RESUMEN
In most current air ventilation assessment (AVA) studies, a simple neutral assumption that does not consider thermal effects is adopted, particularly for numerical simulation practices. With statistics of daytime observations during summer in Hong Kong as an example, this study demonstrates that neutral atmospheric boundary conditions occur with a very low probability, which implies that current practices are indeed far away from reality. This study is devoted to addressing this knowledge gap by cross-comparisons of field measurements, wind tunnel tests, and large-eddy simulations (LES) under neutral and unstable conditions. It is found that LES-computed velocity ratios under unstable conditions are in line with field measurements, while results of simulations under neutral conditions are close to those of wind tunnel tests. Enhanced vertical mixing due to surface heating produces improved ventilation performance in the unstable case. The neutral assumption tends to underestimate pedestrian-level velocity ratios compared to a diabatic condition; hence it is deemed conservative when it is adopted in AVA practices. Moreover, stronger wind direction variance under unstable conditions results in weaker correlation between velocity ratios and frontal area indices than neutral conditions, which implies that street orientations become less important in ventilation under unstable conditions.
RESUMEN
Twisted wind flows generated by the complex terrain of Hong Kong induce two types of complication to Air Ventilation Assessment (AVA), first, imposing a false boundary condition on the wind tunnel tests done for AVA and, second, creating an ambiguity in determining the approaching wind direction in calculating the probability of occurrence of winds. The latter issue is partially solved using correction methods in post-analysis of AVA but the accuracy of these methods is not yet accessed. This study employs two twisted wind profiles to test an urban area in a boundary layer wind tunnel to investigate the influence of twisted wind flows on the outcomes of AVA and to estimate the accuracy of three common correction methods: No-Shift, Threshold, and Proportional methods. The results reveal significant differences in wind speeds at the pedestrian level for twisted and conventional wind flows at locations with low building densities. The discrepancies in wind speeds are minimum at the locations where the density of buildings is high. The indicators calculated by the No-Shift method frequently deviate from those of the twisted wind flows, while the Threshold and Proportional methods routinely over-predict the indicators of AVA.