1,059
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Research Article

Towards digital twinning for multi-domain simulation workflows in urban design: a case study in Gothenburg

, , , , , , , , , , & ORCID Icon show all
Received 03 Apr 2023, Accepted 02 Feb 2024, Published online: 27 Feb 2024

Figures & data

Figure 1. Outline of the methodology used in the study.

Figure 1. Outline of the methodology used in the study.

Figure 2. The area Gibraltarvallen where the blue rectangle marks the site where the different alternatives will be installed.

Figure 2. The area Gibraltarvallen where the blue rectangle marks the site where the different alternatives will be installed.

Figure 3. Site where the different alternatives will be installed.

Figure 3. Site where the different alternatives will be installed.

Figure 4. Base case without buildings and design alternatives with new buildings tested in the case study.

Figure 4. Base case without buildings and design alternatives with new buildings tested in the case study.

Figure 5. Wind comfort.

Figure 5. Wind comfort.

Figure 6. Yearly energy demand of the existing buildings in the base case.

Figure 6. Yearly energy demand of the existing buildings in the base case.

Figure 7. Change in energy demand of existing office buildings for each design alternative.

Figure 7. Change in energy demand of existing office buildings for each design alternative.

Figure 8. Solar radiation of the base case and delta between the solar radiation of the base case with each alternative.

Figure 8. Solar radiation of the base case and delta between the solar radiation of the base case with each alternative.

Figure 9. Grid noise maps for (a) base case without new buildings, and (b–h) different maps for design alternatives 1–7.

Figure 9. Grid noise maps for (a) base case without new buildings, and (b–h) different maps for design alternatives 1–7.

Figure 10. Change of performance indicators of each design alternative compared to the base case of the case study (positive values indicate increase in performance).

Figure 10. Change of performance indicators of each design alternative compared to the base case of the case study (positive values indicate increase in performance).

Table 1. Combined results for each design alternative.

Figure 11. Example representation of the combined visualization of wind comfort, building energy consumption and noise for design alternative 1. The top image shows energy, noise, and wind visualized together, whereas the bottom image visualizes energy and solar radiation.

Figure 11. Example representation of the combined visualization of wind comfort, building energy consumption and noise for design alternative 1. The top image shows energy, noise, and wind visualized together, whereas the bottom image visualizes energy and solar radiation.

Figure A1. Streamlines across the target area, which can be seen in Figure (a).

Figure A1. Streamlines across the target area, which can be seen in Figure 5(a).

Figure A2. Wind pressures coefficient used for infiltration calculation in energy demand simulation, exemplary shown for northern wind for all design alternatives.

Figure A2. Wind pressures coefficient used for infiltration calculation in energy demand simulation, exemplary shown for northern wind for all design alternatives.

Data availability statement

The participants of this study did not give written consent for their data to be shared publicly, so due to the sensitive nature of the research supporting data is not available. Data can be made accessible by individual request to the authors.