Descrizione
Nell'attuale esempio di validazione, esaminiamo il valore del coefficiente di pressione del vento (Cp ) sia per la progettazione strutturale generale (Cp,10 ) che per la progettazione di rivestimenti o facciate (Cp,1 ) sulla base della EN 1991-1-4 copertura piana [1] e database della galleria del vento giapponese. The recommended setting for a three-dimensional flat roof with sharp eaves will be described in the next part.
The key factor of CFD simulation is finding the most compatible configurations with standards regarding input data, such as turbulence models, wind velocity profiles, turbulence intensities, boundary layer conditions, order of discretization, and other factors. The important point is that the standards do not cover the required information for numerical simulation, such as CFD simulation. In the current VE, we presented the most compatible RWIND settings concerning the example of the EN 1991-1-4 sharp edge roof and experimental data from Japanese Wind Tunnel Data Base.
Analytical Solution and Results
The enclosed sharp eaves model is assumed according to Figure 1, which has four zones (F, G, H, I). The external pressure coefficients (Cp,10) and (Cp,1) for flat roofs are presented in Figure 7.6 and Table 7.2 in EN 1991-1-4. The important assumptions and input data for RWIND that is used for numerical CFD simulation are also shown in Table 1.
| Table 1: Dimensional Ratio and Input Data | |||
| Velocità di riferimento del vento | V | 22 | m/s |
| Categoria del terreno | 2 | - | - |
| Crosswind Dimension | b | 16 | m |
| Alongwind Dimension | d | 16 | m |
| Mean Roof Height | h | 4 | m |
| Roof Angle | θroof | 0 | Degree |
| Air Density - RWIND | ρ | 1.25 | kg/m3 |
| Direzione del vento | θwind | 0,15, 30, 45 | Degree |
| Turbulence Model - RWIND | Steady RANS k-ω SST | - | - |
| Kinematic Viscosity (Equation 7.15, EN 1991-1-4) - RWIND | ν | 1.5*10-5 | m2/s |
| Scheme Order - RWIND | Secondo | - | - |
| Valore obiettivo residuo - RWIND | 10-4 | - | - |
| Residual Type - RWIND | compressione | - | - |
| Numero minimo di iterazioni - RWIND | 800 | - | - |
| Boundary Layer - RWIND | NL | 10 | - |
| Type of Wall Function - RWIND | Enhanced / Blended | - | - |
| Turbulence Intensity (Best Fit) - RWIND | i | Terrain 2 | - |
The average wind pressure coefficient (Cp,10) and (Cp,1) is calculated for all zones considering variant wind velocity and turbulence intensities based on terrain 2 category. Four wind directions (θ = 0, 15, 30, 45 degrees) are considered to calculate the corresponding values of (Cp,10) and (Cp,1) related to the Eurocode. The Cp,10 contour is illustrated in Figure 2, which is compared between experimental data from the Japanisch wind tunnel test and RWIND 2. The Cp,10, and Cp,1 values of experimental data, Eurocode, and RWIND are compared in Figure 3 and Figure 4 for a sharp edge. The experimental values are obtained manually by observation of the Cp contour graph in the Japanese database. Also, the wind velocity and turbulence profile in RWIND is set with the EU terrain two formula, which is variant in height. In Figure 5, it can be seen positive Cp,1 on the roof in transient simulation, which is not possible to see in steady simulation. Actually, the effect of wind load fluctuating and vortex shedding can be a better catch in the transient simulation. The critical case through wind direction for constants and variable (based on terrain 2) turbulence intensity are considered for performing wind simulations. The results show a good agreement for most areas when the turbulence profile is close to the Terrain 2 category values. There is a region called (I) in which positive and negative wind pressure coefficients should be considered.
Conclusione
In the current VE example, we investigated the validation of the average Cp value for both Cp,10 and Cp,1 regarding the roof with a sharp edge, which was presented based on EN 1991-1-4 and Japanese wind tunnel data compared to RWIND 2. The results show that the recommended RWIND configuration has good agreement with most zones in Eurocode. The higher turbulence intensity close to the variant turbulence profile of Terrain 2 shows more accurate results than the low turbulence profile. It is important to consider the critical wind direction scenario and transient simulation to obtain an extreme value of EN 1991-1-4. The deviation values mostly came from safety factors and the statistical approach, which presents a conservative approach that is used in the standard.
Also, the flat roof model with recommended settings is available to download here: