Hindawi

Advances in Civil Engineering

Volume 2022, Article ID 1529416, 17 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/1529416

Research Article
Wind Excited Action around Tall Building Having Different
Corner Configurations

Rahul Kumar Meena, Ritu Raj , and S. Anbukumar

Department of Civil Engineering, Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India

Correspondence should be addressed to Ritu Raj; [email protected]

Received 18 September 2021; Revised 25 January 2022; Accepted 29 January 2022; Published 25 February 2022

Academic Editor: Filippo Ubertini

Copyright © 2022 Rahul Kumar Meena et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited.
Aeroelastic instabilities are common in square or rectangular plan shape structures due to the development of powerful vortices by
the rolling motion of the separated shear layers. Windward corner modifications such as corner cut, recession, rounded, and
slotted help to reduce instabilities. Codal recommendations about common shapes like square, rectangle, triangle, and circular
shapes are available in different international standards, but they did not provide the detailed analysis results for the different
regular shapes with corner configurations. Although analysis was performed on various plan shapes of tall buildings using the
computational fluid dynamics technique through k-ε turbulence model, a very small number of studies were performed on
particular shapes with different corners having same plan area and height. The mean pressure coefficients of Model-A and Model-
B were compared with various international standards and wind tunnel data, respectively, for validation, showing a nearly
equivalent consistency; however, international standards consist of coefficients at 0° and 90° wind angles only. Wind effects on
building shapes having different corners change the characteristics of the separated shear layer and reduce the downstream wake
which helps to reduce drag and lift forces simultaneously. Recent study shows that the windward pressure distribution pattern is
almost independent of building size and height. Therefore incorporation of corners in building helps to reduce the forces caused
by extreme wind. A very large amount of numerical simulation data about wind pressure is generated, which can be used by the
designer while designing such a building for wind load. Comparison have been made between buildings having different corners
under same wind speed, and Model-D (round corner) performed very well against the wind.

1. Introduction are available in various international standards [6–10]. Wind

tunnel testing and CFD technologies are used to study the
Because of the ever-increasing population, cities’ growth in the impact of wind on tall buildings. Wind tunnel studies and/or
horizontal direction has reached a saturation point. As a result, CFD simulations are required to get wind driven forces in
tall structures are springing up all over the planet. Tall buildings complex plan shaped structures.
are particularly vulnerable to wind loads, necessitating effective Wind effects on structure are varying as per the shape of
wind load design. Irwin [1] studied the bluff body aerody- building; to evaluate the effect of wind on such structures,
namics in wind engineering. Bluff bodies subjected to strong wind tunnel testing has been performed by many re-
large vortices in their wakes, wind turbulence, are another searchers; for example, Sheng et al. [11] investigated the
factor that has a significant impact on vortex shedding. The fluctuating properties of global and local wind loads; Sun
rectangular building is very common in plan shape, and it is et al. [12] conducted wind tunnel test on 1040-meter
generally symmetrical about both axes. This plan-shaped building model; Irwin et al. [13] examined the effect of
building is very common for residential as well as corporate corners; Raj and Ahuja [14] performed an experiment on
buildings [2–5]. Effects of wind load for common plan shape rigid models with varied cross-sectional shapes and equal
2 Advances in Civil Engineering

floor area; Bhattacharyya and Dalui [15] presented wind in order to fully understand the wind load patterns that
effects on “E”-shaped building; Nagar et al. [16] studied “H” occur at different wind incidence angles. Pressure contour
and square building model; Bandi et al. [17] performed an on different faces on the building is discussed with rea-
experiment on six building models; Raj et al. [18] studied the sonable extant.
response of “+” shape; Carassale et al. [19] studied corner
effect on a square cylinder; Tanaka et al. [20] studied 2. Numerical Study
modified square shape; He and Song [21] experimentally
investigated the response of TTU building under wind load. Numerical study was performed using computational fluid
According to the literature, modifying the shape of an en- dynamics. Most of the studies in the past were done using
trant’s corner by roughly 10% of the building width can the k- ε model. This model has well-established prediction
reduce wind effects on high-rise buildings. Some researchers capability and has been proven to be stable and numerically
also evaluated the effect of interference of principal building reliable. This model gives an accurate balance of reliability
models; for example, Pal et al. [22] estimated drag and lift for general-purpose simulations. It is very less expensive and
force coefficients on interfering square and fish plan shape is mostly used to simulate the turbulent flow characteristics.
models; Nagar et al.[16] have studied interference effects on k-ε turbulence is a two-equation model and provides the
“H” and square model; Pal and Raj [23] evaluated the full solution by using two transport equations, that is, turbulent
blockage condition for various plan shapes of tall building kinetic energy (k) and turbulent dissipation rate (ε). It has
models; Pal et al. [24] studied interference effect of twin positive advantage of not including any geometry-related
building models on square plan shape and remodelled tri- parameters in the modelling. The turbulent kinetic energy
angle shape model; Nagar et al. [25] studied interference and the turbulence dissipation rate are two variables in-
effect on two “+” shape models. Few important outcomes of troduced into the system of equations for the model.
interfering studies are as follows: pressure distribution is
(i) Basic equations. The basic equations used to study
symmetric for isolated building, and drag and lift force
the fluid flow problems are Navier-Stokes and
coefficient magnitude is based on the position and geometric
continuity equations.
shape of the neighbouring building model. Wind tunnel test
is time-consuming and costly, and testing facilities are also (ii) Navier-Stokes equation is as follows:
limited; hence, the effect of wind on high-rise structures can z􏼐ρui uj 􏼑 zP z zu
z ρui 􏼁 z ⎡⎢ ⎛ ⎠⎤⎥⎦ + F.
be found using CFD techniques. �− − + ⎣μ⎝ u i + j ⎞
CFD technique gives the wind effects on various shapes zt zxj zxj zxj zxj zxi
of high-rise buildings in quick time; it works by dividing the (1)
building geometry into small elements using meshing, and a
number of studies have been carried out on various shapes, (iii) continuity equation is as follows:
for example, Bhattacharyya and Dalui [26] on “E” shape, Raj
zρ zρi
et al. [27] on “H” shape, He and Song [28] on TTU building, + � 0. (2)
Yu and Kareem [29] and Sanyal and Dalui [30] on rect- zt zx i
angular shape, Paul and Dalui [31] and Okajima et al. [32] on
rectangular shape with horizontal limbs, Paul and Dalui [33] The standard k-ε model uses the following transport
on “+” shape, Hajra and Dalui [34] on octagonal shape, Gaur equations for the turbulence kinetic energy and
and Raj [35] on square model, Bairagi and Dalui [36] on turbulence dissipation:
stepped building model, and Sanyal and Dalui [37–40] on zk zk zu z μ zε
“Y” shape building model. The major findings obtained ρ + ρui � τ ij i − ρε + 􏼢􏼠μ + t 􏼡 􏼣. (3)
through the numerical simulation are as follows: results zt zxj zxj zxj σ ε zxj
obtained through the numerical simulation are significantly
affected by the mesh size, pressure distributed on the Momentum equation is as follows:
building model depends on the height of the building model, z􏼐ρUi Uj 􏼑 zP z ⎢ z z
z ρUi 􏼁 ⎡⎣μ ⎛ ⎝ Ui + Uj ⎞
⎠⎤⎥⎦ + S .
velocity alteration is found on the roof of the building model, �− − + eff M
and the drag force depends on the exposure to wind. The zt zxj zxi zxj zxj zxi
reduction in wind load mainly occurs due to the corner of (4)
short edges.
The effect of wind on the various plan-shaped tall
building is studied using the computational fluid dy-
namics (CFD) technique at an angle range from 0° to 90° at 2.1. Building Model. In the present study, the building is
an interval of 15°. For validation, the results obtained modelled at a 1 : 200 length scale. CFD simulations were used
through numerical simulation are compared with previ- to explore the effect of wind on the modified corners on
ous wind tunnel experiments and different international rectangular, corner cut, chamfered, and fillet shapes of al-
standards. CFD technique is used to study the streamlines most identical plan area and equal height of 750 mm. The
around the building models to get a clear view of flow variation of pressure coefficient on building surfaces around
characteristics. The distribution of local wind pressure on the whole building models is discussed in this study, for the
different faces of the building models is closely examined building models shown in Figure 1. Slight difference in the
Advances in Civil Engineering 3

325 325 325 325

D K J I H G F H G F
AL HG 0˚ A E 0˚ A E

162

162
0˚ A C

162

162
0˚ B F
15˚ 15˚ B D 15˚
B 15˚ C D E C B C D
30˚ 66 30˚
30˚ 30˚ 48
45˚ 45˚ 45˚ R 48
45˚ 60˚
60˚ 60˚ 60˚
75˚ 75˚ 75˚
75˚ 90˚ 90˚
90˚ 90˚

750

750

750
750

(a) (b) (c) (d)

Figure 1: Plan and isometric view of (a) rectangular, (b) corner cut, (c) chamfered, and (d) fillet shapes of tall building models.

proportions for all the building models is kept to maintain slip wall in CFX-Pre setup. No-slip is defined as follows: the
the equal plan area. Four building models are used to un- velocity of the air at wall boundary is the same as the air
derstand the wind-induced responses on various building velocity at inlet. Free slip is defined as follows: velocity
faces with varying skew angles of wind stream varying from components parallel to wall have finite value (computed by
0° to 90° at 15° intervals. the solver), but the velocities normal to the wall and shear
stress are both set to zero.
At the inlet, the free stream velocity is set to 10 m/s. The
2.2. Boundary Condition. The effect of wind on building domain is designed according to Revuz et al. [42] (Figure 3).
models is studied using CFD simulation. CFD works by The velocity profile and turbulence intensity profile are
dividing a space into a grid containing a large number of graphically depicted in Figure 4 and compared with previous
cells. The grid of the cells surrounded by boundaries that wind tunnel data by Raj (2015).
simulate the surfaces, opened and enclosed space, pressure
of the boundaries, and air movements within the cell is then
set to a starting condition, which is closed to the real en- 2.3. Meshing. Meshing is the most important part of nu-
vironment of the wind tunnel experiment. The inlet, top, and merical simulation. Finer mesh might not give you reliable
sidewall boundaries are considered 5 H from the model and results, but a bad mesh will surely affect the results. Meshing is
outlet boundary is placed at 15 H behind the model for of different sizes and provides capturing the flow charac-
simulation to develop the flow properly as recommended by teristics in critical zones. Meshing divides the complex ge-
Frank et al. [41] and Revuz et al. [42]. To define a problem ometry into elements that can be used to discretize a domain
that results in a unique solution, it is required to specify the since meshing typically consumes time. Meshing is repre-
information on the dependent variables at the domain sented in Figure 3, domain meshing is provided as tetrahe-
boundaries, as the governing equation is differential, and dron meshing as it consumes fewer resources in computing
their solution requires integration. The boundary condition the result, and building meshing is of different sizes so that
is the mathematical equivalent of the constant of integration, solution can capture a clear picture of flow behaviour near the
the value of which is required to gain a unique solution. The building surfaces. The edge meshing is also provided and is
domain is represented in Figure 2, and the sidewall and top finer than the other meshing sizes to capture the flow
are kept as free slip in the CFX-Pre setup. Ground and characteristics. Inflation is provided to simulate the flow easily
building model surfaces in this study are considered as no- around the building model’s geometry.
4 Advances in Civil Engineering

5H
5H 15H
15H
5H

5H 5H 5H

Figure 2: Domain used in CFD Simulation.

Inflation Layer

Building Meshing Domain Meshing

Figure 3: Type of meshing. (a) Building meshing. (b) Domain meshing.

2.4. Velocity and Turbulent Intensity Profile. The boundary Turbulence intensity is a nondimensional quantity derived
condition used in the numerical simulation is similar to the from the variance and for the mean wind speed.
boundary condition used by Raj [43]. To obtain a good
relationship between numerical simulation and wind tunnel σz
Iz � , (7)
experiment, the boundary condition should be the same as Uz
those used in experiments, especially for inflow boundary
conditions. where Iz is the turbulence intensity at height z, σ z is the
The variation in the wind with height is generally standard deviation of the wind speed at height z, and Uz is
expressed in logarithmic form. the mean wind speed at reference height.

u0 Z
Uz � ln􏼠 􏼡, (5)
k Zo 2.5. Validation. CFD results are based upon a number of
factors. Therefore, it is necessary to validate the accuracy of
where Uz is the wind speed at height z, Uo is friction velocity,
the numerical results. For this purpose, building the various
Zo is the characteristic height of surface roughness, and k is a
numerical results of Model-A (rectangular) and Model-B
Karman constant with a value of 0.4.
(corner cut) is compared with various international stan-
The boundary layer wind profile is governed by the dards and experimental results.
power low equation: The external pressure coefficients, Cp (face average
n
z value), for the different faces of Model-A are tabulated in
Uz � Uo 􏼠 􏼡 , (6) Table 1 and compared between numerical results and var-
zo
ious international standards. Results in Figure 5 and Table 1
where Uz is the wind speed at height Z, Uo is the mean wind are obtained using the k-ε turbulence models, and results are
speed at a reference height Zo, and “n” is a parameter that nearly the same with various international standards and
varies with ground roughness. experimental results.
Generally, turbulence intensity for the smooth terrain is The external pressure coefficient “Cp” is calculated using
less than the turbulence intensity for rough terrain. the following equation:
Advances in Civil Engineering 5

Turbulence Intensity (%)

0 5 10 15

0.8

0.6

Z/Zo
0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
UZ/Uo

Numerical Data Velocity Profile

Experimental Data Velocity Profile by Raj (2015)
Numerical Data Turbulent Intensity
Experimental Data Turbulent Inensity by Raj (2015)
Figure 4: Variation of velocity and turbulent intensity.

1.2 1.2

0.8 0.8

0.4 0.4

FACE FACE
0.0
Cp

0.0
Cp

A B C D A B C D E F G H I J K L
–0.4 –0.4

–0.8 –0.8

Model-A Model-B
–1.2 –1.2
CFD Present Study CFD Present Study
CFD Sanyal and Dalui (2020) CFD Kumar and Dalui (2017)
Experimental Amin and Ahuja(2013) Experimental Dalui et al. (2014)
Experimental Raj (2015) Experimental Raj. et al (2015)
IS 875 2015 GB 50009:2001
ASCE 7-16
AS/NZS 1170.2.2011
EN 1991-1-4
GB 50009 :2001
ES ISO 4354
Figure 5: Average Cp for Model-A and Model- B at 0° wind incidence.

p − po 3. Results and Discussions

Cp � , (8)
1/2ρUZ 2
3.1. Flow Pattern. The wind pressure distribution against a
where p is the pressure derived from the needed point, po is wall of the high-rise building is affected by various wind
the reference height static pressure, ρ is the air density characteristics such as vortex, separation, stagnation,
(1.225 kg/m3), and Uz is mean wind velocity at the building recirculation, and reattachments. Wind flow for Model-A is
reference height. presented in Figure 6, while streamlines for rectangular
6 Advances in Civil Engineering

Table 1: Comparison of average face pressure coefficient (Cp) on the rectangular tall building.
International code Wind angle Windward side Sidewall Leeward side
0° 0.78 −0.64 −0.30
CFD results
90° 0.70 −0.61 −0.45
0° 0.7 −0.7 −0.4
IS 875 (part 3)
90° 0.8 −0.5 −0.1
0° 0.8 −0.7 −0.5
ASCE/SEI 7-16
90° 0.8 −0.7 −0.5
0° 0.8 −0.65 −0.5
AS/NZS 1170.2.2011
90° 0.8 −0.65 −0.5
0° 0.8 −0.5 −0.7
EN 1991-1-4
90° 0.8 −0.5 −0.7
0° 0.8 −0.5 −0.7
BS 6399-2
90° 0.8 −0.5 −0.7
0° 0.8 −0.5 −0.7
GB 50009-2001
90° 0.8 −0.5 −0.7
0° 0.8 −0.5 −0.7
NSCP 2015
90° 0.8 −0.5 −0.7
0° 0.8 −0.65 −0.7
ES/ISO 4354: 2012
90° 0.8 −0.65 −0.7

0° Wind 15° Wind 30° Wind 45° Wind

325
D

162
A C

B
60° Wind 75° Wind 90° Wind Model-A
Figure 6: Flow lines for building Model-A at various wind incidence angles. (a) 0° wind. (b) 15° wind. (c) 30° wind. (d) 45° wind. (e) 60° wind.
(f ) 75° wind. (g) 90° wind. (h) Model-A.

model having corner cut are represented in Figure 7. The the face is 1.05, on windward face-B, at 90°, and the min-
streamlines in plan for Model-C are depicted in Figure 8 and imum (−0.7) is on face-B at 0°. Pressure distribution is
for Model-D wind flow patterns in plan are illustrated in maximum on the centre of the face, and then it is decreasing
Figure 9. The size of downstream wake depends on the wind towards the edges of the faces because of the increase in the
incidence angle and is maximum for Model-A at 30°. flow velocity. Contour lines become dense towards the edges
Pressure distribution and vortex generation are based on of the face, indicating the changes in the pressure distri-
the geometric configuration of the building. Suction is bution. Wind pressure follows the same pattern for face-A at
observed in the rear side of the building with respect to the 0° and face-B at 90° because wind flow is in direct contact
wind flow direction. Velocity at the edge is increased due to with both faces. For side face-B, at 0°, suction is increasing as
the separation of flow. The reattachment of flow is observed wind flow passes the building model from windward to
more on side faces at 0° and 15° wind. Streamlines patterns leeward edge.
are unaffected by wind speed and are mostly determined by Figure 11 represents the wind pressure distribution for
the geometry of the building and upwind conditions. building Model-B; maximum positive pressure is 1.05 on
face-D at 90 °, and maximum negative pressure is 0.8 on face-
J at 0°. Pressure distribution on face-A at 0° and face-D at 90°
3.2. Pressure Distribution. The pressure distribution is is the windward face for the respective case and follows the
expressed in the form of the pressure contours for various same pressure distribution pattern. Pressure distribution on
building shapes in Figures 10–13. For the case of building the windward face is almost independent of the width and
Model-A (Figure 10), maximum pressure on the centre of depth of the face.
Advances in Civil Engineering 7

0° Wind 15° Wind 30° Wind 45° Wind

325
K J I
AL HG

162
B F
C D E
48
60° Wind 75° Wind 90° Wind Model-B
Figure 7: Flow lines for building Model-B at various wind incidence angles. (a) 0° wind. (b) 15° wind. (c) 30° wind. (d) 45° wind. (e) 60° wind.
(f ) 75° wind. (g) 90° wind. (h) Model-B.

0° Wind 15° Wind 30° Wind 45° Wind

325
H G F

162
A E
B C D
66

60° Wind 75° Wind 90° Wind Model-C

Figure 8: Flow lines for building Model-C at various wind incidence angles. (a) 0° wind. (b) 15° wind. (c) 30° wind. (d) 45° wind. (e) 60° wind.
(f ) 75° wind. (g) 90° wind. (h) Model-C.

0° Wind 15° Wind 30° Wind 45° Wind

325
H G F
162

A E
B C D

R 48
60° Wind 75° Wind 90° Wind Model-D
Figure 9: Flow lines for building Model-D at various wind incidence angles. (a) 0° wind. (b) 15° wind. (c) 30° wind. (d) 45° wind. (e) 60° wind.
(f ) 75° wind. (g) 90° wind. (h) Model-D.
8 Advances in Civil Engineering

0.47
35 5 5
700 700 -0. 700 0.1 0.6

0.55
0.87 0.55

-0.
5

-0.15
0.4

-0.7

9
-0.4

5
0.3
0.71

0.8
5
0.71

-0.6

0.7
-0.8
-0.5
600 600 600

0.4
0.63

0.6
-0.8

0.7
0.79

0.9
0.79

-0.7

0.3

0.5
-0.6
0.87
500 500 500

0.8
-0.75
0.55

-0.5

-0.05
0.55

0.55

0.85
-0.45

1
400 400 400

0.4
Height (mm)

0.75
-0.65

0.1
0.95

0.95
0.95

-0.55
0.63

0.45
0

0.65
0.87

0.63

300 300 300

-0.15

0.5
0.35
-0.7

0.8
-0.75

0.6
0.79 0.71
0.79

-0.55
200 200 200

-0.1
-0.65

0.3

0.7

0.9
0.55

-0.8

1
0.79

-0.4

100 100 100

0.63

0.8
0.15
0.4
-0.5

-0.9 5
-0.6

0.9
0.9

0.6
-0.8
5

5
0.63

0.35

0.65
0.75
0.71

-0.35

0.5

0.9
0.8
0.39

5
50 100 150 100 200 300 100 200 300

Width (mm)
0° - Face-A 0° - Face-B 45° - Face-B

-0.4 -0.42 0.63

-0.46

700 4 700 0.69 700

3

-0.75
0.81
0.6

-0 -0.45 0.8
.5 2 0.93 7
-0.4 -0.47
0.57

8
0.69

9
600 -0.4 600 600
0.99

-0.5

-0.8
0.75

-0.7
-0
.55

-0.51 5
0.93

-0.7
0.87
-0

500 500 500

.54

-0.5
1.0
-0.53
-0.58

2
5

0.69
0.63
0.99
-0.56

-0.

-0.

400 57 400 400

6

-0.52
Height (mm)

-0.
65
0.81
54

0.75

-0.
1.05
-0.

5 51
-0.5
-0.5

300 - 3 .5 300 300

0.93

0 .5 -0 -0.48
0.69
0.99

-0.5
5

47 -0.44
-0.49 -0.
0.87

-0.4
1.05

200 200 200

0.87

-0.46 41
-0.
-0.37
-0.45

-0.43
0.75

0.93
0.99

-0.4 4 -0.32
0.63

.3
-0.35

100 -0 100 100

-0.35
0.3
0.69

-
0.93
.31

0.75

-0.38
-0

100 200 300 100 200 300 50 100 150

Width (mm)
45° - Face-D 90° - Face-B 90° - Face-A
Figure 10: Distribution of mean wind pressure coefficient on different faces of Model-A.

Wind pressure distribution for building Model-C minimum pressure is −0.8 on face-G (side face) at 0° wind
(Figure 12) at 90° on face-C (windward) has maximum and it decreases in negative from windward face to leeward
pressure (1.07) at the centre of the face and minimum face. Pressure generally increases with height because of
pressure (−2.9) on face-B at 90°. In Figure 10, the maximum increasing velocity in the approach flow as wind speed in-
pressure is 1.05 on face-C (windward) at 90°, and the creases with height.
Advances in Civil Engineering 9

0.5 0.6

55
700 0.8 700 700 700 700 5 700
0.7

0.6
-0.8 0.85

-0.
8 -0.6

0.7
0.95

-0.65
-0.6
5
0.92

0.8
1

0.75
5
8

1
7
0.96 -0.

-0.
600 600 600 600 600 600

0.7
-0.7

-0.62
0.85
0.9
-0.85
-0.

-0.6
1

65
500 500 500 500 500 500

-0.6
-0.9

0.95
-0.6

-0.6

0.65
1.04

-0.

5
1

55

-0.58
0.7
-0.7

1.05
400 400 400 400 -0.5 400 400

1
Height (mm)

0.7
0.96

-0.45

0.8
1.05
-0.7

0.95
1

-0.55

5
0.96

-0.5
0.75
4
-0.

0.9
300 300 300 300 300 300
-0.35

0.8
-0.6
1.04

1.05

-0.4
0.85
-0.55

3
200 200 200 200 200 200
1.05

-0.

0.65
0.9
-0.

-0.4
6
0.96

2
-0.

0.7
-0.55
-0.6

0.9
100 100 100 100 100 100
1

-0.28
1

0.8
0.6
5
2

-0.6

-0.5
0.9

-0.25
-0.5

0.95

-0.15

0.75
0.7
0.8

20 40 60 50 100 150 200 10 30 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200 20 40 60

Width (mm)
0° - Face-A 0° - Face-J 45° - Face-C 45° - Face-J 90° - Face-D 90° - Face-G
Figure 11: Distribution of mean wind pressure coefficient on different faces of Model-B.

0.55
-0.4

700 700 700 700 700 700 0.8

-1
0.9

-0.35

0.9
-0.72
-0.48

1
0.96

-0.48

0.85
0.85

0.95
-0.35

600 600 600 600 600 600

-0.8
1.02

0.9
-1.3
0.95

0.95
4
-0.

-0.35
-0.88
-0.56
0.96

500 500 500 500 500 500

0.75

1
-1

1.05
-0.4

-0.55
-0.64

0.85
-0.7
0.85

400 400 400 400 400 400

Height (mm)

1.02

1.05
-0.96
-0.48

1
-0.35
0.96

0.9
-0.72

1.05

300 300 300 300 300 300

0.85
-1.3

0.95
-0.56

0.95

0.95
-0.35
-0.4

200 200 200 200 200 200

0.9
1.02

5
-0.4

1.0
-0.88

0.85

-0.7

-0.15

0.8
0.95

100 100 100 100 100 100

0.96

-0
.32

1
8

-0.7
-0.4

-0.4

-0.35
-0.24

0.75

0.9
2
0.78

-0.7

20 40 60 50 100 150 200 20 40 60 20 40 60 20 40 60 50 100 150 200

Width (mm)
0° - Face-A 0° - Face-G 45° - Face-B 45° - Face-H 90° - Face-B 90° - Face-C
Figure 12: Distribution of mean wind pressure coefficient on different faces of Model-C.
10 Advances in Civil Engineering

0.53 0.62

-0.47
0.71

-0.5
-1.
0.75
700 700 700 700 700 700
.36

-0.52

-0
-0 0.98

0.71

.35
1

0.8

-0.47
-0.52

- 0.
8
-0.3

44
-2.2

-0.44
600 600 600 600 600 600

-0.76

0.8

-0.41
-0.6

0.89
4
1.04

-0.4

-2.2

0.89
500 500 500 500
1

500 500

-0.68

0.8
1.07

-0.41
-0.52

-1.7
-0.4

-0.4
0.62
4

0.75

1
1.04

4
0.98

-0.4
400 400 400 400 400 400

-0.38
-0.76
Height (mm)

0.98
-1.2
1.05
-0.52
-0.6

0.71
44

0.8
300 300 300 300 300 300 -0.

-1.7
-0.84
1

0.89
-0.4

1.05
7 -0.4
4

0.89
-0.52

-0.68
1.04

-1.7

1.07
-0.5

0.62
200 200 200 200 200 200
-0.5
0.45 3
-0.6

-0.52

0.71
-0.5

0.98
1

100 100 100 100 100 100 -0.41 -0.47

0.8
4
-0.4

0.88
-0.76

-0.3
0.75

-1.2 -0.26 5

0.62
0.89

0.53
-0.3
6 -0.14

20 40 60 50 100 150 200 20 40 20 40 50 100 150 200 50 100 150 200

Width (mm)
0° - Face-A 0° - Face-G 45° - Face-B 45° - Face-D 90° - Face-C 90° - Face-G
Figure 13: Distribution of mean wind pressure coefficient on different faces of Model-D.

Face-A Face-B Face-C Face-D

800 800 800 800
700 700 700 700
600 600 600 600
Height (mm)
Height (mm)
Height (mm)

Height (mm)
500 500 500 500
400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300
200 200 200 200
100 100 100 100

–1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Cp Cp Cp Cp
0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚
15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚
30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚
45˚ 45˚ 45˚ 45˚
Figure 14: Pressure variation along the vertical centreline for various faces of Model-A at various wind incidence angles.

3.3. Vertical Cp. Variation in Cp along the vertical centreline centreline pressure distribution on face-A is decreasing
for 0° to 90° wind incidence angles at an interval of 15° of continuously from 0° to 90°, is maximum at 0° wind, and is
each face is in Figure 14 for rectangular building Model-A. minimum at 90° for Model-A.
In Figure 14, face-C and face-D are subjected to negative For plus-shaped building Model-B, the distribution of
pressure for all wind incidence angles. Face-A and face-B are pressure coefficients on the vertical centreline is represented
subjected to maximum positive pressure at 0° and 90° wind in Figure 15 for 0° to 90° wind incidence angles at an interval
incidence angles, respectively. Negative pressure zone is of 15°. in Figure 15, face-E, face-F, face-G, face-H, face-I, and
observed on face-A at 60°, 75°, and 90° wind incidence angles. face-J are subjected to negative pressure on all wind inci-
Face-B has been subjected to negative pressure at 0°, 15°, and dence angles. Face-B and face-C are subjected to negative
30° wind incidence angles. In Figure 14, the vertical pressure at 90° wind incidence angles and subjected to
Advances in Civil Engineering 11

Face-A Face-B Face-C Face-D

800 800 800 800
700 700 700 700
600 600 600 600

Height (mm)
Height (mm)

Height (mm)
Height (mm)
500 500 500 500
400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300
200 200 200 200
100 100 100 100

–1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Cp Cp Cp Cp
0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚
15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚
30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚
45˚ 45˚ 45˚ 45˚

Face-E Face-F Face-G Face-H

800 800 800 800
700 700 700 700
600 600 600 600
Height (mm)

Height (mm)

Height (mm)
Height (mm)

500 500 500 500

400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300
200 200 200 200
100 100 100 100

–1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 –0.5 0.0 0.5
Cp Cp Cp Cp
0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚
15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚
30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚
45˚ 45˚ 45˚ 45˚

Face-I Face-J Face-K Face-L

800 800 800 800
700 700 700 700
600 600 600 600
Height (mm)

Height (mm)
Height (mm)

Height (mm)
500 500 500 500
400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300
200 200 200 200
100 100 100 100

–0.5 0.0 0.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 –1.5 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5
Cp Cp Cp Cp
0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚
15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚
30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚
45˚ 45˚ 45˚ 45˚
Figure 15: Pressure variation along the vertical centreline for all faces of Model-B at various wind incidence angles.

positive pressure at 0° to 75° wind incidence angles. Face-D is and minimum Cp is at 75° wind incidence angle. Face-D,
subjected to negative pressure at 0° and 15° wind incidence face-E, face-F, face-G, and face-H are under the effect of
angles. At the rest of the angles, this is subjected to positive negative pressure, that is, suction for 0° to 90° wind incidence
pressure. Face-K and face-L are under the effect of positive angles at an interval of 15° each. Face-E and face-F have a
pressure at 0° wind incidence angle for the rest of the angle, maximum magnitude of pressure at 0° wind and minimum
and they are subjected to negative pressure. magnitude of pressure at 75° because of recirculation of flow.
Model-C vertical centreline pressure distribution is Minimum Cp is at 0° wind incidence angle because flow
presented in Figure 16; for face-A, maximum Cp is at 0° wind separation takes place at these recessed corners.
12 Advances in Civil Engineering

Face-A Face-B Face-C Face-D

800 800 800 800
700 700 700 700
600 600 600
Height (mm)

Height (mm)
600

Height (mm)

Height (mm)
500 500 500 500
400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300
200 200 200 200
100 100 100 100

–1.2 –0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2 –1.2 –0.6 0.0 0.6 1.2 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Cp Cp Cp Cp
0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚
15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚
30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚
45˚ 45˚ 45˚ 45˚

Face-E Face-F Face-G Face-H

800 800 800 800
700 700 700 700
600 600 600 600
Height (mm)

Height (mm)
Height (mm)

Height (mm)
500 500 500 500
400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300
200 200 200 200
100 100 100 100

–0.6 –0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 –0.6 –0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 –0.6 –0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
Cp Cp Cp Cp
0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚
15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚
30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚
45˚ 45˚ 45˚ 45˚
Figure 16: Pressure variation along the vertical centreline for all faces of Model-C at a various wind incidence angles.

For recesses/chamfer Model-D, vertical centreline wind incidence angles. Maximum Cfx and Cfy are at 45° wind
pressure distribution pattern is shown in Figure 17, face-A, incidence angle for Model-C and Model-D.
under the direct exposure to wind at 0° wind, so the max- Fx
imum vertical centreline pressure is at 0° wind and the Cfx � , (9)
maximum on face-C is at 90° wind incidence angle. Face-A is 􏼐0.5ρUh 2 .Ap 􏼑
under the reattachment of flow from 45° to 90° wind inci-
dence angle. Face-D, face-E, face-F, face-G, and face-H are Fy
Cf y � . (10)
under the effect of negative pressure, that is, suction for 0° to 􏼐0.5ρUh 2 .Ap 􏼑
90° wind incidence angles at an interval of 15° each. Recessed
corner face-B has maximum vertical centreline pressure at 0° Figure 19 shows the variation of moment coefficient in
and minimum at 90° wind incidence angle, as well as X-direction (Cmx) and Y-direction (Cmy) with respect to
recessed corner face-H. varying wind incidence angles. Cmx is maximum for Model-
C and Model-D at 30° wind incidence angle. Cmy is maxi-
mum at 45° wind incidence angle for Model-C and Model-D.
3.4. Drag and Lift Force. Wind load has long been a subject Mx
of research for wind engineers. Wind-produced responses Cmx � , (11)
on structures are difficult to quantify due to the complexity 􏼐0.5ρUh 2 .Ap .1/2.H􏼑
of structural geometry and field category. In modern design
practice, wind loads can be calculated using wind tunnel My
Cmy � . (12)
tests and CFD technique. In this study, force coefficients in 􏼐0.5ρUh 2 .Ap .1/2.H􏼑
X-direction (Cfx) and Y-direction (Cfy) are obtained using
equations (9) and (10) Therefore, values of Fx and Fy are The moment coefficient in the X-direction and Y-di-
obtained using ANSYS simulation. rection is obtained using equations (11) and (12); here, ρ is
Figure 18 depicts the variation of force coefficient in X- the density of air and Uh is the reference velocity at the
direction (Cfx) and Y-direction (Cfy) with respect to varying building height, Ap is the area projected in the direction of
Advances in Civil Engineering 13

Face-A Face-B Face-C Face-D

800 800 800 800
700 700 700 700
600 600 600 600

Height (mm)
Height (mm)

Height (mm)

Height (mm)
500 500 500 500
400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300
200 200 200 200
100 100 100 100

–1.5–1.0–0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 –2.7 –1.8 –0.9 0.0 0.9 1.8 2.7 –1.0 –0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 –2.7 –1.8 –0.9 0.0 0.9 1.8 2.7
Cp Cp Cp Cp
0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚
15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚
30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚
45˚ 45˚ 45˚ 45˚

Face-E Face-F Face-G Face-F

800 800 800 800
700 700 700 700
600 600 600 600
Height (mm)
Height (mm)

Height (mm)
Height (mm)
500 500 500 500
400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300
200 200 200 200
100 100 100 100

–1.4 –0.7 0.0 0.7 1.4 –0.6 –0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 –0.9–0.6–0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 –0.6 –0.3 0.0 0.3 0.6
Cp Cp Cp Cp
0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚ 0˚ 60˚
15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚ 15˚ 75˚
30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚ 30˚ 90˚
45˚ 45˚ 45˚ 45˚
Figure 17: Pressure variation along the vertical centreline for all faces of Model-D at various wind incidence angles.

2 CFx CFy
2

1 1
Wind Incidence angle
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
CFx

CFy

0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Wind Incidence Angle
–1 –1

–2 –2

Model A Model C Model A Model C

Model B Model D Model B Model D
Figure 18: Variation of force coefficient at X-axis and Y-axis at various wind incidence angles.

the wind, and H is the height of the building model. Cmx is 3.5. Face Average Cp,mean. Coefficient of pressure is a non-
the moment coefficient of the building model in the X-di- dimensional ratio of wind-induced pressure on a building to
rection, and Cmy is the moment coefficient of the building the velocity pressure of the wind speed at the reference
model in the Y-direction. height. Pressure coefficient depends on the shape of the
14 Advances in Civil Engineering

2 CMx 2 CMy

1 1
CMx

CMx
0 0
0 15 30 45 60 75 90 0 15 30 45 60 75 90
Wind Incidence angle Wind Incidence Angle
–1 –1

–2 –2

Model A Model C Model A Model C

Model B Model D Model B Model D
Figure 19: Variation of moment coefficient at X-axis and Y-axis at various wind incidence angles.

Model-A

0.8
325
0.4
D
0.0
Cp

162
A Model-A C

–0.4 B

–0.8 A B C D

0˚ 45˚ 75˚
15˚ 60˚ 90˚
30˚
(a)
Model-B

1.0
325
0.5
K J I
AL H G
162

0.0 Model-B
Cp

B F
C D E
–0.5 48

–1.0 A B C D E F G H I J K L

0˚ 45˚ 75˚
15˚ 60˚ 90˚
30˚
(b)
Figure 20: Continued.
Advances in Civil Engineering 15

Model-C
1.6
1.2
325
0.8
0.4 H G F

162
Cp 0.0 A Model-C E
–0.4 B D
C 66
–0.8
–1.2 A B C D E F G H
–1.6
0˚ 45˚ 75˚
15˚ 60˚ 90˚
30˚
(c)
Model-D

1.6 325

H G F
0.8
A E

162
Model-D
0.0
Cp

B C D
–0.8 R 48

–1.6
A B C D E F G H

0˚ 45˚ 75˚
15˚ 60˚ 90˚
30˚
(d)

Figure 20: Mean pressure coefficient for all faces of (a) Model-A, (b) Model-B, (c) Model-C, and (d) Model-D at different wind incidence
angles.

building wind incidence angle and the profile of the wind found in a range with various international standards and
velocity. Figure 20 presents mean pressure coefficients for all experimental studies for modelling in the numerical simulation.
building models at various wind incidence angles of 0° to 90° A clear view of streamlines has been presented at different wind
at an interval of 15°. Model-A, face-A, has maximum positive incidence angles. The notable outcomes of the current study are
mean pressure of 0.78 and then it starts to decrease till 45° summarized as follows:
wind to 0.35. Model-A is attacked by various wind skew
(i) The validation study demonstrated very prominent
angles, that is, beyond 45°, Cp,mean changes on face-A from
results in line with various international standards
positive to negative. Model-A, face-B, has negative Cp,mean at
and wind tunnel results; however, several upgra-
0° and 15° wind attack; after 15° it increases with respect to
dations are required in codal provision as the wind
wind incidence angles, that is, changing with respect to wind
data is not updated with time.
incidence angle. In case of face-C, Cp,mean is maximum for 0°
wind attack and maximum for 45° wind. For face-C, Cp,mean (ii) Model-A without any corner configuration has
is increasing in negative with wind incidence angle. For face- maximum Cp at face-A for 0° wind incidence angle;
D, maximum Cp,mean is at 0° wind attack and minimum after incorporation of the various corners in
Cp,mean is at 90° wind attack. Cp,mean of Model-B, Model-C, building model, it has been observed that Model-B
and Model-D are represented in Figure 20. is subjected to maximum windward pressure at 0°,
that is, 20% greater wind impact than Model-A, and
4. Conclusions Model-C and Model-D have chamfer and fillet
corners, respectively; however, less effect of wind on
This paper presents the wind loads effect on the various plan- windward side is observed in case of Model-D.
shaped tall buildings by varying the corner shapes. Numerical Furthermore, it is clear that incorporating the round
simulation is performed using ANSYS CFX, k-ε turbulence corner helps to reduce the effect of wind flow on
model at 1 : 200 length scale. Face average Cp is compared and building.
16 Advances in Civil Engineering

(iii) In case of 15° wind incidence angle, windward face- [6] IS-875 (Part-3), Indian Standard Design Load (Other Than
A experiences similar wind response for Model-B Earthquake) for Building and Structures-Code of Practice, BIS,
and Model-C; however, Model-C with cross corner Old Delhi, India, 2015.
helps to reduce overall wind forces on building as [7] AS/Nzs11702, Structural Design Actions - Part 2, Wind ac-
compared to Model-B having cut corner tions. Standards Australia/Standards New Zealand, Sydney,
configuration. Austrlia, 2011.
[8] Asce716, Minimum Design Loads and Associated Criteria for
(iv) Drag force coefficients are compared between all the Buildings and Other Structures, Structural Engineering In-
buildings models having various corner configu- stitute of the American Society of Civil Engineering, Reston,
rations; it was found that Model-C and Model-D 2017.
experienced the same drag forces with little varia- [9] GB 50009-2001, National Standard of the Peoples’ Republic of
tion. Minimum drag forces in X-axis were experi- China, Ministry of Construction (MOC) and the Genral Ad-
enced by Model-A at 75° wind incidence angle. ministration of Quality Superivison, Inspection and Quaran-
(v) Although lift force coefficient is calculated for all tine (GAQSIQ) of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing,
China, 2002.
models and it has been observed that maximum lift
[10] H. Kong Building Department, Code of Practice on Wind
force is measured on Model-C at 45° wind incidence Effects in Hong Kong 2019, Building Department Hong Kong,
angle, it was also concluded that the building having Hong Kong First Issue, 2019.
corner configuration has experienced greater lift [11] R. Sheng, L. Perret, I. Calmet, F. Demouge, and J. Guilhot,
force as compared to the building without corner “Wind tunnel study of wind effects on a high-rise building at a
configurations. Lift and drag forces are majorly scale of 1:300,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
affected by providing the corners on buildings. Aerodynamics, vol. 174, pp. 391–403, 2018.
(vi) Moment of X and Y axes is plotted with respect to [12] X. Sun, H. Liu, N. Su, and Y. Wu, “Investigation on wind
drag and lift forces and found identical to base tunnel tests of the Kilometer skyscraper,” Engineering
forces plotted against X and Y axes, respectively. It Structures, vol. 148, pp. 340–356, 2017.
[13] P. Irwin, J. Kilpatrick, and A. Frisque, “Friend or foe, wind at
can be useful while calculating the overall response
height,” CTBUH 2008, 8th World Congr. - Tall Green Typology
of buildings having different corner configuration.
a Sustain. Urban Futur. Congr. Proc., pp. 336–342, 2008.
Building with normal rectangular shape experi- [14] R. Raj and A. K. Ahuja, “Wind loads on cross shape tall
enced lowest CMY as compared to other building buildings,” Journal of Academia Industrial Resear, vol. 2, no. 2,
models having different corners. pp. 111–113, 2013.
[15] B. Bhattacharyya and S. K. Dalui, “Experimental and nu-
Data Availability merical study of wind-pressure distribution on irregular-plan-
shaped building,” Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 146,
All data, models, and code generated or used during the no. 7, Article ID 04020137, 2020.
study appear in the submitted article. Data are available in [16] S. K. Nagar, R. Raj, and N. Dev, “Experimental study of wind-
the form of contour plots and graphs. induced pressures on tall buildings of different shapes,” Wind
Struct. An Int. J.vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 441–453, 2020.
[17] E. K. Bandi, Y. Tamura, A. Yoshida, Y. Chul Kim, and
Conflicts of Interest Q. Yang, “Experimental investigation on aerodynamic
characteristics of various triangular-section high-rise build-
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. ings,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerody-
namics, vol. 122, pp. 60–68, 2013.
Acknowledgments [18] R. Raj, S. Jha, S. Singh, and S. Choudhary, “Response analysis
of plus shaped tall building with different bracing systems
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to under wind load,” International Journal of Advanced Research
Delhi Technological University, Delhi, India, for providing in Engineering & Technology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 371–380, 2020.
research facilities and funding to conduct the research work. [19] L. Carassale, A. Freda, and M. Marrè-Brunenghi, “Experi-
mental investigation on the aerodynamic behavior of square
cylinders with rounded corners,” Journal of Fluids and
References Structures, vol. 44, pp. 195–204, 2014.
[1] P. A. Irwin, “Bluff body aerodynamics in wind engineering,” [20] H. Tanaka, Y. Tamura, K. Ohtake, M. Nakai, and Y. Chul Kim,
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, “Experimental investigation of aerodynamic forces and wind
vol. 96, no. 6-7, pp. 701–712, 2008. pressures acting on tall buildings with various unconventional
[2] G. Solari, Wind Actions and Effects on Structures, Springer, configurations,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
New York, NY, USA, 2019. Aerodynamics, vol. 107-108, no. 108, pp. 179–191, 2012.
[3] E. Simiu and D. Yeo, Wind Effects on Structures, John Wiley & [21] J. He and C. C. S. Song, “A numerical study of wind flow
Sons, Hoboken, NJ., USA, 4TH edition, 2019. around the TTU building and the roof corner vortex,” Journal
[4] B. S. Taranath, Wind and Earthquake Resistant Buildings, of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 67-68,
Rouledge, England, UK, 2004. no. 68, pp. 547–558, 1997.
[5] C. C. B. Ted Stathopoulos, Wind Effects on Buildings and [22] S. Pal, R. Raj, and S. Anbukumar, “Comparative study of wind
Design of Wind-Sensitive Structures, Springer, New York, NY, induced mutual interference effects on square and fish-plan
USA. shape tall buildings,” S�adhan� a, vol. 46, no. 2, 2021.
Advances in Civil Engineering 17

[23] S. Pal and R. Raj, “Evaluation of wind induced interference [40] P. Sanyal and S. K. Dalui, “Comparison of aerodynamic
effects on shape remodeled tall buildings,” Arabian Journal for coefficients of various types of Y-plan-shaped tall buildings,”
Science and Engineering, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 11425–11445, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 21, no. 7, pp. 1109–
Article ID 0123456789, 2021. 1127, 2020.
[24] S. Pal, R. Raj, and S. Anbukumar, “Bilateral interference of [41] J. Franke, A. Hellsten, H. Schlünzen, and B. Carissimo,
wind loads induced on duplicate building models of various Guideline for the CFD Simulation of Flows in the Urban
shapes,” Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, Environment: COST Action 732 Quality Assurance and Im-
vol. 18, no. 5, 2021. provement of Microscale Meteorological Models, COST Office,
[25] S. K. Nagar, R. Raj, and N. Dev, “Proximity effects between Brussels , Belgium, 2007.
two plus-plan shaped high-rise buildings on mean and RMS [42] J. Revuz, D. M. Hargreaves, and J. S. Owen, “On the domain
pressure coefficients,” Scientia Iranica, 2021. size for the steady-state CFD modelling of a tall building,”
[26] B. Bhattacharyya and S. K. Dalui, “Investigation of mean wind Wind and Structures, vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 313–329, 2012.
pressures on “E” plan shaped tall building,” Wind Structures [43] R. Raj, Effects of Cross-Sectional Shapes on Response of Tall
An International Journal, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 99–114, 2018. Buildings under Wind Loads, Ph.D. Thesis, IIT Roorkee,
[27] R. Raj, T. Rana, T. Anchalia, and U. Khola, “Numerical study Roorkee, India, 2015.
of wind excited action on H Plan-shaped tall building,” In-
ternational Journal on Emerging Technologies, vol. 11, no. 3,
pp. 591–605, 2020.
[28] T. Uchida and Y. Ohya, “A numerical study of stably stratified
flows over a two-dimensional hill - Part I. Free-slip condition
on the ground,” Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, vol. 67-68, no. 68, pp. 493–506, 1997.
[29] D.-h. Yu and A. Kareem, “Numerical simulation of flow
around rectangular prism,” Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 67-68, no. 68, pp. 195–208,
1997.
[30] P. Sanyal and S. K. Dalui, “Effects of courtyard and opening on
a rectangular plan shaped tall building under wind load,”
International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering,
vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 169–188, 2018.
[31] R. Paul and S. Dalui, “Shape optimization to reduce wind
pressure on the surfaces of a rectangular building with hor-
izontal limbs,” Periodica Polytechnica: Civil Engineering,
vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 134–149, 2021.
[32] A. Okajima, D. Yi, A. Sakuda, and T. Nakano, “Numerical
study of blockage effects on aerodynamic characteristics of an
oscillating rectangular cylinder,” Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, vol. 67-68, no. 68, pp. 91–102,
1997.
[33] R. Paul and S. K. Dalui, “Prognosis of wind-tempted mean
pressure coefficients of cross-shaped tall buildings using ar-
tificial neural network,” Periodica Polytechnica: Civil Engi-
neering, vol. 64, no. 4, pp. 1124–1143, 2020.
[34] S. Hajra and S. K. Dalui, “Numerical investigation of inter-
ference effect on octagonal plan shaped tall buildings,” Jordan
Journal of Civil Engineering, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 462–479, 2016.
[35] N. Gaur and R. Raj, “Aerodynamic mitigation by corner
modification on square model under wind loads employing
CFD and wind tunnel,” Ain Shams Engineering Journal,
vol. 283, 2021.
[36] A. K. Bairagi and S. K. Dalui, “Estimation of wind load on
stepped tall building using CFD simulation,” Iranian Journal
of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering,
vol. 45, no. 2, pp. 707–727, 2021.
[37] P. Sanyal and S. K. Dalui, “Effect of corner modifications on Y’
plan shaped tall building under wind load,” Wind Structures
ofAn International Journal, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 245–260, 2020.
[38] P. Sanyal and S. K. Dalui, “Effects of side ratio for “Y” plan
shaped tall building under wind load,” Building Simulation,
vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 1221–1236, 2020.
[39] P. Sanyal and S. K. Dalui, “Effects of internal angle between
limbs of “Y” plan shaped tall building under wind load,”
Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 33, Article ID 101843,
2021.