| Literature DB >> 35844946 |
Qiang Guo1, Xinxing Liu2.
Abstract
The evaluation approaches for microclimate comfort in traditional villages often ignore the year-round impact and the impact from dynamic and static behaviors, as well as the composite impact of wind and heat environments. To solve the problem, this study presents an evaluation and optimization design strategy for microclimate comfort of traditional village squares based on extension correlation function, using field survey, computer simulation, and example analysis. Firstly, the wind and heat environments in the space of the square were measured on the site with an ultrasonic integrated weather station. Secondly, simulation parameters were configured on PHOENICS (computational fluid dynamics software), namely, boundary conditions, wind environment, heat environment, and green plants, and used to simulate the wind and heat environments in the space of the square, followed by a correlation analysis between the simulation results and the measured results. Finally, the extension correlation function was adopted to comprehensively evaluate the microclimate comfort of the preliminary design scheme, and the design scheme of the square was finalized through repeated adjustments. The proposed strategy was verified on an example: Xieduqi square, Zoumatang village, eastern China's Zhejiang Province. The example analysis shows that the proposed strategy is highly operable. The research effectively improves the optimization design of traditional village squares, extends the digital technology system of traditional villages, and greatly drives rural construction in the future.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35844946 PMCID: PMC9277169 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6106463
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Environ Public Health ISSN: 1687-9805
Summary of relevant review studies on microclimate comfort.
| No. | Author | Year | Ref. | Field measurement | Year-round climate | Wind comfort | Heat comfort | The behaviors |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sodoudi et al | 2018 | [ | ● | ||||
| 2 | Tsoka et al | 2018 | [ | ● | ||||
| 3 | Wu et al | 2019 | [ | ● | ||||
| 4 | Aldeek | 2020 | [ | ● | ● | |||
| 5 | Teshnehdel et al | 2020 | [ | ● | ||||
| 6 | Middel et al | 2014 | [ | ● | ||||
| 7 | Galal et al | 2020 | [ | ● | ● | |||
| 8 | Forouzandeh | 2018 | [ | ● | ● | |||
| 9 | López-Cabeza et al | 2018 | [ | ● | ● | |||
| 10 | Tumini et al | 2016 | [ | ● | ● | |||
| 11 | Chatzidimitriou, Yannas | 2016 | [ | ● | ||||
| 12 | QIU, Yu | 2021 | [ | ● | ||||
| 13 | Huang | 2016 | [ | ● | ● | |||
| 14 | Yan et al. | 2020 | [ | ● | ● | ● | ||
| 15 | Gaspari, Fabbri | 2017 | [ | ● | ||||
| 16 | Zaki et al | 2020 | [ | ● | ● | |||
| 17 | Fabbri, Costanzo | 2020 | [ | ● | ||||
| 18 | Chan, Chau | 2021 | [ | ● | ● | |||
| 19 | Graham et al | 2020 | [ | ● | ||||
| 20 | Kamel | 2021 | [ | ● | ||||
| 21 | Potchter et al | 2022 | [ | ● |
Figure 1Flow of evaluation and optimization design.
Initial technical parameters.
| Range | Starting wind velocity | 0.01 m/s |
| Wind velocity | 0∼60 m/s | |
| Wind direction | 0∼359° | |
| Humidity | 0% RH∼99% RH | |
| Temperature | −40°C∼+80°C | |
| Atmospheric pressure | 0∼120 kPa | |
|
| ||
| Precision | Wind velocity | ±(0.2 m/s ± 0.02 |
| Wind direction | ±3° | |
| Humidity | ±3% RH (60% RH, 25°C) | |
| Temperature | ±0.5°C (25°C) | |
| Atmospheric pressure | ±0.15 kPa@25°C 75 kPa | |
|
| ||
| Resolution | Wind velocity | 0.01 m/s |
| Wind direction | 1° | |
| Humidity | 0.1% RH | |
| Temperature | 0.1°C | |
| Atmospheric pressure | 0.1 kPa | |
Figure 2Cloud platform.
Figure 3Aerial model.
Figure 4Information model.
Setting of environment simulation parameters.
| Parameter | Input |
|---|---|
| Latitude | Latitude of the village (29.72°N for Zoumatang village) |
| Turbulence model | RANS |
| Discretization equation | Simple, PRESTOL |
| Wind profile function | Wind velocities obeying exponential distribution, |
| Radiation model | IMMERSOL |
| Computational domain | On the edge of building(s), the boundary of the computational domain is 7 times of the height H of the building in the horizontal direction, and 6 times of H in the vertical direction. Hence, the windward profile blocking rate is smaller than 3%. |
| Grid division | There are no fewer than 5 grids in the space 1.5 m above the ground; the grid expansion rate is 1.2; grid independence is verified. |
| Convergence residual | The residue is within 10−4; the imbalance of the equation is within 1%; the value of the representative monitoring points in the flow field does not change or fluctuates about a fixed value. |
| Direct solar radiation | Following the code for thermal design of the civil building (GB 50176-2016), or local specifications |
| Diffuse solar radiation | |
|
| |
| Air temperature | Referring to the measured data over the village and the perennial data on Weather Spark |
| Wind velocity ( | |
| Wind direction | |
| Relative humidity | |
| Temperature | |
| Air pressure | |
Emission and absorption coefficients of solar radiation.
| Component | Material | Surface attribute | Color | Emissivity | Absorptivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Roof | Reddish brown clay tile roof | Old | Reddish brown | 0.85∼0.95 | 0.65∼0.74 |
| Gray tile roof | Old | Light gray | 0.85∼0.95 | 0.52 | |
|
| |||||
| Wall | Lime powder wall | Smooth and new | White | 0.85∼0.95 | 0.48 |
| Water body | Silicate brick wall | Unsmooth | Red | 0.85∼0.95 | 0.50 |
| Water (lake, and sea surface) | — | — | 0.95∼0.99 | 0.96 | |
|
| |||||
| Vegetation | Green grass | — | — | 0.97∼0.99 | 0.78∼0.80 |
| Permeable brick | — | — | 0.85∼0.95 | 0.74 | |
| Grow-through paver | — | — | 0.85∼0.95 | 0.74 | |
|
| |||||
| Road and square | Ordinary cement | — | Gray | 0.85∼0.95 | 0.74 |
| Asphalt pavement | — | Dark gray | 0.9 | 0.87 | |
| Soil | — | — | 0.9 | 0.80 | |
Common plant parameters.
| Type of plant | Leaf area index | Drag coefficient |
|
| Emissivity | Absorptivity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mixed broadleaf-conifer forest | 3 | 0.5 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.98 | 0.8 |
| Grassland with sparse trees | 2 | 0.2 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.98 | 0.8 |
| Lawn | 4 | 0.045 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.98 | 0.8 |
| Arbor | 3 | 0.5 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.98 | 0.8 |
| Camphor | 5.5 | 0.5 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.98 | 0.8 |
| Magnolia | 6.5 | 0.5 | 1.8 | 0.6 | 0.98 | 0.8 |
Figure 5Year-round climate division.
Complete list of design elements was prepared for traditional village squares.
| Type | Design form | Design element |
|---|---|---|
| Horizontal plane | Ground | Wooden platform, bridge, water surface, road, pavement, etc. |
| Ground | Pavilion, shed, corridor, eaves, tree crown, parasol, etc. | |
|
| ||
| Vertical plane | Independent wall | The wall has openings, or can be turned into doors through overall transformation; tile wall, gabion wall, tree array, etc. |
|
| ||
| Parallel walls | ||
|
| ||
| Enclosed walls | ||
|
| ||
| Mass | The whole building is newly constructed or demolished; morphological changes | |
| Material | Wall | Loam, colored drawing, glass, wooden board, red brick, gray brick, white plaster, bluestone, etc. |
| Ground | Soil, asphalt concrete; permeable brick, planted vegetation; wooden board; water surfaces like lake, pond, and river; stones like granite and pebble. | |
| Roof | Thatch, wooden board, red tile, brown tile, gray tile, etc. | |
Comfort levels of wind environment on the square.
| Type of activity | Name of activity | Group | Comfort level (summer) | Comfort level (winter) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sitting activities | Playing cards | Seniors | 0∼1 | 0 |
| Resting and chatting | — | 2 | 1 | |
|
| ||||
| Standing activities | Taking photos, reading bulletins, and sightseeing | — | 3 | 2 |
| Walking activities | Strolling, and walking dogs | — | 4 | 3 |
| Recreation and sports activities | Children's entertainment activities | Children | 5 | 4 |
| Shadow boxing, and sword dancing | Seniors | 6 | 5 | |
| Flying a kite | Seniors | 7 | 6 | |
| Skating, running, working out, and dancing | — | 8 | 7 | |
|
| ||||
| Passing through | — | — | 9 | 8 |
UTCI levels.
| UTCI (°C) | Physiological stress level |
|---|---|
| >46 | Extreme heat stress |
| 38 to 46 | Very strong heat stress |
| 32 to 38 | Strong heat stress |
| 26 to 32 | Moderate heat stress |
| 9 to 26 | No heat stress |
| 0 to 9 | Slight cold stress |
| −13 to 0 | Moderate cold stress |
| −27 to −13 | Strong cold stress |
| −40 to −27 | Very strong cold stress |
| <−40 | Extreme cold stress |
Figure 6The current situation of the Xieduqi square. (a) Looking from the west. (b) Looking from the east.
Figure 7Measured weather parameters of the Zoumatang village.
Figure 8General plan of the Xieduqi square.
Figure 9Location of ultrasonic integrated weather stations. (a) Measuring point 1. (b) Measuring point 2. (c) Measuring point 3. (d) Measuring point 4.
Figure 10Simulated environments of the Xieduqi square. (a) Wind velocity. (b) Temperature.
Measured values at each measuring point of the square.
| Time series | Measuring point 1 | Measuring point 2 | Measuring point 3 | Measuring point 4 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Node name | Wind velocity (m/s) | Temperature (°C) | Wind velocity (m/s) | Temperature (°C) | Wind velocity (m/s) | Temperature (°C) | Wind velocity (m/s) | Temperature (°C) |
| 09-10 | 0.95 | 5.00 | 0.58 | 4.86 | 0.43 | 5.53 | 0.89 | 4.94 |
| 10-11 | 0.86 | 4.65 | 0.76 | 4.40 | 0.50 | 5.18 | 0.75 | 4.32 |
| 11-12 | 0.80 | 4.50 | 0.76 | 4.27 | 0.51 | 5.01 | 0.65 | 4.30 |
| 12-13 | 0.94 | 4.51 | 0.73 | 4.31 | 0.44 | 5.08 | 0.90 | 4.50 |
| 13-14 | 0.83 | 4.32 | 0.70 | 4.09 | 0.41 | 4.83 | 0.78 | 4.52 |
| 14-15 | 0.47 | 3.98 | 0.50 | 3.75 | 0.42 | 4.52 | 0.54 | 3.95 |
| 15-16 | 0.86 | 4.14 | 0.78 | 3.92 | 0.51 | 4.59 | 0.84 | 4.20 |
| 16-17 | 0.83 | 4.06 | 0.89 | 3.85 | 0.43 | 4.48 | 0.81 | 3.92 |
Figure 11Optimization design strategy for the square.
Figure 12Simulation results for the optimal design scheme of the square (part 1). (a) Wind velocity. (b) Wind comfort.
Figure 13Simulation results for the optimal design scheme of the square (part 2). (a) UTCI. (b) Composite comfort.
Simulation results at each measuring point of the square.
| Time series | Measuring point 1 | Measuring point 2 | Measuring point 3 | Measuring point 4 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Node name | Wind velocity (m/s) | Temperature (°C) | Wind velocity (m/s) | Temperature (°C) | Node name | Wind velocity (m/s) | Temperature (°C) | Wind velocity (m/s) |
| 09-10 | 0.82 | 4.80 | 0.50 | 4.52 | 0.38 | 5.42 | 0.81 | 4.64 |
| 10-11 | 0.79 | 4.25 | 0.66 | 4.24 | 0.47 | 5.03 | 0.69 | 4.01 |
| 11-12 | 0.90 | 4.30 | 0.71 | 4.01 | 0.47 | 4.88 | 0.61 | 4.23 |
| 12-13 | 0.87 | 4.29 | 0.63 | 4.03 | 0.42 | 5.21 | 0.87 | 4.13 |
| 13-14 | 0.90 | 4.12 | 0.61 | 3.88 | 0.39 | 4.76 | 0.72 | 4.29 |
| 14-15 | 0.41 | 3.72 | 0.42 | 3.26 | 0.38 | 4.32 | 0.44 | 3.83 |
| 15-16 | 0.81 | 4.00 | 0.67 | 3.67 | 0.56 | 4.44 | 0.79 | 4.15 |
| 16-17 | 0.75 | 4.13 | 0.79 | 3.77 | 0.45 | 4.38 | 0.76 | 3.80 |
Fitness between simulation and measured results at each measuring point of the square.
| Measuring point 1 | Measuring point 2 | Measuring point 3 | Measuring point 4 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wind velocity (m/s) | Temperature (°C) | Wind velocity (m/s) | Temperature (°C) | Node name | Wind velocity (m/s) | Temperature (°C) | Wind velocity (m/s) | |
| Equation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Weight | Unweighted | Unweighted | Unweighted | Unweighted | Unweighted | Unweighted | Unweighted | Unweighted |
| Intercept | 0.02563 ± 0.17626 | 0.53378 ± 0.62552 | −0.05218 ± 0.04303 | −0.24668 ± 0.58233 | −0.11303 ± 0.14426 | −0.45755 ± 0.52582 | −0.12729 ± 0.05036 | 0.82598 ± 0.50074 |
| Slope | 0.92431 ± 0.2125 | 0.83446 ± 0.14195 | 0.94867 ± 0.05964 | 0.99711 ± 0.13882 | 1.21212 ± 0.31498 | 1.07344 ± 0.10699 | 1.08902 ± 0.06468 | 0.76399 ± 0.11532 |
| Residual sum of squares | 0.04268 | 0.09798 | 0.00221 | 0.10468 | 0.00761 | 0.06467 | 0.00265 | 0.06124 |
| Pearson's R | 0.87134 | 0.92307 | 0.98835 | 0.94647 | 0.8436 | 0.97147 | 0.98958 | 0.93794 |
|
| 0.75923 | 0.85206 | 0.97684 | 0.89581 | 0.71166 | 0.94374 | 0.97927 | 0.87974 |
| Adjusted | 0.71911 | 0.8274 | 0.97298 | 0.87845 | 0.66361 | 0.93437 | 0.97582 | 0.8597 |
The simulated results were fitted against the measured results through the paired sample t-test. The results show that the R2 at any measuring point was greater than 0.5, a sign of strong correlation. There is no significant difference between the two sets of results (P > 0.05), i.e., the simulation is sufficiently accurate (Tables 10 and 11).