This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ZHU for buildings with horizontal irregularities
Experiments were conducted by T. Stathopoulos and X. Zhu to investigate effect of various types of irregularities on surface of building model in a boundary layer wind tunnel of the Centre for Building Studies, Concordia University. This tunnel is an open-loop. The cross-section of the tunnel is 1.8 × 1.8 m and the length of the test section is 12.2 m. The roof is of adjustable height, from 1.4 to 1.8 m, to allow for zero longitudinal pressure gradients for various floor roughness characteristics simulating different terrain exposures. The turbulent shear flow is developed naturally over the tunnel floor. A turntable with a diameter of 1.21 m is located in the most downstream section of the tunnel so that the influence of wind direction can be investigated. The turntable can be operated either manually or electrically. The maximum wind speed at the test section is 14 m/s. Length scale was 1:400. The wind tunnel parameters represent a gradient height of 250 m. The basic model of the study, with dimensions of 15.20 × 15.20 × 30 cm high, represented a tall building 60.80 × 60.80 × 120 m high. In order to investigate the influence of building height, a sliding mechanism lowered the basic model through the turntable to the desired level. Tests for a low building were carried out at a height of 3.75 cm (15 m high in full scale). There were 47 taps located on the front surface of the tall model. There were 12 taps located near the two edges of the building at a distance of 60 cm from each corner of the building in full scale. These taps could be used to investigate the effects of appurtenances on the wind loads of edge areas. The wall of the low model had only 11 taps. The front surface of the tall model was divided into eight zones, as indicated in Fig , for data analysis purposes. The pressure distribution for each zone was represented by the pressure on the taps located within that zone.
namely 80 GAR and 40 ALO. Balconies were tested at two different widths (2 and 4 m) in order to determine the influence of the balcony width on the pressures on the surface of buildings. respectively.6 mm (24 cm in full scale).30 m in full scale. The uniform roughness. For the balconies with walls. Uniform roughness and balconies with and without walls were modeled. The sandpaper was attached to the building surface using double-sided adhesive tape and holes of 6 mm in diameter were made at each tap location to let the wind approach the pressure taps. was simulated by sandpaper.15 and 0. Balconies were simulated by zinc plates with a thickness of 0.Different arrangement and types of appurtenances were considered in the experiments in an attempt to include some common building surface roughness. representing the texture of the building envelope. only one width (4 m) was used but two different wall heights (1 and 2 m) were tested. were used in the test. The maximum heights of the sand layers corresponded to 0. These balconies were attached to . Two different kinds of sandpaper.
For the simulation using rough sandpaper. However. Effect of uniform roughness To investigate the effect of uniform roughness under different wind directions. the simulation using fine sandpaper(i. At the stagnation area the pressure decreased for 0 ° azimuth by 13% (from 0. . there was almost no difference for Cp max. Cp mean values decreased slightly in most areas of the rough wall for all wind directions. Differences. For 0 and 45 ° azimuths.the front surface of the model by adhesive tape at a constant interval of 4 m. where mean suctions increased somewhat. however. As can be seen. (suction decreases) for azimuths 90-180 ° (roughness on side or leeward wall).7) when the uniform roughness panel was attached to the building surface. for uniform roughness). A total of 29 balconies were thus used for each balcony configuration for the building.8 to 0. A similar trend (decrease in positive and negative pressures) could also be seen for the other azimuths except at the building edge for the 45 ° azimuth.e. The 15 cm uniform roughness imposed a small decrease in Cp mean and Cp min. Figure 4 compares Cp mean between the 15 cm uniform roughness and the smooth wall surface. from 0 to 180 ° with an interval of 15 °. were only marginal. pressures were only measured on the taps which had been found most affected by the fine uniform roughness. a small decrease was also shown in Cp mean. pressures on the whole front surface of the model were measured for 13 wind azimuths.
Data are presented for 0. both mean and peak instantaneous suctions increased for 0 ° azimuth but there was no major effect for other wind directions. It was of interest to investigate the effect of thickness of the uniform roughness on the wind-induced pressures/suctions on the cladding elements of the building envelope. 90 and 180 °. Therefore.Figure 5 illustrates Cp mean. a panel simulating uniform roughness of 30 cm full scale was placed on the wall of the building model to investigate its effect on wind-induced pressures.) for smooth surface and sandpaper simulations. Cp rms and Cp peak for both uniform roughness and the smooth surface for an edge zone of the tall building. or min. In the presence of roughness. Cp rms and Cp peak (max. . Figure 6 compares Cp mean.
particularly near the top of the wall. . the previously discussed data for the smooth and rough wall surfaces have been plotted for comparison purposes. Balconies 2 and 4 m wide without walls and 4 m balconies with 1 or 2 m walls are included in these comparisons. When balconies were on the windward wall. Typical results which show significant trends are presented here. positive pressures were reduced. The results indicate that there is little difference between pressure coefficients measured on wall surfaces with 2 or 4 m balconies.Effect of balconies For each balcony simulation. Figure 7 compares pressure coefficients between the simulations with and without balconies in central zone 4 for azimuths 0. 90 and 180 °. In addition. pressures on all taps of the front surface of the model were measured for 13 wind directions (0-180 ° azimuths with an interval of 15 °).
This is because the walls impeded the flow on the windward surfaces or reduced the effect of vortices on leeward surfaces. In general. values of pressure coefficients are further reduced. from -0.36 to 0.70.s. The same format as that of Fig. 7 is used. In this case the effect was more pronounced for the higher balcony wall.34. Thus. the height of the balcony wall is not a critical parameter for the magnitude of pressure coefficients obtained.m. For balconies with walls both mean and instantaneous peak pressure coefficients changed from negative to positive values at 0 ° azimuth. Balconies with walls had a more pronounced effect on wind pressures than balconies without walls. both positive and negative peaks as well as the r. suctions were also reduced. For Cp mean the maximum difference was 0. Balconies without walls generally caused a slight reduction of suctions measured on the smooth wall surface. . Figure 8 illustrates the effects of balconies with and without walls on the pressures at the edge zone of the building wall.When the balconies were on side or leeward walls.
a strip of zinc plate 0.5 cm wide was used to cover the first and second mullions at the edge of the building to examine the effect of thick mullions on pressures. the variation of mullion size was not found critical in the evaluation of pressures. Third. Stathopoulos and X. ZHU for buildings with vertical irregularities Same experiment setup including wind lab. Different dimensions and geometry as well as different locations for the comer mullions were examined. Vertical ribs on the wall of the building were simulated by using 0.5 cm wide. a two-times exaggeration in depth for the furthest left and the furthest right mullions was considered in order to study the effect of depth of the corner mullion. with the exception of the furthest left and the furthest right mullion. only azimuths ranging from 0-180° were examined in this study. Second. Full-scale dimensions of ribs for the building were 0. For the purpose of investigating pressure changes under different wind directions.5 cm (two meters in full scale). The addition of mullions or other type of roughness on other surfaces of the model did not make any difference to the measured pressures (Zhu 1987). Therefore. Zhu with some modification for vertical irregularities. azimuth is defined as the angle between the normal to the front surface of the model and the upstream wind direction in the wind tunnel.0 m deep. They extended throughout the height of the building. as will be discussed later. STATHOPOULOS and X. First. which were located 0.6-mm thick zinc plates. All mullions were attached on one surface of the model at an interval of 0. Because of symmetry.24 m by 2. an extra mullion was attached at the corner in order to investigate how the pressures may change.Study by T. The dimensions of mullions employed in this study were rather large based on the general geometric scale of 1:400 (one-meter and two-meter deep mullions). the results may also be applicable for a full-clad building. Regardless of the scaling arguments discussed in the introduction.35 cm (1. RESULTS Data obtained from testing the model building with smooth surfaces have been compared with those obtained from buildings with mullions. These comer mullion arrangements are shown in Fig. building model explain earlier was used by T.4 m) from each edge. 0. Uniformly distributed mullions impose a great increase in the magnitude of both mean and peak instantaneous pressure coefficients near the wall edge region . measurements were carried out with mullions on only one face of the model.
in which. rms. rootmeansquare. However. These high suctions can be explained since the vertical mullions. This is due to the horseshoe vortex. and 180° azimuths. Regarding mean pressure coefficients. the influence of the mullions is weakened at points further away from the edge for 0° azimuth. High suction fluctuations were also observed near the wall edge for 105° azimuth. The edge area thus falls into the shear layer of the flow.10 to -2. Increases observed were 180% for Cp mean. 5 shows the effects of mullions on wind pressure coefficients measured at the bottom part of the building when exposed to an open country terrain.37 (+236%). Fig. However. and strong vortices are developed as the flow changes direction. and intensive vortices increase the suction greatly. as previously discussed. especially those close to the edge. the existence of the edge mullions disturbs the flow passing around the corner. Cp min of tap 72 increased from -1.. which appears to be the most critical azimuth. Fig. but some increase of the magnitude of Cp min and Cp mean still occurred at the edge. Since the side-wall edge is located within the flow shear layer. when mullions are placed on the side walls. this increase.(zones 1 and 2) or 0°-30°. At 180° azimuth. compared to that at 105° azimuth. 150% for Cp min. there is no significant change from zone 1 to zone 4. affect the zone of flow separation. The edge of the first mullion also becomes a line for flow separation. and peak pressure coefficients are presented for 0°. i. These effects persist at points of the side wall further from the edge. Mean. 105°. decreased Cp min and Cp mean were observed in the intermediate part of the building with mullions. However.e. the magnitude of both Cp rms and Cp min increases in the presence of mullions in all zones. In the intermediate part of the building surface. 7 shows the effects of mullions on zones 1-4 for wind blowing at 105°.97 (+170%). Mean. Fig. which develops at the bottom of the windward face by down flow and whose transmission to the lower part of the side wall is disturbed by the mullions.11 to 0. . and 80% for Cp rms values. More pronounced effects can be found at zones nearer to the edge and at the lower part of the building. Pressure coefficient values are referred to the dynamic velocity pressure at gradient height qG. was not critical. when mullions were added. 15°. however. but the ratio qG/qH is also provided. 90°-105°. The effect of mullions becomes more severe in the lower part of the building at 105° azimuth. and 150°-180° azimuths. 6 shows in detail the significant effect of mullions on the wind pressures measured on zone 1. and peak instantaneous pressure coefficients on tap 72 are significantly increased in the presence of mullions for 0° azimuth. pressures are only slightly affected by the presence of mullions. and Cp rms increased from 0.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.