Re: Coyote Wind Blockage Calcs

From: Greg Harris (harris@Synopsys.COM-DeleteThis)
Date: Tue Feb 02 1999 - 14:44:57 PST


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (opus-fddi.hpl.hp.com) by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA183375761; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:49:21 -0800
Return-Path: <harris@Synopsys.COM-DeleteThis>
Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA141865760; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:49:20 -0800
Received: from hamachi.synopsys.com (hamachi-8.synopsys.com [146.225.8.26]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id OAA15519 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:49:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from marathon.synopsys.com (marathon.synopsys.com [146.225.100.41]) by hamachi.synopsys.com (8.8.8/8.8.5) with ESMTP id OAA16671 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:44:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from synopsys.com (dhcp-146-225-75-38.synopsys.com [146.225.75.38]) by marathon.synopsys.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA19763 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 2 Feb 1999 14:45:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <36B77FE9.BABD0213@synopsys.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 1999 14:44:57 -0800
From: Greg Harris <harris@Synopsys.COM-DeleteThis>
Organization: Synopsys
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.03 [en] (WinNT; I)
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Subject: Re: Coyote Wind Blockage Calcs
References: <199902022138.NAA00317@cupertino.synopsys.com-DeleteThis>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Wow as I look at the map that's 100% correct. If they possibly moved
the buildings orientations 90 degrees they at least would be letting
more air pass through. That's probably something to consider mitigation
wise.

Greg

Matt Chapman wrote:
>
> Cool. I'm just guessing, but I'd think the city would have to supply
> the documentation they use for their EIR findings to anyone with a
> legitimate interest. You could try calling the office and asking them
> to make copies of the raw data that you could pick up.
>
> Maybe I'm being naive, but I've read through the RDEIR a few times now,
> and the impression I get is that the city IS concerned about degrading
> the quality of sailing at Coyote. They seem to understand the
> problem - it's just unlikely they've ever had to deal with something
> like this before. It's probably not covered in Civil Engineering 101.
>
> Two items in the RDEIR stuck out though. The first was in the diagram
> (Fig 14 on page 58) showing the location of the new buildings: If this
> is actually the shape and orientation of the building, it appears to
> me that they're arranged in a configuration that would cause the
> greatest disturbance to the wind flow. Check it out.
>
> The second thing I noticed was that the report says the wind speed
> increased in some portions of the area they charted in the simulation.
>
> Hmmmm.
>
> Here's a crazy idea for your Ph.D friend to mull over. Is it possible
> to shape, orient or landscape around these buildings so that they
> would actually improve the flow of wind in front of the launch area?
>
> All objects (and groups of objects) are airfoils. Some are just
> better airfoils than others. Maybe it's possible (and not all that
> expensive) to fool around with the site plan to produce a setting that
> forces the wind up and over (or channels it through) the buildings so
> that it accelerates down onto the water in front of the launch.
>
> Conservation of energy says the wind speed will then be less (or more
> turbulent) elsewhere, but who cares. A SW wind is already garbage at
> Coyote and NW is pretty much unaffected by the 301 project. So it's
> really only a West wind they would have to optimize.
>
> It would certainly make yet-another-boring-office-building project a
> little more interesting.
>
> - Matt
>
> __________________________ Reply Separator _______________________
> >Date: Tue, 2 Feb 1999 11:45:17 -0800
> >Errors-To: listserv_err@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
> >Reply-To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
> >Originator: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
> >Sender: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
> >Precedence: bulk
> >From: Brad James <bjames@exponent.com-DeleteThis>
> >X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
> >X-Comment: Windsurfing Discussion Mailing List
> >Content-Type: text/plain;
> >Content-Length: 651
> >
> >Hey guys-
> >
> >I work for Failure Analysis Associates, and just talked to one of my
> >colleages who is a Ph.D. civil/ structural engineer whose specialty is
> >windloading/blockage studies and calcs. Although he gets paid by people to
> >do this stuff, he's told me he'd be happy to donate a *little* time to look
> >over the building peoples' wind tunnel testing/methodology for us.
> >
> >I haven't had much time to review all of the emails regarding these
> >buildings by Coyote.... Do we have access to all of these reports? If so,
> >forward them to me, and I'll get my buddy to review them. Hopefully, we can
> >find some points to refute the 10% reduction claim.
> >
> >Brad



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:01 PST