Statistical analysis of low-occurrence strong wind speeds at the pedestrian level around a simplified building based on the Weibull distribution
Statistical analysis of low-occurrence strong wind speeds at the pedestrian level around a simplified building based on the Weibull distribution
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108644
复制
发表时间：
2021-12
影响因子：
7.4
通讯作者：
Wei Wang;Tsubasa Okaze
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wei Wang;Tsubasa Okaze
在这项研究中，低发生强风风速（LOSWSs）在行人水平周围的高层建筑进行了统计分析的基础上的两个参数（2 W）和三个参数（3 W）威布尔分布。使用大涡模拟获得的风速数据库。大部分地区风速累积分布函数用2 W和3 W拟合较好。在靠近建筑物侧壁的回流区，由于双峰分布，2 W和3 W的拟合优度略差于其他区域。与2 W相比，3 W的位置参数在建筑物旁边的相对较远的范围内提高了拟合度。从3 W尺度参数的分布来看，分离区的风速分布范围比其他区域更广。还讨论了基于统计的LOSWS估计方法。基于威布尔分布，理论峰值因子可以由风速的变异系数（CV）（2 W法）或偏度（3 W法）估计。这两种方法都表现出较高的精度估计LOSWS的重复概率q= 30%-0.1%。两种方法的相对误差在大多数点都在10%以内。然而，对于q= 1%和0.1%，3 W方法比2 W方法更准确，因为偏度是比CV更高阶的统计量，这导致与低发生率值的关系更密切。
In this study, low-occurrence strong wind speeds (LOSWSs) at the pedestrian level around a high-rise building were statistically analyzed based on the two-parameter (2W) and three-parameter (3W) Weibull distributions. A wind speed database obtained using large-eddy simulations was used. The cumulative distribution functions of the wind speeds were well fitted by 2W and 3W in most regions. In the recirculation region next to the side wall of the building, the goodness of fit of 2W and 3W was slightly worse than that in other regions owing to the bimodal distribution. Compared with 2W, the location parameter of 3W improved the fit in a relatively far range beside the building. From the distribution of the scale parameter of 3W, the separation region was found to have a wider distribution range of wind speeds than other regions. Methods for estimating LOSWSs based on statistics were also discussed. Based on the Weibull distribution, the theoretical peak factors can be estimated from the coefficient of variation (CV)(2W method) or skewness (3W method) of the wind speeds. Both methods demonstrated high accuracies for estimating the LOSWSs with exceedance probabilities q= 30%–0.1%. The relative errors were within 10% at most points for both methods. However, the 3W method was more accurate than the 2W method for q= 1% and 0.1% because skewness is a higher-order statistic than CV, which results in a closer relationship with low-occurrence values.