Application of computational fluid dynamics in building performance simulation for the outdoor environment: an overview
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides an overview of the application of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in building performance simulation for the outdoor environment, focused on four topics: (1) pedestrian wind environment around buildings, (2) wind-driven rain on building facades, (3) convective heat transfer coefficients at exterior building surfaces and (4) air pollutant dispersion around buildings. For each topic, its background, the need for CFD, an overview of some past CFD studies, a discussion about accuracy and some perspectives for practical application are provided. This article indicates that for all four topics, CFD offers considerable advantages compared with wind tunnel modelling or (semi-)empirical formulae because it can provide detailed whole-flow field data under fully controlled conditions and without similarity constraints. The main limitations are the deficiencies of steady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes modelling, the increased complexity and computational expense of large eddy simulation and the requirement of systematic and time-consuming CFD solution verification and validation studies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it