Modelling air quality in street canyons: a review

High pollution levels have been often observed in urban street canyons due to the increased traffic emissions and reduced natural ventilation. Microscale dispersion models with different levels of complexity may be used to assess urban air qualityand support decision-making for pollution control strategies and traffic planning. Mathematical models calculate pollutant concentrations by solving either analytically a simplified set of parametric equations or numerically a set of differential equations that describe in detail wind flow and pollutant dispersion. Street canyon models, which might also include simplified photochemistry and particle deposition–resuspension algorithms, are often nested within larger-scale urban dispersion codes. Reduced-scale physical models in wind tunnels may also be used for investigating atmospheric processes within urban canyons and validating mathematical models. A range of monitoring techniques is used to measure pollutant concentrations in urban streets. Point measurement methods (continuous monitoring, passive and active pre-concentration sampling, grab sampling) are available for gaseous pollutants. A number of sampling techniques (mainlybased on filtration and impaction) can be used to obtain mass concentration, size distribution and chemical composition of particles. A combination of different sampling/monitoring techniques is often adopted in experimental studies. Relativelysimple mathematical models have usually been used in association with field measurements to obtain and interpret time series of pollutant concentrations at a limited number of receptor locations in street canyons. On the other hand, advanced numerical codes have often been applied in combination with wind tunnel and/or field data to simulate small-scale dispersion within the urban canopy.

A finite volume unstructured mesh approach to dynamic fluid–structure interaction: an assessment of the challenge of predicting the onset of flutter

Computational modelling of dynamic fluid–structure interaction (DFSI) is a considerable challenge. Our approach to this class of problems involves the use of a single software framework for all the phenomena involved, employing finite volume methods on unstructured meshes in three dimensions. This method enables time and space accurate calculations in a consistent manner. One key application of DFSI simulation is the analysis of the onset of flutter in aircraft wings, where the work of Yates et al. [Measured and Calculated Subsonic and Transonic Flutter Characteristics of a 45° degree Sweptback Wing Planform in Air and Freon-12 in the Langley Transonic Dynamic Tunnel. NASA Technical Note D-1616, 1963] on the AGARD 445.6 wing planform still provides the most comprehensive benchmark data available. This paper presents the results of a significant effort to model the onset of flutter for the AGARD 445.6 wing planform geometry. A series of key issues needs to be addressed for this computational approach. • The advantage of using a single mesh, in order to eliminate numerical problems when applying boundary conditions at the fluid-structure interface, is counteracted by the challenge of generating a suitably high quality mesh in both the fluid and structural domains. • The computational effort for this DFSI procedure, in terms of run time and memory requirements, is very significant. Practical simulations require even finer meshes and shorter time steps, requiring parallel implementation for operation on large, high performance parallel systems. • The consistency and completeness of the AGARD data in the public domain is inadequate for use in the validation of DFSI codes when predicting the onset of flutter.

Computational fire engineering - do we have what we need?

This presentation will attempt to address the issue of whether the engineering design community has the knowledge, data and tool sets required to undertake advanced evacuation analysis. In discussing this issue I want to draw on examples not only from the building industry but more widely from where ever people come into contact with an environment fashioned by man. Prescriptive design regulations the world over suggest that if we follow a particular set of essentially configurational regulations concerning travel distances, number of exits, exit widths, etc it should be possible to evacuate a structure within a pre-defined acceptable amount of time. In the U.K. for public buildings this turns out to be 2.5 minutes, internationally in the aviation industry this is 90 seconds, in the UK rail industry this is 90 seconds and the international standard adopted by the maritime industry is 60 minutes. The difficulties and short comings of this approach are well known and so I will not repeat them here, save to say that this approach is usually littered with “magic numbers” that do not stand up to scrutiny. As we are focusing on human behaviour issues, it is also worth noting that more generally, the approach fails to take into account how people actually behave, preferring to adopt an engineer’s view of what people should do in order to make their design work. Examples of the failure of this approach are legion and include the; Manchester Boeing 737 fire, Kings Cross underground station fire, Piper Alpha oil platform explosion, Ladbroke Grove Rail crash and fire, Mont Blanc tunnel fire, Scandinavian Star ferry fire and the Station Nightclub fire.

Modelling human behaviour in underground emergency situations

This presentation will discuss current developments in evacuation modelling and its role in and application to underground applications