BULLETIN OF THE POLISH ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

TECHNICAL SCIENCES, Vol. XX, No. Y, 2020

DOI:

Study on outdoor wind flow around tall building with irregular plan –
A Case Study
Remove names in the manuscript for evaluation process (Author)
1
Remove in the manuscript for evaluation process
2
(Affiliation)

Abstract. Now a days irregular plan shaped tall buildings is emerging in urban environment due to the development of an innovative architectural
design. The present paper is focused on wind behavior around T- shape tall buildings, because of its irregular plan and two wings. The experiment is
carried out using a subsonic wind tunnel and pressure distribution on various faces of the buildings were observed. The validation is done by using
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software package available in ANSYS Fluent. The scale ratio of 1:300 and 1:5 is used for building and wind
velocity respectively. The analysis is done with different wind angles 0˚,45˚,90˚,135˚and 180˚ at a wind speed of 10 m/s. From the results, detailed flow
patterns such as streamlines, the formation of vortex, stagnation point, upstream and downstream flow, wake formation, drag and lift coefficients were
studied for the above-said wind angles. It is observed that minimum drag is obtained at 90˚ wind angle. Since the drag value has a direct impact on wind
loads on buildings, 90˚wind angle is the desired orientation for T-plan shape tall buildings and the formation of wake region is less when compared 0˚
and 135˚ wind angles.
Key words: Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD), Wind Tunnel, Tall buildings, Wind flow.

1. Introduction
In the last 15 years, the continuous growth of tall
buildings in cities lead the researcher to investigate the
wind effects on tall buildings. Many researchers have
worked on wind flow around the building so as to check the
comfort of the occupancy, safety aspect, ventilation and
lighting for comfortable living. Based on the structural
point of view, most of the Wind Engineering codes [19]
does not provide guidelines for complex geometry to
calculate the actual wind pressure on buildings. Many
practicing Engineers may sometime overestimate the wind
loads at the time of design. With an eye to overcome these
difficulties, many researchers are working on buildings
with different plan geometry. Researcher [1] undergone a
numerical simulation to study the wind pressure
distribution on building with varying height to width ratio
and height to thickness ratio with an intension to study the
pressure distribution along the perimeter of the building at
different heights. Further experimental study on pressure
distribution are made on 1:1.5:7, rectangular shaped high
rise building for uniform flow, From the results it is found
that the change in building height and width have a very
great influence in predicting the wind loads on tall
buildings [2]. Fluid-structure interaction study is very
much important to investigate the buildings during wind
and further modification in the plan reduces the wind force
on the buildings. The modification of the building plans has
a very great impact on the reduction of aerodynamic forces
in the buildings [3,7]. Computational and experimental
examination of wind effect on buildings with setbacks is
done [4] to find the aerodynamic coefficients such as drag
and lift force for buildings for wind angle 0˚ and 45˚. Wind
flow study on plus (+) plan shape tall building [5] using
wind tunnel and CFD at two different wind angles 0˚ and
45˚, turbulence model k-𝜀 and SST are used for external
flow simulation, external pressure coefficient, flow pattern
and vortex formation is observed. The shape of the
buildings is very much important in calculating the wind
force on buildings [6,14,15]. Shape optimization is done to
reduce the wind loads on tall buildings, and comparison is
made with square model, corner-recessed square model,
corner-chamfered square model, tapered model, Y-shaped
model, Further, calculations are made along-wind,
crosswind and torsional moment. In this sphere of
invention of scientific fact in the design of tall buildings,
authors [9] beautifully narrated about the perceived motion
due to wind, aspect ratio, windows at high elevations,
kitchen and bathroom exhaust, appropriate design of
balconies, tall building impact on neighbour buildings,
dynamic impact on rooftop pools and pedestrian level wind
for all these aspects special care is needed. Pedestrian level
wind conditions can be reduced modifying the building by
providing canopy i.e balcony and by using permeable
floors [10]. Development was made in generating a new
turbulence model Narrowband Synthesis Random Flow
Generator (NSRFG). This new turbulence model is used to
overcome some of the defects in Random Flow Generation
(RFG). This obtained model is again compared with the
Commonwealth Advisory Aeronautical Council (CAARC)
standard building [8]. Many other methods are also
available to find the actual wind loads on buildings [18,25]
such as ANN, Fuzzy logic, etc. Most of the numerical
studies required an experimental verification for an
appropriate check in the accuracy of the results obtained
and so, the novelty in this paper is to investigate the wind
flow around a T-plan shape tall building as a mean to study
the wind behavior and flow pattern. Turbulence model k-𝜀
is used in CFD for external flow simulation [21].

1
2. Experimental Setup
2.1 Wind tunnel testing. In the direction to investigate the
wind force on buildings, experiment is carried on subsonic
wind tunnel. Figure 1 shows the plan view of the Schematic
representation of the wind tunnel. The tunnel has two test
section 1 and 2 of size 400 mm x 400 mm and 500 mm x
500 mm. The test is carried out in the test section 1 and the
flow in the wind tunnel is simulated similar to the terrain
category – II as per IS 875 (Part -3) 2015. The scaling of
building models is done in the ratio 1:300 and the wind
tunnel is operated at a wind velocity of 10 m/s. The power-
law index (α) for the tunnel is 0.133 pressure measurement
are taken from the manometer readings which is connected
to the building model in the wind tunnel.
2.2 Details of the models
The building model is fabricated using Acrylic Sheet of
thickness 3 mm and the base is connected to a thick layer
for holding the building model in correct position. Acrylic
sheet is widely used for such type of study because of its
transparency, easy fabrication and to punch holes for
pressure tube [23]. Pressure taps are made at three different
levels 50 mm, 150 mm and 250 mm from the base of the
building. In total, 24 pressure taps are made for the entire
model. These pressure taps are connected to a pressure tube
made of polypropylene wires for the purpose to transfer the
air to the manometer. The fabricated T- plan shape building
model present inside the wind tunnel is shown in figure 2
(a). Figure 2 (b) shows the model created using solid works
software for CFD simulation. The height of the building is
300 mm and the plan dimension of the T- plan shape
building is shown in figure 2 (c).
3. Boundary Condition
The inlet is taken as same as that of the wind tunnel, the
power law profile is fitted actual to atmospheric boundary
layer and is given by the equation,
𝑈 𝑍 𝛼
=( ) (1)
𝑈0 𝑍0
Fig. 1. Schematic representation of Plan View of Sub-Sonic Wind tunnel test section 400 mm x 400 mm
2
Where, U0 is the basic wind speed taken as 10 m/s, Z0 is the
boundary layer height. Turbulence model k-𝜀 is used for
external flow simulation. The parameter includes turbulent
kinetic energy and turbulent dissipation rate are considered.
Turbulent kinetic energy k is closely related to turbulent
intensity I and wind speed U. Turbulent kinetic energy k
could be predicted by using the equation 2.
K(z) = a(I(z) x U(z))2 (2)
Where, a is a constant depending on the standard deviations
of turbulent intensity I and wind speed U. From the
previous researcher, value of 0.5, 1 and 1.5 could be used.
For this simulation 1 is chosen. Turbulence dissipation rate
is calculated from the equation given below
3/4 𝑘 3/2
𝜀 = 𝐶𝑢 (3)
𝑙
l means turbulence integral length scale of value 0.58 m and
further Cu is an empirical value of constant 0.09.
3.1 Parametric study. The modeling of the building is
done on 1:300 scale and the wind velocity is 1:5 scale. The
wind velocity is applied at five different wind angles such
as 0˚, 45˚, 90˚, 135˚ and 180˚ wind direction.
3.2 Domain size and Meshing. The Computational
Domain is fixed based on the recommendation given by the
researcher [13]. The size of the domain is set as 5 H in the
upstream side and downstream side, 15 H in the side face
and top of the domain. Where, H represents the height of
the building. The size of the domain should not disturb the
flow field. Figure 4 shows the Computational Domain size.
No velocity exists between the wall and the moving fluid.
Hence, free slip condition is applied to the sidewalls and
no-slip is considered at the floor of the computational
domain. The meshing of buildings is done in the form of a
grid and a very fine mesh is done on the building surface.
Grid convergence is studied, in the obtained grid resolution
and there is no further difference in the results. Meshing
size and pattern have a very great influence on the results.
Figure 5 shows the meshing of the Computational Domain
(a) Isometric view (b) Side view.
 (a) (b) (c)
Fig. 2. Shows (a) Fabricated building model (b) T-shape building model using Solid works (c) Plan dimension for Y shape building

500

400

300
Z/Zo

200 Numerical Study

100 Wind tunnel

0
0 5 10 15 20
Velocity

Fig. 3. Velocity profile

Fig. 4. Domain size

Fig. 5. Meshing Computational domain (a) Isometric View (b) Side view of the domain

3
4. Results and Discussion mean). High positive mean pressure is observed in face A
at 0˚ wind angle and high negative wind pressure is
The comparison of CFD and wind tunnel are mainly observed in face E at 0˚ wind angle. Figure 8 shows the
focused on pressure coefficient (Cp) for five different wind wind pressure distribution at 0˚ wind angle.
angles such as 0˚, 45˚,90˚, 135˚and 180˚. The mean pressure For 45˚ AOI faces A, B and C experiences positive wind
coefficient on each face of the buildings is calculated from pressure and faces E, F, G and H experience negative wind
the equation 4. pressure. Maximum positive wind pressure coefficient is
𝑝−𝑝 observed in face A and B and maximum negative wind
Cp,mean = 1 02 (4)
𝜌 𝑈𝐻 pressure coefficient are observed in face F. Figure 9 shows
2
Where, p is the pressure extracted from the point on the the wind pressure distribution at 45˚ wind angle.
building faces, po is the reference pressure, 𝜌 is the density For 90˚ angle of incidences faces A, B, C and D
of air taken as 1.225 kg/m3, UH is the mean wind velocity experiences positive pressure coefficient and faces E, F, G
at the height H. The pressure measurements are taken at and H experiences negative pressure coefficient. High
three different heights 50 mm, 150 mm and 250 mm from positive pressure coefficient is observed in faces B, C and
the base. The mean face average pressure coefficient is D and high negative pressure coefficients are observed in
calculated from the measured points and is plotted in the the face F. Figure 10 shows the wind pressure distribution
form of a graph. The external wind pressure on various at a 90˚ wind angle.
faces is very much useful for the design of cladding in tall For 135˚ angle of incidences maximum positive pressure in
buildings [12,27]. Figure 6 and 7 shows the results for faces D, E and H and negative wind pressure is observed in
pressure coefficient for wind tunnel and CFD on various the faces A, B, C, F and G. High positive pressure
faces A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H. The overall computed pressure coefficient is observed in the faces E and high negative
coefficient values are in good agreement with the pressure is observed in faces G. Figure 11 shows the wind
experimental values. No major deviation was observed. pressure distribution at 135˚ wind angle.
When the flow of wind hits the building, the separation of For 180˚ angle of incidence positive pressure coefficient is
wind occurs in four different ways, one deviates at the roof, observed only on the face E and rest of the faces A, B, C,
another along windward face of the building and the other D, F, G, H experiences negative pressure coefficient. Faces
two on the left and right side of the building. The condition E experiences a high positive pressure coefficient and faces
along wind force leads to the creation of stagnation which A, G and H experiences a high negative pressure
leads to create high pressure on the building face [17]. coefficient. Figure 12 shows the wind pressure distribution
For 0˚, AOI faces A, B, C, G and H experiences positive at 180˚ wind angle.
mean pressure coefficient (Cp, mean), whereas faces D, E
and F experiences negative mean pressure coefficient (Cp,

0⁰
Wind Tunnel 45⁰
90⁰
0.7449

0.8
135⁰
0.6665

0.6273
0.5881

180⁰
0.5489
0.5489

0.5489

0.5489
0.5097

0.6
0.4705

0.4705
0.4312

0.4313
Mean Pressure Coefficient

0.392

0.4
0.1569

0.1568

0.2

0.0

-0.2
-0.1568

-0.196

-0.2352

-0.2744
-0.3136

-0.3136
-0.3528

-0.4
-0.382
-0.3921

-0.3921

-0.3921

-0.3921
-0.3987
-0.4312

-0.4313
-0.4313
-0.4312

-0.4312

-0.4312

-0.4312
-0.4705

-0.4705
-0.4705
-0.5489

-0.6

Face A Face B Face C Face D Face E Face F Face G Face H

Building Faces

Fig. 6. Comparison of face pressure coefficient for different angles 0˚,45˚,90˚,135˚ and 180˚ from Wind tunnel testing

4
 0˚
CFD 45˚

0.7525
0.8 90˚

0.6321
135˚

0.5861
0.5559
0.5441

0.5351
0.5342
180˚

0.5078

0.5063
0.6

0.4719
0.4304
0.4045

0.3999
Mean Pressure Coefficient

0.3662
0.4

0.1759
0.1191
0.2

0.0

-0.1423
-0.2

-0.1989

-0.205

-0.2769

-0.2854
-0.3014
-0.3438
-0.3449
-0.4
-0.3591

-0.3841
-0.3851

-0.3853

-0.3933

-0.3938
-0.395
-0.3984

-0.3987
-0.399

-0.4107
-0.4127

-0.4429
-0.4448
-0.4513
-0.5128
-0.6

Face A Face B Face C Face D Face E Face F Face G Face H

Building faces

Fig. 7. Comparison of face pressure coefficient for different angles 0˚,45˚,90˚,135˚ and 180˚ from Wind tunnel testing

ht 50 mm 90˚ Wind angle ht 50 mm

0˚ Wind angle ht 150 mm ht 150 mm
ht 250 mm 0.6 ht 250 mm
0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2
Cp (mean)
Cp (mean)

0.0
0.0

-0.2
-0.2
-0.4

-0.4
-0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Perimeter (mm)
Perimeter (mm)

Fig. 10. Pressure variation along the perimeter of the building

Fig. 8. Pressure variation along the perimeter of the building

ht 50 mm
ht 50 mm 135˚ Wind angle ht 150 mm
45˚ Wind angle 0.8
ht 150 mm ht 250 mm
0.6 ht 250 mm
0.6

0.4
0.4
Cp (mean)

0.2
Cp (mean)

0.2

0.0
0.0

-0.2
-0.2

-0.4
-0.4
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
-0.6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Perimeter (mm)
Perimeter (mm)

Fig. 11. Pressure variation along the perimeter of the building

Fig. 9. Pressure variation along the perimeter of the building

5
 ht 50 mm
structure [16,20]. When the wind flow in the computational
0.6 180˚ Wind angle ht 150 mm domain, strikes the various faces of the building, the flow
ht 250 mm gets separated. The separated flow will in turn flows around
0.4 the buildings. In figure 13, the flow over T plan shape
building for 0˚, 45˚, 90˚,135˚ and 180˚wind angle is shown.
0.2 The flow pattern results in the formation of strong wakes
Cp (mean)

on the leeward faces i.e on the downstream of the building.

0.0
In figures 13 (a) to (e) the flow patterns are numbered. The
numbering of 1 indicates a free stream flow i.e the
-0.2
incoming wind from the inlet, Number 2 indicates flow
coming to the building, number 3 indicates stagnation flow
-0.4
i.e the flow of wind is not moving, number 4 indicates the
downflow stagnation i.e the flow of wind remains constant
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 at the downstream of the building, number 5 indicates a
Perimeter (mm) corner streamlines where the flow gets separated, number
6 indicates the creation of small eddies due to shear,
Fig. 12. Pressure variation along the perimeter of the building number 7 indicates recirculation regions where the air gets
circulated within the regions, number 8 indicates
4.1. Error Analysis. Error analysis is carried out in order downstream flow, number 9 indicates wake regions where
to check the accuracy in the result. The value of Root Mean the velocity of wind is very low, number 10 indicates the
Square (R2), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Root Mean recirculation cavity due to the low velocity, number 11
Square Error (RMSE) and Mean Average Percentage Error indicates the expansion of wake regions.
(MAPE) are calculated using the equations given below The study has proven [22,28] building height has a strong
∑(𝑦̂−𝑦̅)2 impact on the formation of vortex followed by wind
𝑅2 = ∑(𝑦 2 (5) velocity. For streamlined bodies, small separation will
𝑖 −𝑦𝑖 )
where, 𝑦̂= Analytical value (actual), 𝑦̅= Average of occur at the stagnation point and a thin region of shear and
observed value, 𝑦𝑖 = Experimental value, 𝑦𝑖 = Average of all viscosity occurs on the body leading to the formation of a
reading. small wake. In the case of bluff body, buildings from the
1 zone of separation shear layer re-attaches and leads to the
Mean Absolute Error (MAE) = ∑𝑛𝑖=1(𝑥𝑖 − 𝑥) (6)
𝑛 formation of vortices and larger wakes. On the windward
Where, 𝑥𝑖 = Experimental value, x= Analytical value
(𝑍𝑓𝑖 −𝑍0𝑖 )2
face strong downward flow is created below the stagnation
Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) = ∑𝑁 𝑖=1[ ]1/2 (7) point. For the present study, the stagnation point has
𝑁
Where, Zfi = Analytical value and 𝑍0𝑖 = occurred at a height h/2 from the base. This downward
Experimental value movement of the air cause negative pressure on the side
Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE) = faces of the building.
1 𝑛 |(𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙−𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡)|
∑ 𝑋 100 (8)
𝑛 𝑖=1 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙
The calculated value of R2, MAE, RMSE and MAPE are
shown in Table 1. The results indicate that the calculated
values are within the permissible limits. Previous
researcher [5] has carried out error for different plan shape
building, from the result the predicated values for R 2 is 1,
which shows a good curve fitting. MAE, RMSE and MAPE
are within the permissible limit.
Table 1 Calculated value of R2, MAE, RMSE and MAPE
Face R2 MAE RMSE MAPE
A 1 0.0144 0.0193 5.3913
B 1 0.0284 0.0319 1.5560
C 1 0.0271 0.0303 -0.4767
D 1 0.0392 0.0414 -11.801 (a)
E 1 0.0279 0.0322 -3.9184
F 1 0.0267 0.0280 -8.0903
G 1 0.0138 0.0189 -0.8324
H 1 0.0250 0.0285 -3.1531

4.2. Flow Pattern. The study of wind flow patterns is very

much important for irregular shape tall buildings as the
vortices should not match with the natural frequency of the

6
 4.3. Wake Regions. Wake regions are formed in the
downstream side of the body i.e on the leeward side of the
building. Usually, the size of the wake depends on the
height of the building, wind speed and direction [24,26].
The buildings with large frontal areas lead to the formation
of large wakes. For 0˚ wind angle, wakes are formed up to
a length of 0.138 m from the building face E and the area
of approximate wake is 0.034 m2. For 45˚ wind angle,
wakes formed up to a length of 0.369 m from the building
face E and the area of the approximate wake is 0.164 m 2.
For 90˚ wind angle, wake regions are formed up to 0.260
(b) m length from the building face F and wake area formed is
of 0.068 m3. For 135˚ wind angle the wake length is about
0.145 m from face E and the wake area is about 0.374 m2.
For 180˚ wind angle wakes are formed up to a length of
about 0.330 m and the area of wake up to 0.404 m2 is
formed. From the observation, at 45˚ wind angle, large
wakes are formed and followed by 180˚, 90˚, 135˚and 0˚
wind angle. Figure 15 shows the formation of a wake at
different wind angles.

(c)

(a)

(d)

(b)

(e)
Fig.13. Generation of streamlines for wind angles (a) 0˚ (b) 45˚ (c) 90˚
(d) 135˚(e) 180˚

7

(c)
(d)
(e)
Fig. 15. Show the formation of wake (a) 0˚ wind angle (b) 45˚ wind
angle (c) 90˚ wind angle (d) 135˚ wind angle and (e) 180˚ wind angle
4.4. Drag and Lift Force. Tall and slender structures are
subjected to high wind speed and create drag force, lift
force and torsional moment. Drag force is formed along the
wind direction, the lift force is created due to crosswind
direction and because of the change in air pressure, the
torsional moment is generated and leads to twisting of the
building. Drag and lift forces are calculated using the
formula given in the equation
𝐹
CD mean = 1 𝐷2 (9)
𝜌 𝑉𝐻 𝐴
2
𝐹𝐿
CL mean = 1
𝜌 𝑉𝐻2 𝐴
(10)
2
where CD Mean and CL Mean are the drag and lift force
coefficient, FD is the drag force, 𝜌 is the density of air, V is
the velocity of wind and A is the projected length [4,11].
The drag and the lift coefficient values are obtained for a
particular wind velocity 10 m/s. Many previous researchers
have worked on the modifications of the building plan such
8
as corner cut, slotted corner, corner recession, etc, in order
to reduce the drag and lift forces on buildings.
2.5
2
Coefficient
1.5
1
0.5
0
0° 45° 90° 135° 180°
Wind Angles
Drag Lift
Fig. 16. Drag and lift Coefficient for wind angles 0˚, 45˚, 90˚, 135˚ and
180˚
The maximum drag coefficient is obtained in 45˚ wind
angle of value 2.37 followed by 0˚ wind angle with drag
force 2.03; subsequently by wind angle 135˚ the drag force
is 1.9; then by 180˚ wind angle the drag force 1.67 and the
lowest drag force is found in 90˚ wind angle of value 1.56.
For streamline body, the drag force is minimum due to the
thin layer of separation of moving air and the body. For the
bluff body such as buildings, the drag force will be larger.
The lift coefficient is maximum for 45˚ wind angle of value
0.67, followed by 135˚,90˚,180˚,0˚ wind angle of value 0.9,
0.85, 0.22 and 0.02.
5. Summary
From the above study the following conclusions are drawn:
• The result of Pressure Coefficient (Cp) shows a
good agreement with the experimental values and
no major deviation in results. Error analysis is
checked by using R2, MAE, RMSE and MAPE
and the obtained values is within the permissible
limits.
• The flow pattern has a very great influences in the
calculation of pressure coefficient around the
buildings. Turbulence model k-𝜀 is very much
useful for external flow simulation for predicting
the flow pattern around the building. The figure
13 in this paper shows clearly the flow pattern
around T plan shape tall building at different wind
angles such as 0˚, 45˚, 90˚, 135˚ and 180˚ wind
angle.
• From the observation larger wakes are formed at
45˚ wind angle and followed by 180˚, 90˚,
135˚and 0˚ wind angle.
• The maximum drag has occurred at 45˚ wind
angle followed by 0˚, 135˚,180˚ and 90˚ wind
angle. Since the drag value has direct impact on
 wind loads on buildings, 90˚wind angle is the [18] R.Karupczynski and J.Trajer, “Assessment of wind energy resources
using ANN- Case study at Lody Hills”, Bulletin of Polish Academy
desired orientation for T-plan shape tall buildings. of Science Technical Sciences, 67(1), (2019).
Maximum lift had occurred in 45˚ wind angle [19] IS:875 – 2015 (Part 3) “Indian Standard Code of Practice for design
followed by 135˚,90˚,180˚,0˚ wind angle. loads” Wind loads
[20] Tamura Y & Kareem A, Advanced structural wind Engineering, 1 st
REFERENCES Edition (Springer, Japan) 2013.
[21] Fluent User Guide: 19.2 (2019).
[1] Ben Mou, Bao-Jie He, Dong-Xue Zhao, and Kwok-wing Chau,
“Numerical simulation of the effects of building dimensional [22] K.Gumowski, O.Olszewski, M.Pocwierz, and K.Zielonko-Jung,
variation on wind pressure distribution”, Engineering Application of “Comparative analysis of numerical and experimental studies of the
Computational Fluid Mechanics, 11 (1), 293-309 (2017). air flow around the sample of urban development”, Bull. Pol. Ac.:
Tech.63(3), 729-736 (2015).
[2] H. SarathKumar, and P. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, “Pressure
Measurement studies on a 1:1.5:7 rectangular High rise building [23] S.Chita Ganapathi, P.Harikrishn and S.Selvi Rajan,“Effects of
Model under uniform flow”, IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science upstream terrain characteristics on aerodynamic coefficient of
and Engineering, 225, 1-8 (2017). structures”, Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 17(4),
776-785 (2017).
[3] Fei Ding, Ahsan Kareem, and Jiawei Wan, “Aerodynamic Tailoring
of Structures Using Computational Fluid Dynamics”, Advance in [24] Hideyuki Tanaka, Yukio Tamura, Kazuo Ohtake, Masayoshi Nakai,
Structural Engineering, 29(1), 26-39 (2019). YongChul Kim, and Eswara Kumar Bandi. “Aerodynamic and Flow
Characteristics of Tall buildings with various Unconventional
[4] K. B. Rajasekarababu, G. Vinayagamurthy, and S. Selvi Rajan,
Configurations”, Int. J. High-Rise buildings, 2(3), 213-228 (2013).
“Experimental and computational investigation of outdoor wind
flow around setback building”, Building Simulation, 12(5), 891– [25] B.W. Yan and Q.S. Li, “Inflow turbulence generation methods with
904 (2018). large eddy simulation for wind effects on tall buildings”, Computer
and fluids, 116, 158 – 175 (2015).
[5] Souvik Chakraborty, Sujit Kumar Dalui, and Ashok Kumar Ahuja,
“Wind load on irregular plan shape tall building – a case study”, [26] Facundo Bre, Juan M. Gimenez and Victor D. Fachinotti,
Wind and Structures, 19(1), 59-73 (2014). “Prediction of wind pressure coefficients on building surfaces using
artificial neural networks”, Energy and buildings, 158, 1429 – 1441
[6] Yi Li, Yong-Gui Li, Qiu-Sheng Li and Kong-Fah Tee, (2018).
“Investigation of wind effect reduction on square high-rise buildings
by corner modification”, Advances in structural Engineering, 22(6), [27] Yi Li, Yong-Gui li, Qiu Sheng Li, Kong Fah Tee, “Investigation of
1488-1500 (2018). wind effects reduction on square high rise buildings by corner
modification”, Advances in structural Engineering, 1-13 (2018).
[7] A. Chaorong Zheng, Yu Xie, Mahram Khan, Yue Wu, and Jing Liu
“Wind-induced responses of tall buildings under combined [28] Bert Blocken, Ted Stathopoulos, Jan Carmeliet and Jan L.M.
aerodynamic control”, Engineering Structures, 175, 86-100 (2018). Hensen, “Application of computational fluid dynamics in building
performance simulation for the outdoor environment: an overview”,
[8] Yuanlin Yu, Yi Yang, and Zhuangning Xie, “A new inflow
J. building Performance Simulation, 4(2), 157-184 (2011).
turbulence generator for large eddy simulation evaluation of wind
effects on a standard high-rise building”, Building and Environment,
138, 300-313 (2018).
[9] Leighton S. Cochran, “Ten questions concerning wind effects on
supertall residential buildings”, Building and Environment, 169, 1-7
(2020).
[10] T. van Druenen, T. van Hooff, H. Montazeri and B. Blocken, “CFD
evaluation of building geometry modifications to reduce pedestrian-
level wind speed”, Building and Environment, 163, 1-24 (2019).
[11] Biao Li, Lu Wang, Yun Liu and, Jing Liu, “Drag distributions of
non-uniform buildings from surface pressure measurements in wind
tunnel”, Building and Environment, 143, 618-631 (2018).
[12] Fabio Nardecchia, Benedetta Mattoni, Chiara Burattini and Fabio
Bisegna, “The impact of humidity on vortex creation around isolated
buildings”, Building Research & Information 1-20 (2019).
[13] J. Franke, A. Hellsten, H. Schlunzen, and B. Carissimo, “The COST
732 best practice guidelines for CFD simulation of flows in the
urban environment – A summary”, Int. J. Environmental Pollution
44 (1-4), 419-427 (2011).
[14] Ahmed Elshaer, Girma Bitsuamlak, Ashraf El Damatty “Enhancing
wind performace of tall buildings using corner aerodynamic
optimization”, Engineering Structures, 136, 133-148 (2017).
[15] Yi Li, Q.S. Li and Fubin Chen “Wind tunnel study of wind-induced
torques on L-shaped tall buildings”, J. Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 167, 41-50 (2017).
[16] Romain Guichard, “Assessment of an improved Random Flow
Generation method to predict unsteady wind pressure on an isolated
building using Large Eddy simulation”, J. Wind Engineering &
Industrial Aerodynamics, 189, 304-313 (2019).
[17] Yukio Tamura, Xiaoda Xu and Qingshan Yang,“Characteristic of
pedestrian level mean wind speed around square buildings: Effect of
height, width, size and approaching flow profile”, J. Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 192, 74-87 (2019).