Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016) 225235

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Aerodynamic Mitigation and Shape Optimization of Buildings: Review

Maryam Asghari Mooneghi a, Ramtin Kargarmoakhar b,I
a
PhD, Advanced Technology and Research, Arup, San Francisco, CA, USA
b
PhD, T.Y. Lin International, San Francisco, CA, USA

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Usually the design of the external shape and orientation of buildings is driven by architectural con-
Received 3 October 2015 siderations, functional requirements and site limitations, rather than by aerodynamic considerations.
Received in revised form This, most of the times, results in structures becoming bluff bodies characterized by high wind-structure
28 January 2016
interaction induced loads. These effects can be signicantly reduced through novel aerodynamic miti-
Accepted 29 January 2016
gation techniques and optimal aerodynamic shape design procedures. This paper reviews the past/recent
Available online 4 February 2016
work on various aerodynamic mitigation techniques developed for reducing wind loads on buildings by
Keywords: modifying their shapes and/or adding simple architectural elements. Aerodynamic mitigation techniques
Buildings applicable to low-rise and high-rise buildings have been reviewed. In addition, aerodynamic shape op-
Wind
timization techniques for reducing wind loads on tall buildings are presented and the suitability and
Aerodynamic Mitigation
challenges of using Computational Fluids Dynamics (CFD) for this application are discussed. An overview
Shape Optimization
CFD of the optimization techniques namely gradient based methods and non-gradient based methods are
presented. It is expected that this research can ignite an interest in using aerodynamic shapes and
consideration of the structures shape, in terms of wind performance, early in the design process. This
paper also serves as a source for various techniques that can be used for reducing wind loads on
buildings.
& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
2. Aerodynamic mitigation techniques for buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
2.1. High-rise buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226
2.1.1. Minor modications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
2.1.2. Major modications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
2.2. Low-rise buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
2.2.1. Parapets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
2.2.2. Passive aerodynamic devices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
3. Aerodynamic shape optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
3.1. An overview of optimization algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
3.2. Aerodynamic shape optimization of tall buildings using CFD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Acknowledgement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
Appendix Optimization algorithms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234

E-mail address: maryam.asghari@arup.com (M. Asghari Mooneghi).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2016.01.009
2352-7102/& 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
226 M. Asghari Mooneghi, R. Kargarmoakhar / Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016) 225235
1. Introduction
Wind loads are one of the most critical parameters for design of
buildings. Buildings typically have sharp corners which can cause
wind ow separation resulting in strong wind-structure interac-
tion induced loads (e.g. high roof suctions in case of low-rise
buildings and acrosswind loads and wind-induced vibrations
produced by unfavorable aerodynamic corners in case of high-rise
buildings).
One approach for reducing the wind loads on buildings is to use
Aerodynamic Mitigation techniques. These methods effectively
use simple and innovative architectural features to modify the
aerodynamic shape of the buildings in order to reduce the wind
loads. Aerodynamic modications assist either by disrupting the
formation of strong corner vortices; or by breaking the coherent
formation of vortices; or by diverting ows in the separation zone
over the roof edge or away from the weak members.
A second strategy to achieve reductions in wind-induced loads
on buildings is to use Aerodynamic Shape Optimization techni-
ques. In optimal shape design problems, the optimization of a
performance criterion depends on the shape of a boundary. The
creativity and insight of an experienced designer is required to
reduce the design problem to a well-posed optimization problem.
This involves the denition of objective functions that specify the
goals of the optimization, design variables that determine the
aerodynamic shape, as well as constraints that dene a feasible
region of the design space. The optimization algorithm nds the
values of the geometric parameters that optimize the objective
function while satisfying the constraints. For optimizing the shape
of civil structures like long-span bridges and tall slender towers
different objective functions can be taken into account e.g. redu-
cing the drag force and/or vortex-induced forces. Aerodynamic
shape optimization allows the designer to explore more alter-
natives for the design of new aerodynamic shapes compared to the
traditional methods which are limited to a certain number of pre-
selected geometries by the designer.
Shape optimization has progressed signicantly over the years
and has been used in many areas of engineering. Examples include
but are not limited to the design of external surfaces of aircrafts,
especially wings, design of cars and civil structures, such as tall
buildings and long-span bridges [1]. Several algorithms have been
developed that can efciently perform aerodynamic shape opti-
mization. Dulikravich [2] presented a comprehensive review on
the aerodynamic shape optimization methods with applications in
aircraft airfoil design.
The intention of the current paper is to review the past/recent
work on aerodynamic mitigation and aerodynamic shape optimi-
zation methods developed for reducing wind loads on buildings. In
the rst part of this paper different aerodynamic mitigation
techniques which aim at reducing wind loads on high-rise and
low-rise buildings are reviewed. In the second part, an overview of
Fig. 1. (a) Aerodynamic forces on a tall building; (b) Vortex shedding (plan view).
aerodynamic shape optimization approach is presented and the
suitability and challenges of using computational uid dynamics
(CFD) for aerodynamic shape optimization of tall buildings are
discussed. Different optimization algorithms which can be used for
aerodynamic shape optimization problems are briey presented. It
is shown that the use of aerodynamic shapes and consideration of
the structures shape, in terms of wind performance, early in the
design can result in signicant improvements in the response of
buildings under wind loads.
2. Aerodynamic mitigation techniques for buildings
2.1. High-rise buildings
The world is currently undergoing the biggest wave of tall
building construction in history. The use of higher-strength ma-
terials, lightweight oors, and curtain wall system in the con-
struction of tall buildings has reduced building weight, stiffness,
and damping values. Therefore, tall buildings are more susceptible
to wind loads and wind-induced excitations which have the po-
tential to reduce their structural safety and cause discomfort to the
occupants. Also, these excessive motions can create high base
loads which increase the cost of the structure.
For typical tall buildings, aerodynamic forces are drag force
(alongwind), lift force (acrosswind) and torsional moment
(Fig. 1a).
The wind-induced response of tall buildings is usually domi-
nated by dynamic acrosswind loading resulting from wind vortex
shedding [3] as shown in Fig. 1b. When wind blows over a bluff
structure, ow separates and causes periodic shedding of vortices.
This periodic vortex shedding exerts acrosswind forces on the
body by creating uctuating pressures. Strouhal number is a non-
dimensional parameter that denes the dominant frequency of the
uctuations in the acrosswind forces and is expressed as (Eq. (1)):
S = fB/U (1)
where, f is the frequency of vortex shedding, S is the Strouhal
number, U is the wind speed and B is the building width. Strouhal
number is a function of the shape of the building with values
between 0.1 to 0.3, e.g. about 0.14 for a square cross section and
0.2 for a roughly circular cylinder [4]. Vortex-induced vibrations
(VIV) occurs when the frequency of vortex shedding, f , ap-
proaches one of the natural frequencies of the building. This leads
to amplied acrosswind response. Vortex-induced vibrations are
the prime problem in self-excited vibration of tall exible
buildings.
Aerodynamic mitigation techniques which utilize modications
to the external shape of a building (e.g. corner modications,
variation of the cross section shape and size along the height of
the building, etc.) can signicantly reduce building response under
 M. Asghari Mooneghi, R. Kargarmoakhar / Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016) 225235
wind loads by altering the wind ow pattern around the building
and can lead to a more economic and comfortable design [46].
Shape effects from a wind engineering perspective have been in-
vestigated by Davenport [7] through aerodynamic model tests.
Many researches were performed to study the relationship be-
tween the aerodynamic characteristics of a structure and the re-
sulting wind-induced excitation level [817]. Aerodynamic mod-
ication techniques aim particularly at suppression of vortex
shedding and can generally be classied into two groups [18]:
2.1.1. Minor modications
These modications have negligible effects on the overall
structural and architectural design of the building. Common
building shapes are square or rectangle which cause the building
to experience relatively strong vortex-induced forces. These ex-
citation forces can be reduced through minor modications to the
aerodynamic shape of the tower. For instance, modications in the
corners of the cross sectional shape of the building such as slotted
corners, chamfered corners, corner recession, roundness of corners
and changing the orientation of the building relative to the most
frequent strong wind direction are among the minor modication
Fig. 2. Minor aerodynamic modications.
Fig. 3. Flow eld around different cross sections.
227
methods that can be utilized to improve the wind performance of
tall buildings (Fig. 2). These methods can result in reductions in
both alongwind and acrosswind responses compared to plain
rectangular shape buildings. The modication of windward cor-
ners can change the characteristics of the separated shear layers
leading to narrower downstream wake and thus can be very ef-
fective in reducing the drag and uctuating lift forces.
Fig. 3 shows a graphical representation of the ow eld around
six different cross section alternatives obtained using CFD simu-
lations. The analysis was performed using ANSYS Fluent Software.
All the models were run transiently with 20 m/s uniform inlet
velocity using k- SST turbulence model. The k- SST model was
selected because of its proved ability for modeling detached ows
with periodic vortex shedding [19]. The outlet was considered to
be a pressure outlet. Top, bottom, and the two sides of the com-
putational domain were assigned as symmetric plane. All the
building faces were assigned to be No-slip walls. It can be seen
form Fig. 3 that corner modications (in this case modications
were made to a building with square plan shape) can change the
ow pattern around the building. The effectiveness of each of
these strategies does depend on the type and size of the corner
modications relative to the size of the plan. For example, it can be
seen that the plan shapes with Recessed Corners or Double
Chamfered caused smaller separation zones and narrower wakes
as compared to a simple square shape. These techniques can be
effective in reducing the alongwind (drag) as well as acrosswind
(lift) forces as compared to a sharped edged square cross section.
Many researchers studied the effect of corner modications
and their impact on the aerodynamic forces on tall buildings in-
cluding chamfered, recessed and slotted corners [3,4,13,2022].
While many of these studies demonstrated the benets of corner
geometry modications, there are some cases showing that
modications to building corners can be ineffective and even
sometimes result in adverse effects [14,23]. As a matter of fact,
these methods should be utilized with care to avoid any un-
favorable effects. It should also be noted that the effectiveness of
corner modications depends on the oncoming wind direction
[20] and the size of the modications relative to the size of the
plan [3,11]. Irwin et al [24] suggested that the corner modications
228 M. Asghari Mooneghi, R. Kargarmoakhar / Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016) 225235
should extend about 10% of the building width to be effective.
Taipei 101 skyscraper in Taiwan and Mitsubishi Heavy In-
dustries Yokohama Building in Japan are examples of tall buildings
that successfully utilized the corner modication techniques to
reduce the alongwind and acrosswind responses. Corner mod-
ications in Taipei 101 skyscraper resulted in 25% reductions in the
base moment [24]. Creating rounded corners is another effective
approach for improving the aerodynamic behavior of tall buildings
against the wind excitations [5,16,25].
2.1.2. Major modications
These modications have signicant effects on the structural
and architectural design of the building. For instance, varying the
shape of building and setbacks along the height, tapering, inclu-
sion of openings at top and twisting the building are among the
major modication methods that can be utilized to come up with
an aerodynamically favorable building shape (Fig. 4). Some of
these approaches are discussed in the following.
Tapering and setbacks: Through tapering or setbacks, the width
of a building can be varied along its height causing the vortices
to become incoherent and shed at different frequencies at dif-
ferent heights. This is mainly due to the fact that the frequency
of vortex shedding depends on the width of the building (Eq. 1).
This results in dramatic reduction of the associated uctuating
forces. Kim et al [26], Kim and You [17], and You et al [27]
investigated the effects of tapering for reducing the wind-
induced response of tall buildings. Tapering has a more sig-
nicant effect in acrosswind direction than that in the along-
wind direction [17,26]. This method has been in part used in
order to optimize the shape of Burj Khalifa, Dubai. The building
shape is extremely efcient from a wind loading point of view so
that the tower does not need any supplementary damping
system [28]. The Millennium Tower in Tokyo, Japan and Transa-
merica pyramid in San Francisco also exploit the use of tapering
effects along their heights for mitigating the wind forces.
Varying cross-section shape: Varying the cross-section shape with
height, e.g. going from square to round has a similar effect. In
this case, Strouhal number varies with height (Eq. 1) which
causes the vortices to shed over a broad range of frequencies.
This method can be especially effective in reducing the across-
wind forces [24].
Porosity or openings: The addition of openings to a building is
another method to improve the aerodynamic behavior of a
structure. By allowing air to bleed through the building via
openings or porous sections, the formation of the vortices
Fig. 4. Major aerodynamic modications.
becomes weakened and disrupted by the ow of air through the
structure. This aerodynamic modication method was in-
vestigated by several researchers [12,14,29,30]. These studies
showed that openings in the upper half of the buildings
(especially openings in the alongwind direction) can be very
effective for reducing the acrosswind response of tall buildings.
However, the efcacy of this approach does depend on the
location and size of the openings. Dutton and Isyumov [12] also
showed that the effectiveness of these gaps might be inuenced
by the level of turbulence in the approaching ow.
Twisting or rotating the buildings: Rotating the building can be
very effective because the designer can assign the orientation of
the building such that its least favorable aspect does not coin-
cide with the strongest wind direction. Also, twisted building
forms are effective in reducing vortex-induced vibrations by
avoiding simultaneous vortex shedding along the building
height. The availability of studies investigating the effects of
twisting the building on the wind loads is limited [31]. The
twisted form can be found in todays tall building designs such
as Turning Torso, in Malmo, Sweden and Shanghai Centre, in
Shanghai, China.
2.2. Low-rise buildings
Wind-related disasters are among the most costly natural ha-
zards to occur in the US each year in addition to loss of many lives
[32]. Low-rise buildings such as residential houses, commercial
and industrial structures, constitute more than 70 percent of the
building stuck in the United States and account for the majority of
losses due to wind storms [33].
Roof systems are exposed to higher loading than any other
building element. The worst wind suctions on roofs normally oc-
cur for cornering or oblique wind directions. These extreme suc-
tions are the result of conical vortices which form along the roof
edges (Fig. 5) and are the main reason for most of the wind-in-
duced damages. Shingles, tiles, or pavers placed on roofs are most
vulnerable to being dislodged and becoming wind-borne debris
[34]. Loose roong components could lead to rain water intrusion
and losses to interior appliances and building contents [35]. The
need to reduce roof damages due to wind effects has recently
become one of the most important challenges for designers,
manufacturers, and building code ofcials [34,3639].
Simple modications to the shape of the roof edge and/or
utilizing roof accessory structures can change the ow pattern on
the roof and can lead to reductions in the wind loads and conse-
quently damage to low-rise buildings. These methods are appro-
priately entitled vortex suppression techniques since they
mainly aim at disrupting and deecting the conical vortices from
the roof which are the main causes of extreme roof suctions. These
methods are mainly in form of using parapets with various shapes
and congurations or passive aerodynamic edges that suppress
vortex generation on the roof. Vortex suppression techniques can
be classied in the following four categories based on their aero-
dynamic mechanism [40]:
1. Methods aiming at eliminating straight sharp edges which
create the vortices
2. Methods aiming at disrupting the vortex formation (like partial
or porous parapets)
3. Methods aiming at disturbing the vortices (like porous fence or
screen, rooftop cylinders and splitters)
4. Methods aiming at displacing the formed vortices (like high
parapets)
Fig. 6 shows a schematic of some types of aerodynamic miti-
gation techniques that were proposed in the literature to alleviate
 M. Asghari Mooneghi, R. Kargarmoakhar / Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016) 225235
the corner suction pressures on roofs of low-rise buildings. Please
note that the drawings in Fig. 6 are not in their actual scale for
better presentation of each approach.
2.2.1. Parapets
Parapets have been used as a standard architectural feature for
many years mainly for buildings with at roofs. Many wind tunnel
testing and eld studies have been performed on the effectiveness
of parapets for reducing wind loads on building roofs. Basically,
the parapets lift the separated shear layers clear of the roof surface
and thus dissipate the high local corner or edge suctions over a
larger area. However, this can result in increased loads on interior
regions, thus inuencing the overall effectiveness of parapets [44].
One of the rst studies that specically considered the role of
these building components in vortex suppression was carried out
by Baskaran and Stathopoulos [41]. Their results showed that high
parapets generally reduce the high suctions on roof corners while
low parapets may increase the roof suctions at the edges and
corners. A similar effect was observed by Asghari Mooneghi et al
[49] by performing large-scale testing on a at roof building with
solid parapets of different heights in Wall of Wind open jet facility
at Florida International University. Baskaran and Stathopoulos [41]
also showed that generally the perimetric parapets have a more
signicant effect on reducing corner pressure coefcients than a
parapet present on only one side of the roof. The effectiveness of
parapets is also a function of the parapet conguration. Surry and
Lin [40] investigated the effectiveness of various parapet cong-
urations, including saw-tooth partial parapets, semi-cylindrical
parapets, solid and porous roof corner splitters and isolated porous
parapets on a scaled model of Texas Tech University (TTU) research
building. The isolated porous parapets were shown to be the most
effective alternative in reducing suctions near the roof corner.
Kopp et al [43] studied the effects of various parapets in de-
creasing area-averaged loads under the corner vortices. The spoi-
lers and porous continuous parapets performed best with 44% and
56% maximum reductions in peak pressure coefcients near roof
corners. Wu [44] investigated a specic parapet called a Conical
Vortex Disrupter through full-scale tests. Results showed sig-
nicant reductions on both local and area-averaged wind loads
near the roof corners on a at roof building. Other studies on the
effect of parapet conguration on mitigating peak suctions on the
roof of low-rise buildings include those of Pindado and Meseguer
[42] and Suaris and Irwin [50].
2.2.2. Passive aerodynamic devices
Beyond investigating the efcacy of parapets in reducing high
wind suctions on the roofs, recent studies have focused on mod-
ifying the roof corners or edges and/or adding various aero-
dynamic edge elements to mitigate the extreme negative pres-
sures caused by conical vortices. These elements can be used as
Fig. 5. (a) Conical vortices on a at roof at cornering winds; (b) Suction variation under conical vortices.
229
permanent architectural elements or can be attached to the roof
during preparations for high-wind events.
The effectiveness of roof edge conguration on mitigating wind
loadings was investigated by Blackmore [51] and Savory et al [52]
using wind tunnel testing or eld measurements performed on
aerodynamic curved and chamfered roof eave edges. Although
these methods were shown to be effective, they are not practical
sometimes e.g. for buildings with eaves.
A variety of roof edge devices have been developed that can be
attached to roof eaves (e.g. semicircular gutters, cantilevered spoi-
lers, etc.). These devices were shown to facilitate the reduction of
extreme wind pressures on the roof with varying degrees of aero-
dynamic effectiveness and architectural practicality [5356]. For
instance, Huang et al [57] investigated the effectiveness of eight
typical softs that are commonly used in the residential houses in
China for alleviating rooftop extreme wind pressures using wind
tunnel testing. Results showed that the presence of these elements
signicantly reduced the negative peak wind pressures at edges and
corners of the roof while not changing the wind loads on the other
roof regions. Most of these studies have been based on small-scale
model testing (scales between 1:50 and 1:200) in wind tunnels.
However, large-scale and full-scale testing is more favorable for as-
sessing the performance of aerodynamic devices [58] because they
allow for accurate modeling of architectural details, avoiding adverse
scale effect by testing at higher Reynolds numbers (which is more
pronounced for curved surfaces that might be used in aerodynamic
devices [59] and using greater spatial resolution of the pressure taps
in critical regions on the roof (e.g. corners and edges) to capture the
high localized suctions [49]. For this reason large- and full-scale tests
have been performed recently for developing roof suction mitigation
techniques. Blessing et al [60] exploited roof gravel scour testing and
pressure testing to assess the effectiveness of several aerodynamic
devices in reducing high uplift pressures at corners and edges of at
roofs through full-scale testing. Huang et al [47] carried out eld
measurements to examine the efcacy of three types of aero-
dynamic mitigation plates, including full-length roof-edge plate,
roof-corner plate, and discrete roof-edge plates with different spaces
on pitched roofs. Results showed that these plates could signicantly
reduce the mean and uctuating pressure coefcients in the wind-
ward corner. Bitsuamlak et al [48] investigated the effectiveness of
simple architectural elements including gable end and ridgeline
extensions, trellis, and wall extensions for the reduction of roof and
wall corner suctions using 6-fan Wall of Wind facility at Florida in-
ternational University. The wind loading mechanism of aerodynamic
mitigation devices were also investigated using CFD. Aly [61] used
CFD simulations to study the efcacy of aerodynamic roof mitigation
devices in reducing wind suctions on the roof of low-rise buildings.
Mitigation devices including barriers, circular edges, inclined edges
and airfoil edges were investigated. The objective was to propose an
aerodynamic mitigation technique which could not only reduce the
230 M. Asghari Mooneghi, R. Kargarmoakhar / Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016) 225235

Solid parapet [41] Porous parapet [42] Discontinuous parapet [43]

Partial parapet [25] Perimetric spoiler [44] Aerodynamic edge [45]

Discontinuous perforated parapets [46] Full length roof-edge plate [47] Trellis (pergola) [48]
Fig. 6. Various aerodynamic mitigation techniques for reducing wind loads on roof of low-rise buildings [25,4148].

loads on the roofs but also had minimum drag and lift forces exerted
on it. Aerodynamic mitigation devices with relatively high lift and
drag forces can become wind born debris impacting other structures
downwind or they may introduce excessive loads to the main
structure. It was shown that slope-in aerodynamic mitigation de-
vices which could be replaced by solar panels [62] were relatively
effective in reducing roof induced suctions.
3. Aerodynamic shape optimization
3.1. An overview of optimization algorithms
The search for an optimal state is one of the most fundamental
principles in our world. Optimization is to nd the best solution to a
certain designated problem. Numerical methods for optimizing the
performance of engineering problems have been studied for many
years. For optimization of an objective, different categories of opti-
mization techniques namely Gradient based methods and Non-
gradient based methods can be used. The basic idea behind the
gradient based methods is that a given function reaches its extremes
(minimum or maximum) in the direction of its gradient. Gradient
based methods are in general computationally faster (they require
fewer objective function evaluations in case of problems with low
number of design variables) than non-gradient based methods. Their
main drawback is that they might converge to local minima, and
their convergence to global minima depends mainly on the chosen
starting point (initial guess) by the user (Fig. 7a). On the other hand,
non-gradient based methods, do not rely, most of the time, on
strong mathematical basis and make use of neither the gradient or
the second derivative of the objective function as a direction of
descent. These methods work based on function evaluations alone.
In principle, they attempt to mimic nature in order to nd the op-
timum of the objective function. One of the key features of these
algorithms is that they search from multiple points in the design
space, instead of moving from a single point like gradient based
methods. Thus, although in general there is no proof that these
methods converge to global optima, experience entails that they
converge to global optima in most cases (Fig. 7b).
The main drawback of non-gradient based methods is that
these algorithms are generally computationally slower than the
gradient based ones. Indeed, the non-gradient based algorithms
can require thousands of function evaluations and, in some cases,
become non-practical. In order to overcome these difculties, the
so-called Hybrid algorithms, which take advantage of the robust-
ness of the non-gradient based methods and the fast convergence
of the gradient based methods, have been proposed by different
scholars. A set of analytically formulated rules and switching cri-
teria can be coded into the program to automatically switch back
and forth among the different algorithms as the iterative process
advances. Each technique provides a unique approach with vary-
ing degrees of convergence, reliability and robustness at different
stages during the iterative optimization process.
It is also interesting to introduce to the reader the multi-ob-
jective optimization problems vs. single-objective optimization
problems. In a large number of problems, there exists a need to
nd optimal solutions due to more than one objective. In this case,
a multi-objective approach must be employed. Engineering pro-
blems demanding low cost, high performance and low losses are
an example of applications where this approach is needed. For the
single-objective optimization problems, a unique optimal solution
exists. However, for multi-objective optimization problems, there
exist a set of compromised solutions, known as the Pareto-optimal
solutions or non-dominated solutions, which are based on the
 M. Asghari Mooneghi, R. Kargarmoakhar / Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016) 225235
competing objectives. The goal of multi-objective optimization is
to nd such set of solutions. Once the solutions are obtained, the
designer can choose a nal design with further considerations.
Non-gradient based methods are more suitable for multi-objective
optimization problems since they are able to nd the entire range
of Pareto-optimal solutions. Gradient based methods typically use
a weighting method to combine different objectives into one for
handling multi-objective optimization problems. In this case, re-
sults would be dependent on the chosen weighting coefcients.
An overview of different gradient based and non-gradient based
optimization algorithms are provided in Appendix A. Clearly,
knowledge about the nature of the problem is a requirement for
choosing the most suitable optimization tool for an application.
3.2. Aerodynamic shape optimization of tall buildings using CFD
The goal of aerodynamic shape optimization is to accurately
and efciently determine surface shapes that attain optimal
aerodynamic performance [1]. While the effects of geometric
modications to the shape of tall buildings, such as utilizing re-
cessed or chamfered corners, etc. (discussed in Section 2.1) can
signicantly improve the aerodynamic response of tall buildings, a
systematic approach for taking full advantage of aerodynamic
shape optimization for buildings is not fully explored yet.
Experimental method using wind tunnel testing, provide the basis
of the traditional cut and try approach for the design of new aero-
dynamic shapes. In this approach, several congurations are in-
vestigated in a wind tunnel and the one that yields the best aero-
dynamic performance is identied. The reason behind using wind
tunnel testing for designing the new aerodynamic shapes is that the
relation between the external shape of a building and the resulting
intensity of the wind excitations is complicated and the improvements
in wind effects that can be obtained by specic geometric modica-
tions is difcult to predict without performing experiments [63].
Merrick and Bitsuamlak [64] examined the effects of building shape on
wind loading patterns for high-rise buildings by analyzing various
buildings with foot prints of square, circular, triangular, rectangular and
elliptical shapes using wind tunnel database. Results of this research
outlined the general wind loading characteristics of simple building
shapes. The sensitivity of each building shape to vortex-shedding was
determined. While it is possible to use wind tunnel testing for aero-
dynamic shape optimization, this approach is highly demanding due to
the time and cost limitations for performing each test. As a matter of
fact, only a limited number of possible congurations which are chosen
based on engineering experience and judgement can be examined.
The use of computational simulation to scan many alternative
designs has proved extremely valuable in practice. With the ad-
vances in computational uid dynamics and computing power of
modern computers, CFD has contributed to cut aerodynamic design
cost and time scales by reducing the number of required wind
tunnel tests. Currently, CFD is mainly used for estimating aero-
dynamic performance of a given structure conguration and it still
suffers the limitation that it does not guarantee the identication of
the best possible design. To ensure the realization of the true best
Fig. 7. Optimization methods: (a) Gradient based (b) Non-gradient based.
231
design, the ultimate goal of computational simulation methods
should not just be the analysis of prescribed shapes, but the auto-
matic determination of the true optimum shape for the intended
application. This is the underlying motivation for the combination of
computational uid dynamics with numerical optimization methods
for aerodynamic shape optimization problems. Some of the earliest
studies of such an approach were made by Hicks et al [65] and Hicks
and Henne [66] for aircraft wing design. Aerodynamic shape opti-
mization using CFD has been used for many years in aerospace
[67,68] and automotive [69,70] industries and has recently become
the subject of increasing interest in civil structures especially for
aerodynamic design of the shape of tall buildings [71].
A general approach for aerodynamic shape optimization using
CFD is shown in Fig. 8. The essential components of an aero-
dynamic shape optimization problem are objective functions,
constraints, design variables that dene the possible geometries, a
ow solver, and a numerical optimization method. Examples of
objective functions for aerodynamic shape optimization of tall
buildings can be reducing the drag force and/or vortex-induced
vibrations. The optimization algorithm nds the values of the
geometric parameters that optimize the objective function while
satisfying the constraints. These components should be selected
carefully as they have a direct impact on the accuracy and ef-
ciency of solution [1]. Samareh [72] provides summaries of shape
parameterization techniques that can be used to dene design
variables. In general, it is important that the selected para-
meterization technique provides sufcient exibility in order to
realize truly optimal designs. It is also desirable that the number of
parameters necessary to dene the shape to be small so that a
reasonable convergence rate of the optimization can be obtained.
As discussed in Section 3.1, various numerical optimization meth-
odologies can be used for aerodynamic shape optimization applica-
tions. Hicks et al [65] were the rst to apply gradient based methods
to aerodynamic shape optimization problems. They used the method
of feasible directions, which is based on conjugate gradients, to opti-
mize airfoil shapes in transonic ow governed by the small-dis-
turbance equation. Since this pioneering work, the application of
gradient based methods to aerodynamic shape optimization problems
remained an active area of research. However, as the aerodynamic
shape optimization problem is a complex one with possibly many local
optima, non-gradient based methods (also called Evolutionary Algo-
rithms (EA)) such as Genetic Algorithm (GA) are more suitable for this
application to ensure reaching the global optimum. Evolutionary Al-
gorithms have the advantages such as robustness, suitability to parallel
computing and simplicity in coupling CFD codes. Owing to these ad-
vantages over the non-gradient based methods, EAs have become
increasingly popular in a broad class of design problems [73]. How-
ever, the implementation of aerodynamic shape optimization using
CFD is intrinsically difcult for bluff civil structures due mainly to the
turbulent ow eld in which the structures are immersed, the high
Reynolds number values, and the multi-objective nature of the design
problem [74]. So, while there are clear advantageous for using non-
gradient based optimization theories for aerodynamic shape optimi-
zation applications, the use of these algorithms for shape optimization
232 M. Asghari Mooneghi, R. Kargarmoakhar / Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016) 225235
of civil structures is often impractical since the objective functions and
constraints are evaluated using CFD and an extremely high number of
function calls which can easily reach the order of thousands, is re-
quired for obtaining the optimum solution.
One way of tackling the efciency issue of evolutionary search
methods is to use a Surrogate-Based Optimization (SBO) metho-
dology in CPU-intensive aerodynamic shape optimization appli-
cations. The main idea in SBO is to utilize data sampling and
surface tting strategies to parameterize the space of possible
solutions via a simple, computationally inexpensive model to be
used for the purpose of numerical optimization. So, the whole
optimization process is managed by the surrogate model outputs.
This is often referred to as optimizing the response surface of the
system. The basic process for a surrogate-based optimization
consists of the following steps [75]:
1. Dening a sampling plan for the design space: This contains
both the samples required for constructing the surrogate model
and some additional samples needed for verifying the surrogate
model.
2. Performing numerical simulations at design points selected
from the sampling plan.
3. Constructing the surrogate model: Different surrogate models
can be used such as polynomial regression, Kriging, radial basis
functions, neural networks, and support vector regression [76].
4. Validating the model: This is to nd out the predictive cap-
abilities of the surrogate model.
5. Updating the model: Repeating the last four steps until the
desired model validation accuracy is obtained.
6. Optimization: The search for the optimum is carried out on the
surrogate model.
The approximation efciency and its accuracy are major issues
in SBO. If the problem has a high number of design variables, the
construction of surrogate model may cause extremely high com-
putational cost, which makes the approximation inefcient. De-
sign of Experiment (DoE) can be used to reduce the number of
design points [77]. However, by using this approach the global
Fig. 8. Aerodynamic shape optimization utilizing CFD.
optimum might be missed due to the uncertainty at the predicted
point which may mislead the optimization process in a wrong
way. As a matter of fact, the selected DoE strategy is of paramount
importance for achieving a satisfactory accuracy of the surrogate
model. Generally, sampling plans that more evenly ll the design
space can reduce the bias error of the surrogate. A plenty of sur-
rogate methods, search algorithms and updating algorithms have
been proposed in the literature for a variety of applications in-
cluding CFD-based aerodynamic shape optimization [67,74,76,78].
It should also be noted that the repeated evaluation of the ob-
jective functions required during the optimization demands fast ow
solutions [1]. As a matter of fact, the ow solver has a signicant
inuence on the efciency of the optimization. Buildings are im-
mersed in very turbulent ows due to ground roughness effect
which after interacting with buildings represent very wide temporal
and spatial scales governed by highly non-linear Navier-Stokes dif-
ferential equations which are computationally expensive to solve
[79]. Detailed reviews of effective ow solvers for the Navier-Stokes
equations are given by Pueyo [80]. Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) models can be used for obtaining fast and reasonably reliable
simulations even for complex shapes and high Reynolds numbers,
and can be used for obtaining both steady and unsteady aerodynamic
measures (URANS). On the other hand, Large Eddie Simulation (LES)
methods and/or hybrid RANS/LES methods are more accurate than
RANS models for the prediction of the unsteady forces at the cost of
higher computational burden. Note that the Navier-Stokes equations
should be solved repeatedly for each updated geometry as the op-
timization progresses. This issue makes the problem further com-
plicated. Therefore, an efcient approach can be to use URANS
models for narrowing down the solution domain and then use the
higher accuracy LES models when a greater level of detail is needed
for example when comparing two nal competing shapes [63].
One challenge in the application of numerical optimization to a
building aerodynamic shape design problem is regeneration of the
mesh for geometry variations from the initial base geometry. So, one
very important feature of the CFD-based shape optimization tech-
nique should be to have the possibility of updating the CFD meshes
automatically. Without this ability, the CFD model may need to be
reprocessed before a suitable mesh with the required quality can be
obtained. Also, the boundary conditions may need to be reapplied
before the analysis can be launched. Mesh morphing techniques al-
low performing mesh modications without changing the mesh to-
pology and avoid a costly recalculation of the physics equations with
every new CFD model. In these methods, the mesh is rst imported
into to the mesh morpher tool. The mesh is parameterized and then
based on design constraints and realistic assumptions, deformation
vectors are added to the model. After each optimization iteration the
mesh morpher modies the mesh with respect to the original to-
pology, thus allowing a more robust and faster design optimization
environment using CFD. Quality controls for meshing can be set to
guarantee the quality of the CFD simulation results. This ensures that
the algorithm is independent from external inputs during the opti-
mization and makes mesh generation process faster. Mesh morphers
have been used in many applications of shape optimization using
CFD [8183] mainly for aerospace and automotive structures. Wei et
al [84] and Wei et al [85] developed a mesh morphing algorithm
based on a Laplacian smoothing approach which was very robust
even for marked geometric modications which are expected in
aerodynamic shape optimization of tall buildings.
Civil engineering structures which often have square or rectan-
gular shapes provide a wide variety of applications for bluff body
aerodynamics. The optimization of a trapezoidal bluff body was
conducted by Burman et al [86]. This study focused on the response
surface optimization of Navier-Stokes ow over a bluff body. The
optimization objectives were to minimize the mean drag coefcient
and to maximize the measure of mixing dened as the time average
 M. Asghari Mooneghi, R. Kargarmoakhar / Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016) 225235
maximum negative velocity. Response surface methodology was
utilized in the optimization process. Mack et al [87] used multiple
surrogates for the shape optimization of a 2D trapezoidal bluff body
model. Polynomial response surface and radial basis neural net-
works were used as surrogates. Objective functions were minimizing
the total pressure loss coefcient and maximizing the mixing cap-
ability of time dependent ows over a 2-D bluff body.
Very recently, attempts have been made to use aerodynamic
shape optimization in the eld of tall building design. Bobby et al
[71] proposed a framework for the aerodynamic shape optimiza-
tion of tall buildings using CFD based on the concept of low-di-
mensional models for describing the global aerodynamic perfor-
mance of tall buildings. A low-dimensional model was introduced
which allows an efcient way for reducing the computational
demand of the CFD simulations, thus expediting the optimization.
A mesh morphing tool was used for automatically updating the
mesh. The objective function was to minimize the drag force. Two-
dimensional CFD simulation was used for each optimization
iteration using Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) model.
The low-dimensional model allowed extension of the results to
the overall aerodynamic performance of tall buildings. Elshaer et
al [88] proposed an optimization framework for aerodynamic
shape optimization of tall buildings. The method couples the op-
timization algorithm using genetic algorithm (GA), computational
uid dynamics (CFD) solver, and the neural networks (NN) model.
The objective was to reduce the drag force acting on a tall building
by changing the shape of its corners. Large eddy simulation (LES)
models were used for numerical simulation of the wind behavior.
Bernardini et al [74] performed multi-objective aerodynamic
shape optimization of tall buildings using a surrogate-based op-
timization method. The multiple objectives were minimizing the
mean drag coefcient as well as the standard deviation of the lift
coefcient. Ordinary Kriging surrogate model was used. A speci-
cally developed strategy was adopted to update the Kriging
models in order to perform additional CFD runs efciently. Shell
scripting, parallelized computations and mesh morphing algo-
rithms were used to improve the efciency and consistency of the
framework.
These researches showed that in spite of recent advancements,
there are still many challenges for the CFD-based aerodynamic
shape optimization of tall buildings. These limited studies mainly
focused on optimizing the dimensions of some predened local
corner modications in tall buildings. To the authors knowledge,
there is no reported work till date on global shape optimization of
tall buildings against wind load effects. Although this eld of re-
search is fairly new and is constantly improving, it is believed that
full utilization of aerodynamic shape optimization could enable
design of tall buildings that withstand wind load effects more
efciently. With the rapidly increasing use of the distributed par-
allel computing and adequate computing hardware, aerodynamic
shape optimization is becoming more affordable than before.
4. Conclusions
The shape and orientation of most buildings are driven mainly by
architectural considerations, functional requirements and site lim-
itations, rather than by aerodynamic considerations. Consequently,
these structures are characterized by high wind-structure interac-
tion induced loads. Signicant reduction in wind loads can be
achieved by various types of aerodynamic modications to the
shape of the structure and/or aerodynamic shape optimization
techniques. In this paper the past/recent work on various techniques
developed by many researchers to reduce wind loads on buildings
were reviewed which are summarized in the following:
233
Various aerodynamic modications to the shape of tall buildings
for mitigating the wind induced loads were reviewed. The
aerodynamic modications of a buildings cross-sectional shape
(e.g. corner cut, corner recession, slotted corner, etc.), variation
of the cross section shape and/or its size along the height of
building, twisting the building, porosity and openings, etc. can
signicantly reduce building response in alongwind (drag force)
as well as acrosswind (acrosswind force due to vortex shedding)
directions by altering the wind ow characteristics around the
building.
Aerodynamic mitigation techniques for low-rise buildings were
discussed. Various methods for the mitigation of wind high
suctions on the roof of low-rise buildings were described.
Parapets and aerodynamic edge devices are simple, economic,
and non-intrusive elements and can be utilized for reducing
wind loads and mitigating damage risk at the source. In addi-
tion, they can be used as a comparatively cost-effective solution
to the roof edge damage problem which is widely experienced
during high wind events. These elements can either be used for
retrotting of existing buildings or they can be incorporated into
the design of new buildings for reducing peak suctions at critical
locations of the building envelope.
An overview of optimization techniques including gradient
based and non-gradient based was briey presented. Ad-
vantages and disadvantageous of each category were discussed.
Non-gradient based optimization methods can converge to
global optimum at the expense of more computational cost
compared to gradient based algorithms. Although these meth-
ods seem to be more attractive for aerodynamic shape optimi-
zation problems which have possibly a lot of local optimum
points, they require hundreds or thousands of analysis code
implementation. This is extremely costly, and often impossible,
for CFD-based aerodynamic shape optimization of civil struc-
tures in which each evaluation of the objective/constrained
functions requires a full CFD analysis to be carried out. Surro-
gate-based optimization can be used to tackle the efciency is-
sue of non-gradient based optimization methods.
The suitability and challenges of aerodynamic shape optimiza-
tion using CFD for reducing wind loads on tall buildings were
discussed and the recent researches on this topic were pre-
sented. Although published information on how to design
structures for optimal aerodynamic performance is limited, full
utilization of aerodynamic optimal design could enable properly
designed buildings to withstand extreme wind loads cost-ef-
fectively. Therefore, the aerodynamics of a tower shape needs to
be considered as a critical design parameter from the very out-
set. In this way, designers could optimally control building
geometric parameters to favorably impact the wind loads and
other adverse wind-induced responses.
Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Florida International University (FIU)
for funding this research. The helpful comments received from
Professor Girma Bitsuamlak from Western University are greatly
appreciated. Authors would like to acknowledge Dimple Rana and
Alexej Goehring of Arup for their inputs in the ow simulation
using CFD.
Appendix Optimization algorithms
Fig. A1 shows an overview of different gradient based and non-
gradient based optimization algorithms.
234 M. Asghari Mooneghi, R. Kargarmoakhar / Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016) 225235
Fig. A1. Figure A: Summary of optimization methods.
References
[1] M. Nemec, Optimal Shape Design of Aerodynamic Congurations: A Newton-
Krylov Approach, University of Toronto, Canada, 2003.
[2] G. Dulikravich, Aerodynamic shape design and optimization: Status and
trends, Journal of Aircraft. 29 (1992) 10201026.
[3] M. Gu, Y. Quan, Across-wind loads of typical tall buildings, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 92 (2004) 11471165.
[4] P.A. Irwin, Bluff body aerodynamics in wind engineering, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 96 (2008) 701712.
[5] A. Kareem, T. Kijewski, Y. Tamura, Mitigation of motions of tall buildings with
specic examples of recent applications, Wind and Structures. 2 (1999)
201251.
[6] P. Irwin, B. Breukelman, C. Williams, Hunter M. Shaping and Orienting Tall
Buildings for Wind., Structural Engineers World Congress, San Francisco, 1998.
[7] A. Davenport, The Response of Six Building Shapes to Turbulent Wind, Phi-
losophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 269 (1971) 385394.
[8] K. Kwok, P. Bailey, Aerodynamic Devices for Tall Buildings and Structures,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics 113 (1987) 349365.
[9] K.C.S. Kwok, Effect of building shape on wind-induced response of tall
building, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 28 (1988)
381390.
[10] Melbourne NH, Cheung JCK. Designing for serviceable accelerations in tall
buildings. 4th International Conference on Tall Buildings. Hong Kong and
Hanghai, 1988, 148-155.
[11] Melbourne NH. Wind loading and environment of tall building. International
Conference on Tall Buildings and City Development. Brisbane, 1989, 159-164.
[12] R. Dutton, N. Isyumov, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aero-
dynamics. 36 (1990) 739747.
[13] H. Hayashida, Y. Iwasa, Aerodynamic shape effects of tall building for vortex
induced vibration, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics.
33 (1990) 237242.
[14] K. Miyashita, J. Katagiri, O. Nakamura, T. Ohkuma, Y. Tamura, M. Itoh, et al.,
Wind-induced response of high-rise buildings Effects of corner cuts or
openings in square buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics. 50 (1993) 319328.
[15] A. Kareem, Y. Tamura, Mitigation of wind-induced motions of tall buildings.
Tall Building Structures: A World View. Chicago, Illinois Council on Tall
Buildings and Urban Habitat, Lehigh University, 1996.
[16] H. Kawai, Effect of corner modications on aeroelastic instabilities of tall
buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 7476
(1998) 719729.
[17] Y.-M. Kim, K.-P. You, Dynamic responses of a tapered tall building to wind
loads, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 90 (2002)
17711782.
[18] J.A. Amin, A.K. Ahuja, Aerodynamic modications to the shape of the shape of
the buildings: A review of the state-of-the-art, Asian Journal of Civil En-
gineering (Building and Housing) 11 (2010) 433450.
[19] P. Catalano, M. Amato, An evaluation of RANS turbulence modelling for
aerodynamic applications, Aerospace Science and Technology. 7 (2003)
493509.
[20] K.T. Tse, P.A. Hitchcock, K.C.S. Kwok, S. Thepmongkorn, C.M. Chan, Economic
perspectives of aerodynamic treatments of square tall buildings, Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 97 (2009) 455467.
[21] Kumar KS, Irwin P, Davies A. Design of tall building for wind: wind tunnel vs.
codes/standards. Third National Conference on Wind Engineering. Calcutta,
India, 2006, 318-325.
[22] T. Tamura, T. Miyagi, The effect of turbulence on aerodynamic forces on a
square cylinder with various corner shapes, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics. 83 (1999) 135145.
[23] K.C.S. Kwok, N. Isyumov, Aerodynamic measures to reduce the wind-induced
response of buildings and structures, Structural Engineers World Congress,
San Francisco, CA, 1998.
[24] P. Irwin, J. Kilpatrick, A. Frisque, Friend or Foe, Wind at Height., CTBUH 8th
World Congress, Dubai. Dubai, 2008.
[25] Kwok KCS. Aerodynamics of tall buildings. Ninth International Conference on
Wind Engineering. New Delhi, 1995, 180-205.
[26] Y.-M. Kim, K.-P. You, N.-H. Ko, Across-wind responses of an aeroelastic tapered
tall building, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 96
(2008) 13071319.
[27] K.-P. You, Y.-M. Kim, N.-H. Ko, The evaluation of wind-induced vibration re-
sponses to a tapered tall building, The Structural Design of Tall and Special
Buildings. 17 (2007) 655667.
[28] P.A. Irwin, Wind engineering challenges of the new generation of super-tall
buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 97
(2009) 328334.
[29] H. Okada, L. Kong, The Effects of Open Passage on Reducing Wind Response of
Tall Building., 29th Technical Report, Public Works Research institute. Japan
(1999) 561566.
[30] N. Isyumov, A.A. Fediw, J. Colaco, P.V. Banavalkar, Performance of a tall
building under wind action, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics. 42 (1992) 10531064.
[31] D. Kelly, D. Poon, P. Irwin, J. Xie, Wind Engineering of the Shanghai Center
Tower, Advances in Hurricane Engineering: American Society of Civil En-
gineers (2012) 426436.
[32] E. Simiu, R.H. Scanlan, Wind effects on structures, Third edition, John Wiley &
Sons, Inc, New York, N.Y., 1996.
[33] J.D. Holmes, Wind Loading of Structures, Taylor & Francis, London and New
York, 2007.
[34] Asghari Mooneghi M. Experimental and Analytical Methodologies for Pre-
dicting Peak Loads on Building Envelopes and Roong Systems. FIU Electronic
Theses and Dissertations. Paper 1846. http://digitalcommons.u.edu/etd/
18462014.
[35] T. Baheru, A.G. Chowdhury, J.-P. Pinelli, G. Bitsuamlak, Distribution of wind-
driven rain deposition on low-rise buildings: Direct impinging raindrops
versus surface runoff, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aero-
dynamics. 133 (2014) 2738.
[36] M. Asghari Mooneghi, P. Irwin, A. Chowdhury, Design Guidelines for Roof
Pavers against Wind Uplift, Structures Congress 2015: American Society of
Civil Engineers (2015) 26792688.
[37] B. Mintz, A. Chowdhury, A. Mirmiran, N. Suksawang, Kargarmoakhar R. De-
sign, Development, and Testing of a Composite Roong System, Journal of
Composites for Construction. (2015) 04015052.
[38] F. Habte, M. Asghari Mooneghi, A. Gan Chowdhury, P. Irwin, Full-scale testing
to evaluate the performance of standing seam metal roofs under simulated
wind loading, Engineering Structures. 105 (2015) 231248.
[39] M. Asghari Mooneghi, P. Irwin, A. Gan Chowdhury, Towards guidelines for
 M. Asghari Mooneghi, R. Kargarmoakhar / Journal of Building Engineering 6 (2016) 225235
design of loose-laid roof pavers for wind uplift, Wind and Structures 22 (2)
(2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.12989/was.2016.22.2.000.
[40] D. Surry, J.X. Lin, The effect of surroundings and roof corner geometric mod-
ications on roof pressures on low-rise buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics. 58 (1995) 113138.
[41] A. Baskaran, T. Stathopoulos, Roof corner wind loads and parapet congura-
tions, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 29 (1988)
7988.
[42] S. Pindado, J. Meseguer, Wind tunnel study on the inuence of different
parapets on the roof pressure distribution of low-rise buildings, Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 91 (2003) 11331139.
[43] G.A. Kopp, C. Mans, D. Surry, Wind effects of parapets on low buildings: Part 4.
Mitigation of corner loads with alternative geometries, Journal of Wind En-
gineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 93 (2005) 873888.
[44] F. Wu, Full-scale study of conical vortices and their effects near corners, Texas
Tech University, . Lubbock, Texas, 2000.
[45] Lin JX, Montpellier PR, Tillman CW, Riker WI. Aerodynamic devices for miti-
gation of wind damage risk The 4th International Conference on Advances in
Wind and Structures (AWAS'08). Jeju, Korea, 2008.
[46] Fu T-C. Development of Effective Approaches to the Large-Scale Aerodynamic
Testing of Low-Rise Building. FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper
986. http://digitalcommons.u.edu/etd/9862013.
[47] Huang P, Jia C, Gu M. Field measurement for aerodynamic mitigation of wind
pressure on gable-roofed low-rise building The Eighth Asia-Pacic Conference
on Wind Engineering. Chennai, India, 2013.
[48] G.T. Bitsuamlak, W. Warsido, E. Ledesma, A.G. Chowdhury, Aerodynamic mi-
tigation of roof and wall corner suctions using simple architectural elements,
Journal of Engineering Mechanics-ASCE. 139 (2013) 396408.
[49] M. Asghari Mooneghi, P. Irwin, A. Gan Chowdhury, Large-scale testing on wind
uplift of roof pavers, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aero-
dynamics. 128 (2014) 2236.
[50] W. Suaris, P. Irwin, Effect of roof-edge parapets on mitigating extreme roof
suctions, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 98 (2010)
483491.
[51] P.A. Blackmore, Load reduction on at roofs - the effect of edge prole, Journal
of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 29 (1988) 8998.
[52] Savory E, Dalley S, Toy N. International Conference on Wind EngineeringThe
effects of eaves geometry, model scale and approach ow conditions on portal
frame building wind loads. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics. 1992, 43: 1665-1676.
[53] Lin JX, Surry D. Suppressing extreme suction on low buildings by modifying
the roof corner geometry. 7th US National Conference on Wind Engineering.
University of California, USA, 1993.
[54] L.S. Cochran, E.C. English, Reduction of Roof Wind Loads by Architectural
Features, Journal of Architectural Science Review 40 (1997) 7987.
[55] Banks D, Sarkar P, Wu F. A device to mitigate vortex induced rooftop suction.
1st Americas Conference on Wind Engineering. Clemson University, Clemson,
USA, 2001.
[56] M.K. Philips, Evaluation of Mitigation Measures for Reducing High Suction
Pressures on Roof Corners, Clemson University, Clemson, USA, 2003.
[57] P. Huang, X. Peng, M. Gu, Aerodynamic devices to mitigate rooftop suctions on
a gable roof building, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aero-
dynamics. 135 (2014) 90104.
[58] Asghari Mooneghi M, Irwin P, Gan Chowdhury A. Partial Turbulence Simula-
tion Method for Small Structures. 14th International Conference on Wind
Engineering. Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2015.
[59] R. Kargarmoakhar, A. Gan Chowdhury, P. Irwin, Reynolds number effects on
twin box girder long span bridge aerodynamics, Wind and Structures. 20
(2015) 327347.
[60] C. Blessing, A.G. Chowdhury, J. Lin, P. Huang, Full-scale validation of vortex
suppression techniques for mitigation of roof uplift, Engineering Structures.
31 (2009) 29362946.
[61] A.M. Aly, Aerodynamic Mitigation of Wind-Induced Suction on Low-Rise
Buildings: A Comparative Study., Advances in Wind and Structures (AWAS'14),
Busan, South Korea, 2014.
[62] Chokwitthaya C, Aly AM. Retrotting Building Roofs with Aerodynamic Fea-
tures and Solar Panels to Reduce Hurricane Damage and Enhance Eco-Friendly
Energy Production 14th International Conference on Wind Engineering
(ICWE). Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2015.
[63] A. Kareem, S. Spence, E. Bernardini, S. Bobby, D. Wei, Using computational
uid dynamics to optimize tall building design, CTBH journal (2013) 3843.
235
[64] R. Merrick, G.T. Bitsuamlak, Shape effects on the wind-induced response of
high-rise buildings, Journal of Wind Engineering 6 (2009) 118.
[65] R.M. Hicks, E.M. Murman, G.N. Vanderplaats, An assessment of airfoil design
by numerical optimization., NASA Ames Research Center; Moffett Field, CA,
United States, 1974.
[66] R.M. Hicks, P.A. Henne, Wing design by numerical optimization, Journal of
Aircraft. 15 (1978) 407412.
[67] J.-E. Kim, V.N. Rao, R.P. Koomullil, D.H. Ross, B.K. Soni, A.M. Shih, Development
of an efcient aerodynamic shape optimization framework, Mathematics and
Computers in Simulation. 79 (2009) 23732384.
[68] D.N. Srinath, S. Mittal, An adjoint method for shape optimization in unsteady
viscous ows, Journal of Computational Physics. 229 (2010) 19942008.
[69] L. Dumas, CFD-based optimization in Automotive Aerodynamics, Optimization
and Computational Fluid Dynamics: Springer (2008), pp. 191215.
[70] F. Muyl, L. Dumas, V. Herbert, Hybrid method for aerodynamic shape opti-
mization in automotive industry, Computers & Fluids. 33 (2004) 849858.
[71] Bobby S, Spence SMJ, Bernardini E, Wei D, Kareem A. A complete perfor-
mance-based optimization framework for the design of tall buildings. 11th
International Conference on Structural Safety & Reliability. New York, NY, USA,
2013.
[72] J.A. Samareh, Survey of shape parametrization techniques for high-delity
multidisciplinary shape optimization, AIAA Journal. 39 (2001) 877883.
[73] A. Oyama, Wing design using evolutionary algorithms., Tohoku University,
Japan, 2000.
[74] E. Bernardini, S.M.J. Spence, D. Wei, A. Kareem, Aerodynamic shape optimi-
zation of civil structures: A CFD-enabled Kriging-based approach, Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 144 (2015) 154164.
[75] Y.V. Pehlivanoglu, B. Yagiz, Aerodynamic design prediction using surrogate-
based modeling in genetic algorithm architecture, Aerospace Science and
Technology. 23 (2012) 479491.
[76] Ahmed M, Qin N. Surrogate-based aerodynamic design optimization: use of
surrogates in aerodynamic design optimization. 13th International Conference
on Aerospace Science and Aviation Technology. Cairo, Egypt, 2009.
[77] R.H. Myers, D.C. Montgomery, C.M. Anderson-Cook, Response Surface Meth-
odology: Process and Product Optimization Using Designed Experiments, 3rd
ed, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2009.
[78] E. Iuliano, D. Quagliarella, Proper Orthogonal Decomposition, surrogate
modelling and evolutionary optimization in aerodynamic design, Computers
& Fluids. 84 (2013) 327350.
[79] A. Dagnew, G.T. Bitsuamlak, Computational evaluation of wind loads on
buildings: A review, Wind and Structures. 16 (2013) 629660.
[80] A. Pueyo, An efcient NewtonKrylov mothod for the Euler and NavierStokes
equations, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 1998.
[81] M.E. Biancolini, I.M. Viola, M. Riotte, Sails trim optimisation using CFD and RBF
mesh morphing, Computers & Fluids. 93 (2014) 4660.
[82] R.G. Silva, A.P. Antunes, R.B. Flatschart, J.L.F. Azevedo, CFD based optimization
of high-lift devices using a mesh morphing technique., The 29th Congress of
the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, St Petersburg, Russia,
2014.
[83] M.L. Staten, S.J. Owen, S.M. Shontz, A.G. Salinger, T.S. Coffey, A comparison of
mesh morphing methods for 3D shape optimization, 20th International
Meshing Roundtable, Paris, France (2011), pp. 293311.
[84] Wei D, Spence SMJ, Kareem A. ynamic mesh for deformable or movable
boundaries in uid-structure interaction. 11th ASCE Joint Specialty Conference
on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability. Notre Dame, IN, USA,
2012.
[85] D. Wei, S.M.J. Spence, A. Kareem, A. Jemcov, A structured mesh boundary
motion approach for simulating wind effects on bluff bodies with changing
boundaries, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics. 126
(2014) 118131.
[86] Burman J, Papila N, Shyy W, Gebart BR. Assessment of response surface-based
optimization techniques for Unsteady ow around bluff bodies. th AIAA/ISS-
MO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. Atlanta,
Georgia, 2002.
[87] Mack Y, Goel T, Shyy W, Haftka R. Multiple surrogates for the shape optimi-
zation of bluff body-facilitated mixing. 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit. Reno, Nevada, 2005.
[88] Elshaer A, Bitsuamlak G, Damatty AE. Aerodynamic shape optimization for
corners of tall buildings using CFD. 14th International Conference on Wind
Engineering (ICWE). Porto Alegre, Brazil, 2015.