Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Study of wind loads on rectangular plan tall building under

interference condition
Bharat Singh Chauhan a, *, Anupam Chakrabarti b, Ashok Kumar Ahuja b
a
DASH Group, Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, India

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The change in distribution of wind pressure due to alteration of wind flow pattern caused by the existence of an
Boundary layer wind tunnel experimentation interfering building is explored in this study on a principal tall building having cross-section of rectangular
Rectangular plan tall buildings shape. Interfering building having same cross-sectional shape as the principal building but a variation in height is
Interference condition
placed in-front of the principal building, with across-wind lengths of two buildings being in-line with each other.
Height variation
Spacing variation
Keeping the principal building fixed in position, the spacing between two buildings is varied by changing the
Tandem arrangement position of interfering building, so as to understand the effect of spacing and height variation upon the wind
loads and pressures. Two independent type of measurements are undertaken for varying interfering building
height: (1). Force Measurement (2). Pressure Measurement. For purpose of validation, the results obtained from
two independent measurements mentioned are compared later. The results obtained from force measurements
are expressed in the form of two-dimensional X-Y plots, while that for pressure measurement are depicted in the
form of mean and RMS wind pressure coefficient (CP and C’P ) contour plots on all vertical faces of the principal
building. Force measurement results show that the interference effect subsides as the interfering building height
is reduced and spacing is increased. However, from pressure contours it is evident that when the interfering
building is close to principal building pressure force on the windward face reduces while the suction on the
leeward face increases with the reduction in interfering building height. Negative drag is also observed for few of
the cases.

1. Introduction
Construction of tall buildings in metropolitan cities has become the
inevitable solution for the present, to accommodate the ever-increasing
population in a limited area of land. With increase in height of the
building, wind loads start to play a dominating role in the design. Also,
due to random growth of cities the architects are forced to place tall
buildings in a close vicinity to other structures. Presence of other
structures in the close vicinity, alters wind loads on the building of our
concern. Information available in various standard codes of practice on
wind loads of different countries [2,3,7,11] regarding wind force and
wind pressure coefficients are mostly limited to isolated condition.
While for interference condition information only for preliminary design
and that too relating to a very few cases is noted in these standards and it
is mentioned that for a detailed analysis wind tunnel experimentation
should be carried out.
Browsing the literature, it can be noted that many researches have
been carried out in the past in the form of boundary layer wind tunnel
experiments to understand the effect of interference on wind flow
pattern and wind forces on tall buildings and have demonstrated the
importance of interference studies on tall buildings. With respect to tall
buildings, a large number of studies have demonstrated the importance
and significance of wind interference experimentation showing that that
wind flow patterns and hence the wind loads are significantly altered
when the interfering building is located close to the principal building
[12]. Most of the wind interference studies are carried out on square
cross-sectional shape principal tall buildings, under the presence of
either one identical interfering building having variable positions
[23,14,13,8,15,19,26,27], or two identical interfering buildings having
variable positions [23,8,20], or a group of identical interfering buildings
arranged in different patterns [17,28,18]. Some interference studies
undertaken had different cross-sectional shapes for the principal and
interfering buildings [21,1,9,16]. Few experimental interference studies
have been conducted on identical rectangular cross-section principal

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: bschauhan@cbri.res.in (B.S. Chauhan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2022.06.041
Received 23 January 2020; Received in revised form 3 June 2022; Accepted 17 June 2022
Available online 23 June 2022
2352-0124/© 2022 Institution of Structural Engineers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

Fig. 1. Isometric view and plan view of the arrangements for experimentation. [H1 = 500 mm; B = 100 mm; H/H1 = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0] (All dimensions are
in mm).

Fig. 2. Principal building model: plan and isometric view depicting the positions of different pressure measurement points (All dimensions are in mm).

1000

330 330 300 300

2400 500 760 2710 480 480 480 635 330 530 300
250 100 275 71 50 295 308 37
447 465 476
71
250 100 71 274 50
290
50
50 300
37 37 Turn Table Diffuser
Vortex Barrier 274 71 290 300
37
Wire Generators 250 100
Wall 274 290 300
6000 Screens 274 290 300
250 100 274 290 300
274 290 300
250 100 274 290 300 Model
447 465 476
250 275 295 308

12000
15000

Fig. 3. Wind tunnel arrangement in plan (Figure is not to scale; All dimensions are in mm).

106
B.S. Chauhan et al.
Fig. 4. Wind characteristics used for experiments: (a) Mean wind speed profile; (b) Turbulence intensity profile.
and interfering buildings [24,10,4–6]. Interference studies have also
been taken up for square cross-sectional shape buildings having a sky-
bridge in between and on an aerodynamically modified principal tall
building under the presence of another identical tall building [22,25].
Amongst these studies, several variations in parameters are considered
like height variation of interfering buildings [23,15,26,4–6], variations
in cross-sectional dimensions of interfering and principal buildings
[23,1,26,27], wind incidence angle [1,17,28,14,13,15,20], the pattern
of arrangement amongst principal and interfering buildings
[24,1,17,28,14,13,18,16,26,4–6], and spacing variation amongst prin­
cipal and interfering buildings [24,17,28,18,16,20]. The objectives of
these experimental studies were also different in purpose, which
included evaluation of wind-induced responses [24,21,8,18,19], mea­
surement of base force forces and moments [23,1,17,28,8,16,20,4],
pressure measurement on different surfaces of the buildings
[1,14,13,15,8,9,16,20,10,22,26,25,5,6,27]. From the literature it can be
noted that wind flow patterns and hence wind pressure distribution and
wind loads are significantly altered by the position variation and relative
dimensions of different buildings. However, it can be observed that
research work for interference studies on frequently adopted rectangular
cross-sectional shape tall buildings under the presence of another tall
interfering building having a similar cross-sectional shape but variation
in its height and position is not available.
Hence to understand the interference effect on tall building having
rectangular cross-section shape due to alteration of wind flow caused by
the existence of similar cross-sectional shape interfering building having
a relative variation in height and position is attempted in this study.
As shown in Fig. 1, the interfering building is placed in front of the
principal building (hatched) i.e. in tandem position for studying the
interference effect. For force measurement, 34 different interfering
building positions are considered [S/B = 0.0, 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 1.5,
2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 3.5, 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5, 9.0, 9.5,
10.0, 11.0, 12.0, 13.0, 14.0, 16.0, 18.0, 20.0, 22.5, 25.0, 27.5, 30.0],
each for 5 different heights of interfering building as mentioned in Fig. 1.
While for pressure measurement, 13 different interfering building po­
sitions are considered (S/B = 0.0, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0,
15.0, 20.0, 25.0 and 30.0) for 3 different heights of interfering building
107
Structures 43 (2022) 105–130
corresponding to H/H1 = 1.0, 0.6, 0.2, keeping the height of the prin­
cipal building (hatched) same as in force measurement. The results are
presented through X-Y plots for force measurements, and in the form of
contour plots on all vertical faces of the principal building for pressure
measurements. The results of pressure measurement will be helpful for
cladding design. The wind pressure distribution and the different wind
loads on the principal building under interference condition are corre­
lated with that for isolated condition.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Model description
Two different rigid models are prepared for the principal building:
(1). Using plywood for force measurement, and (2). Using perspex sheet
for pressure measurement. For 5 different heights of the interfering
building, 5 plywood models are made which will be used for both force
as well as pressure measurements. Geometric scale of 1:200 is adopted
for making building models, the prototype assumed for principal tall
building is of rectangular cross-sectional shape with plan dimensions as
60 m × 20 m and height as 100 m. Interfering building prototype
considered is also of rectangular cross-sectional shape, with same plan
dimensions as principal building but of variable height as 100 m, 80 m,
60 m, 40 m and 20 m. For pressure study, principal building model is
made with Perspex sheet having a total of 112 pressure points with 35
each on Face A and C and 21 each on Face B and D, as shown in Fig. 2.
While the principal building model for force study is a solid plywood
model with painted surfaces as shown in photographs of Fig. 5.
2.2. Characteristics of wind flow
A boundary layer wind tunnel of open circuit blow-down type with a
cross-section of 2 m × 2 m for test section and length as 15 m is used for
testing. Vortex generators and barrier wall are placed on upstream side
of the test section along with cubical blocks of size 71 mm, 50 mm and
37 mm used for floor roughening to achieve desired turbulence intensity
and mean wind velocity profile conforming to power law exponent of
B.S. Chauhan et al.
Fig. 5. Photographs of some arrangements for force measurement.
0.3 for the approaching flow. Arrangement of wind tunnel in plan is
depicted in Fig. 3. Fig. 4 shows the mean wind velocity and the turbu­
lence intensity profile obtained for experimentation.
2.3. Measurement technique
Testo 480 instrument equipped with a probe for velocity and a
pointer gauge is deployed first to determine the velocity profile. A small
108
Structures 43 (2022) 105–130
3-blade fan having 16 mm diameter is mounted on the top of velocity
probe, wind velocity inside the boundary layer tunnel is measured by the
rotation speed of this fan. For all measurements: velocity, force or
pressure, the probe or the model of principal building is located at a
distance of about 12 m from the starting of test section in the wind di­
rection. Principal building plywood model is mounted on the top of the
5-component load cell Nissho LMC- 5511-10 working at a frequency of
300 Hz for Force measurements. Testing is undertaken at a mean free
B.S. Chauhan et al.
Fig. 6. Photographs of some arrangements for pressure measurement.
stream wind velocity of 11.4 m/sec measured at 0.89 m height above the
floor of the tunnel. Principal building model is first tested for isolated
condition and then under interference condition (Fig. 1). Photographs
for some arrangements are added in Fig. 5. The overall experimental
procedure is similar to that described the authors in previous papers
[4–6] (a, b and c).
Principal building model is placed on the top of turn table for pres­
sure measurements. Wind pressure measurements are undertaken at a
free stream mean wind velocity of 11.4 m/sec. Scanivalve pressure
scanner ZOC33 with 128-point pressure sensor (having two banks each
of 64 pressure points) functioning at a frequency of 500 Hz is used for
wind pressure measurement at each pressure point for 60 s (i.e. a total of
30,000 readings are noted for each pressure point). Holes having 1 mm
diameter are drilled at suitable places in the principal building model as
shown in Fig. 2, to capture the wind pressure distribution. Steel tubes
having 10 mm length are connected to the holes. The steel tubes are in
Interference factor(KFX or KFY or KMX or KMY or KMZ )
Measurment parmater (Fx or Fy or Mx or My or Mz) under interference condition
=
Corresponding parmater (Fx or Fy or Mx or My or Mz) under isolated condition
turn connected to vinyl tubes of 500 mm length, other end of which is
connected to the pressure sensor.
The principal building model is tested for isolated and interference
cases. The interfering building is placed adjacent to principal building
initially in tandem position and later the effect of variation in height and
position of interfering building is explored by changing them with
109
Structures 43 (2022) 105–130
respect to the principal building for the arrangements as shown in Fig. 1.
A total of 171 different arrangement conditions for force measurement
and 40 different arrangement conditions for pressure measurement are
tested including the isolated cases. Fig. 6 displays the pressure mea­
surement photographs for some arrangements.
3. Experimental results and discussion
3.1. Force measurement
Experimental results are presented through X-Y plots for different
height ratios (H/H1, Fig. 1), with position variation (S/B, Fig. 1) of
interfering building on X axis and the corresponding value of interfer­
ence factor on Y axis, where the interference factor being defined as [Eq.
(1)]:
(1)
Where, FX = Base shear force on the principal building along the wind
flow; FY = Base shear force on the principal building across the wind
flow; MX = Base overturning moment on the principal building about the
X-axis; MY = Base overturning moment on the principal building about
the Y-axis; MZ = Twisting moment on the principal building about the Z-
axis;
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

Fig. 7. Line graphs - Interference factors for various experimental setups; Bar graphs - Numerical values for isolated condition.

Isolated- A B C D

Fig. 8. Mean wind pressure coefficients (CP ) contour plots for isolated condition.

110
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=0.2; S/B=0.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=0.5- A B C D

H/H1=0.2; S/B=1.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=2.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.2; S/B=3.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=4.0- A B C D

Fig. 9. CP contour plots for principal building under different interference arrangements [H/H1 = 0.2] (Contd.).

Interference factors for various measurement parameters are calcu­
lated using average values for the corresponding parameter and are
reported in the form of line graphs in Fig. 7. To gain an understanding of
the numerical magnitude of the observations made during experimen­
tation, numerical values for isolated case are also reported in Fig. 7 in
form of bar graphs.
It can be noted from the isolated condition bar charts of Fig. 7 that FX
and MY are higher in magnitude than the other forces and moments
respectively, this is due to the reason that FX is the force in along wind
direction and MY is the overturning moment caused by this force about
Y-axis. Across wind force (FY), the corresponding moment (MX) and the
twisting moment (MZ) have very small magnitudes in comparison to FX
and MY, this is because of the symmetrical cross – section of principal
building about an axis parallel to wind direction.
Observing the line graphs of Fig. 7 for interference condition, it can
be observed that interference factor for along wind force (KFX) and
overturning moment about Y-axis (KMY) follow almost a similar trend. It
can also be noted that KFX for H/H1 = 0.2 is very close to 1.0 (i.e. iso­
lated case) irrespective of the change in position under tandem
arrangement (S/B). However, as the height ratio (H/H1) increases the
effect of interference increases and hence deviation from the isolated
condition (interference factor = 1.0) can be seen in Fig. 7 for both KFX
and KMY. Observing plot line for H/H1 = 1.0, it can be noted that
negative drag is experienced by the principal building model for lower
spacing ratios (S/B), i.e. when interfering building model fully shields
(H/H1 = 1.0) and is close to the principal building model negative drag
is experienced by the principal building model due to high suction on the
windward face. This negative drag reduces with the increasing S/B ratio,

111
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=0.2; S/B=5.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=7.5- A B C D

H/H1=0.2; S/B=10.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=15.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.2; S/B=20.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=25.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.2; S/B=30.0- A B C D

Fig. 9. (continued).

112
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=0.6; S/B=0.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=0.5- A B C D

H/H1=0.6; S/B=1.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=2.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.6; S/B=3.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=4.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.6; S/B=5.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=7.5- A B C D

Fig. 10. CP contour plots for principal building under different interference arrangements [H/H1 = 0.6] (Contd.).

113
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=0.6; S/B=10.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=15.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.6; S/B=20.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=25.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.6; S/B=30.0- A B C D

Fig. 10. (continued).

however for H/H1 = 1.0 negative drag exists for tandem position
spacing (S) as high as S = 4.0B. The highest KFX value noted for negative
drag is − 0.34 for S/B = 0.25 and H/H1 = 1.0 whereas KFX = -0.31 for S/
B = 0.0 and H/H1 = 1.0, i.e. largest negative drag force does not occur at
spacing ratio S/B = 0.0 instead it occurs when the interfering building
model is having certain spacing from the principal building model.
For lower S/B ratios, the difference in KFX (or KMY) values is
maximum for different height ratios, this difference reduces with the
increase in S/B ratio. As the spacing ratio (S/B) increases, the distur­
bance created by interfering building in the wind flow pattern reduces
and the experimental results move towards a value close to that for
isolated condition (i.e. interference factor = 1.0) for both KFX and KMY.
Observing Fig. 7 closely for KFX and KMY, it can be noted that although
the tendency of these plots is to move towards isolated condition with
the increase in S/B ratio, but even after S/B = 30.0 the value obtained
for these interference factor is about 0.92 for H/H1 = 1.0, implying that
even after spacing S = 30.0B, the effect of interference still exist.
Interference factors for across wind force (KFY) and overturning
moment about X-axis (KMX) are also seen to follow almost a similar
trend. However, even with presence of interfering building in tandem
position, the complete arrangement is symmetric about an axis parallel
to the direction of wind. Therefore, KFY and KMX values have little sig­
nificance and are not included in Fig. 7, as most of the values of these
interference factors lie within the isolated condition bracket (-1.0 to +
1.0) i.e. for all interference arrangements the values obtained for FY and
MX are equal to or smaller than that obtained for isolated condition.
Twisting moment interference factor, KMZ values also mostly lie
within the isolated condition bracket (− 1.0 to + 1.0), which is again due

114
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=1.0; S/B=0.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=0.5- A B C D

H/H1=1.0; S/B=1.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=2.0- A B C D

H/H1=1.0; S/B=3.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=4.0- A B C D

H/H1=1.0; S/B=5.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=7.5- A B C D

Fig. 11. CP contour plots for principal building under different interference arrangements [H/H1 = 1.0] (Contd.).

115
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=1.0; S/B=10.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=15.0- A B C D

H/H1=1.0; S/B=20.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=25.0- A B C D

H/H1=1.0; S/B=30.0- A B C D

Fig. 11. (continued).

to the existence of axis of symmetry along the wind direction for all With the help of experimentally obtained wind pressure values the
arrangements. mean wind pressure coefficient CP and root mean square coefficient CP ,
′

are evaluated using the relationships [Eq. (2)]:

3.2. Pressure measurement
P P’
CP = ( ) C’P = ( ) (2)
The mean and root mean square wind pressure coefficients CP and CP
′ 2
0.6 × V ref 0.6 × V 2ref
respectively, are calculated from the experimentally obtained pressure
values at different pressure points. Experimental results obtained for where, Vref = Wind velocity at principal building model height, P =
mean wind pressure coefficients (CP ) are depicted through contour plots mean wind pressure, and P = root mean square of (P-P).
′

shown in Figs. 8–11 and that for root mean square coefficients (CP ) are
′
Results presented in Fig. 8 are for isolated condition, observing the
also depicted in the form of contour plots shown in Figs. 12–15. For both contour plot it can be noted that for Face A and C contours are sym­
isolated and interference conditions, contour plots are shown on all four metrically placed about the center line as expected. Drawing a vertical
vertical faces of the principal building. Obtained interference condition section on the contour plot of Face A for CP and noting the values from
results are later compared with that for isolated condition.

116
B.S. Chauhan et al.
Isolated- A B C
Fig. 12. Contour plots of RMS wind pressure coefficients (C’P ) for isolated condition.
top towards the bottom, it can be seen that the value of CP initially in­
creases since the wind streams close to the building model height skim
from the top edge instead of hitting the building model directly, after an
increase for a small portion of height, the value of CP is seen to decrease
towards the bottom due to the reduced wind velocity as per the velocity
profile. Fig. 12 shows the contour plots of root mean square coefficients
( CP ) for principal building under isolated condition on all vertical faces.
′
Experimental results obtained for interference arrangements are
shown for principal building model in the form of contour plots of mean
wind pressure coefficients (CP ) for different height ratios (Figs. 9–11)
contour plots of root mean square coefficients ( CP ) for different height
′ Face A experiences windward pressure, there is a rise in overall suction
ratios (Figs. 13–15). It can be observed from Figs. 9–11, that the pres­
ence of interfering building changes the wind flow pattern and thus a
difference in the contour plots can be noted when compared with the
isolated condition. Also, it can be interpreted from these figures that
wind flow pattern is also affected by the change in position (S/B) of
interfering building with respect to the principal building for tandem
arrangement, and this effect enhances with the increase in height of
interfering building. Axis of symmetry exist along the direction of wind
for all arrangements since interfering building is always placed in tan­
dem position.
Observing Face A for CP variation through Figs. 9–11, it can be
noticed that for S/B = 0.0, windward pressure on this face is affected and
the pressure distribution is altered with respect to isolated condition for
all height ratios, with highest disturbance occurring for H/H1 = 1.0.
High suction occurs at S/B = 0.0 on Face A of principal building model
up to the height of interfering building model. Maximum suction occurs
when the interfering building is near to the principal building and H/H1
= 1.0. This suction causes negative drag force as discussed under force
measurement and shown by KFX plot of Fig. 7. Suction on complete Face
A is seen to exist up to S/B as high as 7.5 for H/H1 = 1.0. Suction is seen
to increase as S/B is increased from 0.0 to 0.5 in the region up to the
height of interfering building. As S/B ratio is increased further the
suction is seen to reduce and windward pressure is seen to increase, thus
the effect of interference reduces with increasing S/B ratio. However, it
can be seen that effect of interference is not completely lost even up to S/
B = 30.0. for H/H1 = 1.0. This is in agreement with along wind force
interference factor (KFX) plot shown in Fig. 7. On comparing isolated
condition with tandem arrangement at S/B = 30.0, it can be observed
that the windward pressure for Face A is highest for isolated condition
(Fig. 8) it reduces with the increase in height of the interfering building,
with lowest windward pressure being observed for H/H1 = 1.0 at S/B =
30.0, hence interference effect is not lost even up to S/B = 30.0.
117
Structures 43 (2022) 105–130
D
Now observing for Face B, CP contour plots through Figs. 9–11, it can
be noted that for this arrangement CP contour plots for Face D and Face B
are mirror images of each other. This is because of the existence of an
axis of symmetry parallel to the direction of wind for all arrangements.
It can be noted that overall suction observed on these faces (B and D)
is lower in magnitude for higher values of H/H1 ratio. Also, for lower
values of S/B ratio highest suction value for a particular arrangement is
noted close to the interfering building height. For H/H1 = 0.6 and 1.0,
the overall suction on these faces is seen to reduce with increase in S/B
ratio, up to that spacing at which Face A experiences suction. As soon as
on these faces specially near the corners adjacent to windward face. The
suction increases slightly as S/B ratio is increased further for few in­
crements of S/B. However, this rise in suction again subsides with
further increase in S/B ratio. Again, observing for H/H1 = 0.6 and 1.0
when interfering building is near to the principal building i.e. for lower
values of S/B ratio, higher suction is observed close to windward edge
than at the leeward edge in the region up to the height of interfering
building, this pattern is opposite to that for isolated condition. As S/B
ratio is increased, the pattern of suction gradually changes itself. But
even up to S/B = 30.0, the suction pattern and magnitude of suction on
these faces are different from that for isolated condition in the region up
to interfering building height.
Observing distribution of wind pressure on Face C through CP con­
tour plots shown in Figs. 9–11, it can be seen that at S/B = 0.0, the
suction on this face is reduced as the height ratio increases. For a
particular arrangement, CP values are seen to be uniformly distributed
magnitude-wise in both horizontal and vertical direction on the face in
the region up to the height of interfering building. For H/H1 = 0.6 and
1.0, the overall suction on this face is seen to reduce as the suction on
Face A reduces with increasing S/B ratio, and the suction on Face C
increase with increase in the windward pressure on Face A with further
gain in S/B ratio. It can be concluded here that for tandem arrangements
the effect of interference increases with the increase in height of the
interfering building.
The fluctuating component CP contour plots (Figs. 13–15) when
′
compared with isolated condition (Fig. 12) are also noticed to vary in
shape due to the existence of nearby interfering building for all principal
building vertical faces. Highest value of CP for Face A is noted as 0.51 on
′
the top corners of Face A for S/B = 5.0 and Height ratio of H/H1 = 1.0.
Highest value of CP for Face B and Face D is noted as 0.58 near the edge
′
of Face B and Face A and near the edge of Face D and Face A respectively
at the respective top corners of these faces for S/B = 15.0 and H/H1 =
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=0.2; S/B=0.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=0.5- A B C D

H/H1=0.2; S/B=1.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=2.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.2; S/B=3.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=4.0- A B C D

Fig. 13. CP contour plots for principal building under different interference arrangements [H/H1 = 0.2] (Contd.).
′

1.0. Highest value of CP for Face C is noted as 0.35 in the bottom corners increments of S/B ratios and then subside. Magnitudes of CP values
′ ′

of the face for S/B = 10.0 and H/H1 = 1.0. Comparing, CP contour plots
′
decrease with further increase in S/B ratio. It can be observed here that
(Figs. 13–15) with contour plots of CP (Figs. 9–11), it can be observed CP values (fluctuating component) for interference condition are higher
′

that the transition of contour plots for CP values is higher in the region
′
in magnitude than that for isolated condition, this is in agreement with
where there is higher transition in CP values. For lower S/B ratios, CP
′ the study undertaken by [24].
values are lower in magnitude in the region up to the height of inter­
3.3. Peak interference factors
fering building. As S/B ratio increases CP values also increase in
′

magnitude in this region. For H/H1 = 0.6 and 1.0, again it can be
To gain an understanding of the magnitude of peak mean values of
observed that near the S/B ratio at which Face A suction is lost (From
wind pressure coefficient (CP ), a peak interference factor is defined as
Figs. 9–11), higher magnitudes of CP values (Figs. 13–15) are noted for
′

[Eq. (3)]:
Faces A, B and D on their common edges which further increase for few

118
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=0.2; S/B=5.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=7.5- A B C D

H/H1=0.2; S/B=10.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=15.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.2; S/B=20.0- A B C D H/H1=0.2; S/B=25.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.2; S/B=30.0- A B C D

Fig. 13. (continued).

119
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=0.6; S/B=0.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=0.5- A B C D

H/H1=0.6; S/B=1.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=2.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.6; S/B=3.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=4.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.6; S/B=5.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=7.5- A B C D

Fig. 14. CP contour plots for principal building under different interference arrangements [H/H1 = 0.6] (Contd.).
′

120
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=0.6; S/B=10.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=15.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.6; S/B=20.0- A B C D H/H1=0.6; S/B=25.0- A B C D

H/H1=0.6; S/B=30.0- A B C D

Fig. 14. (continued).

max|CP (i, j, X) |under interference arrangement
IF(X) = (3)
max|CP (i, j, X) |under isolated condition
where, max|CP (i, j, X)| is the absolute peak value of mean wind pressure
coefficient (CP ) for a particular Face X obtained at pressure point loca­
tion (i, j) of the face for a particular arrangement.
Fig. 16 shows the X-Y plots of interference factors (IF) for all vertical
faces of the principal building under different arrangements, with S/B
ratio on the X-axis and IF on the Y-axis. Plot for Face B and Face D is
same due existence of axis of symmetry for all arrangements in the di­
rection of wind. For Face A, highest value of IF is noted to be 1.27 for H/
H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 1.0. For Face B and Face D, highest value of IF is
noted to be 1.42 for H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 15.0 and for Face C highest
value of IF is noted to be 1.29 for H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 0.0. These
values of IF pose a threat to the partial safety factor of 1.2 taken for wind
loads in the design of structures by most of the International design
standards. Also, for Face A the highest value of IF is noted for H/H1 =
1.0 and S/B = 1.0, i.e. highest value is for suction and not for pressure.
3.4. Centerline wind pressure coefficients
Mean wind pressure distribution on the horizontal centerline of the
principal tall building is shown in Fig. 17, the figure shows the distri­
bution of mean wind pressure coeffficients (CP ) across all faces at a
height of 250 mm from the top of the building model. The X-axis of the
plots shown in Fig. 17 mark the different pressure points at the center­
line of the principal building model. A total of 16 pressure points are
present at this level, points 1 to 5 are for Face A, 6 to 8 are for Face B, 9 to

121
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=1.0; S/B=0.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=0.5- A B C D

H/H1=1.0; S/B=1.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=2.0- A B C D

H/H1=1.0; S/B=3.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=4.0- A B C D

H/H1=1.0; S/B=5.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=7.5- A B C D

Fig. 15. CP contour plots for principal building under different interference arrangements [H/H1 = 1.0].
′

122
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

H/H1=1.0; S/B=10.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=15.0- A B C D

H/H1=1.0; S/B=20.0- A B C D H/H1=1.0; S/B=25.0- A B C D

H/H1=1.0; S/B=30.0- A B C D

Fig. 15. (continued).

13 are for Face C and 14 to 16 are for Face D in a cyclic manner. It can be
seen from Fig. 17, that the scattering of different plotlines for H/H1 =
0.2 is the least and the plotlines are very similar to that for the isolated
case. However, the plotline scattering for H/H1 = 0.6 can be clearly seen
and the highest scattering of plotlines is noted for H/H1 = 1.0.
For Face A i.e. for pressure points between 1 and 5 (Fig. 17), it can be
noted that suction happens for H/H1 = 0.6 and H/H1 = 1.0, as H/H1 =
0.2 will have interfering building height lower than the mid-height of
principal tall building. As per Fig. 17, for H/H1 = 0.6 the suction hap­
pens on Face A centreline till S/B is less than or equal to 5.0, whereas for
H/H1 = 1.0, the suction happens on Face A centreline till S/B is less than
or equal to 7.5, thus again emphasising the fact that the effect of wind
interfernce increases with the increase in the height of the interfering
tall building. If we notice the pressure points 14 to 16, i.e. for Face D, it
can be seen that for H/H1 = 0.2, the trend of CP variation is similar to
that for the isolated case. However, if we closely observe the same
pressure points for H/H1 = 0.6 and H/H1 = 1.0, we can notice that there
is change in trend as compared to isolated case as ponited out earlier in
section 3.2. The reversal of trend happens up to the height of the the
interfering building, hence it was not seen for H/H1 = 0.2. Also, it can be
noted that for higher S/B ratios the trend similar to isolated case can
again be observed, for H/H1 = 0.6 the trend is restored beyond S/B =
15.0 and for H/H1 = 1.0 the trend is restored beyond S/B = 20.0.
However, even after restoring the trend the suction magnitude can be
observed to be much higher in comparision to that for isolated condi­
tion. For H/H1 = 0.6, S/B = 5.0 to 7.5 and for H/H1 = 1.0, S/B = 7.5 to
10.0 can be given as the best possible range for spacing so as to have
minimum wind pressure (Fig. 17).

123
B.S. Chauhan et al.
Fig. 16. Peak interference factors for tandem arrangement.
Fig. 18 shows the distribution of mean wind pressure coeffficients
(CP ) on the centerline of windward face (Face A) from bottom to top. In
these plots the X-axis gives the CP values, and the Y-axis gives the ratio of
h/H1 where ‘h’ is a variable height measured from the bottom of the
principal building and H1 is the full height of the principal building
(Fig. 1). As discussed earlier for the isolated condition that the maximum
wind pressure is not observed at the top most point as wind streams close
to the building top skim through the top edge, and hence maximum
pressure is noted at a point somewhat lower than the top edge, same
phenomena can be observed through Fig. 18. Again in this figure it can
be observed that the scattering of different plotlines for H/H1 = 0.2 is
the least and the plotlines are very similar to that for the isolated case,
while the plotline scattering for H/H1 = 0.6 is higher and the scattering
of plotlines is highest for H/H1 = 1.0. In all the three plots it can be
124
Structures 43 (2022) 105–130
observed that the highest suction point is close to the height of the
interfering building. Also, the suction is observed to be highest for S/B in
the range of 0.5 to 1.0 for all heights of interfering building. Again, it can
be observed here that for H/H1 = 0.6, S/B = 5.0 to 7.5 and for H/H1 =
1.0, S/B = 7.5 to 10.0 can be given as the best possible range for spacing
so as to have minimum wind pressure (Fig. 18) on the principal tall
building.
3.5. Weighted area wind pressure coefficients (CP ) for building faces
Weighted area wind pressure coefficients are found out for each face
and for each arrangement using eq. (4).
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

Fig. 17. Mean wind pressure coefficients (CP ) at mid-height of principal tall building.

∑n
i=1 (CP,i *Ai )
Wind pressure coefficients calculated through this method are shown
CP,face = ∑n (4)
i=1 Ai
in Table 4 and are also graphically represented through Fig. 19. The
results given in Table 4 can be directly used by practicing engineers and
where, CP,face = the weighted area wind pressure coefficient (CP ) for the architects, the weighted area average is found out so as to reduce the
complete face.CP,i = mean wind pressure coefficient observed at pres­ complexity of using the wind pressure contours. However, for designing
sure point ‘i’ Ai = Area associated with the pressure point ‘i’ on the face some specific location components wind pressure contours can be used.
of the principal building n = total number of pressure points on a Observing Fig. 19 closely it can be noted that for Face A, values of
particular face of the principal building. CP,face for H/H1 = 0.2 are very close to that for isolated condition. When

125
B.S. Chauhan et al.
Fig. 18. Mean wind pressure coefficients (CP ) on the centerline of the windward face of principal tall building.
the interfering building is located closely to the principal building, it can
be seen that the departure from the isolated condition increases with the
increase in height of the interfering building. As the spacing (S/B) is
increased, CP,face values for all the three height ratios move towards the
isolated condition case. Suction occurs on the windward face upto S/B =
7.5 for H/H1 = 1.0. Maximum suction for H/H1 = 1.0 occurs for S/B =
0.5.
From Fig. 19, it can be noted for Face B (or Face D) that for lower
126
Structures 43 (2022) 105–130
values of S/B, CP,face for interference condition is having higher magni­
tude of suction than that under isolated case. As S/B ratio increases it
can be seen that the suction on Face B (or Face D) reduces significantly
for H/H1 = 0.6 and 1.0. Now, if we closely observe plotline of H/H1 =
1.0, it can be noted that with further increase of S/B ratio at a particular
S/B (=10) ratio suction again starts to increase. This is the same S/B
ratio at which Face A starts experiecing positive pressure. Similar
observation can be made for Face C as well. If we foucus our attention in
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

Fig. 19. Weighted area wind pressure coefficients (CP ) for different building faces of the principal tall building.

127
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

Table 1
Force measurement result comparison with IS: 875 (Part-3)-2015 under isolated condition.
Wind incidence B/L H/L Velocity at model height Base force measured in along wind Base force measured in along wind Cf
angle ratio ratio (m/s) direction direction
Obtained IS: 875
(gm.-f) (N)
value (Part-3)

00 0.33 1.67 9.574 1022.71 10.03 1.216 1.2

Table 2
Pressure measurement results comparison with IS: 875 (Part-3)-2015 under isolated condition.
Wind incidence H/B L/B CP for Face A CP for Face B CP for Face C CP for Face D
angle ratio ratio
Obtained Indian Obtained Indian Obtained Indian Obtained Indian
value Code value Code value Code value Code

00 5.0 3.0 +0.56 +0.7 − 0.73 − 0.7 − 0.59 − 0.4 − 0.73 − 0.7

Table 3
Comparison of results obtained from force measurement and pressure measurement.
Force Measurement FX Pressure Measurement Force Measurement FX Pressure Measurement Force Measurement FX Pressure Measurement
(N) FX (N) (N) FX (N) (N) FX (N)
H/H1 = 0.2 H/H1 = 0.2 H/H1 = 0.6 H/H1 = 0.6 H/H1 = 1.0 H/H1 = 1.0

Isolated 10.03 9.47 10.03 9.47 10.03 9.47

S/B = 0.0 9.16 9.01 5.18 5.26 − 3.15 − 2.14
S/B = 0.5 9.09 9.17 5.68 4.77 − 3.26 − 3.71
S/B = 1.0 9.05 8.84 5.46 5.03 − 3.29 − 3.69
S/B = 2.0 9.37 9.05 5.63 5.00 − 2.88 − 2.96
S/B = 3.0 9.34 9.24 5.72 4.62 − 1.78 − 2.08
S/B = 4.0 9.65 9.30 5.13 4.59 − 0.92 − 0.80
S/B = 5.0 9.37 9.25 5.20 4.47 0.65 0.51
S/B = 7.5 9.17 9.21 6.19 5.28 3.07 3.03
S/B = 10.0 9.59 9.17 6.93 6.72 4.78 4.70
S/B = 20.0 9.24 9.25 8.77 8.25 7.48 7.76
S/B = 25.0 9.65 8.95 8.98 8.79 8.29 8.12
S/B = 30.0 9.62 9.09 8.99 8.61 9.25 8.72

the zone where the suction is more than that for isolated case with
further increase of S/B ratio, i.e. for S/B = 15 to 30, it can be noted that
for both Face B and Face C, the position of trough for H/H1 = 0.2 is at S/
B = 20.0, for H/H1 = 0.6 is at S/B = 25.0. However, for H/H1 = 1.0, the
position of trough cannot be given with certainity due to the limitation
of testing facility. From Fig. 19, it can be concluded that CP,face to be
minimum for all the faces S/B should be close to 5.0 for H/H1 = 0.6 and
should be close to 7.5 for H/H1 = 1.0.
3.6. Comparison of results
For the purpose of validation, results obtained from wind tunnel
experiments are compared in two folds:
3.6.1. Comparison with [11]
Coeficient of force (Cf ) is found using the formula [Eq. (5)]:
F wind are almost same in both the cases. Experimentally obtained net
Cf = ( ) (5)
0.5 × ρ × V 2 × A
where,F = base force in along wind direction, ρ = density of air (=1.2
kg/m3) V = Velocity At model height, and A = Projected area of the
model normal to the wind direction.
Table 1 gives the comparison of force (FX) coefficient between the
experimental and Indian standard code of practice for isolated case. The
result obtained by experiment is found to be in good agreement with the
value of Cf prescribed by the code.
CP for the entire face is calculated with the help of obtained mean
wind pressure coefficients (CP ) at different pressure points using
weighted area method, as shown [Eq. (6)]:
∑n
CP,i × Ai
CP,Face = i=1 (6)
A
where, i = pressure point number on the face, n= total number of
pressure points on the face, CP,i = Mean wind pressure coefficient at
pressure point ‘i’, Ai Ai = tributary area under the pressure point ‘i’, and
A = total area of the face.
For isolated condition, a comparison between the obtained experi­
mental results for pressure measurement and the recommended values
by IS: 875 (Part-3) for principal building vertical faces is shown in
Table 2. Although average value of pressure coefficient on windward
face (Face A) obtained experimentally is less than that recommended by
code of practice, the one on leeward face (Face C) is more than the code
recommended value. Force coefficients thus obtained in the direction of
force coefficient along wind direction is equal to 1.15 (=0.56 + 0.59),
whereas that obtained by code recommendation is 1.10 (=0.7 + 0.4).
Hence, the obtained results are noted to be in good agreement with the
values prescribed in code of practice.
3.6.2. Comparison of results obtained by force measurement and pressure
measurement
Mean pressure values obtained at different pressure points are

128
B.S. Chauhan et al. Structures 43 (2022) 105–130

Table 4 results of pressure measurement are then compared with the results
Mean wind pressure coefficient (CP ) for the different faces of principal building. obtained from the force measurement for the purpose of validation.
Arrangement Face A Face B Face C Face D Table 3 shows a comparison of results obtained from two independent
methods of measurement for both isolated as well as interference con­
Isolated +0.56 − 0.73 − 0.59 − 0.73
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 0.0 +0.31 − 0.94 − 0.79 − 0.94 ditions. Fig. 20 depicts the tabulated results of Table 3 in graphical form.
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 0.5 +0.37 − 0.88 − 0.74 − 0.88 It can be concluded from Table 3 and Fig. 20 that results obtained
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 1.0 +0.33 − 0.88 − 0.74 − 0.88 from force measurement and pressure measurement are in good agree­
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 2.0 +0.40 − 0.83 − 0.70 − 0.83 ment. Positive sign for FX in Table 3 indicates that the drag force is in the
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 3.0 0.85 0.71 0.85
direction of the wind. It should be noted here that FX is the only
+0.41 − − −
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 4.0 +0.42 − 0.87 − 0.71 − 0.87
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 5.0 +0.40 − 0.88 − 0.72 − 0.88 parameter which is being compared in Table 3, due to the reason dis­
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 7.5 +0.35 − 0.93 − 0.77 − 0.93 cussed earlier that because of symmetry of the arrangement FY, MX and
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 10.0 +0.45 − 0.82 − 0.65 − 0.82 MZ do not have much relevance and possess very small values. Also, MY
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 15.0 0.88 0.73 0.88
+0.34 − − −
is caused due to FX and since both pressure and force measurement are
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 20.0 +0.36 − 0.89 − 0.76 − 0.89
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 25.0 +0.35 − 0.87 − 0.74 − 0.87 undertaken for same velocity profile, comparing FX itself is sufficient.
H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 30.0 +0.41 − 0.82 − 0.70 − 0.82
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 0.0 − 0.03 − 0.82 − 0.67 − 0.82 4. Conclusions
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 0.5 − 0.09 − 0.84 − 0.67 − 0.84
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 1.0 − 0.03 0.81 0.64 0.81
The following conclusions can be drawn for urban terrain conditions
− − −
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 2.0 0.00 − 0.76 − 0.61 − 0.76
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 3.0 +0.03 − 0.69 − 0.53 − 0.69 having low turbulence intensity, based on the results and discussion:
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 4.0 +0.05 − 0.66 − 0.50 − 0.66
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 5.0 +0.02 − 0.68 − 0.52 − 0.68 1. For interference condition, the principal building model experiences
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 7.5 0.72 0.52 0.72
+0.12 − − −
negative drag for lower S/B ratios and H/H1 = 1.0, due to large
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 10.0 +0.25 − 0.80 − 0.57 − 0.80
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 15.0 +0.31 − 0.84 − 0.60 − 0.84 amount of suction on face A. Negative drag force experienced by the
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 20.0 +0.34 − 0.86 − 0.66 − 0.86 principal building model is as high as 34 percent of the windward
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 25.0 +0.38 − 0.86 − 0.69 − 0.86 force in isolated condition for H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 0.25.
H/H1 = 0.6 and S/B = 30.0 +0.37 − 0.84 − 0.68 − 0.84 2. The suction on face A of principal building model decreases, and the
H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 0.0 − 0.84 0.82 0.58 0.82
windward pressure increases with decrease in height of the inter­
− − −
H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 0.5 − 1.01 − 0.77 − 0.56 − 0.77
H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 1.0 − 1.00 − 0.68 − 0.55 − 0.68 fering building and increase in tandem spacing of the interfering
H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 2.0 − 0.78 − 0.44 − 0.42 − 0.44 building.
H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 3.0 − 0.71 − 0.43 − 0.46 − 0.43 3. The suction on face B and face D under interference condition, is seen
H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 4.0 − 0.55 0.38 0.44 0.38
− − −
to reverse in the trend (i.e. higher suction on windward side and
H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 5.0 − 0.42 − 0.40 − 0.48 − 0.40
H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 7.5 − 0.07 − 0.41 − 0.44 − 0.41 lower suction on leeward side) for lower S/B ratios, as compared to
H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 10.0 +0.11 − 0.56 − 0.46 − 0.56 that for isolated condition, in the portion up to the interfering
H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 15.0 +0.21 − 0.83 − 0.58 − 0.83 building height.
H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 20.0 0.88 0.61 0.88
+0.33 − − −
4. Higher magnitudes of CP and CP values are noted for Face B and D for
′

H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 25.0 +0.36 − 0.86 − 0.63 − 0.86

H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 30.0 +0.34 − 0.92 − 0.72 − 0.92 S/B ratio at which suction on windward face due to presence of
interfering building is lost. CP and CP values further increase for few
′

increments of S/B ratios and then subside.

multiplied with the corresponding tributary area of each pressure point 5. For Face A, highest value of IF for peak mean value of wind pressure
and summed up for windward and leeward face to give the net drag coefficient (CP ) is noted to be 1.27 for H/H1 = 1.0 and S/B = 1.0. For
force (FX) in the direction of wind. This drag force obtained from the Face B and Face D, highest value of IF is noted to be 1.42 for H/H1 =

Fig. 20. Comparison of results obtained from force measurement and pressure measurement.

129
B.S. Chauhan et al.
1.0 and S/B = 15.0 and for Face C highest value of IF is noted to be
1.29 for H/H1 = 0.2 and S/B = 0.0.
6. The suction on Face C (leeward face) and Face B (or D; side face) of
the principal building model increases, with decrease in height of the
interfering building.
7. Although from Force measurement study (Fig. 7) the optimum dis­
tance for lowest windward force on principal building can be given
as S/B = 3.5 to 5.0 (H/H1 = 1.0), but for façade design with intention
of reducing the windward pressure on different faces, optimum dis­
tance i.e. S/B should be close to 5.0 for H/H1 = 0.6 and should be
close to 7.5 for H/H1 = 1.0, as evident from centerline and weighted
area wind pressure coefficients (Figs. 18 and 19).
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
The work reported in the manuscript was funded by research grants
made available by the first author’s host institute (Indian Institute of
Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India) for pursuing doctoral degree.
References
[1] Amin J. Effects of Plan Shape on Wind Induced Response of Tall Buildings. Ph.D.
Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering. India: Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee; 2008.
[2] AS/NZS: 1170.2-2002. Australian/New Zealand Standard: Structural Design
Actions Part-2: Wind Actions, 2002.
[3] ASCE: 7-02-2002. American Society of Civil Engineers: Minimum Design Loads for
Buildings and Other Structures, 2002.
[4] Chauhan BS, Ahuja AK. Effect of Height Variation of Closely Located Interfering
Buildings on Wind Loads on Tall Buildings. Int J Earth Sci Eng 2017;10:378–82.
[5] Chauhan BS, Ahuja AK. Wind Pressure Distribution on Rectangular Plan Tall
Building due to Variation in Height of Interfering Buildings. International
Conference on Theoretical, Applied, Computational and Experimental, Mechanics
ICTACEM 2017 Proceedings. 2017.
[6] Chauhan BS, Ahuja AK. Modification of Wind Pressure Distribution on Tall
Buildings due to Variation in Height of the Interfering Building. ASCE India
Conference 2017: Urbanization Challenges in Emerging Economies: Resilience and
Sustainability of Infrastructure Proceedings. 2017.
[7] EN: 1991-1-4-2005. Euro Code 1: Actions on Structures – Wind Actions, 2005.
130
Structures 43 (2022) 105–130
[8] Gu M, Xie ZN. Interference Effects of Two and Three Super-Tall Buildings under
Wind Action. Acta Mech Sin 2011;27(5):687.
[9] Hui Y, Tamura Y, Yoshida A. Mutual Interference Effects between Two High-Rise
Building Models with Different Shapes on Local Peak Pressure Coefficients. J Wind
Eng Ind Aerodyn 2012;104–106(May):98–108.
[10] Hui Y, Yoshida A, Tamura Y. Interference Effects between Two Rectangular-Section
High-Rise Buildings on Local Peak Pressure Coefficients. J Fluids Struct 2013;37:
120–33.
[11] IS: 875 (Part-3) 2015. Code of Practice for Design Loads (other than Earthquake
Loads), for Building and Structures – Wind Loads, 2015.
[12] Khanduri AC, Stathopoulos T, Bédard C. Wind-Induced Interference Effects on
Buildings — a Review of the State-of-the-Art. Eng Struct 1998;20(7):617–30.
[13] Kim W, Tamura Y, Yoshida A. Interference Effects of Two Buildings on Peak Wind
Pressures. 7th Asia-Pacific Conference on Wind Engineering. 2009.
[14] Kim W, Tamura Y, Yoshida A. Interference Effects of an Adjacent Building on Local
Peak Wind Pressures on a High-Rise Building. Proceedings of the 1st International
Postgraduate Conference on Infrastructure and Environment. 2009.
[15] Kim W, Tamura Y, Yoshida A. Interference Effects on Local Peak Pressures between
Two Buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2011;99(5):584–600.
[16] Kushal T. Effect of Plan Shapes on the Response of Tall Buildings under Wind
Loads. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, India: M.Tech; 2013.
[17] Lam KM, Leung MYH, Zhao JG. Interference Effects on Wind Loading of a Row of
Closely Spaced Tall Buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2008;96(5):562–83.
[18] Lam KM, Zhao JG, Leung MYH. Wind-Induced Loading and Dynamic Responses of
a Row of Tall Buildings under Strong Interference. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2011;
99(5):573–83.
[19] Mara TG, Terry BK, Ho TCE, Isyumov N. Aerodynamic and Peak Response
Interference Factors for an Upstream Square Building of Identical Height. J Wind
Eng Ind Aerodyn 2014;133(2014):200–10.
[20] Pandey SC. Influence of Proximity on the Response of Tall Buildings under Wind
Loads. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, India: M.Tech; 2013.
[21] Thepmongkorn S, Wood GS, Kwok KCS. Interference Effects on Wind-Induced
Coupled Motion of a Tall Building. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2002;90(12–15):
1807–15.
[22] Verma SK. Wind Loads on Structurally Coupled through Single Bridge Tall
Buildings. Int J Civil Struct Eng 2014;4(3):469–76.
[23] Xie ZN, Gu M. Mean Interference Effects among Tall Buildings. Eng Struct 2004;26
(9):1173–83.
[24] Yahyai M, Kumar K, Krishna P, Pande PK. Aerodynamic Interference in Tall
Rectangular Buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 1992;41(1):859–66.
[25] Yan B, Li Q. Wind Tunnel Study of Interference Effects between Twin Super-Tall
Buildings with Aerodynamic Modifications. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2016;156:
129–45.
[26] Yu XF, Xie ZN, Zhu JB, Gu M. Interference Effects on Wind Pressure Distribution
between Two High-Rise Buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2015;142:188–97.
[27] Yu X, Xie Z, Gu M. Interference Effects between Two Tall Buildings with Different
Section Sizes on Wind-induced Acceleration. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2018;182:
16–26.
[28] Zhao JG, Lam KM. Interference Effects in a Group of Tall Buildings Closely
Arranged in an L- or T-Shaped Pattern. Wind Struct 2008;11(1):1–18.