Fig 1.
The advantages and disadvantages of white-box-based, black-box-based, and grey-box-based approaches of wind environment simulation.
Fig 2.
The advantages and disadvantages of the three distinct models of white-box-based approaches.
Fig 3.
The five LODs of geometric models in simulation-driven wind environment design (the characteristic details of each LOD level are modified from Biljecki et al. [29]).
Table 1.
Comparison of different wind environment simulation software commonly applied in sustainable architectural design.
Table 2.
Cross-tabulation of industry sector and professional status by software-choice reasons.
Fig 4.
Vote for the most used software obtained from the questionnaire survey.
Fig 5.
Data obtained from the questionnaire survey: (a) What are the main reasons for your choice of current software (Multiple choices allowed); (b) What is the average number of cycles of wind environment simulation and design interaction feedback you conduct in a project; (c) At which stage of design do you most frequently perform wind environment simulation.
Fig 6.
The proposed architecture for the “Energy Diagram” tool for predicting wind velocity field.
Fig 7.
The 3D CFD simulations of a circular building with its cross-sectional slices serving as database.
Table 3.
Optimal hyperparameters.
Table 4.
The criteria for determining the ideal range of building performance indicators.
Fig 8.
The operating mode and processing flow of the “Energy Diagram” tool.
Fig 9.
Indications of wind field and measurement in the wind-tunnel cube cases.
Fig 10.
Verification of experiment data and numerical simulations in the wind-tunnel cube cases.
Fig 11.
Probe points in the campus reading room measurement cases.
Fig 12.
Verification of experiment data and numerical simulations in the campus reading room measurement cases.
Table 5.
Case-wise validation errors.
Fig 13.
The intervention nodes of the “Energy Diagram” tool in the course structure.
Table 6.
Detailed information of the 3 application cases of the “Energy Diagram” tool.
Fig 14.
The final architectural schemes designed by the students: (a) Dock Museum, (b) Mahjong Parlor, and (c) Water Market.
Fig 15.
Bioclimatic charts and passive techniques for expanding thermal comfort zone.
Fig 16.
Simulation analysis on patio ventilation and cross ventilation in Southern Yangtze vernacular dwellings (Case II).
Fig 17.
The continuous feedback and adjustment through “form-energy” interaction (Case I).
Fig 18.
The canopy domes of the South Beach Complex in Singapore, and the simulation verification of the effectiveness “air chipper (Case III)”.