Wind-induced forces and flow field of aerodynamically modified buildings

  • Ashutosh SharmaEmail author
  • Hemant Mittal
  • Ajay Gairola
Original Article


Aerodynamically modified buildings are a new trend in building design. The outer shapes play a major role in aerodynamic characteristics of the building and may offer improved safety and habitability. Various major and minor modifications in outer shapes have been examined in the literature, and their advantages over conventional shapes (square, triangular, circular) have been reported. In the present study, an experimental investigation of wind-induced aerodynamic forces and moments for height-modified tapered and set-back buildings is carried out for several angles of incidence. Three tapered models with tapering ratios (T.R. = (bottom width − top width)/height) of 5%, 10% and 15% and three corresponding set-back models are selected for the study. A numerical simulation using the DDES (delayed detached eddy simulation) approach of turbulence modeling is used to analyze the flow field around the modified building models. The results show that, mean along-wind, RMS across-wind forces and moments are reduced considerably irrespective of wind direction and the extent of reduction increases as the tapering ratio is increased. Set-back modifications are found to be more efficient in reducing the loads compared to the taper modification.


Aerodynamic modification Tapering ratio Overturning moments Power spectral density DES model Flow field 



  1. 1.
    Davenport AG (1971) The response of six buildings shapes to turbulent wind. Philos Trans. R Soc Lond A 269:385–394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kareem A (1983) Mitigation of wind-induced motion of tall building. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 11(1–3):273–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gu M, Quan Y (2004) Across-wind loads of typical tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 92(13):1147–1165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hayashida H, Iwasa Y (1990) Aerodynamic shape effects of tall building for vortex induced vibration. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 33(1–2):237–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Irwin PA, Kilpatrick J, Frisque A (2008) Friend or foe, wind at height. In: CTBUH 8th world congress, DubaiGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Irwin PA (2009) Wind engineering challenges of new generation of super-tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 97(7–8):328–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lin N, Letchford C, Tamura Y, Liang B, Nakamura O (2005) Characteristics of wind forces acting on tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 93(3):217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miyashita K, Katagiri J, Nakamura O, Ohkuma T, Tamura Y, Itoh M, Nimachi T (1993) Wind induced response of high-rise buildings: effects of corner cuts or openings in square buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 50:319–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Xie J (2014) Aerodynamic optimization of super-tall buildings and its effective assessment. J Wind Eng Ind Aerdyn 130:88–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holmes JD (2001) Wind loading of structures. Spon Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sharma A, Mittal H, Gairola A (2018) Mitigation of wind load on tall buildings through aerodynamic modifications: review. J Build Eng 18:180–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tanaka H, Tamura Y, Ohtake K, Nakai M, Kim YC (2012) Experimental investigation of aerodynamic forces and wind pressure acting on tall buildings with various unconventional configurations. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 107–108:179–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kim Y, You K (2002) Dynamic responses of a tapered tall building to wind load. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 90(12–15):1771–1782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kim Y, Kanda J (2010) Characteristics of aerodynamic forces and pressure on square plan buildings with height variations. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 98(8–9):449–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kim Y, Kanda J (2013) Wind pressure on tapered and set-back tall buildings. J Fluid Struct 39:306–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim YC, You KP, Ko NH (2008) Across-wind responses of an aeroelastic tapered tall building. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 96(8–9):1307–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim Y, Kanda J (2010) Effects of taper and set-back on wind forces and wind-induced response of tall buildings. Wind Struct Int J 13(6):499–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim Y, Kanda J, Tamura Y (2011) Wind-induced coupled motion of tall buildings with varying square plan with height. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 99(5):638–650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deng T, Yu X, Xie Z (2015) Aerodynamic measurement of across-wind loads and responses of tapered super high-rise buildings. Wind Struct Int J 21(3):331–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim Y, Tamura Y, Yoon S (2015) Effects of taper on fundamental aeroelastic behaviors of super-tall buildings. Wind Struct Int J 20(4):527–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aboshosha H, Elshaer A, Bitsuamlak GT, Damatty A (2015) Consistent inflow turbulence generation for LES evaluation of wind-induced responses for tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 142:198–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Huang SH, Li QS, Wu JR (2010) A general inflow turbulence generator for large eddy simulation. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 98(10–11):600–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huang S, Li QS, Xu S (2007) Numerical evaluation of wind effects on a tall steel building by CFD. J Constr Steel Res 63(5):612–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    He C, Liu Y, Yavuzkurt S (2017) A dynamic delayed detached-eddy simulation model for turbulent flows. Comput Fluids 146:174–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim Y, Castro IP, Xie Z (2013) Divergence-free turbulence inflow conditions for large-eddy simulations with incompressible flow solvers. Comput Fluids 84:56–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Launder BE, Spalding DB (1974) The numerical computation of turbulent flow. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 3(2):269–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parente A, Gorle C, Beeck JV, Benocci C (2011) Improved k−ε model and wall function formulation for the RANS simulation of ABL flows. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 99(4):267–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Spalart P, Jou W, Strelets M, Allmaras S (1997) Comments on the feasibility of LES for wings, and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach. In: Proceedings of the first AFOSR international conference on DNS/LES, C. Liu, USA, pp 137–147Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spalart PR, Deck S, Shur ML, Squires KD, Strelets MK, Travin A (2006) A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn 20(3):181–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Yan BW, Li QS (2015) Inflow turbulence generation methods with large eddy simulation for wind effects on tall buildings. Comput Fluids 116:158–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang S, Bell JR, Burton D, Herbst AH, Sheridan J, Thompson MC (2017) The performance of different turbulence models (URANS, SAS and DES) for predicting high-speed train slipstream. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 165:46–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bunge U, Mockett C, Thiele F (2007) Guidelines for implementing detached-eddy simulation using different models. Aerosp Sci Technol 11:376–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yan BW, Li QS (2017) Detached-eddy and large-eddy simulations of wind effects on a high-rise structure. Comput Fluids 150:74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Asthon N, West A, Lardeau S, Revell A (2016) Assessment of RANS and DES methods for realistic automotive models. Comput Fluids 128:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dadioti R, Rees S (2017) Performance of detached eddy simulation applied to analysis of a university campus wind environment. Energy Proc 134:366–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Guilmineau E, Deng GB, Leroyer A, Queutey P, Visonneau M, Wackers J (2017) Assessment of hybrid RANS-LES formulations for flow simulation around the ahmed body. Comput Fluids 176:302–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lateb M, Masson C, Stathopoulos T, Bedard C (2014) Simulation of near-field dispersion of pollutants using detached-eddy simulation. Comput Fluids 100:308–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Yeo D, Jones NP (2011) Characterization of flow oblique to a circular cylinder with low aspect ratio using 3-D detached eddy simulation. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 99(11):1117–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sharma A, Mittal H, Gairola A (2018) Detached-eddy simulation of interference between buildings in tandem arrangement. J Build Eng 21:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Liu J, Niu J (2016) CFD simulation of the wind environment around an isolated high-rise building: An evaluation of SRANS, LES and DES models. Build Environ 96:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Liu J, Niu J, Mak CM, Xia Q (2017) Detached eddy simulation of pedestrian-level wind and gust around an elevated building. Build Environ 125:168–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Paik J, Sotiropoulos F, Porte-Agel F (2009) Detached eddy simulation of flow around two wall-mounted cubes in tandem. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 30(2):286–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Haupt SE, Zajaczkowski FJ, Peltier LJ (2011) Detached eddy simulation of atmospheric flow about a surface mounted cube at high Reynolds number. J Fluids Eng 133:0310021–0310028CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Schmidt S, Thiele F (2002) Comparison of numerical methods applied to the flow over wall-mounted cubes. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 23(3):330–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Nishino T, Roberts G, Zhang X (2008) Unsteady RANS and detached-eddy simulations of flow around a circular cylinder in ground effect. J Fluid Struct 24:18–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tse KT, Hitchcock PA, Kwok KCS, Thepmongkorn S, Chan CM (2009) Economic perspectives of aerodynamic treatments of square tall buildings. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 97(9–10):455–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Menter FR, Kuntz M, Bender R (2003) A scale-adaptive simulation model for turbulent flow predictions. AIAA paper, 2003-0767Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Menter FR, Kuntz M (2004) Adaption of eddy-viscosity turbulence models to un- steady separated flows behind vehicles. In: McCallen Rose, Browand Fred, Ross James (eds) The aerodynamics of heavy vehicles: trucks, buses, and trains, vol 19. Lecture Notes in Applied and Computational Mechanics. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Menter FR, Kuntz M, Langtry R (2003) Ten years of experience with the SST turbulence model. In: Hanjalic K, Nagano Y, Tummers M (eds) Turbulence, heat and mass transfer 4. Begell House Inc, Danbury, pp 625–632Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Gritskevich MS, Garbaruk AV, Schutze J, Menter FR (2012) Development of DDES and IDDES formulations for the k-ε shear stress transport model. Flow Turbul Combust 88:431–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    ANSYS Fluent 13.0 theory guide, turbulence, ANSYS Inc. Canonsburg, PA (2010)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Murakami S (1998) Overview of turbulence models applied in CEW-1997. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 74–76:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    COST (2007) Best practice guideline for the CFD simulation of flows in the urban environment, COST Action 732Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Spalart P (2001) Young-person’s guide to detached-eddy simulation for bluff bodies. NASA Center for Aerospace Information, USAGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets M, Travin AK (2008) A hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and wall-modelled LES capabilities. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 29(6):1638–1649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Blocken B, Stathopoulos T, Carmeliet J, Hensen LM (2011) Application of computational fluid dynamics in building performance simulation for the outdoor environment: an overview. J. Build Perform Simul 4(2):157–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of Technology RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations