Influence of Surrounding Buildings On The Wind Loads Acting On Low Rise Building

INFLUENCE OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS ON THE WIND LOADS ACTING ON LOW RISE BUILDINGS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Wind has two aspects. One is the beneficial aspect and other is the parasitic
aspect. Beneficial aspects include power generation, sailing boats, cooling down the
temperature, etc. A parasitic aspect is that it loads any and every object which comes
in its way. Parasitic aspect which is concerned to a civil engineer since the load
caused has to be sustained by a structure with this specified safety. All civil and
industrial structures above ground have thus to be designed to resist wind loads. This
introductory note is concerning the aspect of wind engineering dealing with civil
engineering structures.
Low-rise buildings are usually surrounded by similar buildings which could
modify the ambient flow structure and influence their design wind loads as specified
in building codes.
There exist only a limited number of studies on interference
effects of surrounding or adjacent buildings on a low-rise building in a straight-line

wind. Some of these studies involve measurements of wind load or surface pressure
(Khanduri et al 1997, 1998). For example, Ahmad and Kumar (2001) examined
interference effects of one and three similar buildings placed upstream of a hip roof
building at fifteen different locations in an atmospheric boundary layer wind tunnel.
Remarkable effects on the surface pressure distribution were observed at critical roof
locations of the test building. Other studies focus on simulating flow in groups of
building or blocks with different layouts by means of computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) (He et al. 1997; Lien et al. 2004; Zhang et al. 2005), with the purpose of
validating the numerical modelling and understanding the interference effects. These
studies indicate that the major interference factors are up-stream terrain, incoming
flow condition, orientation of buildings and layout of the surrounding buildings
(building arrangement and spacing) in straight-line winds. No study on wind loads
and flow structure around a low-rise building surrounded by a group of buildings in
tornado-like wind exist, due to the difficulty of physical and numerical simulation of
this complicated three-dimensional flow. Sengupta et al. (2008) studied transient
loads on a cubic building model in tornado-like wind. Yang et al. (2009) reported the
DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
STCET, CHENGANNUR
force undertaken by a high-rise building and flow structures in similar conditions.

This paper is aiming to study the influence of surrounding buildings on flow around a
low-rise gable-roof building in straight-line and tornado-like winds, respectively. This
work will hopefully improve the understanding of the mechanism that influence the
interference effects and provide reliable database for related CFD modelling.
The most appropriate statistical technique to estimate a peak pressure
coefficient from wind tunnel data is not a settled issue. The lack of a standard
acceptable method can lead to inconsistent definitions and interpretations of peak
pressure coefficients, particularly since time constraints associated with wind tunnel
tests necessitate relatively short test durations. A Gumbel model is commonly used to
represent the peak distribution, where parameters are determined using observed
peaks. Recent papers have proposed several variations of a peak estimation procedure
using the entire time history and a translation from a Gaussian peak distribution
model to non-Gaussian. It is shown that, in the case of mildly non-Gaussian data,
translation methods achieve accuracy comparable to the Gumbel method. It is also
shown that translation methods lose accuracy when the record deviates significantly
from Gaussian, while the Gumbel model maintains stable accuracy and precision.
This paper presents two new translation-based peak pressure coefficient estimation
schemes that offer accurate and stable performance for strongly non-Gaussian data.
Very long duration wind tunnel data provide empirical peak distributions with which
to compare the relative performance of the Gumbel, existing translation and proposed
new translation methods. One of the new methods slightly outperforms the Gumbel
method.
Systematic experiments were conducted in a wind tunnel in order to find the
effect of typical building arrangements on the wind-induced pressures, the primary
goal is to better understand and quantify the effect of surrounding buildings on wind
loads on low-rise buildings. The parameters related to low-rise buildings with flat
roofs include relative height, area density and arrangement of surrounding buildings.
Based on these results, more comprehensive conclusions should be made which will
lead to some recommendations for wind standards or building design.
STCET, CHENGANNUR
In general, low-rise buildings are usually surrounded by surrounding houses,

and wind loads on low-rise buildings are definitely affected by these neighbouring
houses. Previous results show that wind loads in a realistic environment do not always
follow the basic wind load characteristics of an isolated building because of
interference by neighbouring buildings. Ho et al. investigated low-rise flat roofed
buildings, embedded in a typical North- American industrial area. Surry examined
the effect of both surroundings and roof corner geometric modifications on the roof
pressures measured on a low-rise building. Kiefer and Plate provided modelling of
mean and fluctuation wind loads in different types of build-up areas. Chang and
Meroney investigate the effect of surroundings with different separation distances,
and compared the results of wind-tunnel measurements with that of numerical
simulations.
Up to now, there exists little information on the effect of the surrounding on
the wind loads. And the current wind load design codes usually just consider the
effect of roughness of the upwind terrain but neglects the direct effect of neighbouring
houses. Yet the presence of nearby buildings is expected to deflect streamlines,
modify local circulation patterns and induce modified patterns of suction and
stagnation pressure.
STCET, CHENGANNUR
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Research has focused on examination of wind pressure coefficients and flow

fields around isolated low-rise buildings for decades through wind tunnel tests
(Holscher and Niemann 1998), numerical simulation (Kose and Dick 2010), and fullscale measurements(Richards et al. 2001). However, one of the problems associated
with prediction of wind loads on low-rise buildings in groups is the limited number of
reliable and available experimental data. Furthermore, the complex nature of the
problem makes it difficult to formulate analytical procedures for predicting wind load
effects on low-rise buildings in groups, so very limited design data have been
provided to engineers/designers.
Peterka and Cermak (1976) examined the effect of four nearby octagonal
structures on the wind pressure around the circumference of a central circular
structure. It was observed that adverse effects can be encountered depending on the
relative placement of structures in the approaching wind. Introducing variations in
building geometry may decrease these effects. Ho et al. (1991) studied the effects of
surroundings on wind loads on at roof low-rise buildings. They considered several
cases with different types of immediate surroundings and concluded that with an
increase in the surrounding obstructions, the mean wind pressures acting on the
building decreased as expected, whereas unsteady pressure increased. Pressures on the
building exhibited large variations, suggesting the possibility of large variations in
building loads. Chang and Meroney (2003) investigated the effect of surrounding
buildings arranged in various symmetric congurations with different separation
distances and concluded that shielding effects are signicant, especially when the
street canyon is narrow, and the effects are greater in urban cases than in open country
cases. A large number of wind tunnel tests and full-scale measurements for
investigation of upstream buildings were conducted by Stathopouloss group(Wang
and Stathopoulos 2006;Zisis and Stathopoulos 2010). Wang and Stathopoulos (2006)
evaluated the effect of upstream exposure on wind loading, pointing out that peak
wind loads are basically affected by short distance roughness characteristics, and
STCET, CHENGANNUR
these loads can be determined by considering a fetch of 300400 m. From full-scale

measurements, Zisis and Stathopoulos (2010) assessed the impact and importance of
varying upstream terrain properties to resulting wind-induced loads. Most of these
previous studies qualitatively highlighted the fact that shielding effects are magnied
with the number of nearby structures. However, no previous studies have
quantitatively estimated the wind loads on low-rise buildings in groups for different
area densities and large upstream distances. To investigate the inuence of
surrounding buildings on wind loads applied to a cubical low-rise building, systematic
wind pressure experiments were conducted under a turbulent boundary layer
representing a suburban area. The parameters considered in the present work were
area density and upstream distance.
One test explained here is the Wind Tunnel Test and its result helped greatly
in forming two normalization methods for finding the wind pressure coefficients.
Later the wind load acting on the target low raising building in a group is determined.
For this the interference approach and roughness approach was into consideration.
An important outcome from wind tunnel testing of low-rise buildings is a
statistical assessment of peak pressure coefcients (Cp_peak), typically dened as a
chosen fractile from a peak probability model whose parameters are determined from
the observed data. The accuracy and precision (uncertainty) of this approach depend
upon the form of the chosen peak probability model, the method used to identify its
parameters, and the quantity of data available. In order to obtain an adequate tap
resolution, large model scales are desirable for low-rise buildings. This leads to a
decreased time scale and long data records to achieve the desired full-scale equivalent
time. Thus, there is a trade-off between the uncertainty of the estimated Cp peak and
the desire to minimize data record lengths to limit the time and cost of wind tunnel
experiments.
STCET, CHENGANNUR
CHAPTER 3
WIND TUNNEL TEST

Wind tunnel tests were conducted at the Tokyo Polytechnic University in
Japan. A 0.1-m cubical low-rise building was used for the target low-rise building,
and the same sized cubes were used as surrounding buildings. Area density, CA, was
defined as the ratio of the area covered by the building to the building lot area and
varied as 6, 11, 16, 25, and 44%. The experimental procedures were as follows.
Fig 3.1. Schematic of wind tunnel test
As shown in Fig.3.1, half the wind tunnel was used as an incident flow
generating section using spires, barriers, and three different-sized blocks. The incident
flow was measured at Lf 0H. To clarify the effect of surrounding buildings, the wind
pressure measurement of the isolated model was conducted at Lf 0H. After arranging
the dummy low-rise models, the wind pressure measurements for the target model
were conducted by moving it downstream at specified intervals determined by area
density. Here, the term target model is used to indicate the model surrounded by
dummy low-rise models to differentiate it from the isolated model. The target model
was moved to the downstream side, which makes the changes of flow conditions and
wind pressures more understandable depending on various area densities and
upstream distances. The number of measurement points was dependent on area
density, and there were nine measurement points for area densities of 11, 16, and 44%
STCET, CHENGANNUR
and six measurement points for area densities of 6 and 25%. A schematic of the wind
tunnel test is shown in Fig. 3.1, and the test cases are summarized in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1. Summary of Wind Tunnel Tests

Area
density, CA
6%
11%
16%
25%
44%
0%
Number of
measurement
points
Measurement
range
Block
distance,
Ldist
6
9
9
6
9
1
0H48H
0H54H
0H50H
0H48H
0H54H
-
3H
2H
1.5H
1H
0.5H
-
Dummy
model
arrangement
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
-
A total of 125 pressure taps were installed, equally spaced in the horizontal
and vertical directions B=10, D=10, and H=10 from the edges. Sampling frequency of
781 Hz and low-pass filtered with a cut-off frequency of 300 Hz cascaded in each
data acquisition channel, and the measuring time was adjusted such that 30 samples
were obtained. All pressures were measured simultaneously using a multichannel
pressure measurement system, and the tubing effects were numerically compensated
using the gain and phase shift characteristics of the pressure measurement system. A
length scale of 1/150 and a time scale of 1/50 were assumed; therefore, 12 s in the
wind tunnel equalled 10 min in full scale. The fluctuating pressures were filtered
again by means of a moving average filter as follows:
= 1.0
(1)
Where =moving averaging time (0.05 s in full time scale), La=length of

building cladding (1 m in full length scale), and UH =mean wind speed at model
height (21.6 m/s in full velocity scale). The peak coefficients were determined by
using the Cook-Mayne method.
peak Cp = up +
1.4
ap
(2)
Where uP = mode, 1/aP = dispersion, and 1.4 represents the respective non
exceedence probability of 78%.The fluctuating wind speeds at each measurement
point were also measured (called local wind speed) at model height without the target
STCET, CHENGANNUR
model. The wind direction was fixed at 0 degree, with the incident wind normal to the
model surface. Pressure measurement wind tunnel tests on low-rise buildings were
executed in the Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel, in the Tokyo Polytechnic University,
Japan. The length scale was set at 1/100 the velocity scale was assumed at 1/3. The
suburban terrain corresponding to terrain category III in AIJ (2004) was chose as the
tested wind field.
Fig.3.2. Definition of CA
The flat-roofed low-rise building models for test have same plan size of 24cm
length and 16cm width, and three model heights (H), 6cm, 12cm and 18cm. In wind
tunnel, a large number of dummy models of similar dimensions were constructed to
represent surrounding buildings, and area density CA was defined as,
CA = area occupied by buildings / area of site
= bd / BD
(3)
Where, b and d are the breadth and depth of the buildings. B and D are the average
distances between corresponding points on adjacent buildings in two coordinate
directions, as shown in Fig.3.2. The target model is set at the center of a turnable of
200cm, surrounded buildings are arranged in 3 kinds of orders (i.e. regular, staggered,
random), as shown in Fig.3.3., with 8 different area density CA (0.1, 0.15, 0.20, 0.25,
STCET, CHENGANNUR
0.30, 0.40, 0.50 0.60), and the heights of surrounding building models (Hs) are also
varied in 60, 120, 180cm. Each of the experimental models is set on the turntable in
isolation settings which are called isolation test cases. The test results of the isolation
test cases are referred to as the standard values.
Regular array
Staggerd array
Random array
Fig.3.3. Arrangement Order of surrounding buildings (CA=0.25)
Fig.3.4. Zone definition
In this test, the sampling frequency was 781.25Hz and the sampling period was 18
seconds for each sample, corresponding to 23.4Hz and 10 minutes in full scale. Each
test case was sampled 10 times. The test data were then low-pass filtered at 300Hz.
In order to quantify the effect of surrounding buildings to the wind loads of target
building, the interference factor, CI, which represents the change of statistical
pressure coefficients caused, is expressed as:
CI = Cp,sur /Cp,iso
(4)
Where, Cp,sur and Cp,iso are the local extreme pressure coefficients over all wind
directions measured under the experimental model surrounded by neighbouring
houses and under the isolated test case, respectively. Furthermore, the area-average
values of CI for building surface zones defined by AIJ2004 shown in Fig.3.4.are
calculated as well, where the whole surface Roof, Wall-1 and Wall-2 is denoted for
the positive extreme cases.
In wind tunnel tests, scaled models of structures are subjected to scaled atmospheric
wind in a controlled laboratory set-up. Then sensors installed on the model can
measure the physical quantities of interest which is wind pressure acting on the
STCET, CHENGANNUR
faade. Later in the analysis, these model scale quantities are converted to prototype
using model scale laws. Most of the complex architectural and structural innovations
are constructed only after being confirmed through wind tunnel tests. As a general
practice, wind tunnel tests are being done for almost all buildings above
approximately 100 m.
Typical model scales are in the range of 1:300 to 1:500. Since the response of
the structure is significantly influenced by its geometry, utmost care has to be taken in
modelling the exact shape of the structure including all the external architectural
ornaments such as fins, balconies etc. Typically, all elements more than 1ft can be
modelled with the typical scale range noted above. However, certain simplification of
the external architectural features is allowed/suggested at the modelling stage by wind
tunnel experts.
10
STCET, CHENGANNUR
3.1. When to carry out wind tunnel test

Interestingly enough, nowadays developers and architects are coming up with
unconventional building shapes with offsets, setback, various corner shapes,
balconies, fins etc. Further, the buildings are mostly located in complex surroundings
along with other structures. These conditions were not addressed in any of the
international codes and standards including Indian Standards IS: 875 (Part3). In
addition to this, the effect of building response due to its orientation with respect to
the wind directionality of the site is not covered in detail in any of the International
codes. All the codes and standards are based on box shape buildings in isolated
condition. In general, Code analytical methods are helpful for preliminary design and
for simple situations, but provide conservative wind loads in most cases;
underestimating in others. Presently, wind tunnel studies offer the best estimate of the
wind loading acting on a building for cladding as well as structural frame design. In
addition to the potential cost savings and accurate results, wind tunnel studies confirm
that the architects vision can be safely built and elevate litigation protection.
The results from wind tunnel tests can be lower than code predictions due to
unconventional geometry, complex surroundings as well as wind directionality.
However, some allowance for possible future changes in surroundings has to be
provided. Therefore, finally a minimum load need to be derived and recommended for
design based on wind tunnel results and code predictions. This recommended load
supersedes code predictions and should be used for design. Note that wind tunnel
testing is a proven methodology for the prediction of building response and this
technology has been under use for the last few decades and most high-rise buildings
are constructed and safely serving occupants for many decades around the world.
As far as wind loads on faades are concerned, it is recommended to carry out
wind tunnel tests when buildings are above 120 m above grade, their geometry is
complex and they are in the midst of complex surroundings.
11
STCET, CHENGANNUR
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS OF THE WIND TUNNEL TEST
Fig. 4.1: Variation of local mean wind speed UH,local and local turbulence intensity
IUH,local: (a) variation of local mean wind speed UH,local; (b) variation
of local turbulence intensity IUH,local
Fig4.1. shows the variation of local mean wind speed UH,local measured at
model height for various area densities CA. Whereas the local mean wind speed at the
first measurement point is almost the same as the incident flow, the local mean wind
speeds decrease with increasing area density and shows almost constant values after
Lf /H approximately10, regardless of area density [Fig(a)]. A similar variation trend
with upstream distance is observed at the local turbulence intensity IUH,local measured
at each measurement point [Fig.(b)], but they increase with increasing area density.
The variations of local wind speed and local turbulence intensity indicate the
development of an inner boundary layer. The local flow conditions would change
when the effects of wind directions and relative height ratios between the target model
and surrounding dummy are considered.
Using the mean wind speeds shown in Fig. 4.1.(a), two normalization methods
were adopted for the wind pressure coefficients: first, the mean wind speed of the
incident flow at model height was used [Eq. (5)]; and second, the local mean wind
speeds at model height measured at each measurement point were used [Eq. (6)].
12
STCET, CHENGANNUR
Cp =
Pi Pstatic,local
0.52 UH 2 incident flow
Cp, local =
Pi Pstatic,local
0.52 UH 2 local
(5)
(6)
Where, Cp and Cp,local = wind pressure coefficient and local wind pressure
coefficient, respectively; Pi =wind pressure applied to the model surface at point i;
Pstatic,local = static pressure at each measurement point (Fig. 1); = air density; and
UH,incident
flow
and UH,local =wind speed at model height of incident flow and at each
measurement point, respectively.
13
STCET, CHENGANNUR
CHAPTER 5
MEAN WIND PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
Fig 5.1: Variation of mean Cp,local and mean Cp (a) area density 11% ; (b) area density
44%; (c) area density 44%
Fig. 5.1.shows the variation of mean Cp,local and mean Cp for mid width centre
(A-B-C-D) and mid height centre (A-B-C-D-A) when area densities are 11 and 44%.
The thick black dotted line indicates an area density of 0%, i.e., an isolated model.
The coefficients for the first measurement point, shown as a solid circle, are almost
the same as those for an isolated model. As the target model goes to the downstream
side when CA =11%, the coefficients on the windward surface decrease, and those on
the leeward surface and roof surfaces increase (absolute values decrease). As the area
density becomes higher (CA =44%), the local mean wind pressure coefficients show
almost constant values on all surfaces, showing negative values ranging from 21.0 to
20.5. The difference and variation trend among measurement points become more
obscure as the area density increases, and the negative values on the windward surface
are first observed at an area density of 16%. When wind pressures are normalized by
the velocity pressure obtained using the incident flow (0:5rUH, incident flow^2),
which is different from the local velocity pressures obtained from the local wind
speeds shown in Fig. 5.1, the mean wind pressure coefficient, mean Cp, increases
drastically except those of the first measurement point Lf /H=0, showing very small
values ranging from 20.25 to 0. The variation trends of mean Cp for other area
densities are almost the same as those for an area density of 44%, but the degree of
change increases with increasing area density.
14
STCET, CHENGANNUR
CHAPTER 6
FLUCTUATING WIND PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
Fig. 6.1: Variation of rms Cp, local and rms Cp

Fig.6.1 shows the variation of rms Cp,local when the area densities are 6 and
44% and rms Cp for 44% for various Lf /H. Symbols used is the same as shown in
Fig.5.1. When the area density is low, e.g., CA = 6%, the rms Cp,local values are almost
the same as those of the isolated model except at the windward corners, but when the
area density is high, e.g., CA = 44%, they become larger after the second measurement
point. When the area density is 6%, the largest values are observed at the windward
corner on the roof and side surface for the mid width [Fig.6.1.(a), top] and mid height
centre [Fig.6.1.(b), bottom], respectively, but when the area density increases, the
largest values appear on the windward surface at both mid width and mid height
centre. In Fig.6.1(c), which is normalized by the velocity pressure obtained using the
incident flow; all the rms Cp values are smaller than that of the isolated model except
at the windward corner on the side surface at the first measurement point.
15
STCET, CHENGANNUR
CHAPTER 7
PEAK WIND PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS
Fig.7.1: Variation of peak Cp and peak Cp,local
The largest and smallest values were selected from among the 125 pressure taps as
peak wind pressure coefficients, and the variation is shown in Fig.7.1. When
normalized by the velocity pressure of the incident flow [Fig.7.1.(a)], the peak
coefficients show smaller absolute values than those of the isolated model, and the
maximum Cp values decrease and the minimum Cp values increase with increasing
area density, showing almost constant values after Lf /H approximately=5-10.
However, when the wind pressures are normalized by local mean wind speeds, the
maximum Cp, local values increase greatly with increasing area density. For relatively
high area densities, which in the present work is higher than 16%, there seems to be a
little difference in maximum Cp,local, and the values are almost twice that of the
isolated model, showing constant values after Lf /H approximately= 15. The minimum
Cp,local values are generally smaller than that of the isolated model, but the differences
with respect to the isolated model and the differences among area densities are not as
clear and significant as the maximum Cp,local. Although the minimum Cp,local values
vary little with upstream distance, it seems that the variation becomes nearly constant
after Lf /H approximately=15 such as maximum Cp,local.
16
STCET, CHENGANNUR
CHAPTER 8
DESIGN APPLICATION
There are two approaches to determining the wind loads on the target low-rise
building in a group. First, the target low-rise building is considered to be surrounded
by the same or similar sized low-rise buildings. Hence, the wind loads on the target
low-rise building generally, but not always, decreases as a result of the shielding
effect. The second approach is related to changes of incident flow conditions. Because
low-rise buildings are normally built in large groups and a large group of low-rise
buildings can be regarded as roughness elements, the incident flow conditions change
depending on the position of the target low-rise building. When the target low-rise
building is designed considering changes of incident flow conditions or the
development of an inner boundary layer, the wind pressures and wind forces should
reflect the changing roughness conditions. Wang and Stathopoulos (2006) suggested
revision of the exposure factor to reect changes of upstream roughness conditions.
When the rst approach (called interference effect approach) issued, the wind
pressures and wind forces should be normalized by the same reference wind speed as
the incident ow at model height(in the present paper, Cp, CD , and CL ), and when
the second approach(called roughness effect approach) is used, the coefcients should
be normalized by the local wind speed measured at the target low-rise building
position (in the present paper, Cp,local, CD ,local , and CL ,local ).
In this section, after comparing the wind loads estimated by the two different
methods and showing agreement between them, the methodology of wind load
estimation will be discussed using the interference effect approach.
17
STCET, CHENGANNUR
CHAPTER 9
INTERFERENCE EFFECT APPROACH

As mentioned before, wind loads can be derived from either the interference
effect approach or the roughness effect approach, and the wind loads derived in these
two different ways should be the same. Wind loads from the interference effect
approach and roughness effect approach can be estimated from Eq. (7).
WIEA = q H GCf A = q H (peak Cf )A
(7)
Where, WIEA (N) = wind loads on structural frames based on the interference
effect approach.
qH (N/m2) = velocity pressure calculated from the incident flow at
model height.
A (m2) = subject area.
G.Cf = wind force coefficients resulting in the maximum load effect.
Fig.9.1. Variation of maximum CD and minimum CL on upstream distance
18
STCET, CHENGANNUR
For small-scale structures with higher natural frequency, as the resonant

component can be ignored, the peak wind force coefficients can be considered as the
design wind loads resulting in the maximum load effect. In this case, peak wind force
coefficients should be maximum CD for horizontal wind loads and minimum CL for
total area-averaged roof wind loads shown in Fig.9.1.
Therefore, wind loads on a low-rise building in a group can be estimated by
either method, but the estimation based on the interference effect approach seems to
be easier and more understandable because one does not need to measure the local
wind speeds, and sometimes it is impossible to measure the local wind speeds because
of experimental limitations. Moreover, when the effects of wind directions are
considered, the experimental costs become higher and higher, making the interference
factor approach more attractive to the practitioner.
Wind Loads on Structural Frames Based on the Interference Effect Approach.

Again, the horizontal and total area-averaged roof wind loads on structural frames can
be calculated. As shown in Fig.9.1, peak wind force coefficients (maximum CL or
minimum CL) are dependent on the area densities and upstream distances. This
dependence can be expressed by introducing the interference factor as follows:
peak Cf = IFf peak Cf,isolated ;
IFf = function(Ca , Lf )
The interference factor IFf is a function of area density CA and upstream

distance Lf. The maximum drag force coefficients, however, change with increasing
area density, but there is little variation with upstream distance Lf [Fig.9.1 (a)],
implying that IFD can only is a function of area density CA. This variation trend, i.e.,
the factor changes with area density but changes little with upstream distance, is
typical of the current study. Thus, the ratio of the average value from the second to the
last measurement point of maximum drag force coefficient of the target model to the
maximum drag force coefficient of the isolated model, maximum CD/ maximum
CD,isolated was calculated, and the results are shown in Fig.9.2 (a) with the area
densities. From Fig.9.2 (a), IFD is well expressed as an exponential function of the
area density CA as shown in Eq. (8):
IFD = 0.77e3.18CA
19
(8)
STCET, CHENGANNUR
For the minimum lift force coefficients as shown in Fig.9.2 (b), the
coefficients increase with increasing upstream distance, but no clear differences are
observed among area densities. The variation trend with area density for 6% and other
area densities is different. Thus, average values from the second to the last
measurement point for area density 6% and for other area densities are simply
assumed as the IFL shown in Eq. (8) and Fig.9.2 (b).
Fig.9.2. Variation of IFD and IFL on (a) area densities and (b) upstream distance
20
STCET, CHENGANNUR
9.1. Wind loads on components and cladding based on

interference effect approach
The effects of the surrounding buildings on peak wind pressure
coefcients are incorporated in the maximum (minimum) Cp, and this can be done
similarly by introducing the maximum (minimum) IF shown in Eq. (9). Note that the
interference factor depends not only on the area density CA and upstream distance Lf
but also on the tap position (i,j)
max (min)Cp = max(min)IF*max(min)Cp,isolated
max (min)IF = function[CA, Lf, (i,j)]
(9)
The maximum (minimum) IF can be obtained for all pressure taps, and simply
applying the largest or average value of maximum (minimum) IF to all pressure taps
on the corresponding surface can be one method for the wind load estimations.
However, a more reasonable method is to determine the maximum (minimum) IF
considering the zoning system prescribed in the current standard sand codes of
practice, i.e., after determining the maximum (mini-mum) IF for one zone and
applying it to that zone only. One example of a zoning system for a at-roofed lowrise building is shown in Fig.9.3. (AIJ 2004). For at-roofed low-rise buildings, there
are two zones on the wall surface, and there are three zones on the roof surface
depending on the building dimensions. If the maximum (minimum) IF was
determined considering zoning of the building (called zoning interference factor), the
variable of tap position (i,j) in Eq. (10) drops off, and the maximum (minimum) IF
reduces to a function of the area density CA and upstream distance Lf[Eq. (10)]
max(min)IF = [max(min)Cp]zoning /[max(min)Cp,isolated ]zoning
max(min)IF = function[CA , Lf , ( i, j)] = function(CA , Lf )
21
(10)
STCET, CHENGANNUR
Maximum IF should be obtained in Zone I and Zone II on the windward surface, and
minimum IF should be obtained in Zone I and Zone II on a wall surface other than the
windward surface and Zone I, Zone II, and Zone III on the roof surface. It is
unnecessary to evaluate the maximum IF on the roof surface (AIJ 2004).
Fig.9.4. (a) shows the variation of maximum IF in Zone I on the windward surface
with area density and upstream distance. Although maximum IF decreases with
increasing area density, maximum IF varies little in one area density, showing almost
a constant value after the second measurement point. This means that the maximum
IF again can be obtained considering only the variation of area density CA, no more
upstream distance Lf , and tap position (i, j). As for the maximum drag force
coefficient, the average values from the second to last measurement point are used,
and the relationships of maximum IF (max Cp=max C p,isolated) to area density are
shown in Fig.9.4. (b) for Zone I and Zone II. Maximum IF is well expressed as an
exponential function of area density CA only, and a similar trend is also true for
minimum IF on the wall and roof surfaces as shown in Figs.9.5 and 9.6, respectively.
Fig.9.5. is for minimum IF on the side and leeward surfaces, and Fig.9.6.is for the
minimum IF on the roof surface for all zones.
Fig.9.3. Zoning system for peak wind pressure coefficient prescribed by the AIJ
(2004): (a) flat roof low-rise building; (b) wall surface; (c) roof surface
22
STCET, CHENGANNUR
Fig.9.4. Maximum IF for Zone I and Zone II on the windward surface: (a) variation of
maximum IF on upstream distance; (b) maximum IF for Zone I and Zone II
Fig.9.5. Minimum IF for Zone I and Zone II on the sideward and leeward surfaces: (a)
variation of minimum IF on upstream distance; (b) minimum IF for Zone I and Zone
II
23
STCET, CHENGANNUR
Fig.9.6. Minimum IF for all zones on roof surface: (a) variation of minimum IF on
upstream distance; (b) minimum IF for Zone I, Zone II, and Zone III
Here, the area densities in the regression equations are not percentage values: CA 5
0.06, 0.11, 0.16, 0.25, and 0.44.
The current ASCE/SEI7-10 (ASCE 2010) does not consider the shielding effect
afforded by surrounding buildings and other structures, but the same design approach
discussed before, i.e., interference effect approach whose concept is based on the
changes of aero-dynamic characteristics of target low-rise building, can be applied.
For example, for the wind loads of a main wind-force resisting system, GC p in Eq.
(27.4-1) for directional procedure and GC pf in Eq. (28.4-1) for an envelope
procedure in ASCE/SEI7-10 (ASCE 2010) can be expressed using the interference
factor. For wind loads for components and cladding, Eq. (30.41) is prescribed, which
is very similar to that provided by the AIJ (2004), and GC p again can be replaced by
the terms for zoning interference factors.
24
STCET, CHENGANNUR
CHAPTER 10
A CASE STUDY
This chapter presents the case study of wind tunnel studies and
numerical studies on a + plan shaped tall building. The experiment was carried out
in an open circuit wind tunnel on a 1:300 scale rigid model. The mean wind pressure
coefficients on all the surfaces were studied for wind incidence angle of 0 and 45.
Certain faces were subjected to peculiar pressure distribution due to irregular
formation of eddies caused by the separation of wind flow. Moreover, commercial
CFD packages of ANSYS were used to demonstrate the flow pattern around the
model and pressure distribution on various faces. Although there are some differences
on certain wall faces, the numerical result is having a good agreement with the
experimental results for both wind incidence angle.
The experiment was conducted in the Boundary layer wind tunnel
having dimension 2.0 m 2.0 m 38.0 m at Wind Engineering Centre, Department of
Civil Engineering (IIT Roorkee), India. The experimental flow was simulated similar
to that of terrain category 2, which corresponds to open terrain with well scattered
obstructions having heights generally between 1.5 to 10 m, as per Indian standard for
wind load IS: 875 (part 3) - 1987 at a geometric scale of 1:300. The upstream velocity
of wind in the wind tunnel, at 1m height, was 10 m/s and turbulence intensity was
10%. Models were placed at a distance of 12 m from upstream side. A reference pitot
tube is located at a distance of 10.5 m from grid to measure free stream velocity
during experiment.
25
STCET, CHENGANNUR
Fig.10.1. Wind tunnel test on model

(a) Isometric view of model
(b) Model inside wind tunnel
26
STCET, CHENGANNUR
CHAPTER 11
CONCLUSION
Systematic wind pressure measurements, which have never been adopted in
previous studies, were conducted to investigate the influence of surrounding buildings
on wind pressures and forces applied to a low-rise building. The proximity effects
were identified again to be important in the determination of wind loads. These effects
increase with area density and cannot be adequately compensated for by the isolated
model test. Using different reference wind speeds, two different definitions for wind
pressure coefficients were introduced and compared, and two different approaches for
deriving wind loads on a target low-rise building were discussed. Each wind pressure
coefficient has its own meaning for design wind load of low-rise buildings in a group,
i.e., CP, CD, and CL are used for the interference effect approach and CP,local, CD,local,
and CL,local are used for the roughness effect approach.
A methodology for estimating wind loads on a flat-roofed low-rise building
surrounded by similar-sized buildings or structures was proposed based on the
interference factor approach. This methodology implements the velocity pressure
obtained from the incident flow. As a new design parameter, (zoning) interference
factors were introduced, and these factors were found to be expressed as an
exponential function of area density only. Once the (zoning) interference factors were
evaluated, the design of a target low-rise building in a large group becomes more
reasonable; that is, because the area density can be easily estimated, the wind loads
can be more economically estimated using the (zoning) interference factor.
27
STCET, CHENGANNUR
REFERENCES
1) Dr.N.M Bhandari, Dr.Prem Krishna, and Dr.Krishnan Kumar, (2012),Wind
loads on Buildings and Structures, An Explanatory Handbook on proposed IS
875(Part3).
2) Kim, Y. C., Yoshida, A., and Tamura, Y, (2012), Characteristics of surface
wind pressures on low-rise building located among large group of surrounding
buildings., Eng. Structures, 35, 1828.
3) Yong Chul Kim1; Akihito Yoshida2; and Yukio Tamura, (2013), Inuence of
Surrounding Buildings on Wind Loads Acting on Low-Rise Building,
M.ASCE3.
4) Kose, D. A., and Dick, E. (2010), Prediction of the pressure distribution on a
cubical building with implicit LES. , J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodynamics,
98(1011), 628649.
5) Ho, T. C. E., Surry, D., and Davenport, A. G. (1991), The variability of low
building wind loads due to surroundings. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodynamics,
38(23), 297310.
28
STCET, CHENGANNUR

Influence of Surrounding Buildings On The Wind Loads Acting On Low Rise Building

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Influence of Surrounding Buildings On The Wind Loads Acting On Low Rise Building

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

INFLUENCE OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS ON THE WIND LOADS ACTING ON LOW RISE BUILDINGS

There exist only a limited number of studies on interference

effects of surrounding or adjacent buildings on a low-rise building in a straight-line

force undertaken by a high-rise building and flow structures in similar conditions.

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

In general, low-rise buildings are usually surrounded by surrounding houses,

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Research has focused on examination of wind pressure coefficients and flow

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

these loads can be determined by considering a fetch of 300400 m. From full-scale

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

WIND TUNNEL TEST

Fig 3.1. Schematic of wind tunnel test

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Table 3.1. Summary of Wind Tunnel Tests

Where =moving averaging time (0.05 s in full time scale), La=length of

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Fig.3.3. Arrangement Order of surrounding buildings (CA=0.25)

Fig.3.4. Zone definition

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

3.1. When to carry out wind tunnel test

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

RESULTS OF THE WIND TUNNEL TEST

measurement point, respectively.

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

MEAN WIND PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

FLUCTUATING WIND PRESSURE COEFFICIENTS

Fig. 6.1: Variation of rms Cp, local and rms Cp

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Fig.7.1: Variation of peak Cp and peak Cp,local

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INTERFERENCE EFFECT APPROACH

Fig.9.1. Variation of maximum CD and minimum CL on upstream distance

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

For small-scale structures with higher natural frequency, as the resonant

Wind Loads on Structural Frames Based on the Interference Effect Approach.

The interference factor IFf is a function of area density CA and upstream

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

9.1. Wind loads on components and cladding based on

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Fig.10.1. Wind tunnel test on model

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

(b) Model inside wind tunnel

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPT. OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Вам также может понравиться