Publication:
Assessment of two wind gust injection methods: Field velocity vs. split velocity method

cris.customurl 13905
cris.virtual.department Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtual.department Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtual.department Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtual.departmentbrowse Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtual.departmentbrowse Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtual.departmentbrowse Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtual.departmentbrowse Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtual.departmentbrowse Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtual.departmentbrowse Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtual.departmentbrowse Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtual.departmentbrowse Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtual.departmentbrowse Strömungsmechanik
cris.virtualsource.department 874af3a3-9071-44b3-9fe6-bda0182c637d
cris.virtualsource.department 6758246f-6106-494c-b0aa-fb96d0de1ce7
cris.virtualsource.department ba61e71a-d073-4609-89b6-c10b460b09a8
dc.contributor.author Boulbrachene, Khaled
dc.contributor.author De Nayer, Guillaume
dc.contributor.author Breuer, Michael
dc.date.issued 2021-10-09
dc.description.abstract The objective of the present paper is to revisit two well-known wind gust injection methods in a consistent manner and to assess their performance based on different application cases. These are the field velocity method (FVM) and the split velocity method (SVM). For this purpose, both methods are consistently derived pointing out the link to the Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian formulation and the geometric conservation law. Furthermore, the differences between FVM and SVM are worked out and the advantages and disadvantages are compared. Based on a well-known test case considering a vertical gust hitting a plate and a newly developed case taking additionally a horizontal gust into account, the methods are evaluated and the deviations resulting from the disregard of the feedback effect in FVM are assessed. The results show that the deviations between the predictions by FVM and SVM are more pronounced for the horizontal gust justifying the introduction of this new test case. The main reason is that the additional source term in SVM responsible for the feedback effect of the surrounding flow on the gust itself nearly vanishes for the vertical gust, whereas it has a significant impact on the flow field and the resulting drag and lift coefficients for the horizontal gust. Furthermore, the correct formulation of the viscous stress tensor relying on the total velocity as done in case of SVM plays an important role, but is found to be negligible for the chosen Reynolds number of the present test cases. The study reveals that SVM is capable of delivering physical results in contradiction to FVM. It paves the way for investigating further complex gust configurations (e.g., inclined gusts) and practical applications towards coupled fluid–structure interaction simulations of engineering structures impacted by wind gusts.
dc.description.version NA
dc.identifier.citation Journal of Wind Engineering & Industrial Aerodynamics 218 (2021) 104790
dc.identifier.doi 10.1016/j.jweia.2021.104790
dc.identifier.uri https://openhsu.ub.hsu-hh.de/handle/10.24405/13905
dc.language.iso en
dc.publisher Elsevier
dc.relation.journal Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics
dc.relation.orgunit Strömungsmechanik
dc.rights.accessRights metadata only access
dc.subject Field velocity method
dc.subject Split velocity method
dc.subject Vertical and horizontal wind gust
dc.subject Feedback effect
dc.subject ECG
dc.subject Fluid-Structure Interaction
dc.subject Computational Fluid Dynamics
dc.title Assessment of two wind gust injection methods: Field velocity vs. split velocity method
dc.type Research article
dcterms.bibliographicCitation.originalpublisherplace Amsterdam
dspace.entity.type Publication
hsu.uniBibliography âś…
oaire.citation.endPage 22
oaire.citation.issue 104790
oaire.citation.startPage 1
oaire.citation.volume 218
Files