AIJ validation case E (setup and results)

I have been looking at the Simscale results presented for AIJ case E
AIJ: Case E | Architecture & Construction | SimScale

Firstly I would like to say thankyou for presenting your results in detail - its very useful.

Looking at Fig6 and Fig10 in particular - I wonder if these are the right way around? just instinctively looking at the regions of high velocity, it looks like Fig6 should be westerly and Fig 10 should be easterly? I think the terminology is confusing for winds because (to my mind) westerly winds means blowing from the west (to the east), and not in a westerly direction.

The other point that I was wondering about is how you arrived at the turbulence profile for this case in Ref Validation for Pedestrian Wind Comfort: AIJ Case E | SimScale

…because in the AIJ case E data, they provide a turbulence profile, which is between roughly k=0.12 and k=0.54 (the way I calculated it based on their k/U^2 tabulated values). The values they provided seems very high to me, whereas your values between 0.04% and 0.2% seems quite low. So I would be interested if you have used the AIJ turbulence data or used your own assumptions for the turbulent profile. Thanks very much, Giles.

Hi @garcfd , I agree with you, the results for the linked project are a bit confusing. The results are correct, however, the model orientation is not. So although it looks wrong, it’s right, but upside down. That said, the project is quite old, the one linked in the documentation is the latest using the LBM solver.

As for the intensity plot, I think the confusion here is also valid (sorry, I will improve this when I next run it) Turbulent intensity, in this case, would be dimensionless, where 0.2 is 20%, so either the label needs changing or the data scale.

Finally, the intensity here is calculated by converting TKE provided. Going forward, I might make my own assumptions based on our standard ABL profile used in PWC, so I suppose to watch this space.

Hope that helps!


Hi Darren, thanks for the quick reply - that makes a bit more sense now.
Kind Regards Giles.