ........................................................................................................... 5
Computational Grid............................................................................................................................. 6
Building Description ................................................................................................................................ 6
Procedure................................................................................................................................................ 7
Task 1- Buoyancy- natural ventilation ................................................................................................ 7
Cases Set Up .................................................................................................................................... 8
Boundary Conditions Case 1 and 2 .............................................................................................. 9
Boundary Conditions Case 3 and 4 .............................................................................................. 9
Solver Settings............................................................................................................................... 10
Task two: Simulation when offices are not occupied ....................................................................... 11
Task 3: Wind Driven Natural Ventilation ......................................................................................... 11
Task 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Results ................................................................................................................................................... 14
Task 1 ................................................................................................................................................ 14
Mesh and Convergence ................................................................................................................ 14
Wind Pattern inside the building .................................................................................................. 19
Wind velocity inside the building. ................................................................................................. 20
Flow Behaviour inside the Offices................................................................................................. 23
Temperature ................................................................................................................................. 25
Pressure ........................................................................................................................................ 28
Task 2 ................................................................................................................................................ 30
Temperature ................................................................................................................................. 33
Task 3 ................................................................................................................................................ 35

1
 Mesh and Convergence ................................................................................................................ 35
Description Flow around the buildings ......................................................................................... 38
Description of flow inside the building ......................................................................................... 40
Temperature ................................................................................................................................. 40
Task 4 ................................................................................................................................................ 41
Temperature ................................................................................................................................. 44
Conclusion and Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 46
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 48

Index of Figures
Figure 1. Atrium Building ........................................................................................................................ 7
Figure 2. Computational Domain for Task 3 and 4 ............................................................................... 11
Figure 3. Wind X Velocity Profile Used in Task 3 and 4......................................................................... 12
Figure 4. Computational Domain for Task 4, No Building..................................................................... 13
Figure 5. 3 Adaptions of the Mesh ........................................................................................................ 14
Figure 6. Convergence History of RNG model in 3 Adaptions on Task 1 .............................................. 15
Figure 7. Convergence History of Standard K-E model in 3 Adaptions on Task 1................................. 16
Figure 8. X Vectors Flow Pattern on Task 1........................................................................................... 19
Figure 9. X Velocity Contours on Task 1 ................................................................................................ 21
Figure 10. Y- Velocity Contours on Task 1............................................................................................. 22
Figure 11. Negative X Velocity Contours Inside the Second Storey Office on Task 1 ........................... 23
Figure 12. Positive X Velocity Contours Inside the Second Storey Office on Task 1 ............................. 24
Figure 13. Negative Y Velocity Contours Inside the Second Storey Office on Task 1 ........................... 24
Figure 14. Positive Y Velocity Contours Inside the Second Storey Office on Task 1 ............................. 24
Figure 15. Temperature Contours on Task 1 ........................................................................................ 25
Figure 16. Temperature Distribution on 3 Offices Comparison............................................................ 26
Figure 17. Used Rakes in the Atrium Building for Analysis ................................................................... 27
Figure 18. Contours of Static Pressure (Pa) on Task 1 .......................................................................... 28
Figure 19. Comparison of Pressure Distribution Inside Each Office on Case 1 ..................................... 29
Figure 20. Comparison of Flow Rate for 4 Cases on Task 2 .................................................................. 31
Figure 21. Comparison of Pressure Distribution Inside the 1st Storey Office on Rake 2 , 4 Cases on
Task 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 22. Comparison of Pressure Distribution Inside the 2st Storey Office on Rake 2 , 4 Cases on
Task 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 23. Comparison of Pressure Distribution Inside the 3rd Storey Office on Rake 2 , 4 Cases on
Task 2 .................................................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 24. Temperature Contours Comparison for 4 Cases on Task 2 (k) ............................................ 34
Figure 25. Mesh Refinement around Specific Zones on Task 3 and 4 .................................................. 35
Figure 26. Convergence History on Task 3 ............................................................................................ 37
Figure 27. X Velocity Contours on the Complete Computational Domain on Task 3 ........................... 38

2
Figure 28. Negative Pressure Distribution Contours around the Buildings (Pa)................................... 39
Figure 29. X velocity Contours Inside the Building on Task 3 (m/s) ...................................................... 39
Figure 30. Comparison of X Velocity on the Inlets on 4 Cases on Task 4.............................................. 41
Figure 31. X Velocity Flow Patterns for 4 Cases on Task 3 and 4 .......................................................... 42
Figure 32. Comparison of Pressure on the Inlets and Outlet on 4 Cases on Task 3 and 4 ................... 43
Figure 33. Pressure-Velocity relation on the Inlets on 4 Cases on Task 4 ............................................ 44
Figure 34. Temperature Contours inside the building for 4 Cases on task 3 and 4 .............................. 45

Index of Tables
Table 1. Model's Properties .................................................................................................................... 8
Table 2. Air Properties at 295.15 K ........................................................................................................ 9
Table 3. Cell Operating Conditions ......................................................................................................... 9
Table 4. Inlets and Outlet Boundary Conditions for Case 1 and 2 .......................................................... 9
Table 5. Surfaces' Boundary Conditions ................................................................................................. 9
Table 6. Case 3 and 4 Inlets and Outlet Boundary Conditions................................................................ 9
Table 7. Cases 3 and 4 Surfaces Boundary Conditions ......................................................................... 10
Table 8. Solver's Used Equations .......................................................................................................... 10
Table 9. Used Under Relaxation Factors ............................................................................................... 10
Table 10. Used Discretization Schemes ................................................................................................ 10
Table 11. Dimensions of Computational Domain for Cases 3 and 4..................................................... 11
Table 12. Computational Domain Dimensions for Task 4, No Building ................................................ 13
Table 13. Mesh Adaptions' Properties on Task 1 and 2 ........................................................................ 14
Table 14. Standard K-E and RNG model Results Comparison on Task 1............................................... 17
Table 15. Stndard K-E and RNG Models Mesh Adaption Effect on Task 1 ........................................... 18
Table 16. Results' Variation between the Standard K-E and the RNG models ..................................... 18
Table 17. Velocties and Flow Rates Reuslts for Task 1 ......................................................................... 20
Table 18. Results on 4 Cases on Task 2 ................................................................................................ 30
Table 19. Results Obtained with Coarse and Adapted Meshes on Task 3 ............................................ 36
Table 20. Change Percentage after the 1st and the 2nd Adaption on Task 3 ......................................... 38

3
Abstract
Buoyant natural ventilation and wind driven natural ventilation are passive ventilation solutions that
can be suitable to provide ventilation to a building. The ventilation of a three storey building with an
atrium was analysed under buoyant and wind driven natural ventilation using computational fluid
dynamics. The pressure differences inside and around the building were found to drive the air flow,
which are caused by the differences in temperature and the effect of wind on the building. On the
studied cases, the ventilation rates were proven to be suitable to maintain the rooms under
appropriate conditions for an office working environment.

Introduction
Nowadays building regulations require the use of ventilation for buildings. Building ventilation is
required to supply air change and extract the contaminants to provide health and comfort to the
occupants (Mundt, Mathisen, Nielsen, & Moser, 2004). One of the most common contaminants that
is extracted and used to measure the effectiveness of ventilation is CO2. Humidity is also an
important factor that needs to be control through ventilation. Humidity is commonly not an issue if
it is maintained between 40-70 % as long as the temperature stays under 26 to 28 degrees Celsius, in
sedentary activity spaces. In other cases it has to be monitored to meet specific requirements like
avoiding microbiological growth or reducing static electricity. The minimum ventilation requirement
for non-domestic buildings is 10 L/s per person. (CIBSE, 2006) Mechanical ventilation and HVAC
systems are widely used. More than half of the energy expenditure on buildings is coming from
ventilation and general air exchange, including cooling and heating. Due to high energy loses
associated with ventilation, heating and cooling, it is important to assess the possibly of using a
natural ventilation system in buildings, which is the main objective of this paper.

Natural Ventilation
Natural Ventilation takes advantage of the behaviour of the air inside and around the buildings. It is
dependent on the weather conditions that change during the year. Applying this kind of ventilation
design requires to take in consideration the climatic changes, to have a ventilation working properly
during the whole year. (CIBSE, 2006) The movement of air through the building is due to the
different air pressures encounter inside and outside of it. In natural ventilation, the changes in
pressure on buildings are due to the difference in the temperature between interior and exterior of
the building, and the effect of the wind in the faces of it (Santamouris & Wouters, 2006). The pattern
of pressure distribution is extremely complex and many simplifications are made to achieve an
approximate representation of the phenomenon. Simple empirical methods, full and scale models,
and computational fluid dynamic simulations are available to assess the ventilation of a required
building. The appropriate method to assess the ventilation in buildings depends on each case as well
as on the precision required on the results (Etheridge & Sandberg, 1996). For complex models and
precise estimations, computer models done with computational fluid dynamics software can give
accurate results, while properly used (CIBSE, 2006).

4
Buoyant natural ventilation
The buoyancy effect is a phenomenon seen in different cases in nature. This phenomenon is also
known as the stack effect. In a room the warm air will raise and the cooler air will drop to the
bottom (Santamouris & Wouters, 2006). This air movement is produced by the variation in
temperature and in consequence of air density. Air density varies with temperature; colder air is
denser than warmer air. The effect of gravity on the density variation is what drives the flow (ANSYS,
Inc., 2011). When the temperature of the air outside the building is colder than the temperature
inside of it, warm air will exit on the top and cool air will enter on the bottom. On the other hand if
the temperature is warmer outside of the building it will enter on the top part and exit on the
bottom (CIBSE, 2006). If the temperature outside and inside of the building are the same there will
not be air flow.

Wind Driven Natural Ventilation

When the wind hits a building it commonly produces pressure differences in the leeward and in the
windward surfaces. The difference in pressure across the buildings sections drives the flow of air.
The pressure constantly fluctuates due to changes in the wind direction and velocity creating
turbulence in the air flow. Wind driven natural ventilation dependents directly on the wind intensity
and velocity which creates the changes in pressure around the building. When the conditions are not
favourable the pressure difference could drop, not satisfying the ventilation needs of the building.
Design of wind driven natural ventilation in buildings tries to maximise the effect of pressure
differences using self-regulation vents for pressure reduction, wind catchers or with the shape of the
buildings (Santamouris & Wouters, 2006).

Combined Strategies
Its common to find in buildings the combination of wind driven natural ventilation (cross ventilation
and single side ventilation) and buoyancy wind driven ventilations. Both alternatives are design
together to meet the ventilation requirements, although mechanical assisted ventilation might be
required as well. In this type of buildings the inlets, exhausts and the ventilation network needs to
be designed according to the site and building requirements, to obtain the desired performance.
(Santamouris & Wouters, 2006)

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Computational Fluid Dynamics is a powerful tool to simulate the behaviour of fluids. In this case the
software was used to simulate the behaviour of air inside and around buildings. The use of
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has increased and has been developed widely in the last
decades due to the increase in computational power and the decrease in cost of it. The software
makes a prediction of the flow based on the fundamental flow equations (continuity, momentum
and energy) (Nielsen, Allard, Awbi, Davison, & Schalin, 2007).

The boussinesq approximation

The boussineqs approximation can be used to model natural-convection flows. This approximation
will converge faster than treating the fluid density as a function of the temperature. The boussineqs
approximation uses the density of air as a constant value in all the equations solved, but not on the
buoyancy component on the momentum equation. (ANSYS, Inc., 2011)

5
 ( ) ( )

Where,

= density of the flow

g = gravity
= thermal expansion coefficient
T0= operating temperature

The approximation is valid for small changes in temperature where:

(T-T0) <<1

Equations from (ANSYS, Inc., 2011)

Computational Grid
The computational Grid is a very important step to generate good results from the simulation. The
quality of the grid or mesh needs to be checked in the following aspects: number of cells, cell
distribution and cell quality. Smaller cells are needed in areas where the flow phenomenon is more
relevant. These areas are the walls and zone above heat fluxes. (Nielsen, Allard, Awbi, Davison, &
Schalin, 2007). Ansys Fluent has functions to treat near wall regions such as enhanced wall functions
that were used in the simulations. The cells quality needs to be monitored as well. Distorted,
squeezed or deformed cells could bring inaccuracy in the results. Fluent has an option to report the
quality of the mesh. The orthogonal quality and the maximum aspect ratio are displayed. The
orthogonal quality of the mesh ranges from 0 to 1. Values close to 0 correspond to low quality.
(ANSYS, Inc., 2011) The aspect ratio is recommended to be <10. It is also necessary to run a grid
independence study to make sure the grid resolution is not having affects in the results. (Nielsen,
Allard, Awbi, Davison, & Schalin, 2007).

Building Description
The building that was studied consists in a 3 storey atrium building. In each storey there is an
opening on the right side, the bottom floor with one of 0.3m, the middle one with 0.4m and the top
one with 0.5m. This is the inlet for the ventilation. Inside the rooms, on the right wall, an opening of
0.5m for the ventilation is found. The thickness of the walls and ceilings is 0.3m and the glazing
0.1m. The height of the rooms is 3m and the depth of 8.8 meters. The atrium has 6 meters of height
over the ceiling of the 3rd storey, and a width of 4.4 meters. On the top a skylight is found as it is
shown on the sketch. The opening of the ventilation outlet is 1.5 meters long.

6
Figure 1. Atrium Building

The rooms are consider to be offices and the heat flux coming from the floor represent the heat
gains the rooms would have if it was utilized as an office. In this report the 1st storey office window
will be named as inlet 1, the second storey window as inlet 2 and the 3rd storeys window as inlet 3.
The outlet is found at the top part of the atrium.

Procedure

Task 1- Buoyancy- natural ventilation

The model was tested with the computational fluid dynamics Ansys software Fluent. The first
simulation performed was buoyancy natural ventilation. Two mathematical models were explored in
this task. The first simulation was done using the standard K-epsilon model, and the second one
using the Renormalized Group (RNG). Tasks 2, 3 and 4 are explained later in the report. On task 1
and 3, the mesh was adapted in specific zones to obtain more accurate results.

The accuracy of the results depends on the construction of the mesh. The calculation was run 4
times, each time with a more refined mesh until the desire accuracy was obtained. It is important to

7
have a good quality mesh to have accuracy and stability in the calculations results. The quality of
the mesh was checked using Fluents report mesh quality function. It is also recommended that for
simple geometries as the atrium building, quadrilateral/ hexahedral meshes (ANSYS, Inc., 2011) are
used.

To make sure the results where reliable the simulations were run until the x-velocities in the inlets
converged. The velocity was consider converged when the variation in the graph between a
considerable number of iterations (<500) was constant and the percentage change was less than 3%.

The Meshes that were used have the following characteristics:

The first mesh had cell seizes of0.05 X 0.05 meters. According to REHVA Computational Fluid
Dynamics Guidebook for a small room of 5 meters 0.1 meters is a good grid sizing. Using .05 meters
in the first mesh would give accurate results.

The meshes were adapted 3 times. The first time the boundaries were adapted. Its important to
have detail boundaries because the fluid decreases its velocity affecting the overall behaviour of the
fluid. The turbulence near the wall has to be carefully accounted as it is affected by the boundary
layer. It is recommended that enhanced wall functions are used with the -equation (ANSYS, Inc.,
2011). The second time the whole body of the computational domain was adapted. The 3rd time the
walls were adapted again.

The flow rate (Q) measures the volume of air that passes a cross sectional section per unit time.
(Gan, CFD Modelling of Bouyancy-Driven Natural Ventalation, 2013) In this 2D analysis the depth of
the windows and holes is consider as unity (1m).

Where,

Q=flow rate (m3/s)

V=wind velocity (m/s)
A= cross sectional area (m2)

The following charts show the case set up and solver settings used in Fluent for all tasks.

Cases Set Up
Model Properties
Model Settings
Space 2D
Time Steady
Viscous Standard K-epsilon turbulence model*, RNG
Wall Treatment Enhanced wall Treatment
Heat Transfer Enable
Radiation None
*Standard K- also used in task 3 and 4
Table 1. Model's Properties

8
Air Properties at 295.15 K
Symbol Units Method Value
3
Density kg/m Boussinesq, *constant 1.1965
Viscosity kg/m*s constant 1.83E-05
Thermal Conductivity k W/m*K constant 0.02584
Specific Heat Cp J/Kg*k constant 1006.43
Thermal Expansion Coefficient 1/k constant 0.0033898
Molecular Weight kg/kg*mol constant 28.966

*Constant Density was used for task 3 and 4

Table 2. Air Properties at 295.15 K

Cell Zone Operating Conditions

Operating Pressure 101325
Gravity (y direction) -9.806*
Operating Temperature 295.15
Specific Operating
Density 1.1965
*Gravitational force was used on task 1 and 2
Table 3. Cell Operating Conditions

Boundary Conditions Case 1 and 2

Gauge Total Turbulent Turbulent Total Temperature

Type Pressure (Pa) Intensity (%) Viscosity Ratio ( K)
Inlet 1 Pressure Inlet 0 1 1 295.15
Inlet 2 Pressure Inlet 0 1 1 295.15
Inlet 3 Pressure Inlet 0 1 1 295.15
Outlet Pressure Outlet 0 1 1 295.15
Table 4. Inlets and Outlet Boundary Conditions for Case 1 and 2

Shear
2
Surfaces wall motion condition Heat Flux (w/m )
floor 1 stationary wall No slip 40*
floor 2 stationary wall No slip 40*
floor 3 stationary wall No slip 40*
Skylight stationary wall No slip 50
Walls stationary wall No slip 0
*The heat flux was changed to 0 when the window in that floor was considered closed in task 2, explained further in the
report.
Table 5. Surfaces' Boundary Conditions

Boundary Conditions Case 3 and 4

Turbulent
Gauge Total Intensity Turbulent Total Temperature
Type Pressure (Pa) (%) Viscosity Ratio ( K)
Velocity
West Boundary Inlet 0 10 10 295.15
Pressure
North Boundary Outlet 0 10 10 295.15
Pressure
East Boundary Outlet 0 10 10 295.15
Table 6. Case 3 and 4 Inlets and Outlet Boundary Conditions

9
 Shear
2
Surfaces wall motion condition Heat Flux (w/m )
floor 1 stationary wall No slip 40
floor 2 stationary wall No slip 40
floor 3 stationary wall No slip 40
Skylight stationary wall No slip 50
Walls* stationary wall No slip 0
Ground stationary wall No slip 0
*The walls include the buildings walls next to the atrium building in case 3.
Table 7. Cases 3 and 4 Surfaces Boundary Conditions

Solver Settings
Equations
Equation Solved
Flow Yes
Turbulence Yes
Energy Yes
Table 8. Solver's Used Equations

Under Relaxation Factors

Relaxation
Variable Factor
Pressure 0.3
Density 1
Body Forces 1
Momentum 0.7
Turbulent Kinetic Energy 0.8
Turbulence Dissipation
Rate 0.8
Turbulent Viscosity 1
Energy 1, *.8
*Energy Under Relaxation Factor was changed at the beginning if divergence was encounter during the calculation, as the
residuals and the X-velocity in the monitors became stable it was changed back to 1.
Table 9. Used Under Relaxation Factors

Discretization Scheme
Variable Scheme
Pressure Presto! , Standard*
Second Order
Momentum Upwind
Turbulent Kinetic Energy First Order Upwind
Turbulent Dissipation Rate First Order Upwind
Second Order
Energy Upwind
*For task 3 and 4 standard pressure discretization scheme was utilized
Table 10. Used Discretization Schemes

10
Task two: Simulation when offices are not occupied
Using the most refined mesh, the simulation was run under buoyant natural ventilation. In each case
one window of the buildings offices was closed and the heat flux from that storey was suppressed,
simulating an empty office. This procedure was repeated with the 3 storeys.

Task 3: Wind Driven Natural Ventilation

The natural ventilation on the building was analysed under wind driven natural ventilation. The wind
speed taken to run the analysis was 3 m/s at 10 meters height. The buildings location was an urban
area where another building with the same height was encountered. For this case all the windows of
the building were set to .3m.

The computational domain required to run this simulation extends to an area to allow the flow to
develop around the building. It is recommended that in windward facade a distance of 6 the width of
the building that is being studied is considered. In the leeward surface a distance of 15 times the
building width is recommended. Above the building a distance of 6 times the building height should
be consider. (Gan, CFD Modelling of Wind Driven Natural Ventilation lecture notes, 2013)

The diagram above shows the geometry for the cases 3 and 4

Figure 2. Computational Domain for Task 3 and 4

The letters indicate the distance in each part of the computational domain and letter h indicates de
width of the building in front benchmark building.

Section Length (m.)

a 85
b 105
c 333
d 105
f 55
g 10
h 14
Table 11. Dimensions of Computational Domain for Cases 3 and 4

The computational domain is big compares to the one used for the 1st and 2nd tasks. The size of the
cells used to form the coarse mesh 0.5m. A mesh this size wouldnt allow to have accurate results so

11
it was modified in an area around the buildings. An area covering: 30 meters to the left of the
second building, 30 meters above the highest point of the atrium building and 60 meters on the f
part from the buildings atrium building were adapted. On the second adaption the area inside the
atrium building and 3 meters around it was adapted. To visualize this adaption, a diagram is found in
the results section.

To have a more accurate result a User Defined Function (UDF) was used to create the x-velocity wind
profile. The function describes the variation of the wind velocity with height as it can be seen in the
equation below.

V Vm k z a

Where

V= wind speed at the building site

Vm= Wind speed measured at the weather station
K = site location factor
a = site location factor
z= height from the ground

The site location factors for this case correspond to k=.35, a= .25 (Gan, CFD Modelling of Wind
Driven Natural Ventilation lecture notes, 2013)

The equation was modified to satisfy the condition of wind speed of 3m/s at 10 meters.

V 4.8 .35 z .25

Wind x-Velocity Profile

50
45
40
35
30
Z (m)

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Velocity (m/s)

Figure 3. Wind X Velocity Profile Used in Task 3 and 4

From the chart above it can be seen that at a height of 10 meters the velocity is 3m/s.

12
The following code was used to create the profile:

#include "udf.h"

DEFINE_PROFILE(inlet_x_velocity, thread, index)

{
real x[ND_ND];
real y;
face_t f;

begin_f_loop(f, thread)
{
F_CENTROID(x,f,thread);
y = x[1];
F_PROFILE(f, thread, index) = 1.68*pow(y,.25);
}
end_f_loop(f, thread)
}

Code Adapted from (ANSYS Inc.)

Task 4
Using the most refined mesh and with the same characteristics as the simulation in part 3, 3 more
cases were analysed. The building in front of the atrium building was reduced to 2 storeys, 1 storey
and finally it was removed. The diagram below shows the arrangement of the computational domain
used in the last simulation of this task.

Figure 4. Computational Domain for Task 4, No Building

Section Length (m.)

i 85
j 105
k 309
l 105
m 210
Table 12. Computational Domain Dimensions for Task 4, No Building

13
Results

Task 1
Mesh and Convergence
The two models mentioned previously were used and compared .Different Sized Meshes were used
to make sure the results were grid independent. The following table shows change in the cell
numbers when adapting the mesh as it was explained in the procedure section.

Figure 5. 3 Adaptions of the Mesh

1st Mesh Adaption- Bondaries

Original Adapted Change
Cells 22572 26538 3966
. Face 45810 55074 9264
Nodes 23239 28537 5298
2nd Mesh Apaption- Boundaries + body
Cells 26538 106152 79614
Face 55074 216295 161221
Nodes 28537 110144 81607
3rd Mesh Adaption- Boundaries + Body+Boundaries
Cells 106152 122187 16035
Face 216295 253710 37415
Nodes 110144 131524 21380
Table 13. Mesh Adaptions' Properties on Task 1 and 2

The convergence history for the 3 adapted cases using the RNG models are presented below for the
cases after the meshes were adapted. On the top of the page the 3 inlets convergences history is
presented for the first adaption. It can be noticed that the convergence on the 3 inlets varies widely,
varying up to 0.04 m/s in the inlet no. 1. After the second adaption, convergence in the 3rd inlet
seemed to be achieved; divergence was presented in the 1st and 2nd outlets. In the last adaption,
where the walls were adapted again, complete convergence was not achieved. The velocity varied in
the inlet no. 1 by .02 m/s, in the second by .005m/s and in the third by .015 m/s. This is a significant
improvement compared to the graphs obtained on the first adaption.

14
Figure 6. Convergence History of RNG model in 3 Adaptions on Task 1

15
Figure 7. Convergence History of Standard K-E model in 3 Adaptions on Task 1

16
The graphs above represent the convergence history for the standard k- model. On the first
adaption the variation of the x velocity in the 1st and 3rd inlets was significantly smaller compared to
the results obtained with the same mesh in the RNG model. The variation is found to be around
.004m/s, although the second inlet presented divergence. After adapting the mesh for the second
time the convergence of the inlet 2 disappeared and all inlets were found to converge with minimal
variations of about .0025 m/s. In the last simulation good convergence was found too. The variations
were around .004 m/s and this continued to be constant after 1600 iterations.

X-velocity results obtained in the simulation are displayed in the following chart. The flow rate was
obtained multiplying the area of the outlet by the velocity. In each simulation a flow rate difference
between the inlets and the outlets is displayed. In an ideal case the difference would be zero.

Standar RNG
2
Velocity (m/s) Area (m ) Flow Rate( m 3/s) Velocity (m/s) Area (m 2 ) Flow Rate( m 3/s)
Outlet 0.37959269 1.5 0.569389035 0.38560259 1.5 0.578403885
Inlet 1 0.67860681 0.3 0.203582043 0.79006141 0.3 0.237018423
Inlet 2 0.508440831 0.4 0.203376332 0.48329598 0.4 0.193318392
Inlet 3 0.32431442 0.5 0.16215721 0.29863524 0.5 0.14931762
Flow Rate Differnce -0.00027345 Flow Rate Differnce 0.00125055
1st Mesh Adaption- Bondaries
Outlet 0.3800787 1.5 0.57011805 0.37858266 1.5 0.56787399
Inlet 1 0.67956229 0.3 0.203868687 0.68802267 0.3 0.206406801
Inlet 2 0.50573123 0.4 0.202292492 0.49831027 0.4 0.199324108
Inlet 3 0.32466945 0.5 0.162334725 0.32256755 0.5 0.161283775
Flow Rate Differnce -0.001622146 Flow Rate Differnce -0.000859306
2nd Mesh Apaption- Boundaries + body
Outlet 0.38396522 1.5 0.57594783 0.37565655 1.5 0.563484825
Inlet 1 0.68181688 0.3 0.204545064 0.68919736 0.3 0.206759208
Inlet 2 0.51099604 0.4 0.204398416 0.51546812 0.4 0.206187248
Inlet 3 0.33151054 0.5 0.16575527 0.30064315 0.5 0.150321575
Flow Rate Differnce -0.00124908 Flow Rate Differnce -0.000216794
3rd Mesh Adaption- Boundaries + Body+Boundaries
Outlet 0.37484911 1.5 0.562273665 0.37922943 1.5 0.568844145
Inlet 1 0.67545354 0.3 0.202636062 0.67577255 0.3 0.202731765
Inlet 2 0.49862638 0.4 0.199450552 0.53901017 0.4 0.215604068
Inlet 3 0.31371611 0.5 0.156858055 0.2990369 0.5 0.14951845
Flow Rate Differnce -0.003328996 Flow Rate Differnce -0.000989862
Table 14. Standard K-E and RNG model Results on Task 1

From this chart the percentage of variation of the flow between one adaption and another was
obtained, and is presented below. In the standard K- model the variation of the x-velocity in the
inlets was smaller than in the RNG model. In the Standard K- model the variation since the 1st
adaption was small, with variations in the 3 inlets of less than 1% compared with the first mesh,
telling that the 1st mesh used was already accurate. In the second adaption the values change more,
but maintaining themselves in the range of less 1% variation. On the third adaption the variation was
again bigger than the previous, with values under 2%. This behaviour suggests that making more
mesh refinements until a smaller variation is obtained is necessary. In this case a 2 % variation is

17
considered accurate as it represents a difference in the velocity of .001 m/s which in negligible for
natural ventilation design.

The RNG simulation showed a different behaviour. After adapting the first mesh a big difference was
encounter in the 1st inlet. After the second adaption the differences in the 3 inlets varied, but not
over 2.20 %, in the last adaption the same behaviour was found. This inconsistent variation is related
to the wider variation in values of the convergence in the x- velocity in the inlets. Again the
behaviour would suggest making more simulations with finer meshes, but the limited computational
power and the cells limit imposed by the academic version of the software restrict it. RNG model
presented more unstable graphs, although they are accurate enough for an estimation of the
behaviour natural ventilation.

Standar RNG
1st Adaption 2nd Adaption 3rd Adaption 1st Adaption 2nd Adaption 3rd Adaption
Inlet 1 -0.10% -0.23% 0.64% 10.20% -0.12% 1.34%
Inlet 2 0.27% -0.53% 1.24% -1.50% -1.72% -2.35%
Inlet 3 -0.04% -0.68% 1.78% -2.39% 2.19% 0.16%
Table 15. Standard K-E and RNG Models Mesh Adaption Effect on Task 1

The variation between the most refined mesh in both the Standard and the RNG model is presented
below. The variation between the results of both models is also less than 4.5 %.

Results Variation
Velocity (m/s) Percentage
Standard RNG
Outlet 0.37484911 0.37922943 0.44%
Inlet 1 0.67545354 0.67577255 0.03%
Inlet 2 0.49862638 0.53901017 4.04%
Inlet 3 0.31371611 0.2990369 1.47%
Table 16. Results' Variation between the Standard K-E and the RNG models using the last mesh

18
Wind Pattern inside the building
The x velocity vectors obtained with fluent in the most developed mesh standard k-e model
simulation are shown below:

Figure 8. X Vectors Flow Pattern on Task 1

The air comes inside the offices by the windows. The velocity it enters varies in each storey, as it can
be seen on size of the vectors diagram above. The velocity in the inlet decreases starting with the
biggest value in the first storey and the smallest in the 3rd one. This is due to the pressure difference

19
which will be discussed in the next section discussing pressure. The heat flux produced by each floor
heats the air that enters the room. When it is heated it raises due to the change in its density,
meanwhile the cooler air coming from the window on the left drops to the floor. This can be
appreciated in the 3 storeys, shown by the flow path marked with the vectors. The cold air moves on
the ground and as it does it starts rising its temperature. The air reaches the wall on the right side of
the office and changes direction moving to the top. Some of it passes to the atrium and some other
recirculates inside the office rooms. It passes through the hole on the wall and starts ascending
because of the stack effect, and finally exits on the outlet on the top of the building.

Wind velocity inside the building.

Figure 9 describes the x- velocity value in the different parts of the building. The velocitys values
range from -.345 m/s to .720 m/s.

The wind velocity in the X and the Y direction varies along the building. Negative values on the X-
velocity mean the flow is moving to the left and positive values mean it is moving the right. In the
same way negative values in the y velocity indicates that the fluid is moving to the bottom and
positive to the top. The maximum velocities observed in the model are found in the inlets and in the
holes where the air passes from the offices to the atrium. The velocity in the inlets is shown in the
table below. The flow rate coming in each inlet and in the outlet is shown in the table below too. The
quantity of air entering on each outlet varies, decreasing as the offices are higher (closer to the
outlet). The flow rate is a function of the area and the velocity. Even though the area of the window
increases with the height of the building, the flow rate is higher at the lower rooms. This occurs
because the pressure difference between the lower office and the outlet pressure is higher than the
2nd and 3rd storeys offices, although the shape and the orientation of the windows are an important
factor that was not studied in this case (CIBSE, 2006).

2 3
Velocity (m/s) Area (m ) Flow rate ( m /s)
Outlet 0.37484911 1.5 0.562273665
Inlet 1 0.67545354 0.3 0.202636062
Inlet 2 0.49862638 0.4 0.199450552
Inlet 3 0.31371611 0.5 0.156858055

Table 17. Velocities and Flow Rates Results for Task 1

As the air enters the room it starts decreasing its velocity. This can phenomenon can be notices in all
the storeys. After the flow drops to the bottom the velocity decreases to around .5 m/s in the first
storey. As the fluid reaches the wall it slows down reaching a velocity of around .18 m/s. The fluid
raises and passes through the hole. When it passes through the hole it increases the velocity
showing the same behaviour of water passing through a constriction. The flow continues and moving
upwards in the atrium with a vertical speed of around .23 m/s, as it can be seen in the Y- velocitys
contour diagram.

20
Figure 9. X Velocity Contours on Task 1

21
Figure 10. Y- Velocity Contours on Task 1

22
Flow Behaviour inside the Offices
The following 4 diagrams are useful to understand how the air circulates inside the office. The first
graph represents the vectors with negative velocities in the x direction. From this diagram it can be
notices that the air travels on the negative X direction on the top part of the office. The velocity it
circulates varies from almost zero to -0.2 m/s on the top left part of the office. It starts decreasing its
velocity as it gets farther from the ceiling. The second graph shows the vectors traveling on the
positive X direction ranging with speeds from 0 to 0.4 m/s. It is noticed that the flow travels in this
direction from 0 to around 1.75m from the ground. On the third chart the y-negative velocity vectors
are displayed. It can be noticed where the fluid travels downwards inside the office. It can be
appreciated that air travels downward from around 6.5 meters on the horizontal direction in
reference to the right wall. It is notices that the velocities in the negative y direction are very small.
In the last diagram the flow traveling on the y-positive direction is show. This happens mainly on
section next to the right wall, showing as well small velocities. From the four charts the behaviour air
in the office can be deducted allowing a good mix and recirculation of air around the office space,
except the section under the inlet which also accumulates heat, which can be seen in the
temperature diagrams. This flow pattern is very similar in all the offices as it can be seen in the
previous vectors diagram.

Figure 11. Negative X Velocity Contours Inside the Second Storey Office on Task 1 (m/s)

23
 Figure 12. Positive X Velocity Contours Inside the Second Storey Office on Task 1 (m/s)

Figure 13. Negative Y Velocity Contours Inside the Second Storey Office on Task 1 (m/s)

Figure 14. Positive Y Velocity Contours Inside the Second Storey Office on Task 1 (m/s)

24
Temperature
The diagram below represents the temperature distribution across the building. As it is expected the
colder temperature is found on the inlet air. The air enters the building and gets hotter because of
the heat flux of 40 W/m2 each floor produces. The air gets warmer and stays in that temperature as
it moves through the office. In the offices the temperature is around 296 K. The first and second
storey offices show similar temperatures. The third storey office varies showing a temperature .5 K
higher than in the other 2. The temperature in the Atrium remains constant on most of its area. At
the top the air coming from the office on the third storey has higher temperature than the one on
the first and second storeys. The air coming from it rises as it can be seen in the temperature
contour diagram. The heat flux produced by skylight of the atrium heats the air. This can be noticed
in the high temperature red colour on top of it.

Figure 15. Temperature Contours on Task 1 (K)

25
 10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
Building Height (m.)

6
5.5
5
rake 1
4.5
rake 2
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
295.3 295.5 295.7 295.9 296.1 296.3 296.5 296.7 296.9
Temperature K

Figure 16. Temperature Distribution on 3 Offices Comparison

The chart above represents the temperature distribution the each office measured in the rakes that
are indicated the sketch below. The temperatures distributions of the offices are almost uniform
after the first meter in the office. This is due to the airflow entering the building and flowing in the
ground of each office. The plots of the temperature distribution of the first and the second offices
are very similar. The temperature from one rake to another varies around .3 K, which is insignificant
for human senses. The third storey office has an average temperature 296.6 K. A difference of
around .5 K in temperature is found compared to the 1st and 2nd storey. This temperature
difference is due to the smaller air flow entering and circulation in the third storey.

26
Figure 17. Used Rakes in the Atrium Building for Analysis

27
Pressure
The difference in pressure created by the change in temperature is what drives the fluid in the
building. If there were no heat sources the air wouldnt move in the building. The plot below shows
the pressure gradient across the building.

Approx. Location of
Neutral pressure axis

Figure 18. Contours of Static Pressure Pa on Task 1

In the diagram the pressure distribution in the building can be observed. A total pressure difference
of 0.945 Pa between the top and the bottom of the building was found. The difference in pressure is
very small but is enough to create air flow inside the building. The black line in the diagram
represents the neutral pressure axis. As mention before, if the temperature inside the building is
higher than outside, air will enter below this line and will exit above it (CIBSE, 2006). The pressure
distribution can be seen in each office. The lowest office has the lowest pressure followed by the
second storey office and finally the third one. The pressure distribution in the offices can be seen in
the chart below. In the atrium zone the movement of air goes from a point of lower pressure to a
point where the pressure is higher, below the neutral pressure axis, and flows from higher pressure
to lower pressure above it. Comparing the pressure of the office with the pressure in front of each
office hole (in the atrium) this can be spotted. This also happens inside the atrium where the
pressure gets closer to 0 until it reaches the neutral pressure point.

Its important to mention that the difference in pressure between the sections in the atrium just in
front of each hole of the offices decreases also with the height. In the first storeys office this
difference is around 0.3 Pa, in the second 0.2 Pa and in the 3rth storey the difference is
approximately 0.1 Pa.

28
 Pressure distribution in offices
10
9.5
9
8.5
8
7.5
7
Height of the Building m.

6.5
6
5.5
5
4.5 rake 1
4 rake 2
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.4 -0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05
Pressure Pa

Figure 19. Comparison of Pressure Distribution Inside Each Office on Case 1

This chart represents the pressure distribution in the two rakes shown before. From this graph it can
be seen again that the lowest office has lower pressure and the top one has the biggest value. The
pressure distribution inside each office also changes with height. In the first office the pressure
varies .1 Pascal and this behaviour can be observed also in the other offices. The pressure
distribution also varies slightly between the position of rake 1 and rake 2. A variation is noticed on
the line of the first rake that is not noticed in the line of the second rake. This difference is due to the
air coming inside the building which creates a change in the pressure on the room, close to the
ground floor.

29
Task 2
A closed window changed the system, varying the velocity of the fluid coming inside the building
and consequently the flow rate. The changes in the pressure distribution in the building are causing
these changes. The charts below show the results obtained in the inlets and the outlet when the
simulations were run, with each office unoccupied.

Velocity (m/s) Area (m 2 ) Flow Rate ( m 3 )

Case 3- 3rd storey window closed
Outlet 0.28210741 1.5 0.423161115
Inlet 1 0.69917411 0.3 0.209752233
Inlet 2 0.5326755 0.4 0.2130702
Inlet 3 0 0.5 0
Flow Rate Differnce -0.000338682
Case 2- 2nd storey window closed
Outlet 0.2685255 1.5 0.40278825
Inlet 1 0.71826905 0.3 0.215480715
Inlet 2 0 0.4 0
Inlet 3 0.37287128 0.5 0.18643564
Flow Rate Differnce -0.000871895
Case1- 1st storey window closed
Outlet 0.26623988 1.5 0.39935982
Inlet 1 0 0.3 0
Inlet 2 0.53241354 0.4 0.212965416
Inlet 3 0.37246728 0.5 0.18623364
Flow Rate Differnce -0.000160764
Case 4 -All windows open
Outlet 0.37922943 1.5 0.568844145
Inlet 1 0.67577255 0.3 0.202731765
Inlet 2 0.53901017 0.4 0.215604068
Inlet 3 0.2990369 0.5 0.14951845
Flow Rate Differnce -0.000989862
Table 18. Results on 4 Cases on Task 2

30
 0.25

0.2

0.15
Flow Rate (m3/s)

Inlet 1

0.1 Inlet 2
Inlet 3

0.05

0
1 2 3 4
Case Number

Figure 20. Comparison of Flow Rate for 4 Cases on Task 2

In the graph above the flow rate entering each of the windows can be compared directly with each
other in the 4 cases. In the first case the first storey office was closed and an increment in the flow
rate entering in the 3rd floor can be detected, although the 2nd floor inlet remains with the same
value. In the second case, where the second offices window was closed there was also an increment
in the flow rate entering in the 3rd storey with a value very similar to the one obtained in case 1. The
flow rate of the 1st inlet also increased but not considerably. In the third case, where the 3rd office
window was closed, the flow rate of the inlet one as well as the flow rate of the inlet 2 was
maintained almost the same as case 4. The lowest flow rate was calculated to be 0.1495 m3/s, which
would be sufficient to ventilate an office with 15 sedentary people.

The pressure was measured on rake 2 in the all the cases. The values obtain allow to see the relation
between the flow rate or velocity, in the inlet of each storey, with its pressure.

31
 Inlet 1 Pressure in Rake 2 on 4 cases
3

2.5

2
Height m.

1st floor off

1.5 2nd floor off

1 3rd floor off

all windows
0.5

0
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
Pressure Pa

Figure 21. Comparison of Pressure Distribution Inside the 1st Storey Office on Rake 2 , 4 Cases on Task 2

2nd Storey Pressure in Rake 2 on 4 cases

6.7

6.2

5.7
Height m

5.2 1st floor off

4.7 2nd floor off

4.2 3rd floor off

all windows
3.7

3.2
-0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
Pressure Pa

Figure 22. Comparison of Pressure Distribution Inside the 2st Storey Office on Rake 2 , 4 Cases on Task 2

32
 3rd Storey Office Pressure in Rake
2 on 4 cases
10
9.5
9
Height m

8.5 1st floor off

8 2nd floor off

7.5 3rd floor off

7 all windows

6.5
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
Pressure Pa

Figure 23. Comparison of Pressure Distribution Inside the 3rd Storey Office on Rake 2 , 4 Cases on Task 2

In Inlet number 1 the pressure obtained in the 4 cases varies in all of them. There arent lines
overlapping each other. From this graph it is expected that the flow rates on the inlets should be
different, and the highest when the second office is closed. The lowest flux when all the windows are
open should be found. This can be corroborated looking at the flow rates of the 1st inlet on the flow
rates comparison chart. The flow rates are higher when the pressures differences are farther from 0
value (more negative values).

In the second storey office the pressure graph shows no difference between the 1st case and the 3rd
case. Because of this the fluxes are expected to be very similar. This can be confirmed in the flow
rates comparison chart. In the 4rth case where all the windows are open the smallest flux entering
the office is found and it varies just by .0107 Pa witch is hard to notice in the fluxes comparison
chart.

The same relationship between the pressure difference and the flow rate is found in the
measurements of the 3rd storey. In the 2nd and the 1st case the values obtained in the pressure rakes
overlap, meaning the fluxes should be almost equal. The flux found in the 3rd storey in the 4rth case
is the smallest which can be proved in the inlet 3 pressure graphs and the flow rates comparison
chart.

The relation between the difference in pressure and the flow rate entering the windows was be
confirmed.

Temperature
The temperature contours can be compared in the following temperature contours charts. The
temperature variation on the offices that are empty does not vary more than one degree Kelvin,
maintaining a temperature around 297 Kelvin. The temperature in the offices that are open
maintains almost the same value as in task 1 results varying just in decimals around 296 degrees
Kelvin.

33
Figure 24. Temperature Contours Comparison for 4 Cases on Task 2 (k)

34
Task 3

Mesh and Convergence

The results obtaining during the wind driven natural ventilation simulation are the following:

Figure 25. Mesh Refinement around Specific Zones on Task 3 and 4

35
The results obtained with the coarse mesh and the 2 adapted meshes for this case are displayed in
the chart below.

Coarse Mesh
Velocity (m/s) Area (m 2 ) Flow Rate ( m/s3 )
Outlet 0.2181506 1.5 0.3272259
Inlet 1 0.6205371 0.3 0.18616113
Inlet 2 0.60802317 0.3 0.182406951
Inlet 3 0.50075769 0.3 0.150227307
1st Adaption
Outlet 0.27390629 1.5 0.410859435
Inlet 1 0.54477102 0.3 0.163431306
Inlet 2 0.52307522 0.3 0.156922566
Inlet 3 0.4389407 0.3 0.13168221
2nd Apdaption
Outlet 0.25817621 1.5 0.387264315
Inlet 1 0.59372795 0.3 0.178118385
Inlet 2 0.56464493 0.3 0.169393479
Inlet 3 0.466399934 0.3 0.13991998
Flow Rate Difference 0.100167529
Table 19. Results Obtained with Coarse and Adapted Meshes on Task 3

Convergence was not obtained with the coarse mesh; the variations in the velocities in the inlets
keep changing during the iterations, showing the mesh was not adequate. In the 1st adaption the
variations decreased in the inlet 1 from around .4 to .2 m/s. Comparing the 1st adaption with the 2nd,
variations in the convergence history of the X velocity decreased 0.1 m/s, although in the 2nd and 3rd
inlets it kept fluctuating within the same range.

The decrease in percentage of change between the coarse mesh and the second adaption can be
seen on chart of percentage change. If more computational resources and time were available more
adaptions could be done to decrease the percentage of change in the velocity inlets and obtain more
accurate results.

36
 Inlet 3
Inlet 2
Inlet 1

Figure 26. Convergence History on Task 3

37
 1st Adaption 2nd Adaption
Inlet 1 12.21% -8.99%
Inlet 2 13.97% -7.95%
Inlet 3 12.34% -6.26%
st nd
Table 20. Percentage Change after the 1 and the 2 Adaption on Task 3

Figure 27. X Velocity Contours on the Complete Computational Domain on Task 3 (m/s)

Description Flow around the buildings

In the left part of figure 27, where the inlet is located, the wind profile is found. It varies starting at 0
and increases following the function described previously having a velocity of 3 m/s at 10 meters
height. As the wind travels through the computational domain, it encounters the first building. The
velocity decreases as it approaches to the building. The windward face of the building receives the
flow directly, without any obstruction, creating high pressure on it. On the roof the building a
negative pressure zone is created, creating suction on the roof, as well as reverse flow due to the
friction on the roof. On the leeward part of the building a negative pressure zone is also observed.
The flow creates a vortex, between the two buildings as it can be seen in the velocity vectors
diagram on figure 31. The windward face of the atrium building is under negative pressure. The roof
of the building also experiences negative pressure creating suction. Air flow in the negative X
direction is encounter due to the friction on the roof and the wall. When the flow impacts the left
side vertical part of the atrium wall in the atrium building, the flow cannot go upwards because of
the high velocity air flowing on top of it, so it makes a u turn, turning downwards, creating the
negative flow in the x direction, seen on figure 31. The leeward wall of the atrium building also is
under negative pressure. A big vortex is created on the back of the building, expanding almost on
the entire computational domain. Both sides of the atrium building are experiencing negative
pressure.

38
The flow inside the building is cause by the pressure difference created by the wind behaviour
around it. In the pressure contours diagram the negative pressure is lower (more negative) in the
leeward side of the atrium building than in the windward side. This drives the flow in the positive x
direction.

Figure 28. Negative Pressure Distribution Contours around the Buildings (Pa)

Figure 29. X velocity Contours Inside the Building on Task 3 (m/s)

39
Description of flow inside the building
Inside the building the air flows on the positive X direction. In this case there is no buoyancy effect
acting on the air. The air will not necessarily move to the bottom of the room as it inters the offices,
as it can be seen in task 4. The flow enters the room and continues through the room following a
similar path as the buoyancy wind driven flow. Some of the wind passes through the whole on the
right of the office and some other recirculates inside it in a similar way seen on the buoyancy driven
ventilation case. Inside the atrium some vortex are formed too, due to the flow passing through the
building at higher velocities through the holes of the offices, as it can be seen in the x velocity
contours graphs in the task 4 results section.

Temperature
The temperature inside the offices was maintained around 295.5 to 296 Kelvin, varying with
respect to the flow rate passing through each room. Rooms with higher flow rate were observed to
have lower temperature. In this case the difference between the inlet one and two, is in the order of
0.01 K degrees ; a small variation can be noticed in the 3rd inlet having a smaller value for the flow
rate, increasing the room temperature around half degree. This can be seen on the temperature
contours plot for this case further on the report on figure 34. On the top of the atrium a zone of
height temperature can be seen. This is because of the hot air recirculating due to the vortex found
in the same spot found in the x-velocity vectors diagram on task 4 results. After the hot air exits the
building it dissipates hastily due to the higher speed wind running over the atrium outlet.

40
Task 4
The results obtained from comparing the effect of the change in height of the building and the case
where no building was found next to the atrium building are the following:

Velocity on Inlets 4 cases

1.8
1.6
1.4
Velocity (m/s)

1.2
1
Inlet 1
0.8
0.6 Inlet 2
0.4 Inlet 3
0.2
0
no building 1 storey 2nd storey full building
Case

Figure 30. Comparison of X Velocity on the Inlets on 4 Cases on Task 4

In the following chart the Velocity can be compared in the 3 windows of the offices. In this case the
velocity can be compared because the windows of the offices are the same size and flow rate will be
this value multiplied by the area witch is .3m. The velocity of the inlets decreases as the building in
front is higher. The case with no building next the atrium building experienced the higher velocities.
The velocities of the inlets in the case with one storey building, decreased around 0.1 m/s to 0.2 m/s
as it can be seen on the graph. The same effect is observed between the case with one storey
building, with two storeys and the full building. The decrease in the velocities and in consequence in
the flow rates is due to the different wind behaviour around the building in each case.

The next diagrams show the different behaviour of the flow next to the buildings.

41
Figure 31. X Velocity Flow Patterns for 4 Cases on Task 3 and 4

42
In the diagrams above the behaviour of the flow in the x direction can be seen. There are some
patterns the flows that are common to all the cases. In the 3 cases with a building in front of the
atrium building the flow gets to the atrium with a smaller velocity, and different direction. The
building causes the formation of a vortex in the windward face of the atrium building. This can be
seen in the 3 cases. On the leeward face of the atrium building a vortex is also formed, creating
suction in the 4 cases.

Inside the building the flow patterns follows the same path in the 4 cases. It goes inside in the
windward face and exists on the atrium outlet. The case was modelled ignoring the effect of
buoyancy, so the cooler air entering the building will not necessarily drop to the floor. This would
not happen in a real life situation. In the case with one storey building, in all the offices and in the
case with 2 stories in the first office, this phenomenon happened. Inside the atrium the flow pattern
was similar In the 4 cases. The wind flew from the bottom to the top, creating some vortexes in the
way. These vortexes were observed to be on the top of each hole on the right of the offices, where
the wind circulates from the offices to the atrium.

The velocities in the windows are governed by the difference in pressure between the outlet and the
windows of the offices. In the next graph this can be appreciated. The purple bar which represents
the pressure in the outlet in each case can be compared with the other 3 bars beside it. Each line
represents the pressure measured in each window for each case. It can be seen that the cases where
the difference in the pressure between the outlet and the inlets is higher, the velocity in the inlets is
higher.

Pressure in 4 cases
1
0.5
0
-0.5
Pressure Pa

-1 Inlet 1
-1.5 Inlet 2

-2 Inlet 3

-2.5 outlet

-3
-3.5
no building 1 storey 2nd storey full building
Cases

Figure 32. Comparison of Pressure on the Inlets and Outlet on 4 Cases on Task 3 and 4

43
The next chart represents the relation between the Velocity in the Inlets and the change in pressure
between the Inlet and the Outlets for all the cases. A common pattern can be seen in the graph. The
variation is approximately linear, but it behaves differently in each Inlet

Velocity-Pressure Change Relation

1.8

1.6
2 storeys

1.4
Velocity (m/s)

1.2
full Building Inlet 1
1 Inlet 2
No Building
Inlet 3
0.8 1 storey

0.6

0.4
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Pressure Difference Pa

Figure 33. Pressure Change-Velocity relation on the Inlets on 4 Cases on Task 4

Temperature
In the next graphs the temperature distribution inside each building can be found. In the diagrams it
is possible to see the effect of the air passing through the top of the office in the case with one
storey building beside. The temperature in the offices is higher due to this reason. The wind does
not mix as well with the warm air produced in the floor, developing higher temperatures inside the
offices, than when it travels through the floor. This phenomenon wont happen in real life as the
buoyancy effect cannot be ignored as in this simulation.

44
Figure 34. Temperature Contours inside the building for 4 Cases on task 3 and 4 (K)

45
Conclusion and Recommendations
Computational Fluid dynamics is a useful tool to simulate the behaviour of air flow with different
conditions inside and around buildings. Thermal comfort can be evaluated at any point in space,
allowing the localization of draughts that may cause discomfort. Although in this case it was not
consider, it is possible to simulate transport of contaminants and humidity. (Etheridge & Sandberg,
1996)

The natural ventilation of an atrium building was studied in different conditions using computational
fluid dynamics. The effects on the building environment under buoyant and wind driven natural
ventilation were studied. The parameters assessed were velocity, temperature and pressure on
specific points in the building.

The different results obtained with the different meshes showed the importance and the role of
using a mesh according to the problem specifications. In the buoyancy simulation emphasis was
given to the boundaries as well as to the whole mesh. When simulating wind driven ventilation, the
emphasis was given to the area around the building as well as interior the building. If more time and
computational resources were available the mesh could had been modified more times, to obtain
less variation in the convergence of the velocities in the inlets, which were monitored while the
simulations ware running. In the buoyant flow, it was found that the RNG model is harder to
converge than the K- model. Fewer variations in the results as well as in the convergence history of
the velocities will allow the user to make sure the grid is sufficiently detailed to be solution
independent. (Nielsen, Allard, Awbi, Davison, & Schalin, 2007).

The 2 models used in the simulation of buoyancy natural ventilation show very similar results, having
less than 4 % differences on this case. Other studies made CFD show that the RNG model developed
more accurate results when it was used to simulate wind driven natural ventilation. G. Evola and V.
Popov also found that the standard k- model showed difficulties to calculate the flow close to the
surfaces even though the computational processing time between both models is similar. (Evola &
Popov, 2006)

The results in the buoyancy and wind driven natural ventilation show that the flow rate passing
through the offices is enough to maintain a temperature between one or two degrees Celsius
warmer than the outside temperature in the given conditions. An unoccupied office did not affect
the stack effect of the atrium. It was deduced from the results that the ventilation rate relates
directly to the temperature inside the offices. The offices with less flow rate showed warmer
temperatures, this found on the highest office. The relation between the pressure difference and the
velocity of the air was found in all the cases on buoyant ventilation simulations. A greater difference
in pressure between the inlet and the outlet conveyed to a higher velocity in the inlet, found in wind
driven ventilation cases. Flow rates varying between 0.15m3/s to 0.21 m3/s were found on buoyant
ventilation models. Assuming the offices contain 15 people each, this flow rate would be enough to
satisfy the 0.01 m3/s/person required for an office space. The velocity of the air flowing inside the
office is another factor that could cause discomfort to the occupants. The velocities in the inlet
varied from 0.71 m/s to .3 m/s and were higher on the wind-driven ventilation, varying from 0.46 to
1.7 m/s . An occupant working next to the window would fell a sensation of an unpleasant breeze on
the highest velocity case. (Ecotec Community Wiki).

46
Out of the scope of this exercise was the seasonal and daily change in temperature. Temperature
changes during the day and during the year. This simulation was only intended to find the effect of
buoyancy natural ventilation when the outside temperature was 22 C. During the year the
temperature varies according to the location of the building. The simulation could have been run
with different temperatures inside and outside of the building to observe the change in the
ventilation rate and the environment in the building. Humidity and contaminants are another
important factor that was excluded from the simulation.

The simulation of wind driven natural ventilation was also very restricted, simulating just 3 cases
where the building remained at the same distance from the atrium building, just its height varied. It
would have been interesting to study the effect of a higher building in front of the atrium as well as
the effect of moving it closer of further from the atrium building. The velocity and direction of wind
fluctuates constantly in nature. A study with different air velocities and directions would be useful to
understand the behaviour of the wind in different conditions, although a 3D model would have been
required.

During the simulations several aspects where ignored, that will influence the ventilation in a real
situation. The conductive and the radiation heat transfer where neglected. Also heat transfer
through the building fabric was ignored as well as infiltrations, which can have a significant effect on
the performance of the ventilation (Acred & Hunt, 2013).

Even though the software could be found easy to use, it is important to be careful analysing the
results obtained. A lot of effort has being put in the development of CFD but there are still many
uncertainties that the user may find as the use of inappropriate boundary conditions, the grid
quality, and slow or poor convergence (Etheridge & Sandberg, 1996).

47
Bibliography
Acred, A., & Hunt, G. (2013). Multiple Flow Regimes in Stack Ventilation of Multi-Storey Atrium
Buildings. International Journal of Ventilation, 31-40.

ANSYS Inc. (n.d.). 8.2.1 Boundary Conditions. Retrieved November 7, 2013, from FLUENT 6.3
Documentation: http://aerojet.engr.ucdavis.edu/fluenthelp/html/udf/node231.htm

ANSYS, Inc. (2011). Ansys Fluent Theory Guide. Canonsburg: ANSYS, Inc.

ANSYS, Inc. (2011). Ansys fluent User's Guide. Canonsburg: ANSYS, Inc.

CIBSE. (2006). Environment Design CIBSE guide A. Norwich: CIBSE Publications.

Ecotec Community Wiki. (n.d.). Comfort: Air Movement. Retrieved december 10, 2013, from
wiki.naturalfrequency.com: http://wiki.naturalfrequency.com/wiki/Air_Movement

Etheridge, D., & Sandberg, M. (1996). Building Ventialtion Theory and Design. Sussex: Jhon Wiley and
Sons.

Evola, G., & Popov, V. (2006). Computational analysis of wind driven natural ventilation in buildings.
Energy and Buildings, 491-501.

Gan, G. (2013). CFD Modelling of Bouyancy-Driven Natural Ventalation. Nottingham, UK: The
University of Nottingham.

Gan, G. (2013). CFD Modelling of Wind Driven Natural Ventilation lecture notes. Dept of Architecture
and Built Environment University of Nottingham.

Mundt, E., Mathisen, H., Nielsen, P., & Moser, A. (2004). Ventilation Effectivness. Forssa: Rehva.

Nielsen, P., Allard, F., Awbi, H. B., Davison, L., & Schalin, A. (2007). Computational Fluid Dynamics in
Ventilation Design. Forssan Kirjapaino: REHVA.

Randall, T. (1999). Environmental Design. London: E & FN Spon.

Santamouris, M., & Wouters, P. (2006). Building Ventilation The State of the Art. London: Earthscan.

48