# Wind Pressure Distribution on the Façade of Stand-Alone Atypically Shaped High-Rise Building Determined by CFD Simulation and Wind Tunnel Tests

^{1}

^{2}

^{3}

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

_{pe}. These values were smaller (at some levels significantly). Mainly, this effect was noticeable on the leeward side. For the wind directions 0° and 180°, the changes of the values were relatively large. For the other two wind directions (45° and 67.5°), the values on the windward sides were similar. The large advantage of this atypical structure is that the negative pressures on side walls and leeward side are smaller in the comparison with the cuboid. This is very useful for the fixing of façade components, where the values of negative pressures are larger than the positive pressures on the cladding in the larger heights.

## 1. Introduction

#### The Investigation of the Wind Effects on Tall/High-Rise Buildings and New Solutions

_{pe}are influenced. More information and the importance of Reynolds number, as proved by several researchers, can be found in [18,19,20].

_{pe}were not denominated.

## 2. Description of the Investigated Building

^{3}.

#### Static and Dynamic Analysis of the Investigated Building

_{max}= H/2000 (where H was the total height of the structure). In the case of dynamic analysis, the limit value defined in the standards was u

_{max}= H/500. Additionally, eigenfrequencies and eigenmodes were calculated. More information can be found in [27].

## 3. Boundary Layer Wind Tunnel, Methodology of the Tests and Reduced-Scale Model

_{pe}is the mean external pressure coefficient [-], P

_{WT}is the average value of external wind pressure measured in given point [Pa], and P

_{ref}is the reference pressure [Pa]. Equation (2) is as follows:

^{3}] defined as a function (Equation (3)) of he measured air temperature T in [°] and the atmospheric pressure BP in [Pa], and v

_{ref}is the reference wind velocity measured on the top of the building without the model.

_{0}equal to 0.7 was considered. This was modelled using a wooden barrier with a height of 150 mm, and the plastic film FASTREADE 20. All investigated wind directions are shown in Figure 6b.

## 4. CFD Simulation—Turbulence Model, Boundary Conditions, the Validation

#### 4.1. Computational Domain, Boundary Conditions, and Computational Grid

_{0}(for a uniformly built-up area). It is defined as the height above the ground where the wind velocity drops to zero. Total dimensions of computation domain were 1.6 m × 2.6 m × 7 m, H × W × L, respectively, because of the recommendation that the ratio of the size of investigated building to the size of computational domain be less than 3%. By satisfying this recommendation, the results obtained by CFD simulation should not be affected by the boundaries of the domain. The width and height of the computational domain was equal to the dimensions of the cross-section of the rear operating space in the wind tunnel.

_{0}= 0.7/300 = 0.002333 m (aerodynamic roughness height defined for uniformly built-up areas), κ = 0.42 (von Karman constant), and v

_{ref}= 10.951 m/s, according to [25,26] (reference wind velocity on the top of the investigated building H = 0.54 m).

_{μ}= 0.09 (the model constant). The bottom boundary was simulated as a rough wall. The sand-grain roughness height was calculated by Equation (8), where C

_{s}was the roughness constant (equalled to 4). It was an important parameter used in the simulation in order to determine that the exact turbulence was created.

_{0}was equal to 0.7).

_{pe}were determined.

#### 4.2. Validation Metrics

_{WT}and calculated pressures P

_{CFD}is shown in Figure 10a–d.

## 5. Obtained Results—Atypical Structure vs. the Cuboid

_{pe}. Both investigated structures (the cuboid and the atypical structure) were calculated with the same setting of CFD simulation. Only the geometry of 3D models was different.

_{pe}in Figure 14. The side walls were divided into two areas, namely A (c

_{pe}= −1.2) and B (c

_{pe}= −0.8), according to the recommendations mentioned in Eurocode.

_{pe}determined for the atypical structure are compared in Figure 15, Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18.

## 6. The Real Wind Pressures

_{pe}, the real wind pressures can be calculated. The following equation defined in [25,26], can be used:

_{e}is peak value of external wind pressure [Pa]. q

_{p}(z

_{e}) is peak velocity pressure in the height z

_{e}[m] in [Pa] calculated by using Equation (13). Additionally, c

_{pe}is mean external pressure coefficient [-].

_{v}(z

_{e}) is turbulence intensity [-], ρ is air density [kg/m

^{3}], and ν

_{m}(z

_{e}) is mean wind velocity in the height z

_{e}[m/s]. Turbulence intensity represents fluctuation part of wind flow and it is a function of k

_{1}turbulence factor, c

_{o}orography factor and z

_{0}roughness length. These parameters are defined in [25,26].

_{r}(z) is roughness factor, c

_{o}(z) is orography factor. v

_{b}is the basic wind velocity [m/s] and it is a function of: c

_{dir}—directional factor [-], c

_{season}—seasonal factor [-], and v

_{b,}

_{0}—fundamental value of the basic wind velocity [m/s] defined in National Annex (for Slovakia [26]).

## 7. Discussion

_{pe}determined by CFD for the roof of the cuboid was larger in comparison with the standard (e.g., −0.4 instead of −0.2, −1.0 instead of −0.7).

_{pe}. For the design of structure, it is recommended to make an envelope of all three levels and cover the largest values of negative and also positive pressures in this way.

## 8. Conclusions

_{pe.}. These values were smaller (at some levels significantly). Mainly, this effect was noticeable on the leeward side. For wind directions of 0° and 180°, the changes of the values were relatively large. For the other two wind directions (45° and 67.5°), the values on the windward sides were similar.

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Sam Sailor. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Available online: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hotel_Arts_by_night.JPG (accessed on 15 October 2021).
- Godsfriendchuck. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Available online: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:One_Thousand_Museum_March_2019.jpg (accessed on 15 October 2021).
- BlueandWhiteStripes. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Available online: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NewfoundlandCanaryWharf.jpg (accessed on 15 October 2021).
- Ultimateshot. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Available online: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Bow,_Calgary,_June_2013.jpg (accessed on 15 June 2022).
- Mk2010. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bank_of_China_Tower_(Hong_Kong).jpg (accessed on 15 June 2022).
- Jackardsiffant. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Available online: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emirates_Towers_20141008.jpg (accessed on 15 June 2022).
- Momtaz, A.A.; Abdollahian, M.A.; Farshidianfar, A. Study of wind-induced vibrations in tall buildings with tuned mass dampers taking into account vortices effects. Int. J. Adv. Struct. Eng.
**2017**, 9, 385–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abu-Zidan, Y.; Nguyen, K.; Mendis, P. Influence of building shape on wind-driven rain exposure in tall buildings. J. Archit. Eng.
**2021**, 27, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jafari, M.; Alipour, A. Review of approaches, opportunities and future directions for improving aerodynamics of tall buildings with smart facades. Sustain. Cities Soc.
**2021**, 72, 102979. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Jafari, M.; Alipour, A. Aerodynamic shape optimization of rectangular and elliptical double-skin facades to mitigate wind-induced effects on tall buildings. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
**2021**, 213, 104586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Liu, J.; Hui, Y.; Yang, Q.; Tamura, Y. Flow field investigation for aerodynamic effects of surface mounted ribs on square-sectioned high-rise buildings. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
**2021**, 211, 104551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hui, Y.; Liu, J.; Wang, J.; Yang, Q. Effects of façade rib arrangement on aerodynamic characteristic and flow structure of a square cylinder. Build. Environ.
**2022**, 214, 108924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yuan, K.; Hui, Y.; Chen, Z. Effects of façade appurtenances on the local pressure of high-rise building. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
**2018**, 178, 26–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hui, Y.; Yuan, K.; Chen, Z.; Yang, Q. Characteristic of aerodynamic forces on high-rise buildings with various façade appurtenances. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
**2019**, 191, 76–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zheng, X.; Montazeri, H.; Blocken, B. CFD simulations of wind flow and mean surface pressure for buildings with balconies: Comparison of RANS and LES. Build. Environ.
**2020**, 173, 106747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zheng, X.; Montazeri, H.; Blocken, B. CFD analysis of the impact of geometrical characteristics of building balconies on near-façade wind flow and surface pressure. Build. Environ.
**2021**, 200, 107904. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Merrick, R.; Bitsumlak, G. Shape effects on the wind-induced response of high-rise buildings. J. Wind. Eng.
**2009**, 6, 1–18. [Google Scholar] - Shi, X.; Alam, M.; Bai, H. Wakes of elliptical cylinders at low Reynolds number. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow
**2020**, 82, 108553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kološ, I.; Michalcová, V.; Lausová, L. Numerical analysis of flow around a cylinder in critical and subcritical regime. Sustainability
**2021**, 13, 2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Thompson, M.C.; Radi, A.; Rao, A.; Sheridan, J.; Hourigan, K. Low-Reynolds-number wakes of elliptical cylinders: From the circular cylinder to the normal flat plate. J. Fluid Mech.
**2014**, 751, 570–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zu, G.; Lam, K.M. LES and wind tunnel test of flow around two tall buildings in staggered arrangement. Commutation
**2018**, 6, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - STN EN 1992-1-1; Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2015.
- STN EN 1991-1-1; Actions on Structures. Part 1-1: General Actions. Densities, Self-Weight, Imposed Loads for Buildings. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
- STN EN 1991-1-1; Actions on Structures. Part 1-3: General Actions. Snow Loads. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2007.
- TN EN 1991-1-4; Actions on Structures. Part 1-4: General Actions. Wind Actions. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2006.
- STN EN 1991-1-4/NA; Eurocode 1. Actions on Structures. Part 1-4: General Actions. Wind actions. National Annex. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. (In Slovak)
- Ivánková, O.; Méri, D.; Vojteková, E. Static and dynamic analysis in design of exoskeleton structure. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Prague, Czech Republic, 12–16 June 2017; Volume 245. [Google Scholar]
- Ivánková, O.; Vojteková, E.; Méri, D. Architectonic and static study of various designs of the external load bearing structure of a high-rise building. In Proceedings of the Architecture in Perspective 2018, Ostrava, Czech Republic, 29–30 November 2018; Technical University Ostrava: Ostrava, Czech Republic, 2018; pp. 150–152. [Google Scholar]
- Ivánková, O.; Turis, M.; Méri, D. Static and dynamic analysis of the bearing exoskeleton of a high-rise building subjected to wind and seismic effects. In Proceedings of the International Conference ACOUSTIC 2019, Štrbské Pleso, Slovakia, 16–18 October 2019; Technical University Zvolen: Zvolen, Slovakia, 2019; pp. 236–242. [Google Scholar]
- Hubová, O.; Lobotka, P. The multipurpose new wind tunnel STU. Civ. Environ. Eng.
**2014**, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hubová, O.; Konečná, L.; Lobotka, P. Influence of walls and ceiling on a wind flow in BLWT tunnel. Appl. Mech. Mater.
**2014**, 617, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Skrucany, T.; Sarkan, B.; Gnap, J. Influence of Aerodynamic Trailer Devices on Drag Reduction Measured in a Wind Tunnel. Eksploat. Niezawodn. Maint. Reliab.
**2016**, 18, 151–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hubova, O.; Lobotka, P.; Konecna, L. Pressure coefficients on the model of SILSOE cube determined by tests in BLWT tunnels. Rocz. Inz. Bud.
**2014**, 14, 85–90. [Google Scholar] - Feranec, V. Wind environment around buildings and building complexes. Slovak J. Civ. Eng.
**2000**, 1, 49–52. [Google Scholar] - Chien, Y.K.; Chun, T.T.; Ming, C.H.; Chi, M.L. Wind tunnel studies of a pedestrian-level wind environment in a street canyon between a high-rie building with a podium and low-level attached houses. Energies
**2015**, 8, 10942–10957. [Google Scholar] - Tsang, C.W.; Kwok, K.C.S.; Hitchcock, P.A. Wind tunnel study of pedestrian level wind environment around tall buildings: Effects of building dimensions, separation and podium. Build. Environ.
**2012**, 49, 167–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Roy, A.K.; Sharma, A.; Mohanty, B.; Singh, J. Wind load on high rise building with different configurations: A critical review. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Emerging Trends in Engineering Innovations & Technology Management, Hamirpur, India, 16–18 December 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Gimenez, J.M.; Bre, F. Optimization of RANS turbulence models using genetic algorithms to improve the prediction of wind pressure coefficients on low-rise buildings. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
**2019**, 193, 103978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Du, Y.; Blocken, B.; Abbasi, S.; Pirker, S. Efficient and high-resolution simulation of pollutant dispersion in complex urban environments by island-based recurrence CFD. Environ. Model. Softw.
**2021**, 145, 105172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Tominaga, Y.; Stathopoulos, T. Numerical simulation of dispersion around an isolated cubic building: Comparison of various types of k-ε models. Atmos. Environ.
**2009**, 43, 3200–3210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zheng, X.; Yang, J. Impact of moving traffic on pollutant transport in street canyons under perpendicular wind:An CFD analysis using large-eddy simulations. Sustain. Cities Soc.
**2022**, 82, 103911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ricci, A.; Kalkman, I.; Blocken, B.; Burlando, M.; Repetto, M.P. Impact of turbulence models and roughness height in 3D steady RANS simulations of wind flow in an urban environment. Build. Environ.
**2020**, 171, 106617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Khayrullina, A.; van Hooff, T.; Blocken, B.; van Heijst, G. Validation of steady RANS modelling of isothermal plane turbulent impinging jets and moderate Reynolds numbers. Eur. J. Mech. B Fluids
**2019**, 75, 228–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Blocken, B.; Stathopulos, T.; Carmeliet, J. CFD simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer–wall function problems. Atmos. Environ.
**2007**, 41, 238–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Franke, J.; Hellsten, A.; Schlünzen, K.H.; Carissimo, B. Best Practice Guideline for the CFD Simulation of Flows in the Urban Environment; COST Office: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- ANSYS Inc. ANSYS Fluent User’s Guide, Release 19.1; ANSYS Inc.: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Wilcox, D.C. Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 3rd ed.; DCW Industries: La Canada, CA, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Kralik, J.; Hubova, O.; Konecna, L. CFD simulation of air-flow over a “quarter-circular” object valided by experimental measurement. Trans. VSB—Tech. Univ. Ostrav. Civ. Eng. Ser.
**2015**, 15, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Asfour, O.S. Prediction of wind environment in different grouping patterns of housing blocks. Energy Build.
**2010**, 42, 2061–2069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Juan, Y.-H.; Rezaeiha, A.; Montazeri, H.; Blocken, B.; Wen, C.-Y.; Yang, A.-S. CFD assessment of wind energy potential for generic high-rise buildings in close proximity: Impact of building arrangement and height. Appl. Energy
**2022**, 321, 119328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Wang, W.; Cao, Y.; Okaze, T. Comparison of hexahedral, tetrahedral and polyhedral cells for reproducing the wind field around an isolated building by LES. Build. Environ.
**2021**, 195, 107717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Richards, P.; Hoxey, R. Appropriate boundary conditions for computational wind engineering models using the k-ε turbulence model. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
**1993**, 46–47, 145–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Parente, A.; Gorlé, C.; van Beeck, J.; Benocci, C. Improved k-ε model and wall function formulation for the RANS simulation of ABL flows. J. Wind. Eng. Ind. Aerodyn.
**2011**, 99, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Bre, F.; Gimenez, J.M. A cloud-based platform to predict wind pressure coefficients on buildings. Build. Simul.
**2022**, 15, 1507–1525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Revuz, J.; Hargreaves, D.M.; Owen, J.S. On the domain size for the steady-state CFD modelling of a tall building. Wind. Struct.
**2012**, 15, 313–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abu-Zidan, Y.; Mendis, P.; Gunawardena, T. Optimizing the computational domain size in CFD simulations of tall buildings. Heliyon
**2021**, 7, e06723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Montazeri, H.; Blocken, B. CFD simulation of wind-induced pressure coefficients on buildings with and without balconies: Validation and sensitivity analysis. Build. Environ.
**2013**, 60, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, X.; Yang, J. CFD simulations of wind flow and pollutant dispersion in a street canyon with traffic flow: Comparison between RANS and LES. Sustain. Cities Soc.
**2021**, 75, 103307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abu-Zidan, Y.; Mendis, P.; Gunawardena, T. Impact of atmospheric boundary layer inhomogeneity in CFD simulations of tall buildings. Heliyon
**2020**, 6, e04274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Abu-Zidan, Y.; Mendis, P.; Gunawardena, T.; Mohotti, D.; Fernando, S. Wind design of tall buildings: The state of the art. Electron. J. Struct. Eng.
**2022**, 22, 53–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Aly, M.A. Pressure integration technique for predicting wind-induced response in high-rise buildings. Alex. Eng. J.
**2013**, 52, 717–731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]

**Figure 3.**(

**a**) Architectural design of the high-rise building; (

**b**) the ground plan in bottom part of the building; (

**c**) the top of the building.

**Figure 5.**The dimensions and positions of measuring taps [in mm]. (

**a**) The cuboid; (

**b**) the atypical structure.

**Figure 6.**(

**a**) Stand-alone atypical structure in a wind tunnel (wind direction 225°); (

**b**) all considered wind directions.

**Figure 7.**(

**a**) Computational domain and boundary conditions; (

**b**) stand-alone building in the computational domain.

**Figure 9.**The profiles of mean wind velocity and the profile of turbulence intensity (where H = 0.540 m is the total height of the model, and v

_{ref}= 10.951 m/s is reference wind velocity).

**Figure 10.**Wind pressures on an atypical structure: CFD vs. WT tests, wind directions. (

**a**) 0°; (

**b**) 45°; (

**c**) 67.5°; (

**d**) 180°.

**Figure 11.**Mean external pressure coefficients (wind direction 45°). (

**a**) Atypical structure; (

**b**) the cuboid.

**Figure 12.**The mean values of c

_{pe}on the top (wind direction 45°). (

**a**) Atypical structure; (

**b**) the cuboid.

**Figure 13.**Eurocode (wind direction 45°). (

**a**) Real wind pressures on leeward side and windward side; (

**b**) the roof (up—c

_{pe}, down—real pressures).

**Figure 14.**The CFD simulation of the cuboid—the mean values of c

_{pe}calculated for different wind directions (in the case of 45°, the values were compared with c

_{pe,}

_{1}specified in [25]).

Validation Metrics | 0° | 45° | 67.5° | 180° | Ideal Values |
---|---|---|---|---|---|

FB | 0.186 | 0.148 | −0.170 | −0.276 | 0 |

R | 0.944 | 0.993 | 0.985 | 0.993 | 1 |

FAC 1.3 | 0.518 | 0.964 | 0.893 | 0.911 | 1 |

samples | 56 | 56 | 56 | 56 | 56 |

Model | 0° | 45° | 67.5° | 180° |
---|---|---|---|---|

Cuboid | The values of c_{pe} on windward sides were close to 1 (maximum c _{pe} = 0.97).The values of c _{pe} on the other sides had the same trend but the values were significantly different(c _{pe} = around −1.00 at level A, c_{pe} = around −0.4 at level B, c_{pe} = around −0.3 at level C). | The values of c_{pe} on the windward side were equal to 1 (at level A, B, C). The values on the other sides had the same trend and the same values. The maximum suction was c _{pe} = −1.6 at level A. | Detto 45°, but maximum suction was c_{pe} = −1.3 at level B. | Detto 0° |

Atypical structure | The values of c_{pe} on windward sides were less than 0.65 (CFD) and 0.7 (WT). The trend and the values of c_{pe} on the other sides were similar for all levels. The maximum suction was −0.71 (CFD) and −0.8 (WT). | The maximum values of c_{pe} on the windward side were equal to 1. The values of c_{pe} on the other sides were around or less than −1. The values of c_{pe} were very similar at all levels. | The values of c_{pe} on windward side were equal to 1. The values of c_{pe} on the other sides were around or less then −1.The values of c _{pe} were very similar at all levels. | The values of c_{pe} on the windward sides were less than 1 (0.80 for CFD and 0.81 for WT). On the other sides the values of c_{pe} were less than −0.9. |

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |

© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Ivánková, O.; Hubová, O.; Macák, M.; Vojteková, E.; Konečná, L.B.
Wind Pressure Distribution on the Façade of Stand-Alone Atypically Shaped High-Rise Building Determined by CFD Simulation and Wind Tunnel Tests. *Designs* **2022**, *6*, 77.
https://doi.org/10.3390/designs6050077

**AMA Style**

Ivánková O, Hubová O, Macák M, Vojteková E, Konečná LB.
Wind Pressure Distribution on the Façade of Stand-Alone Atypically Shaped High-Rise Building Determined by CFD Simulation and Wind Tunnel Tests. *Designs*. 2022; 6(5):77.
https://doi.org/10.3390/designs6050077

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Ivánková, Oľga, Oľga Hubová, Marek Macák, Eva Vojteková, and Lenka Bujdáková Konečná.
2022. "Wind Pressure Distribution on the Façade of Stand-Alone Atypically Shaped High-Rise Building Determined by CFD Simulation and Wind Tunnel Tests" *Designs* 6, no. 5: 77.
https://doi.org/10.3390/designs6050077