However, some quantitative differences are observed. Overall CFD simulations with the appropriate choice of coefficients produce similar concentration fields to those predicted by the integral approach. Results from the two approaches are compared. The standard k–εk–ε turbulence model and the advection–diffusion (AD) method (in contrast to the Lagrangian particle tracking method) are used for the CFD simulations. Both the effect of street canyons of different aspect ratios and various obstacle array configurations consisting of cubical buildings are investigated. In particular, pollutant dispersion from point and line sources in the simplest neutral atmospheric boundary layer and line sources placed within different regular building geometries is studied with the CFD code FLUENT and the atmospheric dispersion model ADMS-Urban. This paper looks at the application of both approaches to common problems. OSPM, AERMOD, ADMS-Urban have undergone many comprehensive formal evaluations as to their “fitness for purpose” while CFD models do not have such an evaluation record in the urban air quality context. The use of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models to address the same problems is increasing rapidly. Until recently, urban air quality modelling has been based on operational models of an integral nature.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |