Journal of Wind Engineering

and Industrial Aerodynamics 90 (2002) 18551866

Unsteady ow on the sides of a 6 m cube

P.J. Richardsa,*, R.P. Hoxeyb
a

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland,

New Zealand
b
Bio-Engineering Division, Silsoe Research Institute, Silsoe, Bedford MK45 4HS, UK

Abstract
Four ultrasonic anemometers have been used to measure ow velocities at two groups of
positions at mid-height on a 6 m cube. One other ultrasonic anemometer, located upstream at
cube height, provided reference wind data. The results obtained provide a picture of the mean
and uctuating parts of the ow. Mean velocity results indicate that with the wind
perpendicular to one face, the ow detaches at the windward edge but is reattached to the sides
by about x=h 0:83: However, probability analysis shows that the velocity at this point is
reversed for 54% of the time. In addition it is shown that while some of the uctuations can be
attributed to a quasi-steady response to variations in wind direction, the inuence of buildinginduced turbulence is also very apparent. These results illustrate the highly turbulent and
unsteady nature of ow on the sides of the cube.
r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cube; Unsteady ow; Full-scale testing

1. Introduction
In order to provide a facility for fundamental studies of the interactions between
the wind and a structure, a 6 m cube has been constructed at Silsoe, UK, in an open
country exposed position (Fig. 1). Surface pressure measurements have been made
on a vertical and on a horizontal centre line section with additional tapping points
on the roof. Measurements have also been made of wind velocity in the region
around the cube using ultrasonic anemometers.
In earlier papers [1,2] it has been shown that with the wind perpendicular to one
face of the cube the suction pressures measured in the centre of the roof are
signicantly more negative than many of those measured in wind tunnels [35]. In
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +64-9-373-7599; fax: +64-9-373-7479.
E-mail address: pj.richards@auckland.ac.nz (P.J. Richards).
0167-6105/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 1 6 7 - 6 1 0 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 2 9 3 - 3

1856

P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 18551866

Fig. 1. The 6 m cube.

addition, it was found that the suction pressures measured at mid-height on the
sidewalls showed a similar discrepancy between full scale and wind tunnel. The
unsteady ow over the roof of the cube has been discussed by Richards and Hoxey
[6]. In this paper, the nature of the ow around the sides of the cube will be
considered.

2. The experimental facility

The velocity prole at the site has been measured at various times. Recent
measurements are well matched by a simple logarithmic prole with a roughness
length z0 0:00620:01 m. This means that the cube has a Jensen number (h=z0 ) of
6001000. The longitudinal turbulence intensity at roof height is typically 20%. As
an example measured values for one 12-h period are given in Table 1: in this period
there was no signicant trend in wind speed or direction. Included in Table 1 is the
streamwise turbulence length scale, x Lu ; derived from the magnitude of the power
spectral density in the inertial sub-range [7]. Estimates of the MoninObukhov
length L; have been obtained by using the uctuating temperature derived from the
ultrasonic anemometers measurement of the speed of sound. These estimates show
that the data in Table 1 are associated with near neutral atmospheric stability
(0oz=Lo0:015 at z 6 m). Atmospheric stability analysis has not been carried out
on all the data sets that make up the results presented in this paper.
The 6 m cube has a plain smooth surface nish and has surface tapping points
around a vertical and horizontal centre line section, with additional points on one
quarter of the roof. Simultaneous measurements have been made of up to 32
pressures.

P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 18551866

1857

Table 1
Properties of the approach ow
z (m)

U (m/s)

Iu

Iv

Iw

1
3
6
10

6.97
8.65
9.52
10.13

0.243
0.208
0.193
0.186

0.196
0.166
0.150
0.151

0.077
0.072
0.078
0.083

11
33
53
62

uw (m/s)2

Lu (m)

0.281
0.270
0.251
0.343

3.4
Reference Mast
(1.0h high,
1.04h to the
side of cube
centre)

N
D

0.1

0.1

Y
Wind
Direction
= tan1(V/U)

X
0.833
0.5
0.167
A

0.01
B
S

0.1

Fig. 2. Plan view of the cube showing the measuring positions at mid-height.

Velocity measurements have been made using ve Gill Instruments Ultrasonic

anemometers. With the cube oriented perpendicular to the prevailing south-west
wind, the reference anemometer was located at cube height (h), 3.48h windward of the
cube and 1.04h north-west of the centreline plane. The output from this reference
anemometer was logged at 20.8 samples/s. The remaining four anemometers were
logged at 10 samples/s. These were at various times located near the centre of the four
vertical faces (0.1h from the surface), positions W, N, E and S as shown in Fig. 2, or
along the sides, positions A, B, C and D, where the anemometers were 0.01h from the
surface. The vertical location of the anemometers was intended to be at mid-height
but due to a measurement error, only detected after testing, the actual height was
0.515h. This small error is not thought to have had any signicant effect on the
results. Primary analysis involved the calculation of 5 min mean values of all velocity
components. Further probability analysis was carried out on selected 15 min blocks.

3. 5 min mean data

Fig. 3a shows the 5 min mean velocity coefcients (dened as the ratio of the local
wind component to the 5 min mean reference wind speed) against reference mean

P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 18551866

1858

Mean Velocity / Reference Wind Speed

1
Uw/Ref Sp
Vw/Ref Sp
Ww/Ref Sp

1
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

Reference Wind Direction, Theta (degrees)

(a)
rms Velocity / Reference Wind Speed

0.7
Urms/Ref Sp
Vrms/Ref Sp
Wrms/Ref Sp

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

(b)

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

Reference Wind Direction, Theta (degrees)

Fig. 3. Velocity components at measuring point W, 0.1 h from the centre of the west face: (a) 5-min mean
velocity coefcients and (b) rms velocity coefcients.

wind direction for measuring position W (0.1h off the centre of the west surface). In
constructing this gure, data from the four measuring points W, N, E and S have
been used, but they have been transformed to give equivalent data for position W at
appropriate angles. In addition the multiple planes of symmetry have been used. The
axes are oriented such that the U velocity component is normal to the face, the V
component horizontal and parallel to the face and the W component vertical
(positive upwards). Fig. 3a shows that when the wind is perpendicular to the west
face (y 0), the U component is small and positive, the V component is zero and the
W component indicates ow down the face, showing that the stagnation point is
above mid-height. As the wind angle increases, the ow across the face increases

P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 18551866

1859

signicantly, reaching a maximum of 80% of the reference wind speed at an angle of

601. At larger angles the V component decreases and then becomes negative for
directions between 901 and 1801. In this range the horizontal ow is reversed, that is,
it has a component in the direction opposite to the onset wind direction. It may also
be noted that in this range of angles the component perpendicular to the face is weak
and the vertical ow is upwards. These results show that with angles between 901 and
2701 the measuring point lies within a detached recirculating ow. The results for a
wind direction of 451 are consistent with the LDA model scale measurements of
Steggel and Castro [8], who show a strong ow across the windward faces and a
weaker reversed ow at the rear of the cube.
Fig. 3b similarly shows the rms velocity levels at point W. These show that the
velocity uctuations are greatest when the measuring point lies on or near the
separation shear layer, which will occur around 901. It may be noted that all
components show high levels of uctuation at these angles. Although some of
the uctuations are almost certainly associated with the ow separation from the
windward corner and building-induced turbulence, it is important to note that some
of the uctuations are likely to be caused by wind direction variations. It can be seen
in Fig. 3a that for all the three components the highest directional derivative occurs
around 901 and 2701, and that this is particularly so for the V component. As a
result, even a quasi-steady response to changes in wind direction would result in
signicant uctuations in these velocities.
In order to obtain a clearer picture of the ow on the sides of the cube, data similar
to that contained in Fig. 3a have been obtained for measuring points A, B, C and D
and is shown in Fig. 4. These measuring points are closer to the cube surface and
provide three measuring positions across one face. The velocity component
horizontally across the face at these points is the U velocity. These data show that

Mean Velocity / Reference Wind Speed

1.2

UA/Ref Sp
UB/Ref Sp
UC/Ref Sp
UD/Ref Sp
UD image

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

120

90

60

30

0.2

30

60

90

120

0.4
0.6
0.8
Reference Wind Direction, Theta (Degrees)

Fig. 4. 5-min mean velocity coefcients for positions A, B, C and D, 0.01 h from the surface at mid-height.

P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 18551866

1860

with the wind perpendicular to the west face (y 01) the mean horizontal ow is
reversed at points A, B and D but is in the streamwise direction at point C. This
indicates that the mean ow detaches at the windward edge and on average
reattaches between points B and C (0:5ox=ho0:833). As the wind angle increases
and the wind is more onto the face associated with measuring points A, B and C, the
velocities become more positive and reach a maximum positive value at about 401. It
can be observed that the positive velocities are stronger at the more leeward
locations. In addition, it may be noted that an angle less than about 201 is required in
order to reverse the ow at the windward point (A), whereas an angle less than 101 is
required before the ow at the mid-face (point B) is reversed. This trend indicates
that the region of separated and reversed ow grows as the angle decreases and even
includes point C when the mean ow direction in less than about 51. The data from
the other side of the cube (point D) show that on this side the ow is reversed for all
angles between 01 and 901. Fig. 4 also includes a mirror image of the data from point
D, which forms a continuous trend with the data from point B. The data from points
B and D have been combined and reected in order to provide a 3601 data set for
point B as shown in Fig. 5. Also shown in Fig. 5 is a Fourier series of order 10 which
has been tted to the data by using a least-squares method (curve t). The Fourier
series takes the form:
C% U y%

10
X

a% k cosky% b%k sinky% ;

k0

where C% U y% is the 5 min mean horizontal velocity coefcient and y% the

corresponding 5 min mean wind direction. It should be noted that if it is assumed
that this curve also represents an approximation to the relationship between the
instantaneous velocity and the instantaneous wind direction, then the 5-min averages
would not necessarily lie on the curve. The modied curve t shown in Fig. 5 is a

Data
Curve fit
Modified Curve Fit

0.8

Velocity Coefficient

0.6
0.4
0.2
180

150

120

90

60

0
30
0
0.2

30

60

90

120

150

180

-0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Reference Wind Direction, Theta (degrees)

Fig. 5. 5-min mean velocity coefcients for position B constructed by using data from positions B and D.

P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 18551866

1861

better estimate of the expected quasi-steady relationship which, as derived in an

earlier paper [9], is given by
CU y

10
X

ak cosky bk sinky;

k0

where ak a% k exp12 k2 s2y and bk b%k exp12 k2 s2y :

In this relationship sy is the standard deviation of wind direction and is typically
101 (0.175 rad). It can be shown that if the wind directions are normally distributed
and the instantaneous velocity responds to the instantaneous wind direction in the
manner given by Eq. (2), then the 5-min average will lie on the original tted curve
(Eq. (1)). This quasi-steady relationship will be discussed further in Section 5.

4. Probability analysis
Fig. 6 shows a probability analysis of the X-direction sidewall velocities for one
15-min period during which the mean wind direction was near 01. As expected, with
this mean wind direction, the statistical results for points B and D are very similar.
That is not to say that the same thing is occurring simultaneously on the two sides of
the building, but rather that the ow behaviour is similar. Certainly the time series
show that the velocity on one side often becomes positive while the velocity on the
other becomes more negative. From the cumulative distribution function, Fig. 6b, it
can be seen that while the velocities at points A, B and D are reversed for over 80%
of the time, there are occasions when these velocities are in the positive direction. On
the other hand, the velocity at point C is positive for about 46% of the time. Fig. 6a
also indicates the range of velocities occurring at each point. This shows that the
reversed ow is stronger near the centre of the wall than at the windward point A. In
addition it shows that the range of positive velocities at point C is greater than the
range of negative velocities. As a result, although the velocity at this point is positive
for only 46% of the time, the mean velocity is positive and not negative.
These observations appear to be supported by the time series shown in Fig. 7. In
this gure the U velocities from points A, B and C are shown alongside the
instantaneous reference wind direction (note that the wind direction is plotted
against the secondary Y -axis in order to make the situations clearer). It can be seen
that, while the wind direction is near 01, the velocity at point C is negative for most
of the time but is occasionally strongly positive. This observation is similar to that
made by Kawai [10], who when studying the surface pressures near the reattachment
point on a square prism commented the uctuating pressure is strongly
intermittentyandyalternates between slow uctuation of low intensity and rapid
uctuation of high intensity.
There is an interesting sequence of events during the rst 15 s of Fig. 7 (490505 s).
During this period the wind direction becomes very positive for a period of 5 s and as
a result all the three velocities become signicantly positive for a time. Then, several
seconds after the direction has returned to being near zero, the velocities at points A,

P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 18551866

1862

pdf

2
UA
UB
UC
UD

1.5

0.5

0
2

(a)

1.5

0.5

0.5

1.5

X Direction Wind Component / Reference Mean Wind Speed

cdf

1
UA
UB
UC
UD

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
2

(b)

1.5

0.5

0.5

1.5

X Direction Wind Component / Reference Mean Wind Speed

Fig. 6. Statistical distributions for the X-direction sidewall velocities when the mean wind angle is 01: (a)
probability density function and (b) cumulative distribution function.

B and C reverse in order. This suggests that a separation bubble has grown from the
windward edge and has progressively engulfed these points. It may be noted that the
reference anemometer is well upstream of the cube and so there is a time delay
between the change in direction at the reference anemometer and the associated
changes in ow at the cube. A general study of the time series shows that some of the
variation in wind speeds near the cube can be attributed to changes in the wind
direction; however, it is also apparent that not all of the variations could be
accounted for in this manner. In an attempt to identify what variations are
associated with changes in wind direction and what variations are caused by other
effects, a quasi-steady analysis has been applied to the results for point B.

P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 18551866
120

U Velocity (m/s)

UA
UB
UC
Theta
0

90

60

30

10

30

20
490

495

500

505

510

515

520

525

Reference Wind Direction, Theta (Degrees)

10

1863

60
530

Time (s)

Fig. 7. A selected section of one time series for points A, B and C.

5. Quasi-steady analysis
A number of researchers (including Refs. [911]) have considered the validity of
using a quasi-steady method for relating the surface pressures on buildings to
variations in the approaching wind. Kawai [10] initially makes use of a linear
relationship between pressure and the longitudinal and transverse velocity
uctuations and then modies this relationship to include quadratic terms involving
longitudinal turbulence. Letchford et al. [11] take a similar approach and nd that
preserving the non-linear terms gives a better agreement between measured and
predicted quasi-steady probability density functions (pdfs). In addition Letchford
et al. include linear terms that account for the effects of vertical turbulence on roof
pressures. In both of these studies the effect of variations in wind direction are
accounted for through terms involving only the rst derivative of the pressure
coefcient with respect to wind direction. This effectively means that it is assumed
that the pressure coefcientdirection function is nearly linear over the range of
directions of interest. However, if the standard deviation of wind directions is
typically around 101 then, as illustrated in Fig. 8, the direction pdf will cover a range
of at least 7301 around the mean and it is unlikely that any coefcientdirection
relationship will be linear over such a broad range of angles. It was for this reason
that the authors [9] suggested using a Fourier series to more accurately model the
coefcientdirection relationship. In all these studies it has been found that a quasisteady model can account for some effects, but not all of them.
While it is recognised that a quasi-steady model is imperfect, it is useful in order
to identify what effects can be directly related to the onset ow and what effects
result from other phenomena. Fig. 9 shows a time series of X-direction velocities
measured at point B and the corresponding quasi-steady model. In order to generate

P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 18551866

1864

pdf

0.05
Ref Theta
Normal

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
60

80

40

20

20

40

60

80

Reference Wind angle (degrees)

Fig. 8. Probability density function of reference wind direction for one 15-min period.

1.5

U Velocity (m/s)

Point B
Quasi-steady

0.0

1.5
0

100

200

300

400

Time (s)

Fig. 9. Instantaneous velocities as measured at point B and as predicted by a quasi-steady model.

the quasi-steady model it has been assumed that the relationship between the
instantaneous velocity at point B and that which occurred at the reference mast
slightly earlier can be modelled by the modied curve t in Fig. 5. The quasi-steady
time series was generated by using the measured reference wind speeds and
directions. At each time step the measured direction was combined with Eq. (2) and
the associated coefcients to give a velocity coefcient, which was then multiplied by
the current wind speed to give the quasi-steady velocities for point B. Recognising
that there is a time delay between events at the mast and at the cube, correlation

P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 18551866

1865

pdf

3.5

UB
3

Quasi-steady

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
2

1.5

0.5

0.5

1.5

X Direction Wind Component / Reference Mean Wind Speed

Fig. 10. Probability density functions for the velocity at point B and as predicted by quasi-steady
methods. Mean wind direction 01.

analysis was carried out between the measured and quasi-steady time series with a
variable time lag; this showed that the highest correlation could be obtained by
allowing a 6.6 s time delay. It can be seen that both records exhibit similar low
frequency variations and that the quasi-steady curve is a reasonable match to the
centre of the band of actually measurements. However, it appears that superimposed
on top of the quasi-steady variations, the actual measurements include a large
number of short-duration excursions, both in the positive and negative directions,
but most often in the negative direction. This observation can also be seen in the
pdfs of Fig. 10, where the measured pdf exhibits much higher probabilities of large
negative velocities than predicted by the quasi-steady model. The quasi-steady model
shows a very low probability of velocity coefcients lower than 0.6. This occurs
because the quasi-steady coefcient for point B, as seen in Fig. 5, is always greater
than 0.4 in the vicinity of 01 wind direction. In addition analysis of the wind speeds
shows that the peak wind gust is of the order of 1.65 times the mean. Combining
these means that values of the instantaneous velocity coefcients for point B lower
than 0.66 will not be predicted by the quasi-steady model. It is thought that the
more negative velocities observed are the result of vortex structures which roll up,
become quite intense for a short time and are then shed into the ow. Comparison of
the rms velocities shows that up to 70% can be attributed to quasi-effects but the
additional 30% is the result of local building-induced turbulence.

6. Conclusions
Four ultrasonic anemometers have been used to measure ow velocities at two
groups of positions at mid-height on a 6 m cube. One other ultrasonic anemometer,
located upstream at cube height, provided the reference wind data. The results

1866

P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey / J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 90 (2002) 18551866

obtained provide a picture of the mean and uctuating parts of the ow. In
particular, the highly unsteady nature of the ow on the side of the cube has been
illustrated. It has been shown that while some of the uctuations can be attributed to
a quasi-steady response to variations in wind direction and speed, the inuence of
building-induced turbulence is also very apparent.

References
[1] R.P. Hoxey, P.J. Richards, J.L. Short, A 6 m cube in an atmospheric boundary layer ow: Part 1,
Full-scale and wind-tunnel results, J. Wind Struct. 5 (24) (2002) 165176.
[2] P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey, J.L. Short, Wind pressures on a 6 m cube, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 89
(1415) (2001) 15531564.
[3] I.P. Castro, A.G. Robins, The ow around a surface-mounted cube in uniform and turbulent streams,
J. Fluid Mech. 79 (2) (1977) 307335.
[4] A. Hunt, Wind-tunnel measurements of surface pressures on cubic building models at several scales,
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 10 (1982) 137163.
.
[5] N. Holscher,
H-J. Niemann, Towards quality assurance for wind tunnel tests: a comparative testing
program of the Windtechnologische Gesellschaft, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 7476 (1998) 599608.
[6] P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey, Unsteady ow on the roof of a 6 m cube, Paper to be Presented at the
Third European and African Conference on Wind Engineering, Eindhoven, Netherlands, July 2001.
[7] ESDU, Characteristics of atmospheric turbulence near the ground, ESDU data item 85020, 1985 with
amendments to 1990.
[8] N. Steggel, I.P. Castro, Effects of stable stratication on ow and dispersion around a cube,
Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Wind Engineering, Copenhagen, Denmark, June
1999.
[9] P.J. Richards, R.P. Hoxey, B.S. Wanigaratne, The effect of directional variations on the observed
mean and rms pressure coefcients, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 54/55 (1998) 599608.
[10] H. Kawai, Pressure uctuations on square prismsapplicability of strip and quasi-steady theories,
J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 13 (1983) 197208.
[11] C.W. Letchford, R.E. Iverson, J.R. McDonald, The application of the quasi-steady theory to fullscale measurements on the Texas Tech Building, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 48 (1993) 111132.