Chapter 13

Numerical Simulation of the Aerodynamic

Loads on Trees During Storms

Edward Chern Jinn Gan and Salim Mohamed Salim

Abstract Fluid-structure interactions for a single tree and a pair of trees with vary-
ing spacing subjected to gentle breeze and storm wind conditions were evaluated
using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). The generated velocity and pressure
fields are then analysed using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to determine the
likelihood of tree damage due to the aerodynamic loads induced by the two wind
conditions. It is observed that the pressure difference between the windward and
leeward sides of the trees are much larger during the storm condition resulting
in greater mechanical stresses and deformation magnitudes experienced by the
tree trunks. Increasing the spacing between neighbouring trees resulted in larger
aerodynamic loads on the sheltered trees downstream.

Keywords Atmospheric boundary layer flows • CFD • FEA • Fluid-structure

interaction • Tree spacing • Turbulence • Wind loads • Windbreak protection •
Windthrow • Uprooting

1 Introduction

The impacts of tree windthrow are extensive as the damage it causes results in
injuries and fatalities, significant economic losses due to reduction of timber value,
destruction of public amenities, and may upset the balance of ecosystems in forests
[1–3]. Windthrow is likely to occur during storms [4], and is the motivation of
the present study to determine the key factors that could influence windthrow (see
Fig. 13.1 for example of windthrow). Previous investigations have mainly focused

E.C.J. Gan ()

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia
e-mail: [email protected]
S.M. Salim
School of Engineering and Physical Sciences, Heriot-Watt University Malaysia,
Putrajaya 62200, Malaysia
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015 187

G.-C. Yang et al. (eds.), Transactions on Engineering Technologies,
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9804-4_13
188 E.C.J. Gan and S.M. Salim

Fig. 13.1 Uprooting of several roadside trees at Kelana Jaya, Malaysia after a severe tropical
storm

on wind-tunnel (WT) experiments taking into account mechanical stability and other
factors such as geographical, topographical, seasonal, and meteorological influences
[5, 6].
Experiments have also been carried out on the aerodynamic loading of trees with
varying tree configurations such as Novak et al. [7] and Gardiner et al. [8]. These
studies evaluated the differences in turbulence statistics and wind loading due to the
variations in tree density (i.e. spacing between adjacent trees) by comparing WT
models with field measurement results. They observed that wider spaced trees were
more likely to overturn as a result of increased aerodynamic loads.
A number of numerical simulations have been employed in the past to analyse
the interaction between the atmospheric boundary layer flow and trees, with various
modelling techniques explored. For example, Gross [9] and Tiwary et al. [10]
investigated the airflow around a single tree and through a vegetative barrier that was
represented by a row of bushes, respectively. These studies expressed the obstacles
as porous media with the addition of drag coefficients and speed resistance factors.
Others like Salim et al. [11, 12], Buccolieri et al. [13], and Gromke et al. [14]
modelled trees as porous media and accounted for their internal structures through
the use of WT acquired pressure loss coefficients,  (m1 ). They investigated the
influence of trees on the ambient airflow and consequently the pollutant dispersion
in urban street canyons.
Recently, the authors [15] investigated the aerodynamic loads and resulting
mechanical effects of a single tree subjected to different wind conditions by com-
bining CFD and FEA analysis of the fluid-structure interaction. In the present work,
the authors aim to expand the findings made previously in addition to establishing
13 Numerical Simulation of the Aerodynamic Loads on Trees During Storms 189

Table 13.1 Values used in Parameter Value

present study
Inlet velocity (ms1 ) 4.7 (Gentle breeze), 24 (Storm)a
Tree species Acacia mangiumb
Tree spacing, x/H 0 (single tree), 1.5, 3
a
Storm value is obtained from the extreme wind speed
analysis for 100 year return period in Ipoh, Malaysia [16]
b
Acacia mangium is a tree species commonly found at the
roadsides of Malaysia [17]

the effects of tree spacing on windthrow of the sheltered tree (i.e. the downstream
tree). Velocity and pressure fields around a single tree and between two trees with
varying spacing, x/H D 1.5 and x/H D 3 are numerically predicted using standard
k-" turbulence closure scheme based on the steady-state Reynolds-averaged Navier-
Stokes (RANS) equations. Typical Malaysian meteorological conditions [16] and
roadside tree species [17] are taken into account where a baseline (gentle breeze)
wind speed of 4.7 ms1 and extreme wind speed of 24 ms1 (for a severe tropical
storm) are investigated. These are summarised in Table 13.1.
The imposed aerodynamic loads experienced by the trees, which manifests as the
wind flow pressure field are then extracted from ANSYS FLUENT and imported
into ANSYS Mechanical to perform static structural analysis based on Finite
Element Analysis (FEA). This enables the prediction of the likelihood of windthrow
to occur by considering both the prevailing wind conditions and structural properties
of the trees.

2 Methodology

2.1 Computational Domain and Boundary Conditions

Numerical flow simulations are performed in ANSYS FLUENT, employing the

simulation techniques and best practices of Salim et al. [11, 18, 19]. Validation and
selection of a suitable numerical model are initially achieved using the simulations
by Gross [9] as benchmark.
In order to mimic a typical urban atmospheric boundary layer flow, the inlet wind
is assumed to follow the power law profile

˛
Z
u.z/ D UH (13.1)
H

where u is the vertical velocity profile, z is the vertical distance and the profile
exponent, ˛ D 0.3 while uH is the free-stream velocity (D 4.7 and 24 ms1 )
at reference height, H D 0.12 m for gentle breeze and storm inlet conditions,
190 E.C.J. Gan and S.M. Salim

Fig. 13.2 Computational grids used in flow simulation of present study for (a) a single tree and
(b) two trees with spacing, x/H D 1.5 and 3 (FRT front row tree, ST sheltered tree)

respectively. This follows the established settings used in [11, 13, 14] validated
against WT experiments.
The computational grids illustrated in Fig. 13.2 are generated using approxi-
mately 1.1 million hexahedral elements for the single tree configuration and 2.4
million for the pair of trees. Resolution is enhanced progressively at the vicinity of
the tree (at the centre) to maximise numerical accuracy at regions of high solution
gradients and reduce computational cost. This complies with recommendations
based on the wall yC approach [20].
An inlet boundary condition is defined at the entrance while a pressure outlet is
set at the exit of the domain to evacuate air. The top and sides of the computational
domain are defined as symmetry to represent slip condition while the floor is
considered non-slip to correspond to typical conditions in open space. A summary of
the 3D computational domain and implemented boundary conditions are illustrated
in Fig. 13.3 for (a) a single tree and (b) two trees with spacing, x/H D 1.5 and 3.

2.2 Tree Modelling

The tree is geometrically idealised to resemble the Acacia Mangium, a common

roadside tree in Malaysia [17].
The tree trunk is modelled as a solid obstacle while the crown is set to
be permeable with a porosity of Pvol
96 %. This is numerically defined as a
momentum sink comprising of the viscous and inertial loss terms (refer to Eq.
(13.2)).
X X3

3 1
Si D  Dij j C Cij  jj j (13.2)
j D1 j D1 2
13 Numerical Simulation of the Aerodynamic Loads on Trees During Storms 191

Fig. 13.3 Computational domains used in flow simulation of present study for around (a) a single
tree and (b) two trees with spacing, x/H D 1.5 and 3

Table 13.2 Tree specifications Parameter Value

Tree species Acacia mangium
Largest width of crown (m) 27
Largest height of crown (m) 27
Trunk height (m) 9
Trunk diameter (m) 2.8
Tree crown porosity, Pvol (%) 96
Pressure loss coefficient,  (m1 ) 200
Flexural modulus, E (MPa) 5,828a
Modulus of rupture, R (MPa) 62.28a
a
Mechanical properties of the tree are obtained from
field measurements [17]

where Si is the source term for the ith (x, y or z) momentum equation while j¤j is
the magnitude of velocity, C and D are prescribed matrices.
The porosity is defined by a pressure loss coefficient ( D 200 m1 ) and the tree
specifications are summarised in Table 13.2.
192 E.C.J. Gan and S.M. Salim

Table 13.3 Solution methods Parameter Scheme

Scheme Simple
Gradient Least squares cell based
Pressure Standard
Momentum Second order upwind
Turbulent kinetic energy Second order upwind
Turbulent dissipation rate Second order upwind
Reynolds stresses Second order upwind
Second order upwind scheme is selected to minimise
numerical diffusion

2.3 Numerical Setup

The steady-state RANS solutions are obtained using standard k-" turbulence model
and the convergence criterion for all flow properties are set to 1  106 for both
wind conditions. These are summarised in Table 13.3.

2.4 Mechanical Analysis

The resulting wind loads derived from ANSYS FLUENT are mapped, interpolated
and exported to ANSYS Mechanical as face pressures. The material of the tree
trunk is set to match the mechanical specifications from Table 13.2 with properties
from field measurements [17] and the crown is assumed to be rigid. In order to
investigate the aerodynamic effects resulting from interaction between the wind flow
and structural behaviour, the tree is assumed to be massless for simplicity.

3 Results and Discussions

The numerical solutions obtained from CFD simulation and FEA analysis are
presented and discussed in this section are based on non-dimensionalised distances
on a 1:18 scale.

3.1 Flow Analysis Using CFD

Figure 13.4 presents the velocity contours for (a) a single tree and (b) around two
trees with spacing, x/H D 1.5 and 3 comparing between gentle breeze and storm
conditions. It is observed that the airflow tends to go around the tree rather than
13 Numerical Simulation of the Aerodynamic Loads on Trees During Storms 193

a XY plane XZ plane

Gentle
Single tree
Storm

3.50e+01

b
3.00e+01
Spacing, x/H = 1.5
Gentle

2.50e+01

2.00e+01
Storm

1.50e+01

1.00e+01

5.00e+00
c
0.00e+00
Spacing, x/H = 3
Storm Gentle

Fig. 13.4 Contours of the velocity magnitude for 4.7 ms1 (gentle breeze) and 24 ms1 (storm)
around (a) a single tree, (b) two trees with spacing, x/H D 1.5 and (c) x/H D 3

through it. The magnitudes of the flow field and ensuing recirculation region are
much stronger for the storm condition in comparison to the gentle breeze.
A large reduction in airflow velocity imposed on the sheltered tree compared
to the front row tree was observed to occur for gentle breeze (
80 %) and storm
conditions (
85 %) for tree spacing, x/H D 1.5. While, a much lower reduction
was recorded for gentle breeze (
64 %) and storm conditions (
71 %) when
the tree proximity was increased to x/H D 3. This implies that the increase of tree
spacing would reduce the windbreak efficiency of the front row trees and cause
higher resulting aerodynamic loads on the sheltered trees.
Figure 13.5 quantitatively illustrates the vertical velocity profiles that develop as
a result of the two wind conditions for a single tree and two trees with spacing,
x/H D 1.5 and 3. It is observed that the velocity difference between the windward
and leeward sides of the gentle breeze are negligible compared to the storm
condition for all the three situations. The larger velocity drop generated by the storm
condition presents a larger pressure difference implying that larger wind loads are
experienced.
194 E.C.J. Gan and S.M. Salim

a Single tree
b Spacing of x/H = 1.5
c Spacing of x/H = 3
1 1 1
0.9 0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6
u/uo

u/uo

u/uo
0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2 4.7 m/s
0.1 0.1 0.1 24 m/s
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
x/H x/H x/H

Fig. 13.5 Profiles of x/H velocity 1 H above ground along symmetry axis comparing between
gentle breeze and storm inlet conditions around (a) a single tree, (b) two trees with spacing,
x/H D 1.5 and (c) x/H D 3

An increase in tree spacing results in greater airflow velocity experienced by the

shelter tree downstream of the prevailing wind because the airflow is given enough
time to reattach and accelerate towards its initial velocity behind the upstream tree
(at x/H
10).
The profiles and contours of pressure fields for the two conditions are presented
in Figs. 13.6 and 13.7, respectively. These support the observations derived from the
velocity fields, further illustrating that the pressure difference experienced during
the storm conditions are much larger than those during gentle breeze, resulting in
greater wind forces on the trees. The recirculating region generated by the storm
condition introduces a negative pressure field immediately behind the tree increasing
the net force exerted. The negative pressure drop is attributed to the separation,
reversal of airflow and recirculation.
When increasing tree spacing, the sheltered tree was found to experience greater
pressure difference due to the diminishing windbreak protection offered by the front
row (i.e. upstream) tree. For example, significant reductions in pressure difference
was experienced by the sheltered tree in comparison to the front row tree for both
gentle breeze (
69 %) and storm conditions (
67 %) for tree spacing, x/H D 1.5.
This is in contrast to the minor reduction in pressure difference experienced during
the gentle breeze (
56 %) and storm conditions (
64 %) when the spacing
between the trees was increased to x/H D 3.
Table 13.4 summarises the aerodynamic data and demonstrates that during storm
conditions, the wind loads on trees are much larger due to the greater pressure
differences imposed. Furthermore, the increase in tree spacing resulted in a reduced
windbreak protection for the sheltered trees; hence the likelihood of structural
damage is significantly increased. This is discussed in the following section.
13 Numerical Simulation of the Aerodynamic Loads on Trees During Storms 195

a XY plane XZ plane

Gentle
Single tree
Storm

3.50e+02

2.50e+02
b
Spacing, x/H = 1.5
Gentle

1.50e+02

5.00e+01

-5.00e+01
Storm

-1.50e+02

-2.50e+02
c
-3.50e+02
Spacing, x/H = 3
Storm Gentle

Fig. 13.6 Contours of the pressure magnitude for 4.7 ms1 (gentle breeze) and 24 ms1 (storm)
around (a) a single tree, (b) two trees with spacing, x/H D 1.5 and (c) x/H D 3

a Single tree b Spacing of x/H = 1.5 c Spacing of x/H = 3

300 300 300
4.7 m/s
250 250 250
24 m/s
200 200 200
150 150 150
Pressure (Pa)
Pressure (Pa)

Pressure (Pa)

100 100 100

50 50 50
0 0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
-50 -50 -50
-100 -100 -100
-150 -150 -150
-200 -200 -200
x/H x/H x/H

Fig. 13.7 Profiles of static pressure (Pa) 1 H above ground along symmetry axis comparing
between gentle breeze and storm inlet conditions around (a) a single tree, (b) two trees with
spacing, x/H D 1.5 and (c) x/H D 3
196 E.C.J. Gan and S.M. Salim

Table 13.4 Summary of CFD results

Parameter Value
Tree spacing, x/H 1.5 3
Inlet velocity (ms1 ) 4.7 (Gentle) 24 (Storm) 4.7 (Gentle) 24 (Storm)
Tree location FRT ST FRT ST FRT ST FRT ST
Imposed velocity 4  0.8  20.5  3.1  4  1.5  20.5  6
(ms1 )
Pressure difference  18  5.4  400  117 18  7.9  400  147
(Pa)
FRT front row tree, ST sheltered tree

3.2 Mechanical Analysis Using FEA

The pressure field that develops around the trees is utilised in the structural analysis
to determine the mechanical effects and likelihood of windthrow.
Tree damage commonly occurs as a result of breakage or failure in the root
anchorage, when the exerted forces exceed the structural resistance of the trunk
or support system in the case of anchorage. In the present study, only the former is
considered.
Winds typically induce a turning moment on the tree trunk hence flexural
modulus rather than Young’s modulus is considered. For the purpose of this
investigation, failure by virtue of breakage of trunk is assumed to occur when the
applied stresses due to wind loads exceed the modulus of rupture of the tree trunk.
Additional forces due to gravity when the trunk deflects substantially are neglected
in order to identify and quantify the aerodynamic effects only. The deformation
values in this section are based on non-dimensionalised lengths employed for the
computational domain.
Figure 13.8 demonstrates the deformation of the tree and resulting stresses when
subjected to the two wind conditions. It can be seen that the storm condition
produces a larger deflection on the tree as compared to the gentle breeze.
Generally, it is observed that the stresses are at a minimum at the core of the
trunk and increases outward. This suggests that at the time of trunk damage, failure
first occurs on the outside and rapidly propagates inwards. On the leeward side of
the trunk (i.e. back of tree), the stresses can be seen to progressively increase as it
moves farther from the ground (fixed support); where the magnitude of deflection is
proportional to the resulting stresses.
It is evident that a smaller spacing (i.e. x/H D 1.5) offers a much better windbreak
protection for the sheltered tree during a storm. The sheltered tree experiences much
lower deformations and resulting stresses as compared to the front row tree.
In contrast for a larger spacing (i.e. x/H D 3), the front row tree presents no
protection to the sheltered tree. While previous observations indicate that the
pressure difference experienced by the sheltered tree is consistently lower than the
front row tree, higher deformations were found to occasionally occur for the former
at this spacing. As demonstrated in Fig. 13.8, the front row tree is observed to be
13 Numerical Simulation of the Aerodynamic Loads on Trees During Storms 197

1.6939e7 Max
4.4259 Max

0.060525

1.4645e7
1.2352e7
1.0058e7
7.7647e6
5.4711e6
3.1775e6
1.9423e6
7.0716e5
5.3037e5
3.5358e5
1.7679e5
5.5422Min
0.96462
0.30263
0.25723
0.21184
0.16645
0.12105
3.9341
3.4424
2.9506
2.2886
1.6266

0 Min
Total deformation Equivalent stress (Pa)
XZ plane XZ plane XY plane
a (Side of tree) (Side of trunk) (Trunk cross-section)
Gentle
Front row tree

Storm

b
(Spacing of x/H = 1.5)
Gentle
Sheltered tree

Storm

c
Gentle
(Spacing of x/H = 3)
Sheltered tree

Storm

Fig. 13.8 Contours of the total deformation and equivalent stress (Pa) for 4.7 ms1 (gentle breeze)
and 24 ms1 (storm) around (a) a single tree, (b) two trees with spacing, x/H D 1.5 and (c) x/H D 3

more twisted rather than bent, while a bigger deflection occurs in the sheltered tree,
resulting in larger stresses. Therefore, while the aerodynamic loads imposed on the
front row tree are higher, more of that energy is used to twist the trunk rather than
deflect it.
198 E.C.J. Gan and S.M. Salim

Table 13.5 Summary of FEA results

Parameter Value
Flexural modulus, E (MPa) 5,828
Rupture modulus, R (MPa) 62
Tree spacing, x/H 1.5 3
Inlet velocity (ms1 ) 4.7 (Gentle) 24 (Storm) 4.7 (Gentle) 24 (Storm)
Tree location FRT ST FRT ST FRT ST FRT ST
Maximum deformation 0.23 0.25 4.43 3.08 0.23 0.18 4.43 5.12
Von Mises stress (MPa) 0.88 1.15 16.94 14.2 0.88 0.89 16.94 25
Maximum elastic strain 1.5E-4 2.0E-4 2.9E-3 2.5E-3 1.5E-4 1.5E-4 2.9E-3 4.3E-3
FRT front row tree, ST sheltered tree

Table 13.5 summarises the results obtained from the structural analysis carried
out in ANSYS Mechanical, where the flexural modulus and modulus of rupture are
based on published data [17] (see Table 13.2). It can be concluded that windthrow
by trunk breakage is more likely to occur during a storm as compared to a gentle
breeze; with the resulting stresses are much closer to the modulus of rupture for
the given material. In addition, smaller tree spacing (i.e. x/H D 1.5) offers better
protection for sheltered trees by minimising the likelihood of windthrow as opposed
to a larger distance.

4 Conclusions

The wind loads and mechanical effects of two different wind conditions on trees
are investigated for a typical baseline scenario based on gentle breeze and a severe
case of tropical storm conditions. The effects of different tree spacing are also
examined to establish the windbreak protection offered on sheltered trees by the
front row trees. Flow solutions (i.e. velocity and pressure fields) obtained from
ANSYS FLUENT is used to perform structural analysis in ANSYS Mechanical
to determine the deflection and stresses likely to be experienced by trees due to
aerodynamic loading.
The pressure difference between the windward and leeward sides during the
storm conditions are much larger than during gentle breeze because of a more
prominent recirculating region which induces a negative flow and consequently
pressure field. This implies that the wind forces exerted on the tree are larger and
as a result the trunks experiences greater deformation and stresses, increasing the
likelihood of structural failure. Better shelter protection is offered to the downstream
trees at smaller tree spacing as a result of reduced airflow velocities and pressure
differences.
Windthrow by trunk damage is shown to likely occur during a storm condition
as the recorded maximum equivalent stresses due to bending are much closer to the
rupture modulus of the material.
13 Numerical Simulation of the Aerodynamic Loads on Trees During Storms 199

References

1. Ulanova, N.G.: The effects of windthrow on forests at different spatial scales: a review. For.
Ecol. Manag. 135, 155–167 (2000)
2. Duelli, P., Obrist, M.K., Wermelinger, B.: Windthrow-induced changes in faunistic biodiversity
in alphine spruce forests’. For. Snow Lands. Res. 77(1/2), 117–131 (2002)
3. Putz, F.E., Coley, P.D., Lu, K., Montalvo, A., Aiello, A.: Uprooting and snapping of trees:
structural determinants and ecological consequences’. Can. J. For. Res. 13(5), 1011–1020
(1983)
4. Sinton, D.S., Jones, J.A.: Extreme winds and windthrow in the Western Columbia River Gorge.
Northwest Sci. 76(2), 173–182 (2002)
5. Peltola, H.M.: Mechanical stability of trees under static loads’. Am. J. Bot. 93(10), 1501–1511
(2006)
6. Brudi, E., Wassenaer, P.v.: Trees and statics: non-destructive failure analysis. How trees stand
up and fall down, pp. 53–70 (2002)
7. Novak, M.D., Warland, J.S., Orchansky, A.L., Ketler, R., Greem, S.: Wind tunnel and field
measurements of turbulent flow in forests. Part I: uniformly thinned stands’. Bound.-Lay.
Meteorol. 95, 457–495 (2000)
8. Gardiner, B.A., Stacey, G.R., Belcher, R.E., Wood, C.J.: Field and wind tunnel assessments of
the implications of respacing and thinning for tree stability’. Forestry 70(3), 233–252 (1997)
9. Gross, G.: A numerical study of the air flow within and around a single tree. Bound. Lay.
Meteorol. 40, 311–327 (1987)
10. Tiwary, A., Morvan, H.P., Colls, J.J.: Modelling the size-dependent collection efficiency of
hedgerows for ambient aerosols’. Aerosol Sci. 37, 990–1015 (2005)
11. Salim, S.M., Cheah, S.C., Chan, A.: Numerical simulation of dispersion in urban street canyons
with avenue-like tree plantings: comparison between RANS and LES’. Build. Environ. 46,
1735–1746 (2011)
12. Salim, S.M., Buccolieri, R., Chan, A., Di Sabatino, S., Cheah, S.C.: Large eddy simulation
of the aerodynamic effects of trees on pollutant concentrations in street canyons’. Procedia
Environ. Sci. 4, 17–24 (2011)
13. Buccolieri, R., Salim, S.M., Leo, L.S., Sabatino, S.D., Chan, A., Ielpo, P., Gennaro, G.,
Gromke, C.: Analysis of local scale tree–atmosphere interaction on pollutant concentration
in idealized street canyons and application to a real urban junction. Atmos. Environ. 45, 1702–
1713 (2011)
14. Gromke, C., Buccolieri, R., Sabatino, S.D., Ruck, B.: Dispersion study in a street canyon with
tree planting by means of wind tunnel and numerical investigations – evaluation of CFD data
with experimental data. Atmos. Environ. 42, 8640–8650 (2008)
15. Gan, C.J., Salim, S.M.: Numerical analysis of fluid-structure interaction between wind flow and
trees. Lecture notes in engineering and computer science. Proceedings of the world congress
on engineering 2014, WCE 2014, pp. 1218–2014. London (2014)
16. Sapuan, M.S., Razali, A.M., Ibrahim, K.: Forecasting and mapping of extreme wind speed for
5 to 100-years return period in Peninsula Malaysia. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 5(7), 1204–1212
(2011)
17. Sahri, M.H., Ashaari, Z., Kader, R.A., Mohmod, A.L.: Physical and mechanical properties of
Acacia mangium and Acacia auriculiformis from different provenances’. Pertanika J. Trop.
Agric. Sci. 21(2), 73–81 (1998)
18. Salim, S.M., Ong, K.C.: Performance of RANS, URANS and LES in the prediction of airflow
and pollutant dispersion. IAENG Transactions on Engineering Technologies, pp. 263–274.
Springer, Netherlands (2013)
19. Salim, S.M., Buccolieri, R., Chan, A., Di Sabatino, S.: Numerical simulation of atmospheric
pollutant dispersion in an urban street canyon: comparison between RANS and LES’. J. Wind
Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 99(2–3), 103–113 (2011)
20. Salim, S.M., Ariff, M., Cheah, S.C.: Wall yC approach for dealing with turbulent flows over a
wall mounted cube. Prog. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 10(5/6), 341–351 (2010)