Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

CFD simulations of wind flow and pollutant dispersion in a street canyon

with traffic flow: Comparison between RANS and LES
Xing Zheng a, b, Jiachuan Yang a, *
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, China
b
Unit Building Physics & Services, Department of the Built Environment, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The dispersion of traffic pollutants in street canyons takes place under the joint influence of the urban
Traffic emissions morphology and traffic-induced air motions. Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) are increasingly used to
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) explore air quality problems in cities, however, numerical setup guidance for studies considering moving traffics
Moving traffic
remains missing. This study presents a systematic evaluation and comparison of steady Reynolds-averaged
Pollutant dispersion
Large-eddy simulation (LES)
Navier-Stokes (RANS) and large-eddy simulation (LES) in reproducing the wind flow and pollutant dispersion
Vehicle-induced turbulence in a street canyon under traffic flow using the quasi-steady method. The RANS simulations are performed with
Urban ventilation five turbulence models, and the standard k-ε (SKE) turbulence model is found to yield the best agreement with
air quality the wind-tunnel data. The LES simulation with the wall-adapting local eddy-viscosity subgrid-scale model out­
performs all RANS models in simulating the mean velocity and mean pollutant concentration, and can accurately
predict the turbulent velocity. The counter-gradient turbulent mass flux captured by LES reveals that the
gradient-diffusion hypothesis used in steady RANS fails in the regions near moving traffics, which strongly affects
the predicted mean concentration. The findings of this study can support future CFD studies on pollutant
dispersion in urban environments.

List of acronyms 1. Introduction

ABL Atmospheric boundary layer
CFD Computational fluid dynamics Street canyons, which play important roles in regulating the near-
CFL Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy field pollutant dispersion, have been subject to intense study in recent
DMU Dynamic mesh updating method
FB Fractional bias
years (Hang et al., 2019; Miao et al., 2020; You & Ding, 2021). As the
LES Large-eddy simulation presence of canyon buildings prevents the wind from penetrating inside,
LKE Non-linear low-Reynolds k-ε model high concentrations of traffic-exhaust gases are usually observed in
MAE Mean absolute error street canyons with low wind velocity, especially under the perpendic­
NMSE Normalized mean square error
ular approaching wind (Kastner-Klein et al., 2004; Oke, 1988). The
Q-S Quasi-steady method
RANS Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes street-level pollutant does not only influence the outdoor air quality but
RNG Renormalization group k-ε model also enters buildings nearby and considerably influences the indoor air
RKE Realizable k–ε model quality (Shi & Zhao, 2016; Shi et al., 2015).
RSM Reynolds stress model Moving traffics add another mechanical process that modifies the
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SGS Subgrid-scale model
flow field in street canyons, and the modification is found more evident
SST Shear stress transport k-ω model in the bottom areas of street canyons (Qin & Kot, 1993) and under low
SKE Standard k-ε model approaching wind speed (Solazzo et al., 2011; Zhao et al., 2021). The
WT Wind tunnel dispersion of traffic pollutants in street canyons takes place under the
WALE Wall-adapting local eddy-viscosity
joint influence of the background wind and vehicle-induced air motions
(Ahmad et al., 2005; Mazzeo & Venegas, 2005). Among the extensive
studies on the air quality inside street canyons, a significant portion of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cejcyang@ust.hk (J. Yang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2021.103307
Received 24 May 2021; Received in revised form 24 August 2021; Accepted 25 August 2021
Available online 28 August 2021
2210-6707/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X. Zheng and J. Yang Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307

them did not consider the effect of moving vehicles (Chatzimichailidis

- Information not available, Sct = Turbulent Schmidt number, RKE = Realizable k–ε model, LKE = Non-linear low-Reynolds k-ε model, SKE = Standard k-ε model, RNG = Renormalization group k-ε model, V = Mean
Modeling method
et al., 2019; Han et al., 2018; Li et al., 2010; Scungio et al., 2018; Zhang
et al., 2011). A past study has shown the lack of accurate traffic-induced
turbulence parameterizations can lead to overestimated pollutant con­
centrations at the street level (Kastner-Klein et al., 2003). Therefore,

DMU

DMU

DMU
DMU

DMU
Q-S
Q-S

Q-S
Q-S

Q-S

Q-S

Q-S

Q-S
investigation on the traffic-induced airflow and turbulence is crucial for
-

understanding the pollutant dispersion characteristics in urban street

canyons.
Previous studies have explored the wind flow in street canyons using
Investigated parameter

controlled wind-tunnel testing (Baker and Hargreaves, 2001; Gromke

and Ruck, 2007; Kastner-Klein et al., 2001), full-scale on-site measure­
ments (DePaul & Sheih, 1986;Solazzo et al., 2007), and computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations. Compared to wind-tunnel testing and
V, C, TP
TP, V
V, TP

V, TP

V, TP
C, TP

TP, C

on-site measurements, CFD simulations have the ability to provide

V, C

V, C
V, C
V, C
C

high-resolution data in the whole computational domain (Blocken et al.,

2011), therefore, have been widely used. Table 1 gives an overview of
CFD research on the wind flow for street canyons considering moving
Yes (Kastner-Klein et al., 2001; Niachou et al., 2008)

traffics. The table shows that the majority of the studies have focused on
generic canyon cases and analyzed the mean velocity, mean concen­
tration, and turbulent parameters. In modeling moving traffics, the dy­
namic mesh updating (DMU) method and quasi-steady (Q-S) method
have been used. The DMU method features dynamic changes of the
Yes (Kovar-Panskus et al., 2002) a

computational mesh with time, and consequently allows the simulation

Yes (Kastner-Klein et al., 2001)

Yes (Kastner-Klein et al., 2001)

of flow fields with temporally varying geometry (Wang et al., 2019). The
Yes (Gallagher et al., 2013) a
Yes (Gromke et al., 2008) a

Yes (Uehara et al., 2000) a

Q-S method (Jicha et al., 2002), also named the Eulerian-Lagrangian

velocity, C = Mean concentration, TP = Turbulence parameters, Q-S = Quasi-steady method, DMU = Dynamic mesh updating method.

method (Katolický & Jícha, 2005), models the effect of moving traffics
on airflow by calculating the drag force between moving traffics and
surrounding ambient air. Compared to the DMU method, the Q-S
method is less computationally demanding and more suitable for CFD
Validation

simulations with the focus on a relatively large scale, i.e. urban scale
(Zhao et al., 2021).
No
No

No
No

No

No

No

Table 1 clearly indicates the majority of the past studies have

employed the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach,
while the use of the large-eddy simulation (LES) approach has been
1.3, 0.7

scarce and limited to Ref. (Zhang et al., 2017). For these RANS studies,
0.7
Sct

standard k-ε (SKE), non-linear low-Reynolds k-ε (LKE), realizable k–ε

-
-
-

-
-
-

-
-
-
-
-
-

turbulence model (RKE), and renormalization group (RNG) k-ε turbu­

lence models have been applied. However, comparative analysis on the
Turbulence model

performance of different turbulence models with experimental data has

not yet been conducted. Only a few studies using RANS have validated
Summary of previous CFD studies of wind flow in street canyons with moving traffics.

their results in street canyons under moving traffics. Moreover, valida­

tion is missing in the LES study. The lack of validation casts uncertainties
RNG

RNG
RNG
RNG
RNG
RKE
LKE
LKE

LKE
SKE
SKE

SKE

over the accuracy and reliability of the reported findings.

-

Pollutants emitted in the urban area are transported by turbulent

the validation only considered street canyons with standing vehicles.

flows around the buildings (Kubilay et al., 2017; Liu & Wong, 2014). The
CFD Approach

distribution of pollutant concentration is regulated by the combination

of molecular, convective, and turbulent diffusion, where the molecular
diffusion is often negligibly small compared with the two others. Pre­
RANS
RANS
RANS
RANS

RANS
RANS
RANS
RANS
RANS
RANS
RANS
RANS
RANS
LES

vious studies have shown that the prediction of the mean pollutant
concentration is considerably dependent on the turbulence modeling
approach (Tominaga & Stathopoulos, 2013, 2012, 2011). In simulations
with the RANS approach, the mean flow is resolved and the effect of
Generic or applied

turbulence (fluctuating components) is modeled using a turbulence

model. The turbulent mass transport is generally assumed with the
gradient-diffusion hypothesis to estimate the turbulent diffusion flux
Applied

Applied

Applied

Applied
Generic
Generic
Generic

Generic
Generic

Generic
Generic
Generic
Generic

Generic

<ui′ c′ >, i.e.:

∂C
(1)
′ ′
< ui c >= − Dt
∂xi
Kondo & Tomizuka, 2009
Zhang, Gu and Yu, 2017

where ui′ and c′ are the velocity and concentration fluctuations, i in­
Pospisil & Jicha, 2017

Pospisil & Jicha, 2019

Pospisil et al., 2020

Solazzo et al., 2008

dicates the coordinate (ux, uy, uz = u, v, w), Dt is the turbulent mass

Wang et al., 2019
Jicha et al., 2000
Jicha et al., 2002

Zhao et al., 2021

Cai et al., 2020

Shi et al., 2020

Jin et al., 2017

diffusivity, <⋅> indicates an averaging operator in time, C = <c> is the

Li et al., 2017

mean (time-averaged) concentration. CFD simulations of mass transfer

Reference

using RANS are further complicated by the fact that the turbulent
Table 1

Schmidt number (Sct) is selected prior to the simulation (Blocken et al.,

a

2
X. Zheng and J. Yang
2008). Sct is defined as the ratio of computed turbulent viscosity vt to Dt:
vt
Sct = (2)
Dt
As recorded in Table 1, different values of Sct have been used in past
RANS studies (Kondo & Tomizuka, 2009; Li et al., 2017). Nonetheless,
the impact of Sct on the reproduction of pollutant dispersion by RANS in
a street canyon under traffic flow has not been evaluated. Compared to
RANS, LES is able to provide more accurate descriptions of unsteady
flow fields (Liu et al., 2019; Murakami et al., 1987; Rodi, 1997; Shirzadi,
Mirzaei, & Tominaga, 2020; Tominaga & Stathopoulos, 2013; Zheng
et al., 2020) and turbulent mass transport process (Gousseau et al., 2011;
Zhou et al., 2021) in the built environment, although it is achieved with
a much larger computational cost (Blocken, 2018). For the flow field in a
street canyon with moving traffics, the performance of RANS and LES
has not been systematically compared before. Given the increasing
number of CFD studies on urban air pollution in recent years, a
comparative study is imperative to provide a guidance for future nu­
merical setups. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the
performance of steady RANS and LES in modeling the wind flow and
pollutant dispersion in street canyons with moving traffics.
In this study, the quasi-steady (Q-S) method (Katolický & Jícha,
2005) is applied to model the effect of moving traffics. A systematic
validation and evaluation for 3D steady RANS and LES simulations of
the wind flow and pollutant concentration are conducted. The 3D steady
RANS simulations are performed with various turbulence models and
turbulent Schmidt numbers.
Fig. 1. Model of the street canyon in the WT, (a) side view and locations of
wirelike sources, (b) top view, and (c) small plates with circulating belt.
3
Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307
2. Methodology
2.1. Wind-tunnel experiment
The CFD simulations in this study are validated using data from a
previous wind-tunnel experiment (Gromke & Ruck, 2009a, 2007). The
experiment was conducted in an atmospheric boundary layer (ABL)
wind tunnel with a cross-section of 1 m × 2 m (height × width) (Gromke
and Ruck, 2009a, 2007). The measured data from the street canyon in a
1:1 aspect ratio (i.e., the building height equals the street width) with
two-way traffics were used.
As illustrated in Fig. 1a and 1b, the street canyon model was
composed of two buildings with width × depth × height = 1.2 × 0.12 ×
0.12 m3 each (at the scale of 1:150). The approaching wind was
perpendicular to the canyon length axis. Fig. 2 shows the profiles of
mean wind speed and turbulent kinetic energy in the WT. Note that the
turbulent kinetic energy was estimated based on the measured mean
wind speed and turbulent intensity. The mean wind speed profile rep­
resents power-law correlations with an exponent of 0.30 (Gromke,
2008). Two circulating belts were employed to model the turbulent air
motions induced by traffic movement along the two lanes: windward
lane and leeward lane (Fig. 1b). Small plates with a distance of 0.1 m
were mounted on two circulating belts, representing a vehicle density of
6.67 cars per 100 m in the full scale (Fig. 1c). The moving speed of
circulating belts is 11.1 m/s (Gromke & Ruck, 2009a).
To model the release of traffic exhausts, the tracer gas, i.e., sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6) was emitted from four wirelike sources mounted at
the ground (red points in Fig. 1a) (Gromke & Ruck, 2009b). 49 con­
centration measurement taps along 7 vertical lines were used on each
near-street building wall (i.e., 98 taps in total). These taps were placed 5
mm in front of the walls (Buccolieri et al., 2009). The relative locations
of the measurement taps to the walls are detailed in Sections 3 and 4.
The non-dimensional mean SF6 concentration was calculated following:
CUref H
C+ = (3)
Q/l
where Uref (= 4.65 m/s) was the mean wind velocity of the approach-
flow at the building roof height H, C was the mean SF6 concentration,
and Q/l was the SF6 emission rate per unit length. The mean and tur­
bulent velocity components were measured in vertical planes across the
canyon using a Laser-doppler velocimetry.
2.2. CFD simulations
2.2.1. Computational domain and grid
All the CFD simulations are conducted at the WT scale. Fig. 3 displays
the computational domains and grids for RANS and LES, respectively.
Following the size of the WT test section, the domain height and width
Fig. 2. Profiles of (a) mean wind speed (U) and (b) turbulent kinetic energy (k),
modified from (Gromke, 2008).
X. Zheng and J. Yang
Fig. 3. (a) Computational domain, (b) perspective view of the near-canyon grid, and (c) cross-section view of the near-canyon grid for RANS simulations. (d-f) Same
as (a-c) but for LES.
are 1 m and 2 m, respectively. The total streamwise domain length is
3.36 m (28H, H is the roof height), which consists of an approach flow
distance of 1.2 m (10H), a model distance of 0.36 m (3H), and a
downwind distance of 1.8 m (15H).
A grid for RANS simulations is generated according to the best
practice guidelines (Franke et al., 2007), resulting in a total cell number
of 6.03 million. In the near building region, cubic cells with Δx = Δy =
Δz = 0.003 m (H/40) are used, which extends to a distance of 1/4H
away from the canyon windward, leeward, and roof surfaces and 1H
away from lateral surfaces (see Figs. 3d and 3e). In the outer region, i.e.,
outside the near-building region, hexahedral cells with stretching ratios
below 1.2 are used. An exception is the Δz of ground-adjacent cells, in
which 0.009 m (3H/40) is applied (Fig. 3c). The assignment of specific
height to wall-adjacent cells is to satisfy the requirements of using wall
functions to model the WT ground roughness, which has been adopted in
previous studies (Blocken et al., 2007; van Druenen et al., 2019).
To reduce the total computational cost, a non-conformal grid is used
for LES (Iousef et al., 2017). It includes three parts, an inner subdomain
Ω1, a middle subdomain Ω2, and an outer subdomain Ω3. Ω1 extends up
to 1/4H away from canyon windward, leeward, and roof surfaces (see
Figs. 3c and 3d) and 5/4H away from the lateral side, which covers the
region with circulating belts. Cubic cells with Δx = Δy = Δz = H/40 are
used in Ω1. Ω2 extends from Ω1 to 1H away from the canyon windward,
leeward, and roof surfaces and 2H away from the lateral surfaces. It
consists of cubic cells with Δx = Δy = Δz = H/20. Ω3 uses hexahedral
cells and the stretching ratios are below 1.05. The refinement ratio of the
grids between adjacent subdomains is 1:2. The total number of cells of
this LES grid is 3.94 million. Grid resolutions for both RANS and LES
simulations are adopted from a grid-sensitivity analysis, in which fine,
basic, and coarse grids are generated based on the same grid topology for
RANS and LES. The details of the grids, computational settings, and
results of the grid-sensitivity analysis can be found in the Supplementary
Materials.
4
Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307
2.2.2. Boundary conditions
The bottom, top, and lateral boundaries and the surfaces of the
canyon buildings use no-slip walls. This is to reproduce the ground,
ceiling, sidewalls of the WT test section, and the canyon model surfaces.
The mean wind velocity and turbulent kinetic energy inlet boundary
conditions take the profiles in the WT (Fig 2a and b). The turbulence
dissipation rate ε (Richards and Hoxey, 1993) follows:
u*3
ε(z) = ABL
(4)
κ(z + z0 )
where u*ABL the ABL friction velocity and z0 the roughness length take
0.59 m⋅s− 1 and 0.004 m, respectively (obtained from logarithmic law
curve fitting of the mean velocity profile in WT (Gromke, 2008)). The
von Karman constant κ is considered to be 0.42. Note that for the RANS
with SST k-ω model, the specific dissipation rate (ω) takes:
ε(z)
ω(z) = (5)
Cμ k(z)
where Cµ is an empirical constant equals 0.09, and k is the turbulent
kinetic energy. For the LES simulation, the vortex method (Sergent,
2002) is used as the inflow fluctuating algorithm at the inlet plane of the
domain, which introduces perturbations to the mean velocity profile by
randomly generating a certain number of 2D vortices.
For the RANS simulations with the k-ω model, an automated wall
treatment is applied at the no-slip wall surfaces. For other RANS models,
the standard wall functions (Cebeci & Bradshaw, 1977; Launder &
Spalding, 1974) are applied. The sand grain roughness height ks and the
roughness constant Cs are determined based on their consistent relation
with the aerodynamic roughness length z0 (Eq. (6)) (Blocken, Statho­
poulos and Carmeliet, 2007):
9.793z0
ks = (6)
Cs
X. Zheng and J. Yang Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307

In ANSYS Fluent, the near-wall grid size should satisfy zp > ks, where
zp is the center point of the ground-adjacent cell (=Δz/2). In the outer
region where zp = 0.0045 m, z0 of the WT profile (= 0.004 m) is used
together with ks = 0.004 m to maintain an constant Cs of 9.793 and to
satisfy zp > ks. For the near building region where zp = 0.0015 m, z0 =
0.0014 m and ks = 0.0014 m are applied. This is to represent the less
rough ground near the buildings in the WT and to keep sufficient grid
resolution near the buildings. For LES simulations, the Werner-Wengle
wall functions (Werner & Wengle, 1993) are employed.
For both LES and RANS simulations, wirelike SF6 (dynamic viscosity
1.42 × 10-4 kg⋅m-1s-1; molecular weight 146.055 kg⋅kmol-1; Diffusivity
2.3 × 10-5 m-2s-1) sources with an area of 1.42 m × 0.003 m are mounted
on the ground, following their locations in the WT (Fig. 1a). Following
previous CFD validation studies (Gromke et al., 2008; Zheng et al.,
2021), the emission rate (Q) of SF6 is 10 g/s.
2.2.3. Modeling the effect of moving traffics
The quasi-steady (Q-S) method (Katolický & Jícha, 2005) is used to
model the effect of moving traffics. This method is based on the
assumption that the force of aerodynamic resistance acting against the
vehicle is transferred to the ambient air as a momentum source. The
aerodynamic resistance force acting upon a vehicle is given by (Kato­
lický & Jícha, 2005; Pospisil & Jicha, 2017; Zhang et al., 2017):
⃒ ⃒( ) second-order upwind scheme is used for the energy and SF6 concen­
1
Fd.i = ρCD Aveh ⃒Uveh,i − ui ⃒ Uveh,i − ui (7)
2
where Fd.i is the aerodynamic resistance force in i direction, Uveh.i is the
moving velocity of vehicles in i direction, ui is the wind velocity in i
direction, ρ is the density of the gas mixture, Aveh is the cross-sectional
area in i direction and CD is the drag coefficient.
In the present study, the vehicles move along the y-direction and
cause the aerodynamic resistance force in this direction, i.e., Fd.y. The
moving velocity of vehicles (Uveh,y) in the windward lane and leeward
lane takes 11.1 m/s and -11.1 m/s, respectively (Gromke and Ruck,
2009a). CD takes 1.2 and the Aveh takes 50 mm2, following the WT setup
(Gromke & Ruck, 2007). Each vehicle, i.e., small plates in the WT,
moving along the traffic path would dynamically occupy a number of
control volumes. The control volumes along the trajectory of moving
vehicles are the directly affected region (illustrated in Fig. S1 in Sup­
plementary Materials), where the additional momentum source Su.y is
calculated:
nveh Fd.y
Su.y = (8)
Acel
where nveh is the number of vehicles per unit length, Acel is the cross-
section of control volumes passed by vehicles. Here, the additional
momentum source term Su.y is added to the y-momentum transport
equation for both RANS and LES. For RANS, the transport equation of
turbulent kinetic energy (k) is solved, therefore, additional turbulent
kinetic energy Sk is added to the k equation into the directly affected
region, following Refs. (Ahmad et al., 2005; Katolický & Jícha, 2005):
shear stress transport (SST) k-ω model (Menter, 1994), (3) standard k-ε
model (SKE) (Launder & Spalding, 1974), (4) renormalization group
(RNG) k-ε model (Yakhot et al., 1992), and (5) realizable k-ε model
(RKE) (Shih et al., 1995). The turbulent Schmidt number (Sct) of 0.7 is
used for all the models. Note that to investigate the influence of Sct,
additional SKE simulations are performed with different Sct, which will
be detailed in subsection 3.2. In all the RANS simulations, the
pressure-velocity coupling uses SIMPLE algorithm. Pressure interpola­
tion is second order. Both the convection terms and the viscous terms of
the governing equations take second-order discretization schemes.
Convergence is assumed to be achieved once all the scaled residuals
reach a minimum value. These minimum values vary for different tur­
bulence models, e.g., the minimum values for the simulation with SKE
are 10− 4 for continuity, 10− 7 for x, y, and z momentum, and 10− 6 for k,
ε, and SF6. Note that simulations with RNG and RSM show minor
oscillatory convergence, which requires averaging from a sufficient
number of iterations (Ramponi & Blocken, 2012).
The LES simulation launches from the results of a preceding steady
RANS simulation with RKE and Sct of 0.7 (Tominaga & Stathopoulos,
2007). The wall-adapting local eddy-viscosity (WALE) subgrid-scale
(SGS) model is applied (Ducros, Nicoud and Poinsot, 1998). This
model was successfully used in validation studies for urban environ­
ments in the past (Ai & Mak, 2015; Bazdidi-Tehrani et al., 2019). A
tration equations. For the momentum equation, the bounded central
differencing scheme is adopted. For pressure interpolation and time
discretization, second-order schemes are applied. The non-iterative
fractional step method, with the time step set to 1.9 × 10− 4 s, was
used for time advancement. The maximum Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy
(CFL) number is 0.97. Ahead of the data sampling, the LES simulation
of an initialization period for 7.3 s is conducted to remove the depen­
dence of results on the initial state (Gousseau et al., 2012; Ong et al.,
2020). After this period, the results are sampled and averaged for
another 22.8 s (the monitoring of statistical convergences of LES can be
found in the Supplementary Materials).
All simulations are conducted on the Chinese national supercom­
puter Tianhe-2 (www.nscc-gz.cn). A node equipped with 24 Intel Xeon
CPU E5-2692 v2 2.2 GHz cores is used for each simulation.
3. RANS results
3.1. Impact of turbulence model
This section gives a detailed comparison of the results obtained by
different RANS turbulence models. To quantify the agreement of CFD
results to the experimental (WT) results, three validation metrics are
used: mean absolute error (MAE), normalized mean square error
(NMSE) and fractional bias (FB) (Schatzmann, Olesen and Franke,
2010). The metrics are calculated using Eqs. (10), (11), and (12):

nveh ρCc (Uveh.i − ui )2 Qveh

Sk = (9) Table 2
Acel
Validation metrics for non-dimensional mean y-velocity component (V/Uref),
non-dimensional mean x-velocity component (U/Uref), and non-dimensional
where the volume of the vehicle Qveh (equals 150 mm3) is based on the
mean z-velocity component (W/Uref): MAE.
WT setup (Gromke & Ruck, 2009a). The constant Cc of 0.41 follows
Ref. (Katolický & Jícha, 2005). Approach Turbulence model Vertical corner plane Vertical center plane
(y/H = -5) (y/H = 0)
V/Uref U/Uref U/Uref W/Uref
2.2.4. Solver settings MAE MAE MAE MAE
The commercial CFD software ANSYS Fluent 19 is employed and
RANS RSM 0.14 0.13 0.41 0.02
additional user-defined functions are used to simulate the effect of SST 0.17 0.31 0.49 0.03
moving traffics. The 3D steady RANS equations are solved with different SKE 0.16 0.08 0.05 0.04
turbulence models to compare their performances. One second-order RKE 0.15 0.11 0.15 0.03
closure model and four two-equation eddy-viscosity models are RNG 0.17 0.23 0.29 0.03
LES WALE 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.02
applied: (1) Reynolds stress model (RSM) (Wilcox & others, 1998), (2)

5
X. Zheng and J. Yang Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307

[ ]
|PExp − PCFD | lane (Gromke & Ruck, 2009a), e.g., higher measured C+ along lines y/H
MAE = (10) = -4.92 and -3.75 than lines y/H = 4.92 and 3.75, respectively. Very
n
different results are given by the five RANS turbulence models. The
[( )2 ]
PExp − PCFD spanwise concentration decays and traffic-induced concentration
NMSE = [ ] (11) skewness are only reproduced by SKE and RKE. For all the three metrics
PExp [PCFD ]
for the leeward wall, SKE yields the best performance, and RNG yields
([ ] ) the worst performance (Table 3). The good performance of SKE is in line
2 PExp − [PCFD ]
FB = [ ] (12) with a previous study on the street canyon without moving vehicles
PExp + [PCFD ]
(Salim et al., 2011b). For the windward wall, RKE and SKE show rela­
where PExp is the experimental (measured in the WT) value, PCFD is the tively good agreements with the experiment, (see Table 3). The other
CFD value, n is the number of data points, and the square brackets turbulence models considerably overestimate the C+ along the seven
indicate averaging over the data points. Table 2 presents the results of lines, and the worst performance is found for SST in terms of all the three
velocity components between CFD with different turbulence models and metrics. Considering the results of the three metrics for both windward
the WT experiment. Note that FB and NMSE could not be used for var­ and leeward walls, SKE has the overall best performance.
iables that have both positive and negative values within the same set.
Therefore, they are not depicted for velocity components. Table 3 pre­ 3.2. Impact of turbulent Schmidt number
sents the results of the mean concentration between CFD with different
turbulence models and the WT experiment. To explore the impact of turbulent Schmidt number (Sct), simula­
Fig. 4a-d show a comparison of the non-dimensional mean y-velocity tions with Sct of 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9 are conducted using SKE, which
component (V/Uref) obtained from five RANS turbulence models against better predicts the C+ than the other investigated RANS models. Fig. 7
the measured data along horizontal lines in the vertical corner plane (y/ illustrates the effect of Sct on C+ along seven vertical lines for the
H = -5). For V/Uref below the roof height (z/H = 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75), all leeward and windward walls. Simulations with large Sct show an over­
the five RANS models show clear deviations from the experimental data, predicted traffic-induced skewness, e.g., C+ along lines y/H = -4.92 and
which significantly underestimate the positive V/Uref that entering the -3.75 are much higher than lines y/H = 4.92 and 3.75, respectively. A
canyon through the lateral boundary (see Fig. 4a-c). Comparison results decrease of Sct would increase the turbulent mass diffusivity Dt (= νt/
of the non-dimensional mean x-velocity component (U/Uref) are shown Sct), therefore resulting in a decrease of near field pollutant concentra­
in Fig. 4e-h. A large discrepancy between the simulated U/Uref from five tion and also the skewness. By changing Sct from 0.9 to 0.3, the MAE
RANS models is observed. Note that in RANS results, U/Uref is forced to reduces from 28.9 to 8.6 for the leeward wall and from 4.6 to 2.8 for the
be zero on the wall. This yields jump declines at the positions about H/ windward wall. This sensitivity analysis indicates that 0.3 is a reason­
40 (Δx) to the walls, especially along the line z/H = 1 (Fig. 4h). SST and able value for Sct in this case.
RNG yield large deviations from the experiment or even predict an
opposite direction to the experimental data (Fig. 4e and 4f). SKE pro­ 4. LES results
vides a relatively good agreement for U/Uref with the experiment
(Table 2). The general flow pattern in the canyon corner below the roof Fig. 8 shows the non-dimensional mean velocity components in the
height is better reproduced by SKE (better prediction of V and U). vertical corner plane from the LES simulation with the WALE SGS
Fig. 5a-c show a comparison of the non-dimensional mean x-velocity model. RANS results with SKE and RKE turbulence models are added as
component (U/Uref) obtained from the five RANS turbulence models the best-performing cases for a direct comparison with LES results. For
with the experimental data along three horizontal lines in the vertical V/Uref, LES results show a good agreement with the experiment.
center plane (y/H = 0). SKE has the smallest MAE of 0.05 from the Compared to the best-performing RANS results, LES yields a smaller
experiment, followed by RKE of 0.15 (see Table 2). Other RANS models deviation, especially in the lower region (z/H = 0.25 and 0.5) close to
substantially underpredict U/Uref or even predict an opposite direction the traffic trajectory. For U/Uref, LES accurately reproduces the value
to the experimental data (negative U/Uref by RSM and SST). Fig. 5d-f along the lines with a smaller deviation compared to the best-
show that all the five RANS turbulence models give fairly good agree­ performing RANS models (Table 2).
ments to the non-dimensional mean z-velocity component (W/Uref) with One important advantage of LES over RANS is its capability in
small MAE (see Table 2). simulating turbulent velocity, i.e., the rmse velocity component (ui.rmse,
Fig. 6 displays the profiles of the non-dimensional mean concentra­ defined in Eq. (13), where t is the time step after sampling, ui is the
tion (C+) from the five RANS turbulence models and the experiment velocity component and Ui is the mean velocity component). Fig. 9
along seven vertical lines for the leeward and windward walls. Due to shows the comparison of non-dimensional y- and x- rmse velocity
ventilation through the lateral boundary of the canyon, the measured C+ components (vrmse/Uref and urmse/Uref) in the vertical corner plane be­
decays along the spanwise direction (y-direction) towards the canyon tween LES results and experimental data. A good agreement of the vrmse/
corners. The measured C+ distribution also shows the traffic-induced Uref is observed along the four lines (Fig. 9a-d). For the urmse/Uref, LES
skewness, which shifted towards the traffic direction of the leeward reproduces the value inside the canyon with a fairly good agreement (z/
H = 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75) and slightly overpredicts the value at the roof
Table 3 height (z/H = 1).
Validation metrics for non-dimensional mean concentration (C+): MAE, RMSE, √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
and FB. 1∑ n
[ ]
ui.rmse = (ui − Ui )2 (13)
Approach Turbulence C+ for the leeward wall C+ for the windward
n t=1
model a wall
MAE RMSE FB MAE RMSE FB Fig. 10 compares the non-dimensional mean velocity components in
the vertical center plane from LES, RANS, and the WT experiment. LES
RANS RSM 28.1 1.55 -0.84 21.7 16.49 -1.51
SST 34.1 1.67 -0.94 39.0 17.16 -1.69
has comparable performance in simulating U/Uref with the best-
SKE 23.1 0.87 -0.75 3.9 0.68 -0.71 performing RANS model. For W/Uref, LES results agree with the exper­
RKE 26.5 1.18 -0.81 3.7 0.77 -0.69 imental data better than the two RANS models. At the roof height (z/H
RNG 34.8 1.94 -0.95 6.0 2.57 -0.92 = 1), LES captures the slope of W/Uref from the leeward side to the
LES WALE 3.0 0.03 -0.13 1.6 0.20 -0.37
windward side, while RANS models significantly underestimate the
a
The metrics of RANS models are obtained from simulations with Sct = 0.7. slope.

6
X. Zheng and J. Yang Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307

Fig. 4. Comparison of V/Uref obtained from five different RANS models against the experiment along four horizontal lines: (a) z/H = 0.25; (b) z/H = 0.5; (c) z/H =
0.75; (d) z/H = 1 in the vertical corner plane (y/H = -5). (e-h) Same as (a-d) but for U/Uref.

Fig. 5. Comparison of U/Uref obtained from five different RANS models with the experiment along three horizontal lines: (a) z/H = 1; (b) z/H = 1.08; (c) z/h = 1.17
in the vertical center plane (y/H = 0). (d-f) Same as (a-c) for W/Uref.

Fig. 11 shows the comparison of non-dimensional rmse x- and z-
velocity components (urmse/Uref and wrmse/Uref) in the vertical center
plane between LES and the WT experiment. It indicates that LES accu­
rately predicts urmse/Uref at the roof height (z/H = 1) and slightly
overpredicts urmse/Uref above the canyon (z/H = 1.08 and 1.17). For
wrmse/Uref, good agreements between LES results and experimental data
are observed along the three lines (Fig. 11d-f).
Fig. 12 shows the non-dimensional mean concentration (C+) from
the LES simulation, the best-performing RANS simulation (SKE with Sct
= 0.3), and the WT experiment. For the leeward wall, LES shows a good
agreement with the experimental data along the studied seven lines. LES
clearly outperforms the best-performing RANS model in the middle re­
gion, e.g., along y/H = -3.75, -1.25, 0, and 1.25 (see Fig. 12b-e). The
MAE of LES along the seven lines is 3, which is clearly smaller than that
of SKE with Sct = 0.3, i.e. 8.6. For the windward wall, a good agreement
between LES and the experiment is also observed. LES better captures
the C+ than RANS in the near-ground region.
5. Comparison between RANS and LES results
Section 3 (RANS) and Section 4 (LES) indicate obvious discrepancies
in the simulated velocity components and pollutant concentration with
experimental measurements. This section provides a more detailed
analysis to better understand the performance of steady RANS and LES
on the flow field and pollutant concentration.
Fig. 13 illustrates the spatial distributions of the non-dimensional

7
X. Zheng and J. Yang Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307

Fig. 6. Comparison of C+ obtained from RANS simulations with different turbulence models along seven vertical lines for the leeward wall: (a) y/H = -4.92; (b) y/H
= -3.75; (c) y/H = -1.25; (d) y/H = 0; (e) y/H = 1.25; (f) y/H = 3.75; (g) y/H = 4.92. (h-n) Same as (a-g) but for the windward wall.

Fig. 7. Same as Fig. 6 but for different turbulent Schmidt numbers (Sct).

mean wind velocity magnitude (U3D/Uref) and 2D velocity vectors in the
horizontal plane (z/H = 0.25). It exhibits two corner eddies and LES
results show a slight asymmetry between them, which is due to the effect
of the moving traffics along the leeward lane. Although the locations of
the cores of the corner eddies by SKE and RKE generally match with
those by LES, SKE and RKE predict weaker corner eddies with lower
mean velocity magnitudes and excessive asymmetry of the flow field
than LES.
Fig. 14 illustrates the spatial distribution of the non-dimensional
mean y-velocity (V/Uref) and 2D velocity vectors in three vertical
planes (y/H = -5, 0, and 5). The mean wind velocity magnitude (U3D/
Uref) is also shown for the vertical center plane (y/H = 0, Figs. 14c, g,
and k). For the vertical center plane, the recirculation core is located at
the height of about 0.6H, which is consistent with a previous study using
LES for a street canyon without moving traffics (Merlier, Jacob and
Sagaut, 2018). Compared to LES, SKE and RKE predict the core of the
canyon vortex closer to the windward wall. SKE and RKE slightly
overpredict the absolute values of mean y-velocity (shown as V/Uref in
Fig. 14b, f, and j), while significantly underestimate the velocity
magnitude inside the canyon (shown as U3D/Uref in Fig. 14g and k). This
weaker predicted strength of circulation by SKE or RKE is in line with
previous CFD studies for street canyons (Moonen et al., 2011; Salim
et al., 2011a, 2011b). For the vertical plane y/H = -5, SKE and RKE
overestimate the negative mean y-velocity that spread from the leeward

8
X. Zheng and J. Yang Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307

Fig. 8. V/Uref obtained from LES, RANS (SKE and RKE), and the experiment along four horizontal lines: (a) z/H = 0.25; (b) z/H = 0.5; (c) z/H = 0.75; (d) z/H = 1 in
the vertical corner plane (y/H = -5). (e-h) Same as (a-d) but for U/Uref.

Fig. 9. vrmse/Uref obtained from LES and the experiment along four horizontal lines: (a) z/H = 0.25; (b) z/H = 0.5; (c) z/H = 0.75; (d) z/H = 1 in the vertical corner
plane (y/H = -5). (e-h) Same as (a-d) but for urmse/Uref.

lane to the leeward wall, compared with LES. While they underpredict
the positive mean y-velocity in a large area (Fig. 14a, e, and i). For the
vertical plane y/H = 5, SKE and RKE underpredict the negative mean
y-velocity in a large area (Fig. 14d, h, and l), due to the weaker corner
eddies reproduced by the two RANS models (see Fig 13).
Fig. 15 compares the C+ distribution among the LES, and the best-
performing steady RANS (SKE with Sct = 0.3) for the leeward and
windward walls. Fig. 15a and d show that the measured C+ reaches the
maximum in the middle of the canyon, and decays towards the canyon
lateral edges. For the leeward wall, LES can accurately reproduce the
traffic-induced concentration skewness, while SKE predicts an exces­
sively skewed C+ distribution towards the right-hand side. LES also
reasonably reproduces the distribution of C+ for the windward wall
(Fig. 15e), while SKE overpredicts the C+ especially in the near-ground
region (Fig. 15f). The possible reason for this overestimated concen­
tration at the lower region of the canyon is the underestimated flow
velocity and eddy intensity by SKE (Figs. 13 and 14).
The essentials of concentration transport can be represented by the

9
X. Zheng and J. Yang Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307

Fig. 10. U/Uref obtained from LES, RANS (SKE and RKE), and the WT experiment along three horizontal lines: (a) z/H = 1; (b) z/H = 1.08; (c) z/H = 1.17 in the
vertical center plane (y/H = 0). (d-f) Same as (a-c) but for W/Uref.

Fig. 11. urmse/Uref obtained from LES and the WT experiment along three horizontal lines: (a) z/H = 1; (b) z/H = 1.08; (c) z/H = 1.17 in the vertical center plane (y/
H = 0). (d-f) Same as (a-c) but for wrmse/Uref.

distribution of concentration fluxes (Tominaga & Stathopoulos, 2011).
As stated before, scalar transport of concentration consists of convective
and turbulent diffusion effects, which are expressed by convective
diffusion fluxes <ui><c> and turbulent diffusion fluxes <ui′ c′ >,
respectively. As shown before, moving traffics strongly affect the ve­
locity components and pollutant removal in the spanwise direction
(y-direction). Fig. 16 shows the ratio of spanwise turbulent diffusion
fluxes to convective diffusion fluxes in three vertical planes by LES. The
paths of dark color in Fig. 16a and 16c indicate the existence of a
coherent structure. As a result, turbulent transport is effective in
removing vehicle pollution out of the canyon at spanwise outlets. For the
y/H = 0 plane (Fig. 16b), the local turbulent diffusion flux in the center
region of the canyon is mostly more than one order of magnitude larger
than the convective diffusion flux. For the majority area in the three
planes, the turbulent diffusion fluxes are larger than 1/10 of the
convective diffusion fluxes (|<v′ c′ >/(<v><c>)|>0.1), which illus­
trates the important role of turbulent transport in determining the
pollution concentration in canyons.
Turbulent diffusion fluxes are calculated directly in LES, but they are
modeled by the gradient diffusion hypothesis in RANS. Therefore, the
non-dimensional spanwise turbulent diffusion fluxes (<v′ c′ >/Q0) are
used to compare the LES and RANS results, where the reference mass
flux magnitude Q0 (g⋅m-2⋅s-1) follows:

10
X. Zheng and J. Yang Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307

Fig. 12. C+ obtained from LES, RANS (SKE with Sct = 0.3) and the WT experiment along seven vertical lines for the leeward wall: (a) y/H = -4.92; (b) y/H = -3.75;
(c) y/H = -1.25; (d) y/H = 0; (e) y/H = 1.25; (f) y/H = 3.75; (g) y/H = 4.92. (h-n) Same as (a-g) but for the windward wall.

Fig. 13. Distribution of U3D/Uref and 2D velocity vector field in the horizontal plane at z/H = 0.25 from top view by (a) LES, (b) RANS with SKE, and (c) RANS
with RKE.

11
X. Zheng and J. Yang Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307

Fig. 14. Distributions of (a) V/Uref and 2D velocity vector field in the vertical plane y/H = -5; (b) V/Uref and 2D velocity vector field in the vertical center plane (y/H
= 0); (c) U3D/Uref and 2D velocity vector field in the vertical center plane (y/H = 0); (d) V/Uref and 2D velocity vector field in vertical plane y/H = 5 by LES. (e-h)
Same as (a-d) but by SKE. (i-l) Same as (a-d) but by RKE.

Fig. 15. Distribution of C+ near the leeward wall (x/H = 0.042) from (a) the experiment (redrawn based on Ref. (Gromke & Ruck, 2009a)), (b) the LES simulation,
and (c) the steady RANS simulation (SKE with Sct = 0.3). (d-f) Same as (a-c) but for the windward wall (x/H = 0.958).

12
X. Zheng and J. Yang Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307

Fig. 16. Ratio of the spanwise turbulent diffusion fluxes to convective diffusion fluxes (|<v′ c′ >/(<v><c>)|) in three vertical planes (a) y/H = -5, (b) y/H = 0 and
(c) y/H = 5 by LES.

Fig. 17. Contours of the <v′ c′ >/Q0 in vertical planes (a) y/H = -5, (b) y/H = 0 and (c) y/H = 5 by LES. (d-f) Same as (a)-(c) but by RANS with SKE with Sct = 0.3.
The dashed lines represent the isolines ∂C/∂y = 0. The sign of ∂C/∂y on each side of the isoline is marked in circles (+: positive; − : negative). The counter-gradient
mechanism of turbulent diffusion flux is characterized by <v′ c′ >/Q0 and ∂C/∂y of the same sign.

Q0 = (Q / l)/H (13)
where the emission rate of tracer gas source Q = 10 g/s, and the length of
pollutant source l = 1.42 m. <v′ c′ > by RANS can be calculated as
follows:
νt ∂C
(14)
′ ′
< v c >= −
Sct ∂y
Fig. 17 compares <v′ c′ >/Q0 by the LES and the best-performing
steady RANS (SKE with Sct = 0.3) in three vertical planes (y/H = -5,
0, and 5). In addition to contours of <v′ c′ >/Q0, the isoline ∂C/∂y = 0 is
displayed, and the areas with positive or negative concentration de­
rivatives are marked with a ‘+’ or ‘− ’ sign, respectively. For the plane y/
H = 0, the LES results indicate that the direction of <v′ c′ >/Q0 close to
the two lanes clearly follows the moving direction of traffics. While SKE
predicts differently for the leeward lane. For the vertical plane y/H = -5,
the LES results indicate that the turbulence drives the pollutant out of
the canyon space through a large area of this boundary, i.e. negative
<v′ c′ >/Q0. In the region close to the two lanes in this plane, LES predicts
the direction of <v′ c′ >/Q0 the same as the moving direction of traffics,
while SKE predicts the opposite. For the vertical plane y/H = 5, LES
results show positive <v′ c′ >/Q0 except for the region in the windward
corner and around the leeward lane that <v′ c′ >/Q0 follows the moving
direction of traffics. Compared to LES, SKE substantially underpredicted
the absolute values of <v′ c′ >/Q0 in the three planes, which is in general
one order of magnitude smaller. This underprediction by steady RANS is
in line with a previous study (van Hooff et al., 2014).
The results from LES show a negative spanwise concentration
gradient (∂C/∂y < 0) around the leeward lane in the vertical plane y/H
= 0, however, there is also a negative turbulent flux (<v′ c′ >/Q0 < 0) in
this region. This observation indicates the so-called counter-gradient
mechanism, i.e., spanwise turbulent diffusion flux is directed from a

13
X. Zheng and J. Yang
low-concentration place to a high-concentration place; The same holds
for regions at the windward side in the vertical plane y/H = 0 and near
the ground in the vertical planes y/H = -5 and 5, as a positive ∂C/∂y
exists in combination with a positive <v′ c′ >/Q0. These observations
suggest that the gradient-diffusion hypothesis is not always valid inside
the street canyon, especially in the region near moving traffics. The large
difference between the obtained turbulent fluxes indicates the impor­
tance of accurate turbulent diffusion modeling for the predicting of the
mean concentration in street canyon considering moving vehicles. It
supports the superiority of LES in predicting the flow field, which is
mainly caused by the reproduction of the unsteady nature of the flow in
street canyons and has a significant influence on the predicted mean
concentration field. It is worth mentioning that the computational de­
mand for the LES simulation is approximately 50 times larger than that
for steady RANS simulations, according to the HPC system employed.
The computational time for most steady RANS simulations was below 7
h, while the LES simulation took around 2 weeks.
6. Limitations and future work
Despite the extensive evaluation analysis, this study has some limi­
tations: 1) The focus is on a single street canyon with two-way traffics
under the perpendicular wind, which is susceptible to high pollutant
concentrations and has been widely investigated in the past. The pres­
ence of crossroads or street canyons in sequence may lead to more
complex airflow (Nikolova et al., 2011). Comparison between steady
RANS and LES approaches can be extended further by considering
complex urban configurations and under oblique wind directions. 2) The
focus is on a sample generic street canyon with a simplified configura­
tion. In real cities, trees are usually present inside street canyons, and
buildings have various structural elements such as balconies. The pres­
ence of such roughness elements can induce a high level of complexity in
the airflow in the street canyon (Montazeri & Blocken, 2013; Buccolieri
et al., 2018; Chatzidimitriou & Yannas, 2017; Ming et al., 2021; Qin
et al., 2020; Zheng, Montazeri, & Blocken, 2021). Future work can
extend this study to street canyons with trees and surface roughness
details. 3) The numerical setups in previous RANS simulations with the
Q-S method were not always consistent with the best configuration
recognized in this study (see Table 1). While the present study only
evaluates the performance of steady RANS with five turbulent models.
Future work can explorer the potential of using unsteady RANS to model
the unsteady motion of the flow, as the computational demand of un­
steady RANS is less than that of LES. 4) The present study adopted the
Q-S method, in which the effect of moving traffics is represented by
additional source terms. The DMU method can explicitly model the
shape of moving vehicles, although it is achieved with a larger compu­
tational cost. The performance of RANS and LES approaches for simu­
lations adopting the DMU method shall be compared in the future.
7. Conclusions
The present paper provides a CFD validation study of wind flow and
pollutant concentration in a street canyon with moving traffics. Grid-
sensitivity studies are conducted, after which the performance of
steady RANS and LES approaches in simulating velocity and concen­
tration is systematically evaluated against a wind-tunnel experiment.
Comparisons between different RANS turbulence models, between
different turbulent Schmidt numbers (Sct), and between RANS and LES
provide useful guidance to support future CFD simulations, especially
when deciding which numerical approach to use. The main conclusions
can be made as follows:
• At the lateral boundaries of the street canyon, all the five RANS
models substantially underestimate the mean spanwise velocity
comparing with the wind-tunnel experiment, and only SKE and RKE
models reasonably capture the mean streamwise velocity. In the
14
Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307
vertical center plane above the canyon, the five RANS models show
fairly good agreement with the experimental data for the mean
vertical velocity. But only SKE and RKE models reasonably reproduce
the mean streamwise velocity.
• The LES simulation can accurately reproduce the mean and rmse
velocity components in the lateral boundary and vertical center
plane of the canyon. Compared to LES, the best-performing RANS
models, i.e. SKE and RKE, predict the weaker strength of the corner
eddies and canyon vortex.
• Among the five investigated RANS models, SKE yields the best per­
formance for predicting mean concentration, which is supported by
the results of the three validation metrics. It confirms that the value
of Sct has a significant influence on the prediction of pollutant
transfer by RANS. Large Sct shows an overpredicted traffic-induced
skewness of the mean concentration distribution. SKE with a
smaller value of Sct such as 0.3 tends to give better-predicated results
of mean pollutant concentration.
• The LES simulation better reproduces the mean concentration dis­
tribution than the best-performing RANS, i.e. SKE with Sct = 0.3,
especially the skewed distribution of the mean concentration
induced by moving traffics. LES results indicate the turbulent
transport plays a significant role in spanwise pollutant removal, and
counter-gradient mechanisms are presented inside the canyon. The
gradient-diffusion hypothesis that RANS adopted is not always valid
in the street canyon, especially in regions close to the moving traffics,
which strongly affects the predicted mean concentration.
Declaration of Competing Interest
None.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express sincere thanks to Dr. Christof
Bernhard Gromke for his advice. This work was supported by the Hong
Kong Research Grants Council funded project 26202319. The numerical
simulation for this article was supported by the National Tianhe-2 center
in Guangzhou, P.R. China.
Supplementary materials
Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.scs.2021.103307.
References
Ahmad, K., Khare, M., & Chaudhry, K. K. (2005). Wind tunnel simulation studies on
dispersion at urban street canyons and intersections—a review. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 93, 697–717. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
JWEIA.2005.04.002
Ai, Z. T., & Mak, C. M. (2015). Large-eddy Simulation of flow and dispersion around an
isolated building: Analysis of influencing factors. Computers & Fluids, 118, 89–100.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2015.06.006
Baker, C. J., & Hargreaves, D. M. (2001). Wind evaluation of a vehicle pollution
dispersion model. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 89,
187–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(00)00061-1
Bazdidi-Tehrani, F., Masoumi-Verki, S., Gholamalipour, P., & Kiamansouri, M. (2019).
Large eddy simulation of pollutant dispersion in a naturally cross-ventilated model
building: Comparison between sub-grid scale models. Building Simulation, 12,
921–941. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12273-019-0525-5
Blocken, B. (2018). LES over RANS in building simulation for outdoor and indoor
applications: A foregone conclusion? Building Simulation. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12273-018-0459-3
Blocken, B., Stathopoulos, T., & Carmeliet, J. (2007). CFD simulation of the atmospheric
boundary layer: wall function problems. Atmospheric Environment, 41, 238–252.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.08.019
Blocken, B., Stathopoulos, T., Carmeliet, J., & Hensen, J. L. M. (2011). Application of
computational fluid dynamics in building performance simulation for the outdoor
environment: an overview. Journal of Building Performance Simulation, 4, 157–184.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19401493.2010.513740
Blocken, B., Stathopoulos, T., Saathoff, P., & Wang, X. (2008). Numerical evaluation of
pollutant dispersion in the built environment: Comparisons between models and
X. Zheng and J. Yang
experiments. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 96,
1817–1831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2008.02.049
Buccolieri, R., Gromke, C., Di Sabatino, S., & Ruck, B. (2009). Aerodynamic effects of
trees on pollutant concentration in street canyons. The Science of the Total
Environment, 407, 5247–5256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.06.016
Buccolieri, R., Jeanjean, A. P. R., Gatto, E., & Leigh, R. J. (2018). The impact of trees on
street ventilation, NOx and PM2.5 concentrations across heights in Marylebone Rd
street canyon, central London. Sustain. Cities Society, 41, 227–241. https://doi.org/
10.1016/J.SCS.2018.05.030
Cai, C., Ming, T., Fang, W., de Richter, R., & Peng, C. (2020). The effect of turbulence
induced by different kinds of moving vehicles in street canyons. Sustainable Cities
Society, 54, Article 102015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102015
Cebeci, T., & Bradshaw, P. (1977). Momentum transfer in boundary layers. Washington, D.
C.New York: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.
Chatzidimitriou, A., & Yannas, S. (2017). Street canyon design and improvement
potential for urban open spaces; the influence of canyon aspect ratio and orientation
on microclimate and outdoor comfort. Sustainable Cities Society, 33, 85–101. https://
doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2017.05.019
Chatzimichailidis, A. E., Argyropoulos, C. D., Assael, M. J., & Kakosimos, K. E. (2019).
Qualitative and quantitative investigation of multiple large eddy simulation aspects
for pollutant dispersion in street canyons using OpenFOAM. Atmosphere (Basel), 10.
https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10010017
DePaul, F. T., & Sheih, C. M. (1986). Measurements of wind velocities in a street canyon.
Atmospheric Environment, 20, 455–459. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-6981(86)
90085-5
Ducros, F., Nicoud, F., & Poinsot, T. (1998). Wall-adapting local eddy-viscosity models
for simulations in complex geometries. In Oxford University Computing Laboratory.
16th Conference on Numerical Methods in Fluid Dynamics (pp. 293–299). France:
Arcachon.
Franke, J., Hellsten, A., Schlünzen, H., & Carissimo, B. (2007). Best Practice Guideline for
the CFD Simulation of Flows in the Urban Environment. Hamburg, Germany:
Meteorological Inst., COST.
Gallagher, J., Gill, L. W., & McNabola, A. (2013). The passive control of air pollution
exposure in Dublin, Ireland: A combined measurement and modelling case study.
Science Total Environment, 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2013.03.079, 458-460.
Gousseau, P., Blocken, B., Stathopoulos, T., & van Heijst, G. J. F (2011). CFD simulation
of near-field pollutant dispersion on a high-resolution grid: A case study by LES and
RANS for a building group in downtown Montreal. Atmospheric Environment, 45,
428–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2010.09.065
Gousseau, P., Blocken, B., & van Heijst, G. J. F (2012). Large-Eddy Simulation of
pollutant dispersion around a cubical building: Analysis of the turbulent mass
transport mechanism by unsteady concentration and velocity statistics.
Environmental Pollution, 167, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2012.03.021
Gromke, C. (2008). Database, 2008. Concentration data of street canyon. Internet
database. [WWW Document]. URL http://www.codasc.de.
Gromke, C., Buccolieri, R., Di Sabatino, S., & Ruck, B. (2008). Dispersion study in a street
canyon with tree planting by means of wind tunnel and numerical investigations –
Evaluation of CFD data with experimental data. Atmospheric Environment, 42,
8640–8650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.08.019
Gromke, C., & Ruck, B. (2009a). Effects of trees on the dilution of vehicle exhaust
emissions in urban street canyons. International Journal of Environment Waste
Management, 4, 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEWM.2009.026894
Gromke, C., & Ruck, B. (2009b). On the impact of trees on dispersion processes of traffic
emissions in street canyons. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 131, 19–34. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10546-008-9301-2
Gromke, C., & Ruck, B. (2007). Influence of trees on the dispersion of pollutants in an
urban street canyon—Experimental investigation of the flow and concentration field.
Atmospheric Environment, 41, 3287–3302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2006.12.043
Han, B.-S., Baik, J.-J., Kwak, K.-H., & Park, S.-B. (2018). Large-eddy simulation of
reactive pollutant exchange at the top of a street canyon. Atmospheric Environment,
187, 381–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.06.012
Hang, J., Buccolieri, R., Yang, X., Yang, H., Quarta, F., & Wang, B. (2019). Impact of
indoor-outdoor temperature differences on dispersion of gaseous pollutant and
particles in idealized street canyons with and without viaduct settings. Building
Simulation, 12, 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12273-018-0476-2
Iousef, S., Montazeri, H., Blocken, B., & van Wesemael, P. J. V. (2017). On the use of non-
conformal grids for economic LES of wind flow and convective heat transfer for a
wall-mounted cube. Building and Environment, 119, 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.buildenv.2017.04.004
Jicha, M., Katolicky, J., & Pospisil, J. (2002). Dispersion of pollutants in a street canyon
and street intersection under traffic-induced flow and turbulence using a iow Re k-ε
model. International Journal of Environment and Pollution, 18, 160–170. https://doi.
org/10.1504/IJEP.2002.012126
Jicha, M., Pospisil, J., & Katolicky, J. (2000). Dispersion of pollutants in street canyon
under traffic induced flow and turbulence. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment,
65, 343–351. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006452422885
Jin, X., Yang, L., Du, X., & Yang, Y. (2017). Transport characteristics of PM2.5 inside
urban street canyons: The effects of trees and vehicles. Building Simulation, 10,
337–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12273-016-0324-1
Kastner-Klein, P., Berkowicz, R., & Britter, R. (2004). The influence of street architecture
on flow and dispersion in street canyons. Meteorology and Atmospheric Physics, 87,
121–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-003-0065-4
Kastner-Klein, P., Fedorovich, E., Ketzel, M., Berkowicz, R., & Britter, R. (2003). The
modelling of turbulence from traffic in urban dispersion models - Part II: Evaluation
15
Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307
against laboratory and full-scale concentration measurements in street canyons.
Environmental Fluid Mechanics, 3, 145–172. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1022049224166
Kastner-Klein, P., Fedorovich, E., & Rotach, M. W. (2001). A wind tunnel study of
organised and turbulent air motions in urban street canyons. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 89, 849–861. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0167-6105(01)00074-5
Katolický, J., & Jícha, M. (2005). Eulerian-Lagrangian model for traffic dynamics and its
impact on operational ventilation of road tunnels. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 93, 61–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2004.09.002
Kondo, H., & Tomizuka, T. (2009). A numerical experiment of roadside diffusion under
traffic-produced flow and turbulence. Atmospheric Environment, 43, 4137–4147.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.05.047
Kovar-Panskus, A., Louka, P., Sini, J.-F., Savory, E., Czech, M., Abdelqari, A.,
Mestayer, P. G., & Toy, N. (2002). Influence of geometry on the mean flow within
urban street canyons–a comparison of wind tunnel experiments and numerical
simulations. Water, Air Soil Pollution Focus, 2, 365–380.
Kubilay, A., Neophytou, M. K. A., Matsentides, S., Loizou, M., & Carmeliet, J. (2017). The
pollutant removal capacity of urban street canyons as quantified by the pollutant
exchange velocity. Urban Climate, 21, 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
uclim.2017.06.003
Launder, B. E., & Spalding, D. B. (1974). The numerical computation of turbulent flows.
Computer Methods Applied Mechnical Engineering, 3, 269–289. https://doi.org/
10.1016/0045-7825(74)90029-2
Li, X.-X., Britter, R. E., Yong Koh, T., Norford, L. K., Liu,, C.-H., Entekhabi, D., & C
Leung, D. Y. (2010). Large-eddy simulation of flow and pollutant transport in urban
street canyons with ground heating. Boundary-Layer Meteorology, 137, 187–204.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10546-010-9534-8
Li, Z., Xu, J., Ming, T., Peng, C., Huang, J., & Gong, T. (2017). Numerical simulation on
the effect of vehicle movement on pollutant dispersion in urban street. Procedia
Engineering, 205, 2303–2310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.10.104
Liu, C.-H., & Wong, C. C. C. (2014). On the pollutant removal, dispersion, and
entrainment over two-dimensional idealized street canyons. Atmospheric Research,
135-136, 128–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.08.006
Liu, J., Niu, J., Du, Y., Mak, C. M., & Zhang, Y. (2019). LES for pedestrian level wind
around an idealized building array—Assessment of sensitivity to influencing
parameters. Sustainable Cities Society, 44, 406–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scs.2018.10.034
Mazzeo, N. A., & Venegas, L. E. (2005). Evaluation of turbulence from traffic using
experimental data obtained in a street canyon. International Journal of Environment
and Pollution, 25, 164–176. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijep.2005.007664
Menter, F. R. (1994). Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications. AIAA Journal, 32, 1598–1605. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.12149
Merlier, L., Jacob, J., & Sagaut, P. (2018). Lattice-boltzmann large-eddy simulation of
pollutant dispersion in street canyons including tree planting effects. Atmospheric
Environment, 195, 89–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2018.09.040
Miao, C., Yu, S., Hu, Y., Bu, R., Qi, L., He, X., & Chen, W. (2020). How the morphology of
urban street canyons affects suspended particulate matter concentration at the
pedestrian level: An in-situ investigation. Sustainable Cities Society, 55, Article
102042. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2020.102042
Ming, T., Han, H., Zhao, Z., de Richter, R., Wu, Y., Li, W., & Wong, N. H. (2021). Field
synergy analysis of pollutant dispersion in street canyons and its optimization by
adding wind catchers. Building Simulation, 142(14), 391–405. https://doi.org/
10.1007/S12273-020-0720-4, 2020.
Montazeri, H., & Blocken, B. (2013). CFD simulation of wind-induced pressure
coefficients on buildings with and without balconies: Validation and sensitivity
analysis. Building and Environment, 60, 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2012.11.012
Moonen, P., Dorer, V., & Carmeliet, J. (2011). Evaluation of the ventilation potential of
courtyards and urban street canyons using RANS and LES. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamic, 99, 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jweia.2010.12.012
Murakami, S., Mochida, A., & Hibi, K. (1987). Three-dimensional numerical simulation
of air flow around a cubic model by means of large eddy simulation. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 25, 291–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/
0167-6105(87)90023-7
Niachou, K., Livada, I., & Santamouris, M. (2008). Experimental study of temperature
and airflow distribution inside an urban street canyon during hot summer weather
conditions-Part I: Air and surface temperatures. Building and Environment, 43,
1383–1392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2007.01.039
Nikolova, I., Janssen, S., Vos, P., Vrancken, K., Mishra, V., & Berghmans, P. (2011).
Dispersion modelling of traffic induced ultrafine particles in a street canyon in
Antwerp, Belgium and comparison with observations. The Science of the Total
Environment, 412-413, 336–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.09.081
Oke, T. R. (1988). Street design and urban canopy layer climate. Energy Building, 11,
103–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-7788(88)90026-6
Ong, R. H., Patruno, L., Yeo, D., He, Y., & Kwok, K. C. S. (2020). Numerical simulation of
wind-induced mean and peak pressures around a low-rise structure. Engineering
Structures, 214, Article 110583. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
ENGSTRUCT.2020.110583
Pospisil, J., Huzlik, J., Licbinsky, R., & Spilacek, M. (2020). Dispersion Characteristics of
PM10 particles identified by numerical simulation in the vicinity of roads passing
through various types of urban areas. Atmosphere 2020, 11. https://doi.org/
10.3390/ATMOS11050454. Page 454 11, 454.
Pospisil, J., & Jicha, M. (2019). Numerical modelling of transient dispersion of air
pollution in perpendicular urban street intersection with detail inclusion of traffic
X. Zheng and J. Yang
dynamics. International Journal of Environment and Pollution (pp. 71–83).
Inderscience Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEP.2019.101834
Pospisil, J., & Jicha, M. (2017). Influence of vehicle-induced turbulence on pollutant
dispersion in street canyon and adjacent urban area. International Journal of
Environment and Pollution (pp. 89–101). Inderscience Publishers. https://doi.org/
10.1504/IJEP.2017.089400
Qin, H., Hong, B., Huang, B., Cui, X., & Zhang, T. (2020). How dynamic growth of avenue
trees affects particulate matter dispersion: CFD simulations in street canyons.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 61, Article 102331. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCS.2020.102331
Qin, Y., & Kot, S. C. (1993). Dispersion of vehicular emission in street canyons,
Guangzhou City, South China (P.R.C.). Atmospheric Environment Part B. Urban Atmos,
27, 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0957-1272(93)90023-Y
Ramponi, R., & Blocken, B. (2012). CFD simulation of cross-ventilation for a generic
isolated building: Impact of computational parameters. Building and Environment, 53,
34–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2012.01.004
Richards, P. J., & Hoxey, R. P. (1993). Appropriate boundary conditions for
computational wind engineering models using the k-ε turbulence model. Computer
Wind Engineering, 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-81688-7.50018-8,
1.
Rodi, W. (1997). Comparison of LES and RANS calculations of the flow around bluff
bodies. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 69-71, 55–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-6105(97)00147-5
Salim, S. M., Buccolieri, R., Chan, A., & Sabatino, S. Di (2011a). Numerical simulation of
atmospheric pollutant dispersion in an urban street canyon: Comparison between
RANS and LES. Journal Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamic, 99, 103–113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2010.12.002
Salim, S. M., Cheah, S. C., & Chan, A. (2011b). Numerical simulation of dispersion in
urban street canyons with avenue-like tree plantings: Comparison between RANS
and LES. Building and Environment, 46, 1735–1746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2011.01.032032
Schatzmann, M., Olesen, H., & Franke, J. (2010). COST 732 model evaluation case
studies: approach and results. Cost Action.
Scungio, M., Stabile, L., Rizza, V., Pacitto, A., Russi, A., & Buonanno, G. (2018). Lung
cancer risk assessment due to traffic-generated particles exposure in urban street
canyons: A numerical modelling approach. The Science of the Total Environment, 631-
632, 1109–1116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.03.093
Sergent, E. (2002). Vers une méthodologie de couplage entre la simulation des grandes échelles
et les modèles statistiques. . Ecole centrale de Lyon. Ph.D. thesis.
Shi, S., Chen, C., & Zhao, B. (2015). Air infiltration rate distributions of residences in
Beijing. Building and Environment, 92, 528–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
BUILDENV.2015.05.027
Shi, S., & Zhao, B. (2016). Occupants’ interactions with windows in 8 residential
apartments in Beijing and Nanjing. China Building Simulation, 9, 221–231.
Shi, T., Ming, T., Wu, Y., Peng, C., Fang, Y., & de_Richter, R. (2020). The effect of exhaust
emissions from a group of moving vehicles on pollutant dispersion in the street
canyons. Building and Environment, 181, Article 107120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2020.107120
Shih, T., Liou, W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z., & Zhu, J. (1995). A new k-ϵ eddy viscosity model
for high reynolds number turbulent flows. Computers & Fluids, 24, 227–238. https://
doi.org/10.1016/0045-7930(94)00032-T
Shirzadi, M., Mirzaei, P. A., & Tominaga, Y. (2020). CFD analysis of cross-ventilation
flow in a group of generic buildings: Comparison between steady RANS, LES and
wind tunnel experiments. Building Simulation, 13, 1353–1372. https://doi.org/
10.1007/S12273-020-0657-7, 2020 136 13.
Solazzo, E., Cai, X., & Vardoulakis, S. (2008). Modelling wind flow and vehicle-induced
turbulence in urban streets. Atmospheric Environment, 42, 4918–4931. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.02.032
Solazzo, E., Vardoulakis, S., & Cai, X. (2011). A novel methodology for interpreting air
quality measurements from urban streets using CFD modelling. Atmospheric
Environment, 45, 5230–5239. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ATMOSENV.2011.05.022
Solazzo, E., Vardoulakis, S., & Cai, X. (2007). Evaluation of traffic-producing turbulence
schemes within operational street pollution models using roadside measurements.
Atmospheric Environment, 41, 5357–5370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2007.02.017
16
Sustainable Cities and Society 75 (2021) 103307
Tominaga, Y., & Stathopoulos, T. (2013). CFD simulation of near-field pollutant
dispersion in the urban environment: A review of current modeling techniques.
Atmospheric Environment, 79, 716–730. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
atmosenv.2013.07.028
Tominaga, Y., & Stathopoulos, T. (2012). CFD modeling of pollution dispersion in
building array: Evaluation of turbulent scalar flux modeling in RANS model using
LES results. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 484–491.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2012.02.004, 104-106.
Tominaga, Y., & Stathopoulos, T. (2011). CFD modeling of pollution dispersion in a street
canyon: Comparison between LES and RANS. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 99, 340–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2010.12.005
Tominaga, Y., & Stathopoulos, T. (2007). Turbulent Schmidt numbers for CFD analysis
with various types of flowfield. Atmospheric Environment, 41, 8091–8099. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.06.054
Uehara, K., Murakami, S., Oikawa, S., & Wakamatsu, S. (2000). Wind tunnel experiments
on how thermal stratification affects flow in and above urban street canyons.
Atmospheric Environment, 34, 1553–1562. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(99)
00410-0
van Druenen, T., van Hooff, T., Montazeri, H., & Blocken, B. (2019). CFD evaluation of
building geometry modifications to reduce pedestrian-level wind speed. Building and
Environment, 163, Article 106293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.106293
van Hooff, T., Blocken, B., Gousseau, P., & van Heijst, G. J. F (2014). Counter-gradient
diffusion in a slot-ventilated enclosure assessed by LES and RANS. Computers &
Fluids, 96, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2014.02.020
Wang, Q., Fang, W., de Richter, R., Peng, C., & Ming, T. (2019). Effect of moving vehicles
on pollutant dispersion in street canyon by using dynamic mesh updating method.
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 187, 15–25. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jweia.2019.01.014
Werner, H., & Wengle, H. (1993). Large-eddy simulation of turbulent flow over and
around a cube in a plate channel. Turbulent Shear Flows 8 (pp. 155–168). Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-77674-
8_12
Wilcox, D. C. (1998). Turbulence modeling for CFD. La Canada, CA: DCW industries.
Yakhot, V., Orszag, S. A., Thangam, S., Gatski, T. B., & Speziale, C. G. (1992).
Development of turbulence models for shear flows by a double expansion technique.
Physics of Fluids A: Fluid Dynamics, 4, 1510–1520. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.858424
You, W., & Ding, W. (2021). Effects of urban square entry layouts on spatial ventilation
under different surrounding building conditions. Building Simulation, (14), 377–390.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S12273-020-0656-8, 2020 142.
Zhang, Y., Gu, Z., & Yu, C. W. (2017). Large eddy simulation of vehicle induced
turbulence in an urban street canyon with a new dynamically vehicle-tracking
scheme. Aerosol Air Quality Research, 17, 865–874. https://doi.org/10.4209/
aaqr.2016.05.0204
Zhang, Y.-W., Gu, Z.-L., Cheng, Y., & Lee, S.-C. (2011). Effect of real-time boundary wind
conditions on the air flow and pollutant dispersion in an urban street canyon—Large
eddy simulations. Atmospheric Environment, 45, 3352–3359. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.atmosenv.2011.03.055
Zhao, Y., Jiang, C., & Song, X. (2021). Numerical evaluation of turbulence induced by
wind and traffic, and its impact on pollutant dispersion in street canyons. Sustainable
Cities Society, 103142. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2021.103142
Zheng, X., Montazeri, H., & Blocken, B. (2020). CFD simulations of wind flow and mean
surface pressure for buildings with balconies: Comparison of RANS and LES. Building
and Environment, 173, Article 106747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2020.106747
Zheng, X., Montazeri, M., & Blocken, B. (2021). Large-eddy simulation of pollutant
dispersion in generic urban street canyons: guidelines for domain size. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 211, Article 104527.
Zheng, X., Montazeri, H., & Blocken, B. (2021). CFD analysis of the impact of geometrical
characteristics of building balconies on near-façade wind flow and surface pressure.
Building and Environment, 200, Article 107904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2021.107904
Zhou, X., Ying, A., Cong, B., Kikumoto, H., Ooka, R., Kang, L., & Hu, H. (2021). Large
eddy simulation of the effect of unstable thermal stratification on airflow and
pollutant dispersion around a rectangular building. Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 211, Article 104526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jweia.2021.104526