Wind Environment Study

Wind Environment Study
for the proposed development known as the
Opus at Business Bay, Dubai

August 31, 2007 Report Reference No. WA198-01F03(rev0)-WE Report
ThisreporthasbeenpreparedbyWINDTECHConsultantsPtyLtdonbehalfofourclientandinaccordancewithrelevantstandards. Ittakesintoaccountourclientsparticularinstructionsandrequirements.Itisnotintendedforandshouldnotberelieduponbyathirdpartyand noresponsibilityisundertakentoanythirdparty.
WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd: 19 Willis St, Wolli Creek NSW 2205 Australia ABN 72 050 574 037 T: (61.2) 9567 0722 F: (61.2) 9567 0733 E: reception@windtech.com.au
Sydney Melbourne Singapore Dubai
www.windtech.com.au
Table of Contents
Page 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Model Description 3.0 Test Procedure 4.0Environmental Wind Speed Criteria 5.0 Results of Study 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Northern Ground Level Areas Eastern Ground Level Areas Southern Ground Level Areas Western Ground Level Areas Upper Ground Level Outdoor Areas 3 4 8 10 17 17 18 18 19 20 25 26
6.0 Conclusion References
Appendix Plots of Wind Tunnel Results
WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd
-2-
WA198-01F03(rev0)-WE Report
1.0 Introduction
This report presents the results of a detailed investigation into the wind environment impact in relation to the development known as Opus at Business Bay, Dubai. Wind speed measurements were carried out using a 1:400 scale model of the development. Surround models incorporating the existing neighbouring buildings and local land topography were placed around the model of the site. The surrounds model extends to a radius of approximately 500m from the site. Testing was performed using Windtechs blockage tolerant boundary layer wind tunnel facility, which has a 2.6m wide work section and has a fetch length of 14m. Peak gust wind speeds were measured as well as the mean wind speed. Wind speed measurements from each wind direction are related to reference velocities at a height of 200m and upstream of the proximity model. Wind speed velocity coefficients, representing the local wind speeds are derived from the wind tunnel and are combined with the meteorological data to provide the equivalent fullscale wind speeds. These wind speed measurements are compared with criteria for long and short duration stationary activities and for pedestrian comfort. The results of this study indicate that wind conditions on the eastern side of Ground Level pedestrian access areas and some of the Upper Ground Level outdoor areas exceed the relevant wind comfort criterion. Treatments to these areas have been tested in this report. These include the following: Strategic tree planting around the south-eastern corner of the site on Ground Level Canopy over the Upper Ground Level terrace.
With these treatments in place, wind conditions to all of the trafficable outdoor areas within the site are expected to be acceptable for their intended uses.
-3-
2.0 Model Description

Wind speed measurements were carried out using a 1:400 scale model of the development. A surrounds model incorporating the existing neighbouring buildings and local land topography was placed around the study building model. The surrounds model extends to a radius of 500m from the site. Photographs of the wind tunnel model are presented in Figures 1a to 1d. The model was placed in suburban terrain boundary layer wind flow based on the Deaves and Harris model. The reference wind speeds were corrected for changes in the upstream building morphology and land topography. The upstream terrain category types for the 16 wind directions tested are indicated in Table 1 below. Figure 2 also shows an aerial image of the site and the local surrounding buildings within a 2.5km radius of the proposed development. The fetch length of 2km is selected based on the height of the proposed development, as outlined in the AS/NZS 1170.2:2002. The terrain type within this 2km zone defines the terrain category type for each wind directions tested.
Table 1: The Upstream Terrain Categories Assumed in the Determination of the Reference Wind Speeds Terrain Category (AS/NZS 1170.2:2002)
Wind Direction*
Open Terrain (Terrain Category 2.0)
112.5o to 180o
Country Terrain (Terrain Category 2.5)
202.5 to 247.5
Suburban Terrain (Terrain Category 3.0) Semi-Urban Terrain (Terrain Category 3.5)
000, 067.5, 090 22.5, 045, 270 to 337.5
Note: Wind direction is in degrees bearing, i.e., 0o is north, 90o is east, etc
-4-
Figure 1a: Photograph of the Model in the Wind Tunnel (South-Western Aspect)
Figure 1b: Photograph of the Model in the Wind Tunnel (North-Eastern Aspect)
WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd -5WA198-01F03(rev0)-WE Report
Figure 1c: Photograph of the Model in the Wind Tunnel (View from the East)
Figure 1d: Photograph of the Model in the Wind Tunnel (View from the North)
-6-
Figure 2: Aerial Image of the Site and Surrounds
The figure above shows the section of terrain used in the determination of the terrain category type for the 16 wind directions tested. The smaller circle represents the extent of the physical surrounds model tested in the wind tunnel, which for this study had a radius of 500m. The larger circle, which is 2km away from the edge of the smaller circle, defines the extent of the fetch length of the development. The terrain category defines the wind tunnel setup that was used to replicate the upstream wind flow (velocity profile and turbulence intensity) approaching the model for each direction tested.
-7-
3.0 Test Procedure

Testing was performed in Windtechs blockage tolerant boundary layer wind tunnel facility. No correction is required for blockage effects. The mean free stream wind speed at the reference height in the tunnel is approximately 11 m/sec. This corresponds to a minimum velocity scale of approximately 1:2. Hence the sample length in the model scale of 12.0 seconds is equivalent to a minimum of 40 minutes in full-scale, which is suitable for this type of study. A detailed analysis involving sixteen wind directions at 22.5 degrees intervals was carried out. This procedure provides comprehensive information about the wind environment to be expected for the various wind directions. The freestream and test-location air currents were monitored using a pair of Dantec hot wire probe anemometers. The probe support was set vertically as much as possible. This ensures that the measured wind speeds are independent of wind direction along the horizontal plane. In addition, care was taken in the alignment of the probe wire and in avoiding wall-heating effects. The output from both probes was obtained using a National Instruments 12-bit data acquisition card. The signal was low-pass filtered at 32 Hz and results in peak gust being the equivalent of the 2 to 3 second gust on which the criteria are based. A sample rate of 1000 samples per second was used, which is more than adequate for the given frequency band. The mean and the maximum 3 second duration peak gust coefficients were obtained. The largest qualifying single peak was taken as the maximum gust velocity. To ensure that the largest measured peak is not a false peak, the maximum peak would not qualify if it is more than 25% greater than the average of the second and third largest peaks. Any non-qualifying peak is replaced by the average of the second and third largest peaks. The mean and standard deviation wind speed coefficients were also measured for use with the modified Davenport criteria. These are used in conjunction with the peak coefficients to arrive at a Gust Equivalent Mean (GEM) wind speed. The GEM is the greater of either the mean wind speed or the gust wind speed divided by a gust factor. The gust factor is determined using the measured turbulence intensity at the subject study point. For each of the sixteen wind directions, peak gust and mean wind speeds were measured at selected points at a full-scale height of approximately 1.5m and were normalised by the mean value at a reference scale height of 200m up-wind of the model. The reference velocity measurements are used to relate the mean and peak wind speed measurements to actual mean and gust velocities, based on available meteorological data for Dubai. The directional distributions of the statistical mean hourly wind speeds for Dubai, corrected for suburban terrain and a reference height of 200m are shown in Figure 3. The meteorological data for Dubai was analysed statistically from frequency of occurrence tables prepared by the Dubai Department of Civil Aviation. The maximum mean and gust wind speeds are based on an analysis of 31 years of
-8-
data from this observation station. The station has a height of 10m in a flat terrain (the nearest houses to the observation tower are located about 500m away).
0 40 330 35 30 25 300 20 15 10 5 270 0 90 60 30
240
120
210
150
180
Annual Maximum Mean Wind Speed (m/s) Directional Frequency for all wind (%) Directional Frequency for wind > 10m/s 95 percentile Mean Wind Speed (m/s)
Figure 3: Reference Wind Speeds and Frequencies for Dubai (corrected for Suburban Terrain at a reference height of 200m)
-9-
4.0 Environmental Wind Speed Criteria

The four principal wind directions affecting this development prevail from the North, East, West and North-West. Table 2 is a summary of the principal time of occurrence of these winds. The westerly to north-westerly winds occur throughout the year and are the strongest Synoptic winds for Dubai. Figure 3 shows that the climate for the stronger synoptic winds for Dubai is dominated by the westerly to north-westerly winds. Table 2: Principal Time of Occurrence of Winds for Dubai Month January February March April May June July August September October November December X ------ Indicates Occurance X X X X X X X X North East West X X X X X X X X North-West X X X X X X X X X X X X
The acceptability of wind in any area is dependent upon its use. For example, people walking or window-shopping will tolerate higher wind speeds than those seated at an outdoor restaurant. The following table, developed by Penwarden (1975), is a modified version of the Beaufort Scale, and describes the effects of various wind intensities on people. Note that the applicability column related to wind conditions occurring frequently (approximately once per week on average). Higher ranges of wind speeds can be tolerated for rarer events.
- 10 -
Table 3: Summary of Wind Effects on People (after Penwarden, 1975) Type of Winds Calm, light air Light breeze Gentle breeze Moderate breeze Fresh breeze Beaufort Number 1 2 3 4 5 Wind Speed (m/s) 0 - 1.5 1.6 - 3.3 3.4 - 5.4 5.5 - 7.9 8.0 10.7 Effects Calm, no noticeable wind Wind felt on face Hair is disturbed, Clothing flaps Raises dust, dry soil and loose paper - Hair disarranged Force of wind felt on body Umbrellas used with difficulty, Hair blown straight, Difficult to walk steadily, Wind noise on ears unpleasant. Inconvenience felt when walking. Generally impedes progress, Great difficulty with balance. People blown over by gusts.
Strong breeze
10.8 13.8
Near gale Gale Strong gale
7 8 9
13.9 17.1 17.2 -20.7 20.8 24.4
Lawson (1973) quotes that Beaufort 4 wind speeds (6 to 8m/s means) would be acceptable if it is not exceeded for more than 4% of the time; and a Beaufort 6 (11 to 14m/s means) as being unacceptable if it is exceeded more than 2% of the time. Davenport (1972) had also provided a set of criteria in terms of the Beaufort Scale and for various return periods. The values presented in Table 4, below, are based on a frequency of exceedance of once per week (a probability of exceedance of 5%).
- 11 -
Table 4: Criteria by Davenport (1972) Classification Human Activities Acceptable for walking, main public accessways Slow walking, etc. Generally acceptable for walking & short duration stationary activities such as windowshopping, standing or sitting in plazas. Generally acceptable for long duration stationary activities such as in outdoor restaurants & theatres and in parks. 95 Percentile Maximum Mean (once per week) 7.5 m/s>u>10 m/s 5.5 m/s>u> 7.5 m/s
Walking Fast Strolling, Skating
Short Exposure Activities
3.5 m/s>u> 5.5 m/s
Long Exposure Activities
3.5 m/s>u
Later, Lawson (1975) came up with a set of criteria very similar to those of Davenports. These are presented in Tables 5a and 5b, below.
Table 5a: Comfort Criteria by Lawson (1975) Classification Business Walking Pedestrian Walking Short Exposure Activities Long Exposure Activities Human Activities Objective Walking from A to B Slow walking, etc. Pedestrian Standing or sitting for a short time Pedestrian sitting for a long duration 95 Percentile Maximum Mean (once per week) 8 m/s>u>10 m/s 6 m/s>u> 8 m/s 4 m/s>u> 6 m/s 4 m/s>u
- 12 -
Table 5b: Safety Criteria by Lawson (1975) Classification Safety all weather areas Safety fair weather areas Human Activities Accessible by the general public Private outdoor areas such as balconies, terraces etc Annual Maximum Mean 15 m/s 20 m/s
Melbourne (1978) introduced a set of criteria for the assessment of environmental wind conditions. These criteria were developed for temperatures in the range from 10oC to 30oC and for people suitably dressed for outside temperature conditions. These criteria are based on peak gust wind speeds. Melbournes criteria are outlined in Table 6 below. This set of criteria tends to be more conservative than criteria suggested by other researchers such as those indicated in Figure 4.
Table 6: Criteria by Melbourne (1978) Classification Limit for safety Marginal Comfortable Walking Human Activities Completely unacceptable: people likely to get blown over. Unacceptable as main public accessways. Acceptable for walking, main public accessways Generally acceptable for walking & short duration stationary activities such as windowshopping, standing or sitting in plazas. Generally acceptable for long duration stationary activities such as in outdoor restaurants & theatres and in parks. Annual Maximum Gust U>23m/s 23 m/s>u>16 m/s 16 m/s>u>13 m/s
Short Exposure Activities
13 m/s>u>10 m/s
Long Exposure Activities
10 m/s>u
- 13 -
The criteria mentioned in Table 6, as well as other criteria, are compared on a probabilistic basis as indicated in Figure 4.
Figure 4: Comparison of Various Mean and Gust Wind Environment Criteria, Assuming 15% Turbulence and a Gust Factor of 1.5 (after Melbourne, 1978)
However, a comparative study presented by Ratcliff and Peterka (1990) tends to indicate that the criteria suggested by Melbourne (1978) are considerably more conservative that that by other researchers. This study is based on measurements taken from a total of 246 locations in various urban situations. The results are indicated in Figure 5. This discrepancy stems from the assumption of 15% turbulence intensity, which is unusually low. The turbulence intensity is typically in excess of 25%. From our research, the adoption of 25% turbulence intensity would result in a much more comparable outcome in terms of other criteria as well as peoples perceptions.
- 14 -
Figure 5: Distribution of Pedestrian Wind Comfort over Five Criteria for 246 locations examined in the Wind Tunnel (after Ratcliff & Peterka, 1990)
- 15 -
CRITERIA USED FOR THIS STUDY For this study, the assessment of the local wind climate within and around the site has been based on two sets of criteria. These are as follows: All areas of the development are compared to the Melbourne (1978) Safety Limit criterion of 23m/s for an Annual Maximum peak wind speed (see Table 6). All Ground Level entries to the building and Upper Ground Level outdoor areas are compared against the Davenport (1972) short exposure criterion (see Table 4). This is because these areas will be commonly used by pedestrians for short duration stationary activities. All pedestrian access areas on the Ground Level and common areas located on the northern outdoor podium areas are compared against the Davenport (1972) comfortable walking criterion for GEM wind speeds (see Table 4).
Note that the gust wind speeds, for use with the Davenport criteria, have been converted to a Gust Equivalent Mean (GEM) wind speed. The GEM is defined as the maximum of the following: Mean wind speed Gust wind speed divided by a gust factor derived using the local turbulence intensity measurements Gust wind speed divided by a maximum Gust Factor equal to 2
In this study we have used the abovementioned Davenport criteria in conjunction with the GEM defined above as this has proven over time to be the most reliable indicator of pedestrian comfort based on input received when undertaking remedial wind environment studies.
- 16 -
5.0 Results of Study

A detailed study of wind activity around and within the development was carried out. A total of 39 study locations were chosen for detailed analysis as shown in Figures 6a and 6b. These include 33 ground level test point locations and 6 test point locations on Upper Ground Level outdoor areas. The development is tested without the effect of any forms of wind ameliorating devices that are not indicated on the architectural drawings. For areas not achieving the appropriate wind conditions in-principle recommendations have been made. Plots of results of the local directional wind speeds for the various test locations, as derived from the wind tunnel tests, are presented in the attached Appendix. The Appendix presents the results based on the modified Davenport (1972) criteria for the Gust Equivalent Mean (GEM) wind speeds, as well as the results based on the Melbourne (1978) peak wind speed criteria. Where existing conditions or treatments are tested in the wind tunnel, the results are plotted on the same chart for comparison.
5.1
Northern Ground Level Areas

The Study Points: Points 1 to 6 and 17 to 23 were used to monitor the Ground Level wind conditions of the site. Point 21 represents the wind conditions at the northern office entrance. The locations of these points are shown in Figure 6a. Applicable Criteria: Point 21 represents the wind conditions at the northern office entrance. Hence the appropriate wind comfort criterion to be satisfied is the GEM short exposure criterion. All other northern Ground Level areas around the site are accessible by pedestrians. Hence the appropriate wind comfort criterion to be satisfied for all Ground-Level points is the GEM comfortable walking criterion. The safety limit Criterion for peak wind speeds should also be satisfied for all northern Ground Level points. Results and Recommendations: Initial tests show that the wind conditions at Point 21 satisfy the GEM short exposure criterion and all northern Ground Level pedestrian access areas satisfy both Safety Limit criterion for peak wind speeds and GEM comfortable walking criterion. Hence no form of treatment is needed for the northern Ground Level areas.
- 17 -
5.2
Eastern Ground Level Areas

The Study Points: Points 6 to 10 and 23 to 26 were used to monitor the Ground Level wind conditions of the site. The locations of these points are shown in Figure 6a. Applicable Criteria: All the eastern Ground Level areas around the site are accessible by pedestrians. Hence the appropriate wind comfort criterion to be satisfied for all Ground-Level points is the GEM comfortable walking criterion. The safety limit criterion for peak wind speeds should also be satisfied for all eastern Ground Level points. Results and Recommendations: Initial tests show that the wind conditions all northern Ground Level pedestrian access areas satisfy both Safety Limit Criterion for peak wind speeds and GEM comfortable walking criterion except for Points 8, 9 and 26. This is due to the adverse side stream effects caused by northerly winds0. Points 8, 9 and 26 were retested with the effect of tree planting around these points as indicated in Figure 7a. The results of the retests indicate that the planting is effective in ameliorating the adverse wind effects caused by the northerly winds, as the GEM comfortable walking criterion is generally achieved. Any additional planting around this area will further enhance the wind conditions.
5.3
Southern Ground Level Areas

The Study Points: Points 9 to 13, and 26 to 30 were used to monitor the Ground Level wind conditions of the site. The locations of these points are shown in Figure 6a. Wind conditions on Point 9 are discussed in previous section. Applicable Criteria: Points 28, 29 and 30 represent the Ground Level entrances of the building. Hence the appropriate wind comfort criterion to be satisfied is the GEM short exposure criterion. All the other southern Ground Level areas around the site are accessible by pedestrians. Hence the appropriate wind comfort criterion to be satisfied for all Ground-Level points is the GEM comfortable walking criterion. The safety limit criterion for peak wind speeds should also be satisfied for all southern Ground Level points.
- 18 -
Results and Recommendations: Initial tests show that the wind conditions at the Ground Level entrances represented by Points 28, 29 and 30 generally satisfy GEM short exposure criterion. Hence the wind conditions at the ground level entrances will be suitable for their intended uses. The results of the initial test indicate that the wind conditions at all southern Ground Level areas satisfy GEM comfortable walking criterion except for Point 12. Point 12 was retested with the effect of 2m high porous screens along the north-western and south western edges on the Upper Ground Level western edge of terrace. The results of the retest show that the screen is effective in wind mitigation to bring the wind conditions to meet the GEM comfortable walking criterion. The 2.5m canopy option recommended for the Upper Ground Level Terrace will provide a similar level of protection for this area.
5.4
Western Ground Level Areas

The Study Points: Points 1, 2, 13 to 17, and 31 to 33 were used to monitor the Ground Level wind conditions of the site. The locations of these points are shown in Figure 6a. Wind condition at Points 1, 2, and 13 are discussed in previous sections. Applicable Criteria: All western Ground Level areas around the site are accessible by pedestrians. Hence the appropriate wind comfort criterion to be satisfied for all Ground-Level points is the GEM comfortable walking criterion. The safety limit criterion for peak wind speeds should also be satisfied for all western Ground Level points. Results and Recommendations: Initial tests show that the wind conditions all northern Ground Level pedestrian access areas satisfy both Safety Limit Criterion for peak wind speeds and GEM comfortable walking criterion. The result also shows that the wind conditions at Point 15 satisfy the GEM short exposure criterion which is ideal for short duration stationary activities. Hence no form of treatment is needed for the western Ground Level areas.
- 19 -
5.5
Upper Ground Level Outdoor Areas

The Study Points: The wind conditions at the Upper Ground Level outdoor areas are monitored by Points 34 to 39. The locations of these points are also shown in Figures 6b. Applicable Criteria: All the Upper Ground Level outdoor areas around the site are used for short duration activities. Hence the appropriate wind comfort criterion to be satisfied for all points is the GEM short exposure criterion. Results and Recommendations: Initial tests show that the wind conditions at these outdoor areas exceed the GEM short exposure criterion except for Points 35 and 38. This is generally due to adverse side stream effects caused by westerly and northerly winds. Points 34 and 37 were retested with two different treatments list below: 2m high porous screens along the north-western and south western edges on the western edge of terrace. Replace the 2m high porous screen with 2m high impermeable screens at same location
The results of the retests show that both the 2m high porus and the 2m high impermeable screen options failed to provide wind mitigation to the area represented by Point 37. The both screen options were effective for Point 34, although the porous screen option was slightly more effective (maximum 25% porosity). Points 34 and 37 were retested with the effect of 2.5m high canopy that wraps around the terrace as indicated in Figure 7b. The results of the retests show that the canopy option is the most effective form of wind mitigation for the upper ground level terrace areas. With the canopy, the wind conditions at both Points 34 and 37 satisfy the GEM short exposure criterion. This canopy will provide wind mitigation to all areas on the Upper Ground Level outdoor areas.
- 20 -
Figure 6a: Study Point Locations Ground Level
- 21 -
Figure 6b: Study Point Locations Level 12
- 22 -
Figure 7a: Treatments for the Ground Level Outdoor Areas
- 23 -
Figure 7b: Treatments for Upper Ground Level Outdoor Areas
- 24 -
6.0 Conclusion
A wind tunnel study has been carried out to investigate the wind environment effects pertaining to the development known as the Opus I-Cube, Dubai Business Bay. The results of this study indicate that wind conditions on the eastern side of Ground Level pedestrian access areas and some of the Upper Ground Level outdoor areas exceed the relevant wind comfort criterion. Treatments to these areas have been tested in this report. These include the following: Strategic tree planting around the south-eastern corner of the site on Ground Level Canopy over the Upper Ground Level terrace.
With these treatments in place, wind conditions to all of the trafficable outdoor areas within the site are expected to be acceptable for their intended uses.
- 25 -
References
Aynsley, R.M., Melbourne, W., Vickery, Aerodynamics, Applied Science Publishers. B.J., 1977, Architectural
Davenport, A.G., 1972, An approach to human comfort criteria for environmental conditions, Colloquium on Building Climatology, Stockholm. Lawson, T.V., 1973, The wind environment of buildings: a logical approach to the establishment of criteria, Bristol University, Department of Aeronautical Engineering. Lawson, T.V., 1975, The determination of the wind environment of a building complex before construction, Bristol University, Department of Aeronautical Engineering. Melbourne, W.H., 1978, "Criteria for Environmental Wind Conditions", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol.3, pp.241249. Melbourne, W.H., 1978, "Wind Environment Studies in Australia", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol.3, pp.201-214. Penwarden, A.D., and Wise A.F.E., 1975, "Wind Environment Around Buildings", Building Research Establishment Report, London. Ratcliff, M.A. and Peterka, J.A., 1990, Comparison of Pedestrian Wind Acceptability Criteria", Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol.36, pp.791-800.
- 26 -
Appendix
Plots of Wind Tunnel Results
- 27 -
Measured Wind Speeds at Point 01

Weekly Maximum Gust Equivalent Mean Wind Speeds (m/s)
N NNW
10 9 8
NNE NE
Modified Davenport Long Exposure Criterion (3.5m/s)
NW
7 6 5
Modified Davenport Short Exposure Criterion (5.5m/s)
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
Modified Davenport Comfortable Walking Criterion (7.5m/s)
Modified Davenport Fast Walking Criterion (10m/s)
As Proposed, without Vegetation
WSW
Retest 1 (Not Required)
ESE
SW SSW S
SE
SSE
Annual Maximum Gust Wind Speeds (m/s)

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
Melbourne's Long Exposure Criterion (10m/s)
20
Melbourne's Short Exposure Criterion (13m/s)
WNW
10
ENE
Melbourne's Comfortable Walking Criterion (16m/s)
Melbourne's Limit of Safety Criterion (23m/s)
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
10 9 8 7 6 5 Modified Davenport Long Exposure Criterion (3.5m/s)
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
10 9 8 7 6 5 Modified Davenport Comfortable Walking Criterion (7.5m/s) Modified Davenport Long Exposure Criterion (3.5m/s)
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
15 25 Melbourne's Long Exposure Criterion (10m/s)
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
Retest 1 (With 6m tall trees north and west of the point)
ESE
Retest 2 (With additional 6m tall tree north east of the point, and 1.2m tall shrubs north east, and north west of the point) Retest 3 (Not Required)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
30 25 20 15 Melbourne's Long Exposure Criterion (10m/s)
NNE
NE
WNW
10 5
ENE
Retest 1 (With 6m tall trees north and west of the point)
WSW
ESE
Retest 2 (With additional 6m tall tree north east of the point, and 1.2m tall shrubs north east, and north west of the point) Retest 3 (Not Required)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
12 10 8 6 Modified Davenport Long Exposure Criterion (3.5m/s)
NNE
NE
WNW
4 2
ENE
Retest 1 (With 6m tall trees north and north west of the point)
WSW
ESE
Retest 2 (With additional 6m tall tree north east of the point, and 1.2m tall shrubs north, north east, and north west of the point) Retest 3 (Not Required)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE
20
NE
WNW
10
ENE
Retest 1 (With 6m tall trees north and north west of the point)
WSW
ESE
Retest 2 (With additional 6m tall tree north east of the point, and 1.2m tall shrubs north, north east, and north west of the point) Retest 3 (Not Required)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW
10 9 8
NNE NE
NW
7 6 5
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S
SE
SSE

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
Retest 1 (With a 2m tall porous screen north west of the point)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
30 25 20 15
NNE NE
WNW
10 5
ENE
WSW
ESE
Retest 1 (With a 2m tall porous screen north west of the point)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW
10 9 8
NNE NE
NW
7 6 5
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S
SE
SSE

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
Retest 1 (With 6m tall trees south west and north east of the point)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
Retest 1 (With 6m tall trees south west and north east of the point)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW
10 9 8
NNE NE
NW
7 6 5
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S
SE
SSE

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
Retest 1 (With a 2m tall porous screen at the edge of the outdoor terrace) Retest 2 (With a canopy around the entire surrounding outdoor terrace) Retest 3 (Not Required)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
15 25
NNE NE
20
WNW
Melbourne's Comfortable Walking Criterion (16m/s) 10
ENE
WSW
ESE
Retest 1 (With a 2m tall porous screen at the edge of the outdoor terrace) Retest 2 (With a canopy around the entire surrounding outdoor terrace) Retest 3 (Not Required)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
Retest 1 (With a 2m tall porous screen at the edge of the outdoor terrace) Retest 2 (With a 2m tall impermeable screen at the edge of the outdoor terrace) Retest 3 (With a canopy around the entire surrounding outdoor terrace) Retest 4 (Not Required)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
Retest 1 (With a 2m tall porous screen at the edge of the outdoor terrace) Retest 2 (With a 2m tall impermeable screen at the edge of the outdoor terrace) Retest 3 (With a canopy around the entire surrounding outdoor terrace) Retest 4 (Not Required)
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
WNW
4 3 2 1
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

N NNW NW
NNE NE
20
WNW
10
ENE
WSW
ESE
SW SSW S SSE
SE

Wind Environment Study

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Descrizione originale:

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Wind Environment Study

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Wind Environment Study

for the proposed development known as the

Opus at Business Bay, Dubai

ThisreporthasbeenpreparedbyWINDTECHConsultantsPtyLtdonbehalfofourclientandinaccordancewithrelevantstandards. Ittakesintoaccountourclientsparticularinstructionsandrequirements.Itisnotintendedforandshouldnotberelieduponbyathirdpartyand noresponsibilityisundertakentoanythirdparty.

Sydney Melbourne Singapore Dubai

6.0 Conclusion References

Appendix Plots of Wind Tunnel Results

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

2.0 Model Description

Open Terrain (Terrain Category 2.0)

Country Terrain (Terrain Category 2.5)

000, 067.5, 090 22.5, 045, 270 to 337.5

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Figure 2: Aerial Image of the Site and Surrounds

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

3.0 Test Procedure

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

0 40 330 35 30 25 300 20 15 10 5 270 0 90 60 30

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

4.0 Environmental Wind Speed Criteria

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Near gale Gale Strong gale

13.9 17.1 17.2 -20.7 20.8 24.4

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Walking Fast Strolling, Skating

Short Exposure Activities

3.5 m/s>u> 5.5 m/s

Long Exposure Activities

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Short Exposure Activities

Long Exposure Activities

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

5.0 Results of Study

Northern Ground Level Areas

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Eastern Ground Level Areas

Southern Ground Level Areas

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Western Ground Level Areas

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Upper Ground Level Outdoor Areas

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Figure 6a: Study Point Locations Ground Level

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Figure 6b: Study Point Locations Level 12

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Figure 7a: Treatments for the Ground Level Outdoor Areas

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Figure 7b: Treatments for Upper Ground Level Outdoor Areas

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

WINDTECH Consultants Pty Ltd

Measured Wind Speeds at Point 01

Modified Davenport Long Exposure Criterion (3.5m/s)

Modified Davenport Short Exposure Criterion (5.5m/s)

Modified Davenport Comfortable Walking Criterion (7.5m/s)

Modified Davenport Fast Walking Criterion (10m/s)