• Energy Research

Abstract A large number of urban surface energy balance models now exist with different assumptions about the important features of the surface and exchange processes that need to be incorporated. To date, no comparison of these models has been conducted; in contrast, models for natural surfaces have been compared extensively as part of the Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes. Here, the methods and first results from an extensive international comparison of 33 models are presented. The aim of the comparison overall is to understand the complexity required to model energy and water exchanges in urban areas. The degree of complexity included in the models is outlined and impacts on model performance are discussed. During the comparison there have been significant developments in the models with resulting improvements in performance (root-mean-square error falling by up to two-thirds). Evaluation is based on a dataset containing net all-wave radiation, sensible heat, and latent heat flux observations for an industrial area in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The aim of the comparison is twofold: to identify those modeling approaches that minimize the errors in the simulated fluxes of the urban energy balance and to determine the degree of model complexity required for accurate simulations. There is evidence that some classes of models perform better for individual fluxes but no model performs best or worst for all fluxes. In general, the simpler models perform as well as the more complex models based on all statistical measures. Generally the schemes have best overall capability to model net all-wave radiation and least capability to model latent heat flux.

Abstract A large number of urban surface energy balance models now exist with different assumptions about the important features of the surface and exchange processes that need to be incorporated. To date, no comparison of these models has been conducted; in contrast, models for natural surfaces have been compared extensively as part of the Project for Intercomparison of Land-surface Parameterization Schemes. Here, the methods and first results from an extensive international comparison of 33 models are presented. The aim of the comparison overall is to understand the complexity required to model energy and water exchanges in urban areas. The degree of complexity included in the models is outlined and impacts on model performance are discussed. During the comparison there have been significant developments in the models with resulting improvements in performance (root-mean-square error falling by up to two-thirds). Evaluation is based on a dataset containing net all-wave radiation, sensible heat, and latent heat flux observations for an industrial area in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The aim of the comparison is twofold: to identify those modeling approaches that minimize the errors in the simulated fluxes of the urban energy balance and to determine the degree of model complexity required for accurate simulations. There is evidence that some classes of models perform better for individual fluxes but no model performs best or worst for all fluxes. In general, the simpler models perform as well as the more complex models based on all statistical measures. Generally the schemes have best overall capability to model net all-wave radiation and least capability to model latent heat flux.

This is the review of CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) guidelines for dispersion modeling in the USA, Japan and Germany. Most parts of this review are based on the short report of the special meeting on CFD Guidelines held at the International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2014), University of Hamburg, June 2014. The objective of this meeting was to introduce and discuss the action program to make worldwide guidelines of CFD gas-dispersion modeling. The following six gas-dispersion guidelines including Verification and Validation (V&V) schemes are introduced by each author; (1) US CFD guidelines; (2) COST/ES1006; (3) German VDI (Verein Deutscher Ingenieure) guidelines; (4) Atomic Energy Society of Japan; (5) Japan Society of Atmospheric Environment; (6) Architectural Institute of Japan. All guidelines were summarized in the same format table shown in the main chapters in order to compare them with each other. In addition to the summary of guidelines, the overview of V&V schemes and many guidelines of CFD modeling in the USA are explained.

This is the review of CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) guidelines for dispersion modeling in the USA, Japan and Germany. Most parts of this review are based on the short report of the special meeting on CFD Guidelines held at the International Symposium on Computational Wind Engineering (CWE2014), University of Hamburg, June 2014. The objective of this meeting was to introduce and discuss the action program to make worldwide guidelines of CFD gas-dispersion modeling. The following six gas-dispersion guidelines including Verification and Validation (V&V) schemes are introduced by each author; (1) US CFD guidelines; (2) COST/ES1006; (3) German VDI (Verein Deutscher Ingenieure) guidelines; (4) Atomic Energy Society of Japan; (5) Japan Society of Atmospheric Environment; (6) Architectural Institute of Japan. All guidelines were summarized in the same format table shown in the main chapters in order to compare them with each other. In addition to the summary of guidelines, the overview of V&V schemes and many guidelines of CFD modeling in the USA are explained.