websights

Fill out the form to download

Required field
Required field
Not a valid email address
Required field
Required field
  • Set up your own cloud-native simulation in minutes.

  • Documentation

    Atmospheric Boundary Layer for Pedestrian Wind Comfort Simulations

    In the context of CFD modeling, an Atmospheric Boundary Layer (ABL) is an important aspect for modeling the flow around buildings, or for near-field dispersion problems. This can be relevant for many applications such as in Architecture, Pedestrian Wind Comfort (PWC), and Urban Planning.  For a general description of the ABL, please refer to this article in our documentation.

    This article explains how the ABL profile is generated with respect to the Wind Engineering Standards supported in the Pedestrian Wind Comfort simulation type in SimScale. 

    Before discussing the formulation utilized in generating the ABL, it is helpful to remember why and at which stage in a PWC simulation this is needed. When specifying the wind conditions you will be prompted with the choice of a wind engineering standard and a wind exposure category that will basically define how your ABL profile would look like coming from that particular direction of your terrain. See Figure 1 below for a snapshot of the interface illustrating this step.

    PWC - interface to set up the wind direction and exposure.
    Figure 1: Interface of the SimScale Workbench for defining the wind engineering standard and wind exposures for each wind direction in a PWC analysis

    The general formulations used to model the ground normal profiles such as velocity, turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) and the dissipation rate are based on [1,2,3].

    • The velocity profile utilizes the log-law and is as follows:

    (1)u=uκln(zd+z0z0)

    v=0;w=0

    Important

    The AS/NZS 1170.2 and the City of London (CoL) guidelines use a different approach to model the wind velocity profile, which is based on the Harris and Deaves boundary layer models. See section 2.2 and 2.4 for a description on the model used.

    • The friction velocity u can be calculated as: 

    (2)u=urefκlnzref+z0z0   

    Where

    uGround-normal streamwise flow speed profile [m/s]
    vSpanwise flow speed [m/s]
    wGround-normal flow speed [m/s]
    uFriction velocity [m/s]
    κvon Kármán constant = 0.41
    zGround-normal coordinate component [m]
    dGround-normal displacement height [m]
    z0Aerodynamic roughness length [m]
    urefReference mean streamwise wind speed at zref [m/s]
    zrefReference height being used in u∗ estimations [m]
    Table 1: Variable description of equations 1 and 2 above

    Displacement Height (d)

    According to [4] the displacement height d is relevant for flows over forests and cities. “The displacement height gives the vertical displacement of the entire flow regime over areas which are densely covered with obstacles such as trees or buildings.”

    • Turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) profile:

    (3)k=(u)2CμC1ln(zd+z0z0)+C2

    • Turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rate: 

    (4)ϵ=(u)3κ(zd+z0)C1ln(zd+z0z0)+C2

    • The specific dissipation rate: 

    (5)ω=uκCμ1zd+z0

    Note

    To produce a uniform TKE, the values for C1 and C2 are assumed to be by default 0 and 1, respectively. And the displacement height d is assumed to be 0. 

    • In general, through an experimental dataset for k and the constants C1 and C2, which are some curve-fitting coefficients, can be determined by non-linear fitting of equation 19 and 20 in [1]:

    (6)k=D1ln(z+z0z0)+D2

    • Where D1 and D2 includes C1 and C2 as follows: 

    (7)D1=((u)2Cμ)2C1

    (8)D2=((u)2Cμ)2C2

    Where

    kGround-normal turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) profile [m2/s2]
    ϵGround-normal TKE dissipation rate profile [m2/s3]
    ωGround-normal specific dissipation rate profile [m2/s3]
    CμEmpirical model constant = 0.09
    C1Curve-fitting coefficient for profiles 
    C2Curve-fitting coefficient for profiles
    Table 2: Variable description of equations 6,7, and 8 above

    Figure 2 below, illustrates how the shape of the ABL profile changes with respect to the terrain category. The following section elaborates more on how these profiles differ for each wind engineering standard.

    atmospheric boundary layer for different regions
    Figure 2: Wind exposure levels – cityscape

    When choosing one of the Wind Engineering Standards for your PWC simulation, the values of the variables in the ABL equations above vary depending on the exposure category.  As shown above in Figure 2, the variability of the mean wind velocity depends on: 

    1. The height above ground. 
    2. The ground roughness of the terrain.

    Each Wind Engineering Standard defines different values that associate best with the exposure category of that particular region. 

    Reference velocity and height

    For generating the ABL profiles that follows, a reference velocity and a reference height of 10 m/s and 10 m had been used, respectively. In case of a custom terrain, there is not a single global z=0 to use as a reference for the velocity profile, but it rather depends on the topology of the terrain.

    Table 3 shows the six general exposure categories that are mostly used among wind engineering standards. Each wind engineering standard supplies different values of the ground surface roughness z0 either for all or some of these categories.

    General Exposure CategoryDescription
    EC1City center with heavy concentration of tall building
    EC2General urban area
    EC3Suburban area
    EC4Open terrain area 
    EC5Open lake or land with minimal obstruction
    EC6Sea or coastal area
    Table 3: General description of terrain exposure categories

    Let’s discuss the Wind Engineering Standards supported within SimScale

    The value of the aerodynamic roughness length  z0 depending on the terrain category is shown in the table below. Moreover, the Eurocode does not provide values for the general exposure category EC1.

    Category Descriptionz0 [m] Category name in Simscale Workbench
    EC2 General urban area 1IV (Urban area)
    EC3Suburban area 0.3III ( Suburban area)
    EC4Open terrain area  0.05II (Open terrain)
    EC5Open lake or land with minimal obstruction 0.01I (Flat terrain)
    EC6Sea or coastal area 0.0030 (Coastal area)
    Table 4: Roughness height values depending on each terrain category type for the Eurocode standard [5]

    The ABL profiles for velocity, TKE, and specific dissipation rate which had been generated with a log law profile can be seen below for each terrain category:

    Eurocode velocity profile for different terrain categories
    Figure 3: Log Law velocity profile as a function of terrain category for the Eurocode standard

                                 

    Eurocode TKE profile for different terrain categories
    Figure 4: Log Law TKE profile as a function of terrain category for the Eurocode standard

                                       

    Eurocode omega profile for different terrain categories
     Figure 5: Log Law specific dissipation rate profile as a function of terrain category for the Eurocode standard

                  

    The mean wind velocity profile is modeled using the Deaves and Harris approach. This model simulates a logarithmic atmospheric boundary layer profile as follows [6]:

    (9)u¯=u0.4[ln(zz0)+5.75(zzg)1.88(zzg)21.33(zzg)3+0.25(zzg)4]


    Where

    u¯Design hourly mean wind speed at height z [m/s]
    zThe distance or height above ground m
    z0 Aerodynamic roughness length [m]
    zgThe gradient height = uBf
    fCoriolis Parameter = 0.0001
    B 6
    Table 5: Variable description of equation 9 above

    u, k, and ω

    The formulations used to model these parameters are the same as in equations 2, 3, and 5, respectively.


    Regarding the terrain categories in the AS/NZS standard there exists one difference to the Euro Code. The AS/NZS standard provides values for EC1 (heavy concentration of tall buildings) but not for EC2 (general urban area).

    Category Description z0
    [m]
    Category name in Simscale Workbench
    EC1 City center with heavy concentration of tall buildings 2City center
    EC3 Suburban area 0.2Suburban area
    EC4 Open terrain area 0.02Open terrain
    EC5 Open lake or land with minimal obstruction 0.002Flat terrain
    Table 6: Roughness height values depending on each terrain category type for the AS/NZS standard [6]

    The following plots illustrate how the velocity, TKE, and specific dissipation rate looks like for each of the terrain categories of the AS/NZS defined above: 

    AS/NZS ABL velocity profile for different terrain categories
    Figure 6: Log Law velocity profile as a function of terrain category for the AS/NZS standard
    AS/NZS ABL TKE profile for different terrain categories
    Figure 7: Log Law TKE profile as a function of terrain category for the AS/NZS standard
    AS/NZS ABL omega profile for different terrain categories
    Figure 8: Log Law specific dissipation rate profile as a function of terrain category for the AS/NZS standard

    For the NEN8100 Dutch standard the following 6 terrain categories are available in SimScale and they are as follows:  

    Category Description z0
    [m]
    Category name in Simscale Workbench
    EC1 City center with heavy concentration of tall buildings 2City center
    EC2 General urban area or forest 1Urban or Forest
    EC3 Suburban area 0.5Suburban
    EC4 Open terrain area (Rough) 0.25Rough
    EC5 Open lake or land with minimal obstruction 0.03Open
    EC6 Sea or coastal area 0.0002Sea
    Table 7: Roughness height values depending on each terrain category type for the NEN8100 Dutch standard [7]

    Due to the fact that the NEN8100 code utilizes a height of 60 m instead of 10 m as a reference height, a correction needs to be applied. More details can be found in the correction factors section in this documentation.

    Below the ABL profile of velocity, TKE and specific dissipation can be seen: 

    NEN8100 ABL velocity profile for different terrain categories
    Figure 9: Log Law velocity profile as a function of terrain category for the NEN8100 Dutch standard
    NEN8100 ABL TKE profile for different terrain categories
    Figure 10: Log Law TKE profile as a function of terrain category for the NEN8100 Dutch standard
    NEN8100 ABL omega profile for different terrain categories
    Figure 11: Log Law specific dissipation rate profile as a function of terrain category for the NEN8100 Dutch standard

    The City of London wind standard models the variation of the mean and gust wind speed profiles based on the Harris and Deaves boundary layer models in the UK National Annex to the Eurocode.

    (10)u(z)=uκ[ln(zz0)+5.75(zh)1.88(zh)21.33(zh)3+0.25(zh)4]

    Where

    h Height of the neutral boundary layer = uBf
    f Coriolis Parameter = 0.00011415
    B 6
    Table 8: Variable description of equation 10 above

    The model equation and the values for B and f provided above are based on [10,11,12].

    u , k, and ω

    The formulations used to model these parameters are the same as in equations 2, 3, and 5, respectively.


    Furthermore, the roughness height values as a function of the exposure category for the London City wind standard are shown in the table below: 

    Category Description z0
    [m]
    Category name in Simscale Workbench
    EC1 City center with heavy concentration of tall buildings 1Urban
    EC2 General urban area or forest 0.5London City
    EC3 Suburban area 0.3Suburban
    EC4 Open terrain area (Rough) 0.05Open
    EC5 Open lake or land with minimal obstruction 0.01Flat
    Table 9: Roughness height values depending on each terrain category type for the London City wind standard [8]

    The ABL profiles depending on the values above are as follows: 

    London city wind standard ABL velocity profile for different terrain categories
    Figure 12: Log Law velocity profile as a function of terrain category for the City of London wind standard
    London city wind standard ABL TKE profile for different terrain categories
    Figure 13: Log Law TKE profile as a function of terrain category for the City of London wind standard
    London city wind standard ABL omega profile for different terrain categories
    Figure 14: Log Law specific dissipation rate profile as a function of terrain category for the City of London wind standard

    The main difference between the AIJ wind standard and the four standards discussed above is, that the AIJ ABL profile is based on Power law and not a Log law. A Gust factor also needs to be specified when defining wind conditions.

    Figure 15: Interface of the SimScale Workbench for defining the wind engineering standard for the AIJ (2004) wind exposure
    Category Descriptionalpha αz0 fitted at 10 [m]
    z0 fitted at 2 [m] Category name in Simscale Workbench
    EC1An urban area densely populated with high-rise buildings (10 floors or more).0.354.442.335City Center (V, α = 0.35 )
    EC2An urban area primarily composed of mid-rise buildings (4 to 9 floors).0.272.1351.100Urban (IV, α = 0.27)
    EC3An area with numerous trees and low-rise buildings, or an area scattered with mid-rise buildings (4 to 9 floors).0.20.9750.495Suburban (III, α = 0.2)
    EC4An area with obstacles similar to crops, like pastoral regions or grasslands, and areas scattered with trees and low-rise buildings. 0.150.4850.240Open (II, α = 0.15)
    EC5An area with few obstacles, such as a coastline or the surface of a lake.0.10.2150.100Flat (I, α = 0.1)
    Table 10: Roughness height values depending on each terrain category type for the AIJ (2004)

    To assess a PWC study, three different types of information are needed:

    1. Statistical meteorological data 
    2. Aerodynamic information 
    3. A comfort criterion  

    The transformation of the statistical meteorological data to the location of interest at the building site is realized through the aerodynamic information, which is split into two parts: 

    1. Terrain contribution: Accounts for the change in terrain between the meteorological site and a location near or at the site of the building. 
    2. Design contribution: Accounts for the change in wind statistics due to local urban configuration. 

    Understanding this is the basis for the evaluation of pedestrian comfort, to do so, the local wind velocity needs to be related to the weather station data in order to obtain the probability of the local wind speed exceeding the threshold wind speeds defined by the comfort criterion.

    The relation between the measured wind speed at the meteorological station umeteo to the local wind speed uloc is defined as the “wind amplification factor”:

    (11)γ=ulocumeteo

    This can be split up in two components:

    (12)γ=ulocumeteo=ulocu0u0umeteo

    1. ulocu0 : Local contribution of the topography close to the building (Design contribution of the aerodynamic information; transformation of u0 to uloc).[9]
    1. u0umeteo : Corrective factor for the weather station wind data. (Terrain contribution of the aerodynamic information; transformation of umeteo to u0).[9]

    The figure below illustrates this further. (Note:  upot refers to umeteo in the figure)

    ABL profile transformation between meteorological terrain and building site
    Figure 16: Transformation of the meteorological data at the meteorological site to the building site [9]

    From the CFD analysis we get the first part ulocu0 directly. However, the correction of the weather station data u0umeteo requires additional effort and calculations, which can differ between each wind engineering standard.

    The wind comfort standards define limits that are related to the threshold local air speeds based on the type of activity. These limits cannot be exceeded for more than a specified percentage of time in a year.

    For example, the table below illustrates the comfort levels based on the Lawson comfort criteria: 

    London Lawson wind comfort criteria
    Figure 17: London LDDC wind comfort (left) and risk criteria (right) [8]

    A meteorological wind station provides a discrete set of wind data, therefore in order to evaluate the probabilities of exceedance at any given threshold speed, the discrete set of data is fitted into a continuous one by the mean of a Weibull probability distribution.

    Moreover, from the CFD simulation, we receive the locally measured wind speeds, and by using them with the combination of the parameters inside the Weibull probability distribution function, the probability of exceeding a certain wind speed at a specific location can be obtained. The City of London guidelines defines the Weibull function as: 

    (13)f(x)=P.e(xc)k

    Where

    fFrequency
    PThe probability that the wind will approach from a certain direction
    xA given wind speed [m/s]
    cScale factor
    kShape factor 
    Table 11: Variable description of equation 13 above

    Now we understand how the comfort criteria is evaluated. Nevertheless, a correction to the wind speed value inside the Weibull function is necessary to take into account the aerodynamic information discussed earlier in the preceding section. The correction values are incorporated in terms of the wind amplification factor inside equation 11, by multiplying with the scale factor c inside the Weibull probability distribution function. (refer to the example section below for an overview of the calculation method)

    Since each wind engineering standard utilizes slightly different methods in conducting the design one has to account for these variations through correction factors. Corrections for the averaging time of the velocity or terrain exposure correction factor are some examples of possible corrections to be carried out.

    For the EU standard the logarithmic boundary profile is valid until a maximum height of zb = 200 m, so we are also assuming this height as the blending height for all categories. This leads to the following : 

    Blending Height

    Blending height refers to the height where the terrain effects are negligible and irrespective of the terrain the same speed is present. Which yields: 
    umeteo (zb)=u0 (zb)

    γ=ulocumeteo=ulocu0u0umeteo

    The term ulocu0 can be calculated directly from the CFD simulation, where uloc represents the local measured velocity at the location of interest, and u0 is the velocity at defined reference height 10 m/s at 10 m height.

    (14)u0umeteo=u0(zb=200m)umeteo(zb=200m)
    u0umeteo=u0ln|zbz0+1|umeteoln|zbz0meteo+1|

    Inserting the formula of u into the equation above and centering it at 1 for EC4 (the terrain category of the meteorological station) results in:
    u0umeteo=ln|zrefz0+1|ln|zrefz0meteo+1|ln|zbz0meteo+1|ln|zbz0+1|
    u0umeteo=ln|10z0+1|ln|10z0meteo+1|ln|200z0meteo+1|ln|200z0+1|

    The evaluation of the expression above for the different terrain categories yields the following correction factors as shown in the table below:

    CategoryEC6EC5EC4EC3EC2
    DescriptionCoastal AreaFlat TerrainOpen TerrainSuburban AreaUrban Area
    Roughness (z0[m])0.0030.010.050.31
    Correction factor (u0umeteo)1.141.0910.850.707
    Table 12: Correction values for the Eurocode standard based on each terrain category

    Here the correction is directly related to the difference between the terrain category at which the meteorological data had been calculated and the terrain category at or near the building site.

    As mentioned earlier, in order to evaluate the PWC we need to calculate the wind amplification factor which was split into two parts (see equations 11 and 12 above): 

    1. ulocu0
    1. u0umeteo

    Since the meteorological data was calculated on terrain EC4 (open area terrain), it should have a factor of 1.0 (meaning that no correction is needed if the terrain category of the site of interest is also EC4).
    The meteorological data is measured at 10 m height, and based on that one can read the values of the velocity profile multipliers for each terrain category (see table 5 above for the description of each terrain category) from the 1989 AS/NZS standard as :

    • EC5 : 0.71
    • EC4 : 0.60
    • EC3 : 0.44
    • EC1 : 0.35

    Finally, we get the factor for each terrain category by centering the sequence above at 1.0 for EC4:

    CategoryEC5EC4EC3EC1
    DescriptionFlat TerrainOpen TerrainSuburban AreaCity Center
    Roughness (z0[m]) 0.0020.020.22
    Correction factor
    (u0umeteo)
    1.1831.00.7330.583
    Table 13: Correction values for the AS/NZS standard based on each terrain category

    The meteorological data for the NEN8100 wind standard is already corrected to the local roughness directly by the NEN8100 code. Therefore, no direct exposure correction needs to take place. 

    However, the wind speed data for NEN8100 is defined at 60 m height but in the context of the framework followed by SimScale a 10 m height for the reference velocity is utilized. Hence, a correction is needed to scale down to the 10 m reference height.

    As we have,

    u0umeteo=u0ln|10z0+1|umeteoln|60z0+1|=ln|10z0+1|ln|60z0+1|

    CategoryEC6 EC5 EC4 EC3 EC2 EC1
    DescriptionSeaOpenRoughSuburbanUrban or ForestCity Center
    Roughness (z0[m]) 0.00020.030.250.512
    Correction factor(u0umeteo) 0.819100.764610.677070.634830.583310.52177
    Table 14: Correction values for the NEN8100 standard based on each terrain category

    Note

    These categories are not fully fixed by NEN8100, they are rather fitted to cover best the roughness appearing in the related NPR 6097 standard.

    For the CoL standard, the weather data is given directly as Weibull coefficients and they relate to a reference height of 120 m. No exposure correction is needed if the default CoL exposure (z0=0.5 m) is used.

    The relation between the measured wind speed at the inlet reference velocity u120m to the local wind speed uloc is defined as the “wind amplification factor” as stated before.

    γ=ulocu120=ulocu0u0u120

    The first one being the local contribution of the topography close to the building, whereas the second part is the corrective factor for the wind data, which is usually given for a specific reference terrain category (here “London City” terrain with 0.5 m roughness).

    From the CFD analysis we get the first part ulocu0 directly. On the other hand, the correction of the weather data u0u120 ,  requires some additional effort.

    The atmospheric boundary layer profile is valid until a max height of zg = h (gradient height from Deaves and Harris model), so we are assuming for consistency reasons that this height is also the blending height (using always the lower gradient height of the two categories in transition).

    CategoryEC5EC4EC3EC2EC1
    DescriptionFlatOpenSuburbanLondon CityUrban
    Roughness (z0[m]) 0.010.050.30.51
    Correction factor(u0u120) 1.171.141.0510.87
    Table 15: Correction values for the City of London standard based on each terrain category
    CategoryEC5EC4EC3EC2EC1
    DescriptionFlat (I, \(\alpha = 0.1)Open (II, \(\alpha = 0.15)Suburban (III, \(\alpha = 0.2)Urban (IV, \(\alpha = 0.27)City Center (V, \(\alpha = 0.35)
    Blending height (zb[m])5551010
    Gradient height (zG[m]250350450550650
    Correction factor wrt EC4 uumeteo)1.17510.8370.6530.491
    Table 16: Correction values for the AIJ (2004) wind standard based on each terrain category

    This example demonstrates the calculation procedure for the comfort criteria. The necessary inputs for this are: 

    1. Meteorological data 🡪 Wind Rose 
    2. Wind exposure 🡪 Wind standard and terrain category for each direction. 
    3. CFD simulation results 🡪 Wind speeds at pedestrian level (1.5 m ~ 1.75 m) for each of the analyzed wind directions. 

    The steps for calculation are as follows: 

    1. Derive the Weibull distribution.
    2. Compute local contribution (speed up factor) ulocu0 from CFD results.  
    3. Compute the contribution due to wind exposure correction u0umeteo.
    4. Calculate the wind amplification factor γ. 
    5. Compute Comfort Criteria (NEN8100) according to threshold speeds and probability of exceedance.

    Step 1:

    • In this step we only need to specify the wind direction and setup the equation for following analysis.
    • Corresponding to the location we are analyzing we can obtain the wind rose. The wind rose would indicate which wind direction is the most critical. Based on this we can calculate the probability of wind coming from a certain direction P.

    f(x)=P.e(uc)k

    Step 2: 

    • From the CFD simulation we obtain the average velocities at pedestrian level for a specific direction. For demonstration purposes let’s assume that at the point of interest a velocity of 8 m/s had been calculated.
    • Our reference velocity u0 is equal to 10 m/s at a reference height of 10 m.
    • The local speed up factor can be then calculated as: 

    ulocu0=8 m/s10 m/s=0.8

    • Be aware, that this value is unique to that particular point of interest and is dependent on the wind direction used in this analysis.

    Step 3:

    • For this example we assume that the terrain where the wind is coming from corresponds to exposure category 4 in the AS/NZS standard. 
    • Accordingly, from Table 13 in the AS/NZS correction factor section above, we can obtain our correction factor as: 

    u0umeteo=0.58

    • Please note that this value is constant for all points in the simulation, but it depends on the wind direction. The reason being each wind direction might correspond to a different terrain category.

    Step 4:

    • The wind amplification factor can be calculated as: 

    γ=ulocumeteo=0.80.58=0.46

    • One way to interpret this value can be: Assume that a wind speed of 1 m/s is measured at the weather station from a specific wind direction, then we approximate the local average wind speed at the pedestrian level as 0.46 m/s

    Step 5: 

    • Having derived the Weibull distribution from the wind rose data, we can compute the probability of the wind exceeding a threshold of 5 m/s at the point of interest for a wind coming from a specific wind direction (dir):

    f(dir,u>5m/s)=Pdir.e(uc)k

    =Pdir.e(50.46cdir)kdir

    =Pdir.e(10.87cdir)kdir

    • Let’s assume that the probability of wind coming from direction dir is 10% and the probability that the wind coming from that direction actually exceeds 10.87 m/s is 15%. This means we have a 1.5% chance of a wind at location x coming from direction dir and exceeding 5 m/s.
    • If we assume all n wind directions are the same, and all have the same amplification factor, probability distribution, and probability of the wind direction to appear, we will have in total a 15% chance of locally exceeding 5 m/s.

    For the NEN8100 standard this would mean we are in category D (Walking Fast).

    For Lawson we would need to check the exceedance probabilities for 1.8 m/s, 3.6 m/s, 5.3 m/s, and 7.6 m/s – so with these numbers we would definitely not make categories A – C for Lawson and might even fail D as the threshold for that is 2%.

    References

    • Hargreaves, D. M., & Wright, N. G. (2007). On the use of the k–ε model in commercial CFD software to model the neutral atmospheric boundary layer. Journal of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics, 95(5), 355-369.
    • Yang, Y., Gu, M., Chen, S., & Jin, X. (2009). New inflow boundary conditions for modelling the neutral equilibrium atmospheric boundary layer in computational wind engineering. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 97(2), 88-95.
    • Richards, P. J., & Norris, S. E. (2011). Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models revisited. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 99(4), 257-266.
    • Emeis, S. (2018). Wind energy meteorology: atmospheric physics for wind power generation. Springer.
    • EN 1991-1-4: Eurocode 1: Actions on structures – Part 1-4: General actions – Wind actions. . EN 1991-1-1-4. (n.d.).
    • AS/NZS- 1170.2:2011 – https://www.standards.govt.nz/shop/asnzs-1170-22011/
    • NEN8100 standard – https://www.nen.nl/en/nen-8100-2006-nl-107592
    • London City Wind Standard – https://in2.ie/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/city-of-london-wind-microclimate-guidelines.pdf
    • Blocken, B., Stathopoulos, T., & Van Beeck, J. P. A. J. (2016). Pedestrian-level wind conditions around buildings: Review of wind-tunnel and CFD techniques and their accuracy for wind comfort assessment. Building and Environment, 100, 50-81.
    • Cook, N. J. (1997). The Deaves and Harris ABL model applied to heterogeneous terrain. Journal of wind engineering and industrial aerodynamics, 66(3), 197-214.
    • Drew, D. R., Barlow, J. F., & Lane, S. E. (2013). Observations of wind speed profiles over Greater London, UK, using a Doppler lidar. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 121, 98-105.
    • Kent, C. W., Grimmond, C. S. B., Gatey, D., & Barlow, J. F. (2018). Assessing methods to extrapolate the vertical wind-speed profile from surface observations in a city centre during strong winds. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 173, 100-111.

    Last updated: December 25th, 2024